2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: In the gallery today is Cameron Butt. Cameron is a Victoria resident, a constituent of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and a wonderful volunteer for the B.C. Green Party. He’s here joining us today to witness firsthand his first experience in question period. Would the chamber please welcome him warmly.

D. Bing: I have a constituent visiting today from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Her name is Danielle Raymond, and I’m very pleased to have her come. She has been here several times. Would the House please make Danielle welcome.

[1005]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — FINANCE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: This Bill 13 amends the administrative and enforcement provisions of the Carbon Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, Provincial Sales Tax Act and Tobacco Tax Act to provide greater consistency across the acts and to help ensure the fair and effective administration of the consumption tax system.

The Provincial Sales Tax Act is also amended to make a number of technical changes for clarity and certainty and to expand the circumstances in which out-of-country businesses may register to collect and remit PST.

Additional amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act allow for British Columbia’s participation in the federal tobacco-stamping regime, implemented in 2011.

This bill will also improve the efficiency of the government’s debt collection activities by amending the Financial Administration Act to allow for the broader sharing of debtor information across government programs and by expanding the ability of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. to refuse to issue a vehicle or driver’s licence.

Amendments to the Income Tax Act ensure the act is harmonized with the Income Tax Act of Canada.

Amendments to the Mineral Tax Act will authorize the disclosure of information obtained under the act to the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation for the purpose of administering resource-revenue-sharing agreements with First Nations and to other government programs for the purpose of administering other provincial taxation statutes.

Lastly, the bill amends the Real Estate Services Act by refining provisions that apply to the handling of money received by licensees, to the compensation of persons who have experienced compensable loss and to the composition and functioning of the Real Estate Council and Real Estate Foundation.

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

Bill 13, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M206 — MEMBERS’ CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

G. Holman presented a bill intituled Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2015.

G. Holman: I move introduction of the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to introduce the Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act. British Columbians want to know that their MLAs and public officials are being honest and transparent. This bill will increase the accountability of MLAs to their constituents and also decrease the potential for conflicts of interest. This new bill expands the scope of the current conflict-of-interest law and provides more stringent guidelines to better ensure that public officials in this province maintain a high ethical standard.

Higher penalties for conflicts of interest are necessary to guarantee British Columbians that public officials that serve them are doing just that — serving the public. This bill will require members to disclose all of their assets and place them in a blind trust for as long as they hold that public office. The bill will also better ensure that when public office holders leave office, their ministerial staff and their advisers do not improperly benefit from their
[ Page 6140 ]
former positions or exercise any undue influence.

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

Bill M206, Members’ Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M207 — WHISTLEBLOWERS
PROTECTION ACT, 2015

S. Simpson presented a bill intituled Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2015.

S. Simpson: I move a bill intituled the Whistleblowers Protection Act for first reading.

Motion approved.

[1010]

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to introduce, for a second time, the Whistleblowers Protection Act. This bill has two purposes. The first is to facilitate the investigation and inquiry into matters which are potentially damaging to the public. These could include but not be limited to matters relating to the mismanagement of public funds or assets, gross environmental damage and unlawful acts by civil servants. The second is to protect those individuals from persecution who make such disclosures.

As it stands, there is insufficient legislation in British Columbia today that deals with reporting and protecting disclosures. This bill would create a process for reporting disclosures annually and also empowers the Ombudsperson to oversee the proper administration of this legislation. All reports will be made public and increase the transparency afforded to different ministries and public spheres.

The people of British Columbia have a right to know that the government and public officials are not acting in an unacceptable manner. In order to do this, we need to protect those with information and ensure that they are defended when they choose to disclose that information.

Whistle-blowers often have to decide between taking the higher moral ground and the potential effects from disclosing. A person trying to decide between doing what is right and keeping their job will often turn a blind eye to the action. We need to pass this bill to ensure that people are protected from retribution when they do disclose.

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

Bill M207, Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2015, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

J. Rice: Since their first introduction into the Canadian health care system in the 1960s and, more recently, into the B.C. health care system as a regulated profession, nurse practitioners have played a vitally important role in providing cost-effective health care to British Columbians. Their contributions are most deeply felt in our more rural and underserved communities, where their hard work and dedication to patients has helped ease some of the sting of the chronic doctor shortage we, as a province, are facing.

Nurse practitioners are tightly regulated and must undertake additional training beyond their registered nursing degree. These men and women perform up to 80 percent of the activities of a family physician, including, but not limited to, diagnosis, treatment, ordering lab tests, prescribing medication and admitting patients to hospital if necessary. Without their presence in the health care system, many more patients would be forced to resort to accessing health care through our hospital emergency rooms or simply have to go without.

Nurse practitioners take a holistic approach, looking at the whole person, including a person’s medical history, their mental health and how their illness may impact their family members. Nurse practitioners are educators, teaching about whole-body health, healthy eating and how to manage disease.

Where I live, in Prince Rupert, we have one nurse practitioner, who is currently away on maternity leave. We wish Toby all the best as she embarks on the journey of raising her second child. Unfortunately and commonly in rural B.C., recruiters were unable to temporarily fill her position while she is away. It’s common to have these positions unfilled, even though we give lip service to their importance and need for more positions. It’s a challenge we face here in British Columbia.

With the current direction to increase access to primary care and decrease health cost pressures, nurse practitioners are an invaluable component to the health and well-being of British Columbians. We thank them for their service.

CANADA WINTER GAMES
IN PRINCE GEORGE

R. Lee: The 2015 Canada Winter Games have been a great success, and 2,400 of our brightest athletes across Canada gather in Prince George, including 350 from B.C., compete in 19 sports. I’m proud to say that B.C. is now ranked third among the 13 provinces and territories, with 63 medals — 19 in gold, 23 in silver and 21 in bronze.

This year Burnaby has 12 athletes joining the games, including my daughter Leanne, who is on the table tennis
[ Page 6141 ]
team. The B.C. table tennis female team won the bronze medal, and the male team won a silver medal yesterday. Leanne will play mixed doubles with another student, Michael Luo, from Burnaby for the bronze this Saturday.

Congratulations to the six B.C. table tennis team members — Ivy, Natasha, Leanne, Michael, Frank and Mike — who all won their group round robins yesterday. They are all among the top 12 entering into the singles matches today.

I sincerely congratulate these 12 young athletes from Burnaby as well, who have made B.C. proud, especially Andy Lin, a 17-year-old athlete who has won a gold medal in cross-country skiing; and Itzia San Roman, who has won the bronze medal at the gymnastic artistic female team event. They all have come a long way from the past, gone through tough and long training, and they excel in their wonderful talents. They have demonstrated passion, perseverance and diligence.

[1015]

As there are only a few days left to the closing of the games, I wish all athletes enjoy the remaining matches, not only competing against each other but also meeting other new friends. Let’s all send our sincere gratitude to our Team B.C. athletes for their hard work and wish them success in the games.

DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL
IN ALERT BAY

C. Trevena: There was an emotional gathering in Alert Bay last week that started the demotion of St. Michael’s Residential School.

The four-storey red-brick building loomed ominously on the island for years, its history oozing from the cold shadow it left. It was the first thing you saw pulling into the island and the last thing as you left. It was impossible to escape an awareness of the building and impossible to forget its legacy.

It was built in 1928 to house 200 First Nations children from northern Vancouver Island, Bella Bella, Bella Coola, the Nisga’a territories and Haida Gwaii. Some of those who had been students there were at the ceremony last Wednesday.

The fact that it’s taken more than 40 years from the end of its life as a school to its demolition is perhaps a testament to how difficult it was for the community to reach the point where they could lose the physical evidence of the harm done to them by residential schools.

For a time it was the band office. There was a treatment centre there. North Island College was temporarily housed there, and finally, carvers used the site used for their work. There was always an undercurrent of if it was good for the survivors to have the school there or if it was better if it went — an undercurrent only resolved last year when it became very clear that, structurally, the building was a danger.

So last week people gathered in the community for a ceremony, a rising up together in which there was drumming and there were speeches. As ’Namgis Chief Councillor Debra Hanuse said: “It was emotional, it was powerful, but it was a transformative day.” As the backhoes started the work of demolishing the building, knocking the porch down, the singing and drumming were intermingled with cries from the crowd: “Tear it down.”

There are no plans to build on the land. Some of it may be used as an expanded parking lot for the neighbouring U’mista Cultural Centre, which recognizes and celebrates ’Namgis history and traditions. Some of the bricks may go into a memorial for the survivors of the school.

