2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 2, 2015

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 8

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

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2015

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

C. James: We have a school group in the precinct today. It’s probably the closest school, I think, to the Legislature. South Park Family School is visiting — 22 grade 4 and 5 students, five adults and their teacher, Anne Nilsen. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

BUILDING OPPORTUNITY
FOR THE NEXT GENERATION

K. Corrigan: Education is the cornerstone of opportunity in a democracy, and there’s no better way for a society to build opportunity for the next generation than to support public education from kindergarten to college.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

A strong public education system must provide ladders of opportunity. That means starting with the very youngest. We have an obligation as a society to ensure early intervention that can help kids as they start school, and even before.

We need to provide ladders of support through the K-to-12 system — ladders that maximize the chances of success for those children. That’s difficult, as school boards year after year are being forced to cut programs and supports for students as funding has not kept up with cost increases, including increases that families as well as school boards are facing — increases like increased costs of hydro and medical premiums.

[1005]

It concerns me that we are seeing significant increases in the funding for private schools while, at the same time, our public schools are facing significant cuts. Most recently school boards have been told that they need to save $30 million over two years in what are called administrative cuts, when I know from my many years on school board in Burnaby that there is no fat to cut.

In addition to supporting our K-to-12 system, it is absolutely essential that we have a vibrant, successful, competitive and accessible post-secondary system. Unfortunately, the provincial budget for post-secondary education has actually decreased — a cumulative reduction of $50 million in just two years. Over the past several years a decreasing portion of the cost of university has been paid for by government, and an increasing portion is being borne by tuition, which means students — and their families, often — are paying an increasing portion of the cost of university.

In fact, post-secondary tuition, along with hydro, is one of the fastest-growing sources of revenue for the provincial government. By forcing cuts to the K-to-12 system, by cutting the funding for advanced education — with those cumulative reductions — it would seem to demonstrate a lack of regard for the importance of public education.

In addition to the cuts to universities, colleges and technical institutes, tuition fees have doubled since 2001. Student loan interest rates are the highest in Canada. For many students, the debt is crushing. An extensive survey of students by the B.C. government found that more than half end up with debt when they finish college or university, and BMO concludes that student loan and other debt in B.C. averages $35,000 for students. That’s the highest in the country.

At the same time as costs are increasing, students are getting less. As budgets are squeezed, courses are closed. This is particularly challenging at some smaller colleges, which means less access for those students. In the past students have been able to attend their local college and get the first couple of years towards a university degree at home, saving significant money. It is getting more difficult to do that as course selections decrease.

In addition, unfortunately, the funding for adult basic education…. It has recently been announced that it will no longer be free. It has been free since 2007 so that adults could finish high school or upgrade their high school courses, and unfortunately, they are now having to pay for those courses. What colleges, particularly colleges and some universities that offer those courses, are saying is that that is going to mean less access and that the subscription rate — the number of students going and taking adult basic education — is going to go down.

That’s another ladder of opportunity that is going to be lost. We know that the vast majority of adults that take adult basic education courses to finish their high school or to upgrade end up going on to college and universities. They become more productive, and they have more fulfilling lives as well.

I want to talk for just a second about ELL, or ESL — English language training. We welcome thousands of immigrants from all over the world to British Columbia every year. We are now to the point that we’re reliant on them to bring their education, their training and their experience because we need them to fulfil the many, many jobs that we’re hoping to have in the future. They want jobs, and they have hopes and dreams for a new and better life in British Columbia.
[ Page 6194 ]

Many come with degrees already — and a high degree of education. We’re very lucky to have the best of the best coming to Canada. But they often have one major barrier, and that is the inability to speak the English language. For decades our colleges and universities, places like Vancouver Community College, have been welcoming those immigrants and providing them English language training, and it has been free until very recently.

Unfortunately, that funding is also being lost. What we’re finding is, in fact, that courses are being shut down.