Another event is planned for after the demolition, in the spring, when the brutal reminder of the harm done to generations of First Nations is gone forever from Alert Bay.

VACCINATION

Moira Stilwell: Today I’d like to talk about something that has become controversial when in fact it should not be, and of course, that is vaccination. Vaccines are among the most significant medical advances of the last century. Thanks to them, we have been successful in eradicating or virtually wiping out many highly contagious and often deadly diseases, such as smallpox and polio.

But in recent years some have decided not to immunize, incorrectly believing vaccines to be unsafe or unnecessary, and as a result, we are seeing rare diseases like measles and whooping cough make a comeback. Measles is particularly problematic. It’s a highly contagious viral illness, spread through airborne contact. While most of the children who contract the disease will recover, it can be very serious for others, resulting in brain injury, blindness and even death.

We saw localized outbreaks of measles in the Fraser Valley in 2014, but so far this year our province has been measles-free, despite various outbreaks in the United States, other parts of Canada and worldwide. According to the Centre for Disease Control, the majority of those who have gotten sick were, of course, unvaccinated. There are hundreds of rigorous scientific studies that have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and while there are rare complications or side effects, these pale in comparison to the illnesses they prevent.

Immunization is particularly important for those who, because of illness, cannot be vaccinated. These people rely on the rest of us to protect them by vaccinating our children and ourselves. If we choose to endanger our children by not vaccinating, we also endanger other people’s children.

In B.C. we offer a comprehensive immunization program for a wide range of diseases, and I encourage everyone to speak to their family physician or local health unit and learn more about this issue. Please vaccinate, and do your part to keep yourself, your children and everyone else safe.

[1020]

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
AND ESSAY CONTEST

D. Donaldson: I’ve seen cabinet ministers looking stressed in this chamber, and I know there can be some anxiety amongst many members getting up to speak in this House. Luckily for most of us, that stress and anxiety is not debilitating, but for many it is, and the trend is especially of concern in young people. Today’s teenagers report being significantly more anxious than their mothers and fathers were at the same age. Those are just a couple aspects of mental wellness challenges young people face.

We also know that a staggering 3.2 million teens in Canada are at risk for developing depression. But young people can learn from each other about mental wellness, and there can be methods and supports to improve mental health. That is why we have a new theme for the annual contest we run from our Stikine MLA offices, teaming up with Dan Hamhuis of the Vancouver Canucks each year. It’s called “Score one for mental wellness.”

Young people in Stikine between the ages of 13 and 18 can enter by submitting a 500-word essay on one or more of the following topics: how do you take care of your mental health? How do you see others taking care of their mental health? How do you help others struggling with mental health?

The winner, chosen by a panel of community-based judges, will get a couple of tickets to a Canucks game, return airfare, accommodation and some great Canucks swag, thanks to our sponsors: Dan Hamhuis, Hawkair, the Royal Bank, the town of Smithers, the Gitksan Government Commission and the RCMP.

Contests in previous years have gone under the titles Don’t Let Gangs Score, Don’t Let Apathy Score, Don’t Let Cyber Bullies Score and Don’t Let Intolerance Score. There have been some very inspiring entries. This year’s entries can be e-mailed, delivered or mailed to the Stikine constituency offices. We will post the winning essay on my MLA website. Contestants have until March 13 to enter, so put your thoughts together and score one for mental wellness.

CANADA WINTER GAMES
IN PRINCE GEORGE

M. Morris: For the past two weeks my home community of Prince George has hosted our nation for the 2015 Canada Winter Games. This has been an electrifying event for our city and northern B.C., providing athletes and spectators alike with world-class venues in which to perform, socialize and make lifelong memories.

It’s amazing to walk around Prince George and see the thousands of volunteers in their distinctive green jackets; the hundreds of athletes, coaches and supporters displaying their individual, provincial or territorial uniforms; and the thousands of visitors. Prince George has been graced with unseasonably warm, sunny weather that has helped illuminate the attributes of the region for those who have never visited us before.

I had the honour of presenting medals at one of the biathlon events to Emily Dickson, a young athlete originally from Burns Lake but now residing in Prince George. Emily is one of over two dozen athletes on Team B.C. who are from Prince George. As of a few moments ago, as my colleague stated, Team B.C. ranked third in the medals standings, with a total of 63 medals. I’m excited to see British Columbian athletes doing so well on home soil.

The games have not only celebrated sports. They’ve also celebrated arts and culture. We stand proud in Prince George to have Jennifer Pighin, a councillor with the Lheidli T’enneh host First Nations and a local artist. Jennifer designed the medals and the official Team B.C. scarf, both items being highly coveted by their owners.

So many people have worked tirelessly to make sure that the first-ever winter edition of the Canada Games in B.C. will be an unforgettable experience, and I thank all of them for their efforts. I encourage everyone watching and in this House to catch the footage of the games on TSN or Canada Games TV today.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO REVIEW
OF HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

J. Horgan: For two years we’ve been asking questions of the Premier and the Minister of Health — that continued yesterday, and it will continue today — with respect to the shabby and callous treatment of seven health care researchers here in British Columbia. The Premier appointed Marcia McNeil to review the whole affair. She said she was going to get to the bottom of it. That was the solemn commitment she made to the people of British Columbia.

Unfortunately, Ms. McNeil wrote the following, and I’ll quote her. “No one has taken responsibility for making the effective recommendation to dismiss the employees. Instead, those most likely to have made the effective recommendation all pointed to someone else.”

[1025]

Now, last fall Graham Whitmarsh, who was then the outgoing Deputy Minister of Health, wrote to Lynda Tarras, now also the former head of the public service. Mr. Whitmarsh wrote the following: “You and I, both individually and together, briefed John Dyble on many occasions during the course of the investigation…. He was involved in some of the key decisions and the times of some of the key events.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Dyble hasn’t spoken on the matter, but he did, through the Deputy Attorney General, say the following: “I have also been advised that while Mr. Dyble received a general briefing regarding the in-
[ Page 6143 ]
vestigation, it was well in advance of the decision to fire the Ministry of Health employees, and he had no role in the final decision.”

Clearly, someone here is not telling the truth. It’s either the highest-paid member of the public service or, then, the second-highest-paid member of the public service, both appointed by her. So to the Premier: how do you accept that?

Hon. C. Clark: If I can just preface before I speak to the substance of the member’s question by saying a thank-you to many members of the House who sent me a note today or stopped to say congratulations. It’s been four years since I was selected Premier by my colleagues. Thank you to members for that. We’re very proud of the record for the last four years.

Specifically, with respect to the question, which the member also asked yesterday, I’ll answer it again and tell him the same thing. We asked Ms. McNeil to do this review. She completed the review. She pointed out some serious problems with the way the system worked. She offered some recommendations. We are acting on all of those recommendations to ensure, to the extent that we possibly can, that those mistakes cannot be made again.

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

J. Horgan: I appreciate that talking points are the comfort zone for the Premier, but this is a fairly straightforward issue.

We have two of the highest-paid public servants in British Columbia pointing at each other for responsibility. Ms. Kayfish and the people of British Columbia expect accountability in this regard. No one is higher on the chain in this place than the Premier of British Columbia. She appointed the investigator, did not give the investigator the ability to subpoena witnesses, did not give the investigator the ability to compel testimony. Therefore, we have an incomplete investigation.

The Premier’s deputy, the head of the public service, apparently was not involved in a firing that involved, at that time, allegations of an RCMP investigation. How is it a possibility, in anybody’s universe, that the person responsible for the public service had no role in the firing of seven individuals, with allegations of wrongdoing, police investigations, breaches of privacy?

Where was he when all this happened? Mr. Whitmarsh says he was right there. Mr. Dyble, through the Attorney General, says: “I don’t know what you’re talking about.” That’s not acceptable. Will the Premier do the right thing and compel these witnesses to tell the truth?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, in answer to all the questions, the same questions yesterday…. My answers haven’t changed, and that is that Ms. McNeil has completed a report. She’s offered those recommendations, and we are taking those recommendations very, very seriously. They pointed to some problems in the way that the civil service worked. We need to fix them so that these kinds of issues don’t arise again.

One of the things that I pointed out yesterday and I’ll point out again is that the recommendations called on the government to make changes. We are going to act on those recommendations, and we are making those changes now.