[1010]

In summary, we have cuts to adult basic education. We have cuts to English language learning. It is becoming more expensive for students to go to school. The number of course offerings in many rural communities is going down. We are cutting those ladders and pathways, making it less affordable for students to go to school, leaving them with more debt, making it more difficult for the average family to support their child or for that child to make it through university.

As the costs of colleges and universities go up, the options for students go down. As much as I am supportive and want to build opportunity for the next generation, I’m afraid that what we’re doing is we’re limiting the opportunity for the next generation.

G. Kyllo: On behalf of my constituents of Shuswap, I’m proud and pleased to respond.

Before I begin, I’d like to thank the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for moving the following private member’s statement, entitled “Building Opportunity for the Next Generation.” I know that the hon. member for Burnaby–Deer Lake spent a great deal of time as a school board trustee and chair and, therefore, must appreciate the value of education and skills training and the need to prepare British Columbians for the jobs of tomorrow.

In fact, I’m pretty confident that all the members of this House understand the importance of education. We all want to give our young people the best possible start in life. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, I appreciate this opportunity to highlight how the government intends to prepare the next generation for future job opportunities.

By 2022 more than 78 percent of job openings will require some form of post-secondary education. We also expect that 44 percent of those jobs will be in the trades and technical occupations, so it only makes sense to align our post-secondary education system with economic demand.

We want to produce graduates that possess the skills and knowledge required to get that all-important first job and build a meaningful career. Our plan is called B.C.’s Skills for Jobs Blueprint: Re-engineering Education and Training. The skills-for-jobs blueprint is re-engineering our education and apprenticeship system, breaking down barriers between trades training and education so that students have a full range of training options.

Our plan is to focus on the student and is based on three main priorities. One, post-secondary education must be high quality. Two, it needs to be accessible. Three, and perhaps most importantly, it needs to be affordable.

First of all, a high-quality education requires public investment. That’s why we’ve budgeted $40 million to support the skills-for-jobs blueprint, and we’ll continue funding programs that support high-demand occupations by up to $460 million a year by 2018.

Secondly, accessibility. Youth can get a head start on a career while still in high school with one of the trade apprenticeship paths for youth. The Industry Training Authority, the ITA…. Their youth programs allow youths to start apprenticeship training and earn high school credits at the same time.

An apprenticeship is a combination of on-the-job training and classroom learning, providing the opportunity for youths to start in the workforce and get a paycheque while they learn a trade. We’re proud of the results. In 2004 there were just 861 participants in the ITA youth programs. Today there are now 4,247 enrolled. That’s quite an accomplishment.

We also want our First Nations to gain access. That’s why we’ve established the $19 million aboriginal community-based delivery partnership program. By directly partnering aboriginal communities with post-secondary institutions, more than 3,000 credentials were awarded to aboriginal students in 2013. That’s a 17 percent increase since 2010.

Finally, affordability. The government provides a mix of grants and loans to encourage students to access post-secondary education, regardless of their personal financial circumstances. We’ve also launched some unique innovations too. Most students lament the high costs of textbooks, so B.C. is the first province to launch the open textbook project. Currently there are 79 open textbooks available on line, with an additional 20 open textbooks in skills and technology expected by September 2015.

Hon. Speaker, I regret only having five minutes to list just a few of our accomplishments, but I can assure you that our government is committed to providing the leadership and the direction needed for a world-class post-secondary education and training system in British Columbia. Moreover, only with a strong, diverse and growing economy will we be able to achieve true success, which is the ability for all British Columbians to secure a family-supporting career in our province.

[1015]

K. Corrigan: I was pleased to hear the remarks of the member for Shuswap opposite.

I heard about some initiatives, some of which are good, but unfortunately, over the last 14 years the apprenticeship system, which was a large part of the focus of the remarks of the member opposite, has been dismantled.
[ Page 6195 ]
We’ve ended up in a terrible hole. In the apprenticeship system that has existed over the last several years — the reconstructed or, perhaps some people would say, the deconstructed system — we have completion rates of about a third. Only about a third of apprentices are going through the system.