RULING BY
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS COMMISSION
ON MORTGAGE INSURANCE SALES

M. Farnworth: Thousands of B.C. homeowners purchase mortgage insurance to help protect their single largest asset. They expect government to regulate the insurance industry appropriately.

[1030]

On the 28th of February, 2014, the superintendent of the Financial Institutions Commission issued confidential undertakings with respect to the activities of Manulife Financial Corp., Manulife Insurance Co. and Benesure Canada.

The companies were engaged in the sale of insurance products known as the mortgage protection plan and contravened four sections of the Financial Institutions Act, including but not limited to conducting an unauthorized insurance business and paying commissions to unlicensed insurance agents.

The companies were directed to pay $150,000 in penalties and, in the case of Benesure, to immediately cease the conduct of unauthorized insurance business in British Columbia, including the solicitation, sale and collection of premiums and the adjudication of claims. This undertaking was handled confidentially. No press release was issued. No public notice was given.

My question to the Minister of Finance: were the RCMP notified about this case?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member who has raised, I think, a serious matter. I’m not in a position today to provide a direct answer, and I’ll take the question on notice.

Madame Speaker: Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: A new question. Two plaintiffs have commenced a civil action on this matter in B.C. Supreme Court and are seeking to have the case certified as a class action. While that process will play itself out in another venue, we’re more concerned about the government’s actions in the case.

To the Minister of Finance: were B.C. mortgage insurance policy holders who purchased insurance from
[ Page 6144 ]
these companies notified about the directive issued by the Financial Institutions Commission?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll take the question on notice again.

Madame Speaker: Port Coquitlam on a further supplemental.

M. Farnworth: A new question. Those same companies sold the same mortgage insurance products in B.C. and also in Ontario and Quebec. To the Minister of Finance: were the Financial Institution Commission’s counterparts in those provinces notified about the FICOM directive?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll endeavour to obtain the information and provide the member in the House with a response.

FERRY FARES AND RIDERSHIP LEVELS

C. Trevena: To the Minister of Transportation, new figures show the number of ferry users has dropped to the lowest point in a quarter of a century. In the real world, people know this is due to increased fares, but the government has done nothing to fix the situation except to come up with some excuses.

In 2008 they blamed the cost of gas, the economy, fewer tourists and severe weather. In 2009 they blamed unemployment, fuel prices and significant weather. In 2010 they blamed the economy. In 2011 it was fuel prices and tourism again. In 2012 they did give up the excuses and reported “the lowest passenger traffic in 21 years,” but they were back at it in 2013 when they blamed an extraordinary period of stormy weather. Last year they listed storms, the economy, fuel prices, new laws on passports, an aging population, improvements in communications and the timing of Easter.

When is the government going to stop making excuses and acknowledge that rising fares are to blame?

Hon. T. Stone: I always appreciate the questions from the member.

I will reiterate yet again that this government is committed to doing everything that we possibly can to drive down fares at B.C. Ferries to make ferries more affordable than they are today. We have acknowledged that fares cannot continue to escalate as they have. We’ve acknowledged that several times. We’re going to continue to do everything we can to ensure that the ferry system is also sustainable for generations to come.

That is why this government has invested a record $180 million in B.C. Ferries over the last fiscal year. That is why this government is pursuing a wide range of initiatives with B.C. Ferries, like conversion to LNG, which on five vessels will save $12 million per year for 27 years.

[1035]

It’s why this government is considering a fixed link to Gabriola Island. It’s why this government is considering a cable ferry to Denman Island, which will save $2 million a year.

It’s that creativity, that ingenuity and the collaboration between B.C. Ferries, the Ferry Commissioner and this government that is going to achieve the goal of affordability and sustainability of B.C. Ferries long term.

C. Trevena: Respected studies unanimously endorsed by local governments in B.C. have shown that if the increase in fares, as was promised by the B.C. Liberals, match the rate of inflation — so accept that fares will go up but just by the rate of inflation — the number of passengers would have grown by 19 percent. It’s not just families we’re talking about. It’s not just communities were talking about. We’re talking about a hit to the provincial economy of more than $2.3 billion.

When the government did reduce fares very briefly in 2011, ridership went up. It’s a simple correlation. Cut the fares and more people will travel, which will, in the end, boost the bottom line to B.C. Ferries.

Does the minister have any real plan for bringing down fares, for stopping April’s 4 percent fare increase and realistically bringing down the fares for the businesses and communities and individuals that use our ferries?

Hon. T. Stone: We’ve been very clear about our strategy at B.C. Ferries. I just articulated the highlights of that a moment ago.

Let’s look back and consider the strategy of the last NDP government in the 1990s, and this is important. The NDP put $5 million into B.C. Ferries, compared to our record-level $180 million per year today — $5 million to $180 million.

While only putting $5 million into B.C. Ferries, fares in that ten-year decade that the NDP were in power actually rose by 70 percent, and there was nothing to show for it from a capital perspective except for two fast ferries which were never used by the public in British Columbia.

G. Holman: We’ll pursue that question with the minister in estimates — about the NDP contribution to ferries.

Ferry use is at historical lows on all routes. Particularly concerning is that commercial traffic to the Sunshine Coast has declined by over 8 percent in one year — one year. This government’s stubborn policies are threatening our local businesses and residents by choking off our coastal communities. Ferry service in British Columbia is at the worst level it has ever been in its history.

How is the minister going to fix this mess?

Hon. T. Stone: Actually, if the member opposite was to look at the most recent traffic numbers at B.C. Ferries, he would see that over the last year, to date, in B.C. Ferries’ fiscal year, traffic volumes have actually stabilized and are
[ Page 6145 ]
projected to start increasing. We’ll see what those numbers look like in the coming months.

Again, I challenge the members opposite to tell us what idea they have beyond this magical notion of bringing ferries back into government or piling a whole bunch more debt on the taxpayers of British Columbia. What ideas do they support?

Do they support converting vessels to LNG propulsion, which would save $12 million per year for 27 years? Do they support the ancillary services that are recognized at B.C. Ferries as amongst the best of all ferry systems in the world? Do they support exploring the possibility of fixed links? Do they support alternative technologies? Do they support looking at passenger vessels and complements to regular vehicle vessels?

We have a broad strategy, and we’re going to be successful at driving down fares and ensuring that the ferry service is sustainable long term.

[1040]

Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: We support a number of those issues. The main thing that we would support is reducing ferry fares.

Communities on the Sunshine Coast are concerned with cuts to sailings and high ferry fares, which have led to a steep decline in ridership, not stabilization. These communities are dependent on reliable and affordable ferry service for their economic well-being, and the latest figures show that this is in jeopardy. This is a government that says it cares about growing a diverse economy but again and again fails to live up to this word when it comes to ferry-dependent economies.

Again, to the minister. Will he tell the people of Sunshine Coast why his government’s management of B.C. Ferries is hurting their communities and hurting their economy?

Hon. T. Stone: Perhaps the member opposite and his colleagues should be really upfront with the people of British Columbia and say what’s really on their minds.

The members opposite were opposed to the changes that were made to a number of routes that had gross underutilization. The member should stand up and say that he would have supported maintaining an off-peak…. The last round trip on Sunday nights on route 18, Texada Island, has a vessel that carries 49 vehicles and 143 passengers, but on that particular run each day it only carried two vehicles and four passengers.

We’ve made some tough decisions, but we’re making those tough decisions in complement with the wide array of strategies which I’ve highlighted again today several times for the members opposite, all to ensure that the ferry system is there for our children and our grandchildren and that it’s as affordable as we can possibly make it.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS
AND ROLE OF HEALTH COMMITTEE

A. Weaver: In early January the good health committee at the Monterey seniors centre invited me to a conversation on health care. Collectively, these seniors were profoundly concerned about the impact that our regressive approach of charging flat-rate MSP premiums was having on their ability to make ends meet. And this is in the rather affluent riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

Since raising this issue last month, I’ve heard from thousands of British Columbians who agree with me that it’s time to replace MSP premiums with a fair and equitable option. Fortunately, just yesterday the Government House Leader activated the Select Standing Committee on Health, a committee that could be empowered to examine this issue.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will he empower the Select Standing Committee on Health to examine innovative, progressive ways of revising how MSP premiums are charged in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. There will, through the estimates process, be an opportunity to discuss the question of the amount we collect and some of the relief that exists for almost a million British Columbians from paying full premiums. The member’s question is more specific, and that is whether or not this is a legitimate or appropriate topic for discussion by the committee.

I took the liberty of quickly checking the terms of reference. I think the power exists now. I think the committee, charged as it is to “examine the projected impact on the provincial health care system of demographic trends to the year 2036 on a sustainable health care system for British Columbians….”

Similarly, the motion that was before the House just a few days ago asked the committee to “outline potential alternative strategies to mitigate the impact of the significant cost drivers” identified in the original report and “consider health capital funding options.”

I think that’s probably sufficiently broad for members of the committee and those that they might invite in to have the kind of conversation that the member is alluding to, and it will be interesting to see what results from that conversation.

Madame Speaker: Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

[1045]

A. Weaver: I must admit I was not expecting that answer. I am pleasantly surprised, and I’m thrilled that the committee will, I hope, seek and explore means and ways of funding the MSP premium more progressively.

The reason why I’m asking this is that the time is right.
[ Page 6146 ]
The Maximus contract was renewed in 2013. I recognize there was a five-year renewable in it. Now is the time to work with Maximus to find new ways of not only saving government money — because this is about efficiency as much as it is about delivering services to people who can afford it, with means and ways that allow them to have these services affordably — but it’s about making it fair. It’s about bringing the revenue generation into the income tax system.

So my question…

Madame Speaker: Excellent. [Laughter.]

A. Weaver: …to the minister is this. Will the minister consider, as every other province in the country does, bringing in our funding to MSP premiums through the income tax system, whether it be as a line item or as part of general revenues, to avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy associated with chasing after people who have recently lost their jobs and are being charged premiums based on last year’s income tax rate, chasing people who didn’t know they actually had to pay premiums because they are living abroad, and so on? Will the minister consider this approach of using our income tax system for actually raising these premiums?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things come to mind. I don’t want to prejudge or presuppose what the committee might present in terms of thoughts or recommendations on this. I confess to a certain bias, and that runs counter to the suggestion that the member has offered about eliminating a very specific charge, tax levy, in favour of general taxation provisions.

If the committee is going to have the conversation…. I ran across this in anticipation of some of the conversations, and I wonder if I can share it with the House. It’s from a former Member of Parliament from B.C., an NDP Member of Parliament, who said this:

“I want to say that I think there is value in having every family and every individual make some individual contribution. I think it has psychological value. I think it keeps the public aware of the cost and gives the people a sense of personal responsibility.

“I would say to members of this House that even if we could finance the plan without a per-capita tax, I personally would strongly advise against it. I would like it to be a nominal tax, but I think there is psychological value in people paying something for their cards.”

That wasn’t just any Member of Parliament. Before he was a Member of Parliament he was the Premier of Saskatchewan. That was Tommy Douglas in 1961, addressing a special session that created….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the committee will be mindful of all of these ideas as it considers these matters.

PARK AND CAMPSITE FEES
AND FUNDING FOR PARKS SYSTEM

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, that’s probably about the only time we’ll hear that side of the House quote Tommy Douglas.

B.C. families rely on our parks for affordable family vacations, yet this government continues to jack up camping fees again and again. You pay more for camping, you pay more for reservations, and this year they’re increasing those fees as well. But it’s not all. Newly released documents that we’ve got show that this government is now planning “regularized fee hikes” and to “expand the fee range for camping and targeted parks experiences.”

Can the minister explain to this House why she thinks giving the richest 2 percent $230 million is a better priority than ensuring British Columbians can use their parks affordably?

Hon. M. Polak: It’s a timely question because, as we have announced, the reservations system will be opening up for our camping experience in British Columbia’s parks at 9 a.m. on March 15 this year. I know experienced B.C. campers will be sitting in front of their laptops and computers at 8:55, ready to make those reservations. We expect again that we will see a record year for camping reservations in British Columbia’s parks.

[1050]

The raise this time is quite nominal. In the majority of provincial campsites we’ll see a $2-per-night increase. The regularizing of those fee increases is something that we have heard from the public — so that they have a sense of what to expect from fee increases, that they remain nominal and not large and, also, that those park facility operators who collect the fees can plan better in terms of improvements they might make to the camping experience. But it is always our intention to make sure that these experiences are family-friendly and affordable.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I can only think that the only families that this minister might have heard from who want regularized fee hikes for camping are those that got the $230 million tax cut.

The last time this government jacked up park fees, what they did with the money was they pocketed it. Then, according to these documents, they “forced B.C. Parks to shorten operating seasons, eliminate park ranger positions, reduce preventive maintenance and implement other program cuts.” Yet this time they want to go even further. They want to ding you if you go to a natural hot spring. They want to ding you if you go canoeing on particular lakes.
[ Page 6147 ]

Can the minister explain, again, how she could possibly believe British Columbians would welcome increasing fees each and every year for B.C. parks, given this government’s continued cuts to maintenance of those very same parks?

Hon. M. Polak: I’m actually glad that the member has raised this issue. I’ve heard some of his comments in the media.

Let me assure the House that moneys that are collected in camping fees do not get pocketed by government. There’s a reason why they don’t show up as a budget item or as a line item, and it’s because we don’t collect them. Park facility operators collect them. In the case where they collect more fees than what they need to operate, then those fees are returned to government. In the case where they collect fees that are deficient — in other words, it costs them more to run than what they collect — then we provide them with a deficiency payment.

All of this is contained in the system with respect to parks. When it comes to charging for additional experiences or when it comes to investing in our parks, people have told us consistently that if the moneys are going into improving the park experience — and that is what happens — then they are pleased to be paying those nominal increases. As I’ve said, this time, around for the majority, it’s about $2 per night.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
CHILD PLACEMENT ISSUES

D. Donaldson: Yesterday the Minister of Children and Family Development excused the ongoing harmful delay in placing children with family members because some cases are complicated. In another recent case, when faced with an order by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Groves to place a child with her grandmother, it took her ministry 18 months to comply. This isn’t sensitive information in the Groves case. This is not specific information. This is a scathing rebuke of the minister’s area of responsibility.

Delay using complexity as an excuse, on the one hand, in the case yesterday. Delay following a straight forward justice’s order, on the other hand, in the case today. Delays that fly in the face of a law that says decisions must be made and implemented by this ministry in a timely manner.

Can the minister please tell us what the problem is in her ministry? Is it resources? Is it accountability? Where does the buck stop? Will the minister take responsibility? The children and families need answers and action.

Hon. S. Cadieux: As the member opposite appears to feel he’s quite an expert on the Child, Family and Community Service Act, he would also know, then, that under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the director of child welfare is designated to make these types of decisions. This is by design, in law, to ensure that those trained in the area of social work are the ultimate authority, and it protects the very important decisions from both political and media influence.

[1055]

I would expect that the member opposite, especially given his critic portfolio for this very important, very critical ministry and area of service in government, would not be suggesting that politicians should interfere in those decisions.

[End of question period.]

S. Robinson: I rise in the House to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

S. Robinson: This petition is to voice our concern over the provincial government’s new plan to charge graduated adults in order to upgrade their academics for post-secondary education. These 53 signatures signify that they think that better-educated citizens will not only improve their lives but also benefit the province and the country.

For new immigrants, this is the most effective way to be productive members of society and to learn more about Canadian culture.

J. Darcy: Leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Darcy: As you are aware and members on both sides of the House are aware, today there are many wonderful teachers in the precinct who will be receiving an award from you on behalf of this Legislature — a certificate of teaching excellence from the Speaker.

I’m very pleased to welcome to the precinct a teacher who lives in New Westminster, Jeanie McKay, who works at North Delta Secondary School. She’s been teaching for over 18 years at the high-school level, a deserving recipient of this award. Congratulations to her and to all of the other teachers who join us here in the Legislature.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Hunt: As I continue, I would just start by making an introduction. I didn’t need leave for it, since I knew I was going to have the floor anyways.
[ Page 6148 ]

With us today are 26 grade 6 students from Ecole Woodward Hill, who are with us from my constituency. I would ask that the House make them welcome.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

As I was talking about the benefits that were happening within this budget, there was one item that I missed, and I just want to mention it as I’m getting to the end of my speech. And that is a big bula vinaka to all of the Fijian community in Surrey. It’s wonderful news that the Rugby Canada will be having the sevens here in Vancouver in March of 2016, ’17 and ’18, if I have my dates and my numbers correct. For three years the sevens will be here.