In addition, those that are going through apprenticeships can’t get jobs. The jobs that you need in order to complete your apprenticeship, to get your hours, don’t exist. The provincial government, unfortunately, has not taken steps to do something about that. While a focus on apprenticeship with the blueprint for education sounds like a worthwhile idea, we are going to be playing catch-up over the next several years.

I’m concerned about the focus of it as well. This has come out of the government’s obsession with LNG for a couple of years, resulting in promises that we would then basically retool our advanced education system, which has created a great deal of upheaval. As Paul Reniers said — I’m loosely going to quote him: “You can’t pick up the post-secondary education system like a tent, fold it up and move it somewhere else.”

I have concerns about the blueprint for education. I think it’s great to align jobs with the education system, to some degree, but we also need the dreamers. We need to have the thinkers and the critical thinkers. We can’t lose sight of the fact that the student who takes an English degree or a philosophy degree is a critical thinker. In fact, employers are saying that what they want are the leaders and the critical thinkers as much as they want the people who understand how to use the tools.

To wrap up, unfortunately, we have cut $50 million over two years from the education system. Our universities and colleges are closing down courses. ELL, English language learning, and adult basic education are being cut, meaning that the people who wanted to have ladders of opportunity into their careers or into further post-secondary education…. Those routes of opportunity are also being cut, which makes me wonder about whether or not this government truly does have a commitment to the future of post-secondary education in this province.

Remember, post-secondary education is the way that we can best grow the province.

WELCOMING VISITORS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

J. Sturdy: It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about an industry that is an important economic driver in the province, especially in my riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

B.C.’s tourism industry is one of eight key sectors identified in the B.C. jobs plan. Tourism employs more than 132,000 British Columbians, almost one in every 15 jobs in the province. It generates an estimated $13.9 billion in revenue each year, produces more than $7 billion in added value to our economy and contributes nearly $1 billion in provincial tax revenue, including income, hotel, gas and other taxes.

Tourism is a growing sector year on year not just in British Columbia but around the world. Tourists now spend about $1 trillion annually on global travel, which accounts for 9 percent of the world’s GDP. Here in British Columbia the number of international visitors is up by 12 percent since December 2013. That’s more than a quarter of a million more people visiting B.C. from outside the country.

This amazing growth had a positive effect on more than 19,000 businesses throughout the province that rely both directly and indirectly on the tourism industry. Transportation and accommodation and food service account for nearly two-thirds of the province’s tourism revenue. Each of these sectors has grown by more than 44 percent in the last decade.

[1020]

These positive gains were supported by the success of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, as well as the completion of negotiations for approved-destination status with China. As an approved destination, Canada and British Columbia can now be promoted in China as a travel and vacation destination. The status allows for the organization of group travel, allowing designated travel agencies to book group tours for Chinese visitors. In fact, since 2013, overnight visits from China have increased by more than 22 percent.

China is an important part of our overall tourism strategy. Through Destination B.C., our industry-led Crown corp which fuels interest in B.C. around the world, we are promoting the province as a vacation destination to the Chinese market. This market represents enormous opportunities for many of our industries. The explosive growth of China’s middle class, coupled with the fantastic progress of its economy, means China is a now a powerful consumer.

With a significant bump in purchasing power, an increased desire to travel and our approved-destination status, B.C. is now on the radar of many Chinese travellers who want to see the world. Destination B.C. shares an office in China with the Chinese trade commissioner and promotes travel to British Columbia through a combination of social media, media relations, print and broadcast coverage, and marketing directly to consumers.

We’re not focusing on China alone. Destination B.C. has been mandated to market British Columbia as a tourist destination locally, nationally and internationally and has market representation in the U.K., Germany, Japan and Australia. Destination B.C. is also a leader in the ski market and in enhancing awareness of our province’s ski product, which is an integral part of the tourism industry in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky.