For those of you who aren’t Fijian and aren’t into rugby, you will know that this is a tour that goes around the world and, in fact, the Fijians won the last tournament. I believe it was in Las Vegas that they won. So the Fijians are really, really into rugby.

So we send out a big bula to them and are looking forward to a tremendous time with them. We know that the Leader of the Opposition is only slightly prejudiced when it come to things rugby and has been, in the past, a tremendous athlete in it and is a great supporter of it. We look forward to a tremendous time at B.C. Place.

But as I continue working on the budget speech — and we continue to work on it — I would just draw to everyone’s attention one of the challenges when it come to budgets, particularly when it come to government. That is, the word “economy” is often used, and often we forget where the word came from.

Economy is actually a Greek word. I won’t do the Greek. I will keep it in English. But the “eco” part of it actually comes from “house” or “home.” The “nomy” part actually means “to manage or distribute.” So, really, when we’re talking about an economy, when we’re talking about the budget of this provincial government, what we should really be doing is we should be looking at the principles of how you run your own house, how you manage the affairs and the finances of your own house.

That’s why I am in support of the budget that’s before us. We are doing two things. One, we are continuing to work on growing the economy and putting the pieces in place for the economy to continue to grow.

[1100]

But also, we’re doing the second, which is a very critical part in home economics, and that is controlling our expenses, controlling how we spend our money. Just as in a home, everyone knows that if you spend more money than you take in, you’re going to be in trouble at the end of the month. If you do that for a couple of months in a row, you’re going to be in much larger trouble.

However, when it comes to government, whether it’s provincial government or federal government, somehow we have this idea that government just makes money out of nowhere, and it suddenly appears and we have it unlimitedly. Of course, that obviously is not true. That’s why deficits exist and debt rises.

But the interesting part that I love about how this government is dealing with it is…. Let’s just take the issue of health, as I ended off with talking about the Ministry of Health yesterday as we adjourned this debate. The largest department that spends money in this provincial government is the Ministry of Health, and we hear from members opposite how terrible it is that we don’t spend enough money, that we have the lowest per-capita spending on health, and how terrible this is when we look at other jurisdictions throughout Canada.

Yet we have the Conference Board of Canada ranking B.C. as the number one place, ranking first in Canada, for our health services — third in the world, behind Switzerland and Sweden. This is a health system where we have learned efficiency, where we are dealing with initiatives, where we’re dealing with creativity. We’re not just throwing money at a problem to make it disappear.

For the sake of the students that are here in the gallery, they’ll notice that now the light has changed on your desk, Mr. Speaker. It has now gone from white to green. If you look, you’ll see a green light that’s there. I’m going to be in trouble if it turns red. That green light means I have two minutes to conclude what I have to say, and that’s exactly what I’m going to do. I will try to target it perfectly and make it just before the light turns red.

Innovation is a part that we need when it comes to finances and the issues of finances. That’s why I’m so proud that in the city of Surrey we have innovation boulevard. What we’re doing is we’re looking at health care. We’re looking at the challenges within health care, and we are actually working with Simon Fraser University, with Kwantlen Polytechnic University and with the private sector to find creative solutions and to create even more creative solutions for the health care budgets and the challenges within health care as well as extended care.

I am proud of the fact that this province has the best cancer survival rates in Canada. I’m proud of the fact that we have the longest life expectancy in Canada, that we have the lowest crime rates in a decade, that we have the lowest alcohol-related….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Holman: I’m pleased to speak to the 2015 budget, particularly on behalf of the voters of Saanich North and the Islands, who have given me the honour of representing them in this Legislature. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Saanich First Nations — the Tsawout, Tsartlip, Pauquachin and Tseycum — for allowing us to live and prosper on their lands.

As other colleagues have done in this House, I want to thank my family — Eren, Amber, Owen and Alicia — for their support and also express my appreciation to the staff in my constituency office — Ryan, Debra and Chris
[ Page 6149 ]
— for the hard and often thankless work they do on behalf of constituents.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the MLAs and staff in the Legislature — including Elizabeth, my legislative assistant — for the work they do on behalf of British Columbians and for the kindness they’ve shown me as a first-time MLA.

I particularly want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their support and to say how proud I am to be part of an opposition party with a distinguished history in this province. This is the party that, in only a few terms as government, has left a remarkable legacy in British Columbia — a legacy that, in my view, is being put at risk by this government.

[1105]

This is the party that created Hansard and question period, that established the majority of parks in the province and the agricultural land reserve, that created human rights legislation, that established the environmental assessment office as well as the B.C. Energy Commission, which was the precursor to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Today, in opposition, this party continues to fight for democratic and governance reforms, equality, economic opportunity for all and environmental sustainability, in the full sense of that word. This is a party that’s far from irrelevant, as the Premier has so disrespectfully stated.

In fact, it’s the Premier and this government that have been tearing down the legacies the NDP have created — weakening the agricultural land reserve, facilitating industrialization of our park system, making a mockery of the environmental assessment process and gutting the authority and jurisdiction of the B.C. Utilities Commission. The Liberals, driven by ideology, have been systematically stripping the capacity of government to play its essential role, particularly government’s role in protecting our environment and supporting those in need.

One of the main reasons I do not support this budget is that it does very little to address these concerns yet finds the wherewithal to provide a $230 million tax break to the highest 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia.

Less public sector involvement in the economy is not always better. There are no better examples of this than the Mount Polley disaster and the decision to proceed with the Site C project. I want to just speak briefly on the Site C project.

As members of this House know, it was reviewed by a joint review panel, which concluded that the rationale for the project had not been determined, had not been credibly made. The joint review panel, in fact, suggested that the Site C project be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Information provided by B.C. Hydro itself indicated that in the first four years of operation Site C would lose $800 million. That was one of the reasons why the joint review panel suggested referring the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission, which of course, has been precluded from reviewing the project by this government.

The Finance Minister has described this balanced budget as a result of discipline and fiscal prudence. As an economist, I would attribute the surplus to the one-time fire sale of government assets at an unprecedented scale, the transfer of hundreds of millions in dividends from B.C. Hydro and ICBC that are supported by accounting tricks and rate hikes, and a series of other fee increases for everything from tuition fees and MSP premiums to ferry fares. Combine these fee increases with a willingness to ignore and cut services to the most vulnerable in our society, and you have this government’s recipe for balancing the budget.

Over the tenure of the Liberal government there’s been a huge shift from taxation based on ability to pay to regressive user fees and charges that are taxes by any other name. You know, it’s amazing. I have heard members opposite talk about balancing this budget without increasing taxes. This is a bizarre statement given the huge increase in user fees and charges and levies — you name it — over the tenure of this government.

I and, I believe, the members on this side of the House agree that the tax structure, tax rates, should be competitive. But over the life of this government sharp increases in regressive fees and charges have imposed billions — billions — in additional costs on families and businesses. This is not only unfair to and hurting ordinary working families with modest to middle incomes; it’s actually hurting the economy.

[1110]

A quick look at the numbers shows the impacts of these regressive charges which, for hydro, insurance and MSP premiums alone, have cost the average family in British Columbia about $600 per year over the life of the Liberal government.

If you live in a ferry-dependent community, add increases of hundreds of dollars per year in fares. If you’re a student, add thousands more per year in tuition fees. The increase in these fees since 2001 has been nothing short of outrageous. What I find shocking — it’s quite incredible — again is that the members opposite claim that the budget is being balanced without tax increases.

These regressive fees and charges hit lower- and middle-income families much harder than high-income earners. These low- and middle-income families spend a much higher proportion of their incomes in the local and provincial economies than do higher-income earners. Economists describe this as a higher propensity to consume. What this means is that, over time, the shift to a more regressive tax regime hits consumers with the highest propensity to spend and, therefore, weakens consumer demand.

An increasingly unfair tax regime also raises barriers to lower-income families — in particular, their children — which means lower economic productivity and higher social costs in the longer run. These higher economic and social costs are costs we will all bear eventually as taxpayers and as citizens.
[ Page 6150 ]

This huge increase in user fees of various kinds also impacts business viability and competitiveness. This is particularly true for small businesses — it has been stated earlier in the House — which comprise 98 percent of all businesses in B.C. and account for hundreds of thousands of jobs in our province. Regressive user fees and charges represent fixed costs for these small businesses — costs which have to be paid, regardless of their profitability. This makes them more vulnerable to downturns and more likely to fail.

The bottom line is that if this budget is balanced, it’s being funded by higher, regressive taxes on ordinary working families, students, ferry-dependent communities and small businesses. And as my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke has pointed out, this budget is certainly not balanced from an environmental or social perspective.

Another key strategy that government has been employing to balance the budget is to extract billions of dollars over the next number of years from Crown corporations. In the 2015 fiscal year alone, over $600 million in so-called dividends have been pulled from B.C. Hydro, while jacking up power rates by 74 percent since 2001 and running up B.C. Hydro short-term debt in the form of deferral accounts.

The Auditor General has stated that the use of deferral accounts at B.C. Hydro has created the illusion of profitability, which has then been used to justify dividend payments. The ICBC dividend of over $200 million for fiscal year 2015 is similarly predicated on a 44 percent increase in insurance rates since 2001 — much higher than the rate of inflation. If you add the dividends in fiscal year 2015 for B.C. Hydro and ICBC, they alone account for the entire operating surplus in Budget 2015.

Many British Columbians would be surprised to know that even B.C. Ferries, which is not a profit-making entity, pays a dividend of over $6 million to the province, while fares on some minor routes have more than doubled.

This dividend, extracted by government, is based on a rate of return of 8 percent and alone represents about two-thirds of the entire cost savings that government achieved through its service cuts on minor routes. In other words, if government simply gave up this questionable dividend, most of the required cost savings from the minor routes could have been achieved.

Even though the Premier and this government have fallen rather silent regarding their previous promises about the pot of gold at the end of the LNG rainbow, I want to just make a couple of comments about this issue. The cause of government’s silence on LNG is likely connected to reports that the spot price of natural gas in Asia has fallen by 60 percent and that contract prices may already be at or below the break-even levels required for a viable LNG industry in British Columbia.

[1115]

It’s been very interesting to see the Premier and government pivot from their laser focus on LNG, as the realities of world markets inevitably expose their reckless and deceptive promises. All of a sudden, the rhetoric has shifted to B.C.’s diverse economy. Industries which have, up to now, been ignored now represent our economic salvation. This side of the House has consistently pointed out government’s preoccupation with non-LNG industries and the need to pay attention to other sectors. For our troubles, we’ve been pilloried by government as saying no to LNG.

Consider the forest industry. Once the single most sector of our provincial economy, it’s lost 25,000 jobs during the Liberal terms of office. Over 200 manufacturing facilities and half of its value-added operations have been shut down, all while raw log exports have skyrocketed by 500 percent and millions of acres of logged Crown timberlands remain unplanted.

This government has now rediscovered economic diversity, at least rhetorically, but has stood by and watched as what were once our most important industries, particularly the manufacturing and value-added component, literally implode. Of course, there were market difficulties in the United States related to the unethical and reckless practices of a banking and finance sector that almost crippled the world economy — another poster boy for the dangers of deregulation that this government is so fond of.

The government’s response, or lack of it, to the forest industry is a good example of how it pretends to manage the provincial economy. While government is quick to take credit for industry upswings driven by international market factors — for example, increased mining exploration spending due to a quadrupling of gold prices over the last decade — the downswings are not only someone else’s fault; there is nothing that can or should be done about it.

Forest strategies that the opposition have suggested — for example, to ensure adequate log supplies to B.C. mills and value-added manufacturers or replanting programs to address the inevitable falldown in interior forests due to beetle kill or worker retraining programs — have all been ignored by this government.

The point is this. This government does not really manage the economy. This is left to the vagaries of world markets and large corporate players.

This government allows over 200 mills to shut down. They sign tens of billions in sweetheart deals with private power producers, resulting in losses of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, selling surplus power at a huge loss in western U.S. markets. They build a northwest power line at a cost overrun of hundreds of billions of dollars to benefit private power producers and mining corporations. They jump on the LNG bandwagon until they realize the wheels are falling off, at which point they start talking about the forest industry again — the same industry that is now a shadow of its former self as a result of this government’s negligence.

This government doesn’t manage the economy. It stands by and watches the economy happening, like a
[ Page 6151 ]
bystander watching a parade. If things go badly, the government blames irrevocable market forces. If the parade appears to move in a positive direction, then, like the joke about all politicians, government jumps to the front of the procession.

The focus in this budget is aimed almost entirely at balancing financial accounts, but there are other deficits, environmental and social, that are virtually ignored in this budget. This is why I can’t support the budget. It’s not because there’s nothing good at all in the budget, but because I know it’s possible to do so much better in balancing economic, social and environmental goals. I believe that those of us who have been fortunate have a personal responsibility to give back to their communities and leave the world a better place than we found it. This responsibility to leave a positive legacy also extends to government.

[1120]

This budget doesn’t meet this test. This isn’t just because the budget is founded on a so-called “dividend” for B.C. Hydro that’s awash in debt. It isn’t just because of the very large liabilities that could result from the court decision on K-to-12 education that are being ignored. It isn’t just because of cuts to essential services that are only becoming apparent after the election, further increases in a variety of regressive user fees and a record on job growth that is one of the worst in Canada.

This is all bad enough, but I’m going to vote against this budget because it does virtually nothing to address climate change, and in fact, it will greatly exacerbate climate change. It promotes unsustainable resource development in the context of an environmental assessment process without integrity and the absence of independent regulatory oversight over B.C. Hydro.

It not only does nothing to make our tax system fair; it actually makes it more inequitable by giving a huge tax break for very-high-income earners that don’t need it and never asked for it. While this budget cuts taxes for the top 2 percent of income earners, it still does not seriously address the highest child poverty rate in Canada that has persisted for over a decade.

This is not a budget to be proud of, and I cannot in good conscience support it.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just as I start, I thought I’d respond to the rail from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke who got up yesterday and said maybe I should get up and speak in the House. I thought maybe I’d remind him that each of us gets an opportunity to speak to throne and budget, and I’ve already spoken to the throne speech in this House. Maybe he missed it, so I’m just going to put a couple of things I would like him to remember that I said at the beginning of my speech, because they’re pretty important to me personally, and I’d like him to know this.

In my last speech I actually started out recognizing that on May 28 I will have completed 19 years in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. There were people that I wanted to recognize, and since the member wasn’t here at the time or didn’t know I had spoken to the throne, I’d like to actually remind him that I’m very appreciative of the support of my wife, Michele, who I’ve been married to for over 40 years. She was a teenage bride and still looks like a teenager today. She’s full of vibrancy and has been there all the way through my career as a person to support me.

I also recognized two other people in my opening remarks the last time, a couple that I have known for a long time: Bruce and Sheryl Strongitharm. Bruce actually happens to work in government as chief of staff to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, but Sheryl is one of my constituency assistants and has actually worked for me for over 26 years in the private sector.

The distinction that they have…. They were the first two people who came to me to convince me that maybe I should chase a nomination for a riding called Fort Langley–Aldergrove in August of 1995. Somehow they got me at a weak moment, and the rest is history.

I always like to recognize the people that have been there for me over the years when I get an opportunity to speak in the House. There are the folks I mentioned, but my constituency assistant today, Jennifer Mamone, who is doing a great job for me at the local level, very much is the person that has tried — or attempted, or worked at trying — to bring me into the modern age of things like Twitter and Facebook and understanding how all of that stuff works. You have to remember that when I entered politics in 1996, I carried a pager, and I had a cell phone. I mean, things have changed. We actually did things by fax. I don’t think e-mail was anything that I knew about in those days.

As you walk through that, you have to also remember the people that have come through your office. It would be impossible for me to recognize the assistant legislative assistants, the legislative assistants, the people that have worked for us in this House, the people that have worked for us in the constituency, the volunteers at five different campaigns and folks that have been around me a long time.

But I would like to recognize one person. That is my chief of staff, Tobie Myers, who has actually been my chief of staff basically since I became a minister in 2001 and worked for us in caucus. I was in her pod when she worked for us when she was a legislative assistant and an assistant legislative assistant when she was going to university back in the 1990s.

[1125]

The team that’s come through there — we actually like to always call them the Coleman team, the folks that have come through as administrative staff and staff that have been executive assistants, MAs, chiefs of staff that have come through the office over the years. We actually, fondly, try to get together at least once a year with all the
[ Page 6152 ]
folks that ever worked with us so we can always catch up where they are with their children, their family, their relationships and what’s going on in their lives.