Whistler is consistently ranked North America’s top year-round resort destination and attracts visitors, outdoor enthusiasts and adventure seekers from around
[ Page 6196 ]
the world. Whistler is a vital part of the province’s tourism industry. It welcomes more than 2.7 million visitors each year, contributes $1.2 billion to the provincial GDP annually and is responsible for more than 22 percent of all provincial export tourism revenues generated in the province — which are new moneys to the province.

Whistler is known as a world-class ski destination and increasingly for its year-round recreational experiences. One of those experiences: Whistler-Blackcomb peak-to-peak gondola, the longest and highest continuous lift system in the world, which unites the two mountains and provides an unmatched experience for visitors. One can start at the bottom of one mountain and travel up and over and down to end up at the base of another mountain — a great experience at any time of the year.

While winter remains the key tourist season, generating more total hotel nights than summer, summer visits have caught up in total visitor numbers, and certainly, why not? From one who lives there, summer has at least as much, if not more, to offer.

Squamish is also known as an outdoor recreation capital of Canada and offers visitors easy access to world-class hiking, mountain biking and rock climbing. Not only was Squamish named the No. 1 North American mountain town to visit in the summer by cnnmoney.com, it also came in No. 32 on the New York Times list of 52 places to go in 2015.

Of course, my hometown of Pemberton is the home of the Rutherford park, the first and only purpose-build artificial whitewater kayaking course in the nation. It’s the reason B.C. was chosen to host last year’s national team trials and, like other facilities across the Sea to Sky corridor, makes us a hub for athletic development and a destination for provincial, national and international competitions. These competitions add much to the local tourism industry — from hotel stays to retail to food activity.

These are just some of the activities our region has to offer visitors and it speaks to the significance of our contribution to the provincial tourism industry. This industry pays $4.5 billion in wages and salaries each year. Not only is it vital to the growth of our economy but also the reason thousands of British Columbians have a steady paycheque. Its importance can’t be overstated, and I’m certainly excited about the opportunities for the upcoming summer season in the Sea to Sky and in British Columbia.

[1025]

D. Eby: I have limited time to respond to the member’s claims that he’s responsible — his government’s responsible — for the establishment of the Chinese middle class that’s travelling to B.C. and for the upturn in the American economy leading to more visitors.

All I have time for is one just one story to illustrate this government’s so-called commitment to tourism. It’s a story about an agency called Tourism Vancouver, which is a small industry group that gets a portion of the hotel tax in Vancouver. It’s their job to promote tourism in the city of Vancouver. Now, they voluntarily entered into this tax — the hotel owners — and the government told them: “Well, this is going to go to fund tourism in the city of Vancouver.” In recent years it’s brought in as much as $10 million. It was a win-win arrangement.

When this government built their new convention centre in downtown Vancouver, they went over budget — like way, way, way over budget. They spent almost $1 billion. When they asked Tourism Vancouver to kick in, they said: “Will you kick in $100 million and help us pay for this?” It seemed like a reasonable deal for Tourism Vancouver. It got a new convention centre. It’s going to get more hotel rooms for them, and so they agreed to it.

I’m sure we could raise good questions about the scope of the generosity of a small tourism agency giving $100 million to this government, but, in any event, what they apparently didn’t know was that this government had other plans for the hotel tax — other than funding tourism in the city of Vancouver. That plan was to claw back all of that hotel room tax into general revenue.

Let me tell you how they did it. They didn’t want half of the hotel room tax over 20 years. They wanted all of the hotel room tax. They charged Tourism Vancouver an escalating interest rate. They started at 2.45 percent, and then they more than doubled it. Then they doubled it again, and then they doubled it again, and then they doubled it again. Now Tourism Vancouver is paying 37.5 percent interest on that $100 million debt.

Many of the people here will know about credit card debt. The most expensive credit cards in Canada don’t go beyond 30 percent. This government is charging 37½ percent to a tourism agency in downtown Vancouver. They paid $7 million down on that debt over the last four years. Guess what the debt’s at now. It’s at $109 million. That’s right. It’s gone up, not down, even though they’ve invested $7 million of hotel room tax in that debt.