These folks are important to us, and they’re important, I know, to members opposite, who have staff in their offices and stuff. They are front-line people that have difficult jobs at times. They deal with tough files that are really where compassion and time and concern at a local level are what people need, sometimes just an ear to be able to work through their problems. That’s what our constituency folks do.

As we go forward today, I want to talk about the balanced budget. But before I start, I want to give credit where credit is due — not to do with the budget but to do with the recognition and the work that we do with other levels of government, whether it be municipal or provincial. In this case it’s a recognition of the federal government.

Last week the Prime Minister of Canada announced changes to the capital cost allowance with regards to manufacturing facilities in Canada — a significant step forward to recognize the work we had done with them relative to actually making the manufacturing side on the capital cost lines for LNG competitive. I think the leadership that the federal government took with work with us was exceptional, and I wanted to thank them publicly for that today — the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the different ministers we’ve dealt with as we went through that — because it was a big step forward for all of us.

Now, I will get into pieces of the budget in a bit, but I want to try and contextualize this, as to how government works and how sometimes you end up with situations and how you have, let’s call them, arrows in your quiver relative to answers for people when you’re trying to do your job.

Everybody knows that for every one of us their heart skips a beat when they have to get up and speak in the House, because it’s always something. There’s always a mixed audience. Sometimes we have better hecklers in the audience than others, so it depends on what the mood of the chamber is, sometimes, when you’re speaking in here.

I want to sort of take you down a road of something different. So you’re a cabinet minister, and you’re at an international conference. You’re on a panel discussion, and you give your opening remarks and then sit on a panel to take — actually, as an individual and not so much a panel with a moderator…. You get up and you speak about the opportunities in your province. In this case let’s take LNG as an example. You get up in front of 500 to 1,000 people, and you talk about the opportunity.

You talk about your jurisdiction. You talk to this group of people, leaving them a message about British Columbia, where it is, how the ambient temperature is better for LNG than, let’s say, in a place where it’s 140 degrees, in some place like Perth today, so you know you have the competitive energy — all the little competitive energy things you have and all the things you do.

Then comes what is instructive, what happens next after you give this 15- or 20-minute presentation. It’s now to sit down on a chair with the moderator, and it’s questions from the audience. The first thing after you do this the first time….

The first thing you recognize — in going back to what I mentioned about how my constituency assistants bring me into the Twitter and the Facebook world and have for some time, my communications folks — is that while you were speaking, investors, bankers, government officials, people that would actually build industry, people who want to make partnerships in industry, pipeline builders, all of these people in a room, are actually passing comment on every single word you say while you’re saying it.

It’s going through, basically, this network of people globally that talk about it. But then come the questions. The questions government gets in this circumstance…. “Okay, we know you have a resource. We know it’s one of the best resources in the world because we’re in the business and we know that. But we want to know a couple of things.”

The first thing that usually comes from the floor is: “What’s the stability of the fiscal status in your jurisdiction in British Columbia?” You usually have to start that conversation by always reminding them that British Columbia is a province in a country that has a triple-A credit rating called Canada. But then they want to know about B.C.

[1130]

The first thing you talk to them about is budgets, because if you’re making an investment anywhere in the world today, if you were thinking of making a multi-billion-dollar investment, you wouldn’t be going to a country that had junk bond status, and you certainly wouldn’t be investing in a place where they haven’t recognized they need to get their fiscal house in order.

One of the best assets a minister has at an international conference, when they’re talking to people and starting to answer that question, is this: “We balanced our budget. We meet our fiscal targets. We do this now…. This is the third year in a row we’ve had a balanced budget. The government has also paid down the largest amount of taxpayers’ debt in the history of the province of British Columbia when we had the dollars to do so. Even through the economic downturn, we still managed our province well and maintained that credit rating that is so important.”

As you go through that, they start to ask other questions. The budget is important to these guys. They want to know that if they invest in a jurisdiction, they’re not spending money so ridiculously bad and not balancing their budget. And that if they make an investment and in five or ten years from now someone decides to orphan or nationalize their investment because they want to go grab more and take away that investment and take away their competitive ability….

That’s actually why they like Canada for investment — people around the world. That’s why they like British Columbia: for its stability.
[ Page 6153 ]

The finances piece is interesting, as they ask the question, because as they make an investment, they know where their costs and risks can go when they sit in front of the next people I will talk about.

You have a group of people in this room who are trying to make recommendations at some point in time about where to put billions of dollars worldwide. They’re deciding whether they should recommend that they go to Russia, whether they go to China, whether money out of China should flow into a project in Australia or whether investments should come from Japan and other markets around the world into other jurisdictions like Canada.

They want to know what the stability of that economy is today. It’s one of the biggest…. I’m told, in my most recent conferences and conversations with CEOs and financial institutions around the world, it’s become one of the most significant things they look for. They’ve watched the European example. They’ve watched Greece having the inability to actually get its fiscal house in order, and they’re saying “Enough is enough. There’s only so much money we want to risk.”

They look at places where somebody can say: “Here you go.” This jurisdiction balances its budget. This jurisdiction manages its taxes to keep them competitive in a global sense — and I’ll get to that in a second — and they have a triple-A credit rating. That then tells them that the cost, and risk, of their money to invest in a project in British Columbia is more competitive than if they were going to put it in Mozambique, central Africa or other areas of the world where there are other forms of political strife.

They take that as a factor on investments they make when they make these investments. Make no mistake: investment is what actually drives an economy and creates jobs, because that investment creates long-term stability and opportunities for our citizens.

As you come through those two — the budget, the triple-A credit rating and the finances piece, which is combined in those two — they then look at what else the jurisdiction is about.

The first thing they do, when you try and enter into a new industry like LNG, is that they say to us: “Okay, what is the framework for doing business? What is the time frame for completing that framework? And can you meet those deadlines?”

My most recent discussion with a group of CEOs and folks involved in industry said:

“There’s one thing we know about British Columbia, Minister. Everything you said you would do, and the time you said you would do it by, you’ve met every single time — every single time. That gives us comfort, as we come to the biggest and most difficult financial decisions in this package, that we will be able to rely on the word of government to complete the other pieces as we move forward.”

That is critical.

Then because of the experiences worldwide in projects the size of LNG and smaller, all over the world there’s been one piece of this puzzle that’s been very difficult for companies — that is, what jurisdiction can we go to that actually has a plan for skilled labour: to attract it, to retrain it, to be able to fill it when it’s needed so that the jobs can be done and built on time and on budget?

[1135]

This is really critical, more critical than most of you probably realize. Because of the experience in projects around the world today, it has become one of the four or five most important pieces of a final investment decision on major projects. The experience has been that jurisdictions haven’t got this right. They haven’t done the planning, they haven’t done the work, and they haven’t worked with industry to try and understand all the jobs and trades that are going to be needed.

If you were to sit down with the major proponents in British Columbia today and ask them a question about labour…. Actually, at one of the conferences I was at, one of the senior people from one of those proponents got up and said:

“I want to say something, Minister. We do this all over the world. Nowhere have we seen a better relationship between a provincial and a federal government trying to work through the issues with regard to skilled labour and the people that are needed, and nowhere have we seen the rigour and the work that’s been done by your minister, the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour” — our member for Prince George–Valemount.

Never had they seen that amount of rigour and focus and work done to be ready. That ministry has accomplished more in this role than any other jurisdiction, if you can imagine. This is a comment from this individual from the floor saying: “…than any jurisdiction we’re aware of in the world.” That’s important for the investment decisions that come to British Columbia.

As we go through that, we walk through debt-to-GDP, then they ask about your environmental standards. They’re not saying: “We don’t like your environmental standards.” They’ll say: “We’re prepared to meet them. We’re prepared to beat them. But what we want to know is: what’s the time frame? If we make an application and we meet your standards, what are the decision-making process and timeline to get there?” That is what helps us get to where we can build the business going forward.

Taxation, credit rating, labour — all of these things and expectations and analyses and answers, as you’re doing those Q and A’s, are transmitted instantly worldwide. You have to start to understand that so that you know where you’ve got to be and where you’ve got to get to. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter or in Prince Rupert or whether it’s a new forest operation in British Columbia or a mine or LNG. All of those questions come into your investment discussion when you try to make a decision as a company.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
[ Page 6154 ]

You lay out a plan to the proponents. You work with them. You meet the legislative, regulatory and other timelines that you need, and you enter into discussions on detailed project development agreements so that they will be able to go to a board and eventually make that decision that could change the future of your jurisdiction.

As I say that, always in the back of the mind is something that I think everybody in this Legislature thinks of first, and that is: if we’re here doing this job, are we doing it in a way to try and build a better future for the province? I believe we all have that same motivation.

I also believe it’s about our families, our children, our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews, our cousins, our great-nieces, our great-nephews, whatever the case may be as we go forward — to know that we want to give them something and an opportunity that is better than we inherited from our parents. We can never, ever lose sight of that.

When we make this work and we do it, it’s about protecting our environment and building an industry that can actually make a difference to the future of British Columbia, no matter which industry it is — tech, film, whatever the case may be. That’s why we make the decisions we do.

The attraction is important to a jurisdiction. If dollars don’t come to your jurisdiction, if it doesn’t come to your jurisdiction, then what you’ve done is not having outside dollars coming in, making investments, improving your economy and having an effect that’s positive on long-term job creation and the careers of people you serve.

One of the instructive things I think people haven’t talked about relative to this year’s budget is that you do that in a framework where you have the discipline going in. You do it in a framework where you get your fundamentals done, and you do it in a framework where you’re paying attention to everything else that’s going on in your jurisdiction, particularly your credit rating and your budget and your balance.

[1140]

I find it ironic because sometimes I worry about the lack of understanding of folks. The irony is…. I’ve sat in this House, and people say: “You know, there’s not a single dollar of revenue in this budget that talks about LNG.” You’re right. Shocking to you, but that’s the way it is. What you should be saying is: “Isn’t it incredible that without liquefied natural gas as an additional revenue source — on a resource that we have to get to another market, globally — the province of British Columbia has almost $1 billion surplus on a balanced budget?”

Everybody in this House at one time or another probably has had a mortgage. Somebody in this House has probably had a car loan. Somebody’s had credit card debt or has owned a business.

Now, I can tell you in a business, once you get your fundamentals done and you have your overhead secured and you’re fiscally responsible to your operation and you’ve reached a level of break-even, now you move into an area of profit where you can reinvest or you can add another business line that drops directly to your bottom line. Exponentially, your profits go up, and your ability to invest and do more things goes up exponentially.

But if you’re a business person that thinks, “I’m going to borrow more than I make every single year,” within a five-year cycle or less, you’re talking to a receiver or a bankruptcy trustee. You can’t operate that.

So you can imagine…. I look forward to the day — I know I will see it; I’m going to tell you why — that the LNG industry comes to British Columbia, as it will, and that the benefits flow to First Nations communities with as high as 70 and 80 percent unemployment today and will change their employment to actually being positive, where the revenues and opportunities change the dynamics of the economics of small and large communities alike.

As I go through all of that, I must remind you folks of a couple of things. Over here they actually think LNG has disappeared. There are 18 proposals in British Columbia today and ten export permits already approved federally. There have already been EA certificates given out on a couple of projects, including some pipelines. There’s a bunch of pipeline and benefit agreements already signed with First Nations, along with revenue-sharing and opportunities like that.

More important is that I have had a chance to sit down with the major companies — and the minor companies, because there are small and large projects in this particular focus — in the last 60 days, in detailed meetings about project development agreements, timing, opportunities and where they want to go. The projects that I spoke to are on the same timeline to get the final investment decision, with the exception of one, as they were before. However, there are two that have now told me they think they’re going to accelerate their timeline into 2015, when they thought they might be looking at FID in 2016, which is fine.

At that point in time, I’ll be able to remind the members from Prince Rupert and Terrace and Kitimat and all of that — as they stood up and said this was dying — that the opportunities and the change in the real estate and the jobs in their community are going to be way more than what they’re already seeing. They’re going to see huge benefits for their communities and jobs for folks that have been waiting a long time for an opportunity, particularly the First Nations across the north. And don’t forget that. That is a generational and culture-changing opportunity that they’re telling me they want to welcome.

As we go forward and we start to see LNG come along — and thanks to the leadership of our Minister of Finance, we continue to balance our budget and have surpluses — and revenues start to flow in from LNG…. Guess where it drops to. It drops to the bottom line. Just like adding another piece to your business, it increases your profitability.

That allows to you do a couple of things: invest in infrastructure — schools, hospitals, those sorts of things…. It also allows you to pay down even more debt. As you pay
[ Page 6155 ]
down more debt and you see that margin keep going up on that gap, you can pay off your debt for the next generation of your children and your grandchildren. More importantly, you can actually start putting money away in a legacy fund, like a prosperity fund, for the generation that follows that.

[1145]

Now, the only reason the members opposite have a problem with that is because that’s pretty visionary. It’s long-term thinking, and the tendency of us in politics is to think four-year cycles. We get elected in 2013. We go to the polls again in 2017, then 2021 or whatever it is — in my case, starting in ’96. But the fact of the matter is that if you don’t think long term and you don’t build a plan long term, then you’re failing the very people that put you in, in the first place.

As we come through all of this today, I want you to be clear about something. The companies and investors and governments, worldwide, that are looking to talk to British Columbia at the front end of what I just described are fundamental to the success of the province. As I speak about the opportunity in LNG, I can tell you — I sit across the table and get told this by people who want to invest here — that they’ve never seen a jurisdiction that got it together better on labour, on their fundamentals, on their structures and on their fundamentals in the operation of the fiscal plan within their jurisdiction.

Then they say: “We’ve never dealt with a jurisdiction that keeps its word at the level that you do, to always meet the timelines you say you’ll meet.” So as you go through that and you think about the future, you say: “Where would I make the final investment decision?” Why would one company today have 250 engineers working on their proposal, working towards a final investment decision on a multi-billion project in British Columbia today if they thought they weren’t coming here someday? They’re coming.

Billions of dollars have already been invested in LNG opportunities in B.C. But as we go through the LNG opportunities, never forget that the fundamentals and the vision around this thing that gives us the future we’re looking for starts way back at the fiscal fundamentals of balancing your budget, a triple-A credit rating, making sure you’re ready, making sure your labour and training match up and making sure you’re doing the work you need to do to be ready for this. We’re ready for this, and we have our fundamentals in place.

As we do this, we’re actually doing a number of other things while we’re balancing the budget and attracting investments. I see other investments coming as a result of the global conversation in and around British Columbia. Being a player in one market, you see other investments coming here, too, in other resources, in petroleum resources and other things that are being brought here because people get to know us.

As you go through this, you look at a budget today that is balanced, with a surplus from last year that’s going to help to pay down debt. In addition to that, you’ve also got to remember a couple of things. We changed, for instance, the definition of a person with disabilities, developmental disabilities, by the courts a few years ago. One of the challenges it faced us with is: how do we actually work with that definition and make sure we can serve the people who are aging out into Community Living B.C.

Madame Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I’m proud of the investment we made in Community Living.

I didn’t know I was on anything but a clock to this, but I’m good for that. Let’s just finish quickly.

The province of British Columbia is in the shape to attract investment. Mark my words, we’ll be successful, and don’t forget that the fundamentals for the future of British Columbia were built with this government on the basis of a balanced budget, a triple-A credit rating and keeping our act together financially.

Hon. M. de Jong: I arise, I believe, pursuant to the orders which require us to do some things.

I will say that I’m obliged to the Deputy Premier and to all the members who participated in the discussion thus far around the budget. Suffice to say that there has been a variety of views identified and differing approaches to the question of public finance and public budgeting that we will have an opportunity to explore further in the weeks ahead as we engage in the more detailed estimates process.

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

[1150-1155]

Motion approved on the following division:

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the motion whereby the House authorizes the Committee of Supply for the session to sit in two sections, designated Sections A and B. The motion has been distributed, I think, to the official opposition House Leader and the independent members of the House.

I won’t presume to read the usual set of conditions. I will alert the House, however, to the fact that if the motion passes, the government’s intention would be not to convene the Committee of Supply in two sections until next week on Monday.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

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

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

J. Kwan: I seek leave to table a petition, please.

Leave granted.

Petitions

J. Kwan: I have a petition here with 2,088 names initiated by the Protect Public Education Now, Fix B.C. Ed and the Vancouver District Parent Advisory Council, calling on the government to adequately fund education. They point out that students stand to lose educational resources like special needs music and sports programming as well as teacher-librarians and other supports. They indicate that the Vancouver school board is anticipating a budget shortfall of $15 million this year, so they’re calling o n the government to increase funding for education.

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

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

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