We’ve gone from a fair offer for Tourism Vancouver to one which is highway robbery, with this government loading bags of hotel room tax revenue into the back of a car, leaving them with no money for tourism in Vancouver. Let me tell you, if they handed over every cent of the $10 million they get in hotel room tax in Vancouver to this government, their debt would still go up.

Debt is abstract. What does $100 million mean? Who knows. Let me tell you about the impact of this government’s decisions on tourism in Vancouver. Here’s a headline from the Globe and Mail, October 10, 2014: “Vancouver’s New Year’s Eve festivities cancelled due to lack of funding.” The article, by Ian Bailey, continues: “Plans for a family-friendly New Year’s Eve celebration in Vancouver this year have fallen through because organizers were unable to raise enough money.”
[ Page 6197 ]

How much were they looking for? For $100,000. They were $100,000 short of their $300,000 budget, but Tourism Vancouver couldn’t help them out because they’re too busy paying this government 39½ percent interest on a $100 million debt that is a paper debt, because this government pays 4 percent to borrow that money. They’re making money on Tourism Vancouver’s generosity.

It’s a sad situation. This member rises in this House and says they’re committed to tourism. He’s the member for Sea to Sky, which just lost $1 million in tourism funding from their regional tourism authority, clawed back by Destination B.C. They used it to what? Build a virtual reality simulation of B.C. that’s only accessible if you have the hardware and you’re lucky enough to attend a convention put on internationally. It has nothing to do with promoting tourism in his constituency.

He’s the secretary for Ferries, which cut the Discovery route ferry, which decimated tourism in the member for Cariboo’s riding. He stands in this House and talks about tourism. Well, I’ve got a thing to say to that member. I wish I had more than five minutes, because there’s lots to say about this government’s so-called commitment to tourism.

Riding the wave of the Chinese middle class, and the return of the American economy — this government has nothing to do with it.

J. Sturdy: It’s hard to know whether the member opposite actually supports a tourism economy in this province and the growth of this industry or not. It doesn’t appear so.

[1030]

It’s just a negative story, according to the member opposite. But in many ways the growth of this industry in this province is tremendous. Certainly, West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is a microcosm of that.

The recreation opportunities are almost limitless, from whale-watching in Horseshoe Bay to the explorations of the Britannia Mine Museum or the railway heritage park, the Sea To Sky Gondola — that great mountain experience — or Brackendale eagle-watching. This is all an opportunity, and people are visiting. People are coming, and they’re coming in increasing numbers, despite what the members opposite have to say.

Accessing the 16 or so provincial parks in the riding is an opportunity to glimpse a tremendous variety of ecosystems in British Columbia, from oceanfront camping at Porteau Cove to the alpine or lakeside camping at Lake Lovely Water in the Tantalus Range. Brandywine, Cheakamus, Nairn Falls, Birkenhead or the magnificence of Garibaldi Park — the provincial park system in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky is nothing short of spectacular.

More sedately but, of course, no less challenging are the golfing opportunities in the Sea to Sky. That driving passion can be had from Bowen Island to Big Sky. There’s a course for every experience in almost every community, unique and special in its own way.

Of course, ocean activities in Howe Sound abound. You know, the name Squamish derives from the First Nation name meaning “mother of wind,” so it’s not unexpected that wind sports, from kiteboarding to sailing, would be a natural in the inlet. BASE jumping, although I don’t necessarily understand it, certainly has a place in the sound, and people travel the world — literally travel the world — to glide and soar in the incredible thermals in the Pemberton Valley.

I, of course, would be remiss not to mention the food culture in the Sea to Sky, which is growing rapidly. It’s an increasing destination for this kind of activity. Farmers markets are thriving throughout the Sea to Sky.

Cornucopia, which is the west coast premiere mountain epicurean extravaganza held in Whistler each year, has increasing numbers each year. And of course, the Slow Food Cycle Sunday in Pemberton in August is the best of the best. Bring your cruiser bike and meander your way up the Pemberton Meadows for that one day of the year when the farms and the meadows are open and partnered with a restaurant to create an true field-to-fork experience.

Truly, it does not get better than this. But when you think about other things — the Pemberton Festival, Live at Squamish, VSO in the mountains, ski and snowboard festival, Tough Mudder, GranFondo, Ironman, Test of Metal — you go on and on. The Sea to Sky, as in the province, has a wealth of tourism opportunities. This summer, despite the fact that….

Deputy Speaker: Member, thank you very much. Take a seat.

GROWING GOOD-PAYING JOBS

H. Bains: Here’s my opportunity to speak up on the vast potential of British Columbia due to its geographical location and abundance of our natural resources. But as we speak, before our eyes I think all those opportunities to create good-paying jobs using our natural resources are being squandered away. That’s what I want to talk about.

What can we do to create those jobs and maintain and enhance the jobs that we have on hand? First, we need to look at the forest industry. In the silviculture area especially, we know that there are three million hectares of NSR, not sufficiently restocked — the area in British Columbia.

That’s only if you exclude the mountain pine beetle area. If you include mountain pine beetle area, there are no trees right now, and I think you can look at probably eight to nine million hectares. Can you imagine the number of jobs, good family-supporting jobs, that could be created? Why are we not doing it? It’s because of the
[ Page 6198 ]
lack of funding and lack of resources that we are not investing in this area.

Let me give you some numbers. In 1991 we were spending about $175 million on silviculture, in reforestation. At that time we had something like 180 — 18 million hectares of NSR at that time. But that was brought down because of the heavy investment, down to….

[1035]

In 2001 the NSR area became almost minimal. Then the government started cutting into reforestation — from a $175-million investment in 1991 down to about $3 million. That’s $3 million in 2001. Can you imagine that? This is our future. These are our jobs for future generations — $3 million.

Now, we revved it up a bit in the last few years. We are up to about $42 million. That’s still half of what we were investing in 1991. The Forest Practices Board called for about $180 million that is needed in order to restock and replant all those areas that are NSR.

These are not only creating jobs today. There could be thousands of jobs — good, family-supporting jobs — that can be created in silviculture today. But look at the future, the future of having restocked that area and having all the additional extra fibre available. How many jobs are we looking at for our children and their children? Here is a missed opportunity, and here is where the investment is needed.

Not only that. You look at the inventory right now. We were investing something like $33 million in the inventory area back in about 1996. Today it’s less than $7 million.

If we don’t know what exists out there, how are we calculating our AACs. If you don’t have proper AACs, that is a recipe for disaster, because we don’t know what we are cutting. We don’t know what exists out there. That not only jeopardizes our mills today but also the future generations who will be depending on our jobs in the forest industry.

Then you take a look at the value-added industry. The value-added industry will tell you that in 2002 they had 107 producing members. In 2014 they have only 55 left. So $2.5 billion annual sales in 2002, and now it’s down to $1 billion — down by 60 percent. The 4 billion annual board feet that they were producing in 2002 now is about 1.7. That’s down 58 percent.

They had 4,000-plus employees back in 2002. Today, they have under 2,400. These are real jobs, family-supporting jobs. There is a huge potential right there to create jobs in the value-added industry. All we are doing is shipping raw logs. That is another huge missed opportunity for our mills, our manufacturers here in British Columbia.

We have operators right here in British Columbia, in the Lower Mainland and elsewhere. They are crying for the raw logs. They are saying to this government, to all of us: “Look, we need those logs here, because without those logs, we are not running at full capacity.”

What does that mean? Loss of jobs. If we allow those logs to be made available to those manufacturers here — guess what — how many more jobs can be created in that industry?

Then you take a look in the green economy. The residential and business retrofitting — can you imagine how many skilled labour jobs existed there? Not only are we conserving energy, but we are also creating good-paying jobs.

Skills and training is another area. Every government official, every government report will tell you that 80 percent of those future jobs will require some sort of post-secondary education degree or diploma. What are we doing? We are squandering that opportunity as well. Not only that, we’re not training, giving opportunity to our youngsters who are coming out of high school and universities who would be a part of the skills pool that we need in the future to compete in the world market.

We’re not inviting investment in British Columbia. Many investments are not coming here because they know that they will not be able to depend on skills labour.

Opportunities are enormous in British Columbia. Potential is great to grow our economy and to have good-paying jobs, but the government is not doing the job in order to bring those jobs here and enhance the jobs that we have here today.

I think we have a duty. We have a responsibility to create good-paying jobs not only for today’s generation but the generation that is coming behind us.

[1040]

We also need to compete in the new economy in the world. The only way to do that is by having our labour force fully trained and with the skills so that they can compete with the rest of the world. That’s the only way we are going to invite investment into British Columbia.

E. Foster: I’m pleased to rise today to respond to the member.

I did a little quick calculation. In 1971 I had an old bull bucker teach me how to file a saw. Up until I had the honour to be elected to come to this place, I made my living in the bush. I went back to school and became a registered forestry technician. So the things that the member speaks of, I have firsthand working knowledge on.

He talks about the export of logs. Logs are exported out of B.C. when there is no domestic bidder. British Columbia is the only province that has the surplus test. I know that the member will go on about the number of logs that are exported. They talk about the different quality of logs and so on. The logs that are exported are generally the high-end logs. Pulp mills don’t buy them because they can’t afford them. They can’t afford to pay $120 a metre for wood to chew it up and pump it into a pulp mill when they’re only paying $35 and $40 off the truck for the local wood.
[ Page 6199 ]

Log exports make up less than 10 percent of the logs that are harvested in the province of British Columbia every year and about 31 percent of the logs that are harvested on the coast.

As much as the opposition continues to bring it up over and over again, if it weren’t for the fact that some of those logs were being shipped over the side or offshore, there would be a whole lot of loggers sitting at home not working. In order to take the less valuable wood out of the bush, they have to be able to sell the high-end logs. Without those sales of the high-end logs to offset the costs of bringing the cheaper wood out, some of the pulp mills would be shut down as well. If you want to make sure you protect jobs, especially up on the coast, you’d better make sure that you talk to the loggers, because I don’t think they want to stay home either.

As far as silviculture goes, I planted a lot of trees. It helped put me through school in my younger years. In 2014 we planted 244 million trees in British Columbia. We are hoping to plant another 240 million — they’re being grown right now — in 2015. There’ve been 7.5 billion trees planted in this province since we began in the ’30s. B.C. plants over 20 different species.

It’s a science, and British Columbia leads a lot of areas in the world. They’re far ahead of many countries and certainly provinces in the science that’s involved in planting trees. Earlier on in my career, if you wanted Douglas fir trees, you planted Douglas fir trees. The fact that they didn’t grow there didn’t mean a lot. Now today, with the science behind it and all the work that’s been done, trees are planted based on their elevation and their aspect and, certainly, what the market is looking for.

We’ve changed the market, the economic facts here. British Columbia has led the world. We now ship a tremendous amount of our forest product — our boards, our plywood, our finished materials — to China. In the last 15 years the numbers have gone up exponentially. We’re now targeting India for the same products. We’re not tied to the United States anymore. That’s made a huge difference. Without the work that has been done by the ministry people here in British Columbia and the government over the last 15 years, we would have had a pile of our mills shut down. They operate and ship to China.

[1045]

A good friend of mine who was the CEO at one of the major mills two years ago said they had six mills running two shifts a day in the province, and 100 percent of that product was going to China. Without those opportunities, those mills would have been shut, and all those people that worked in those mills with those good-paying jobs — the loggers that were supplying, the truck drivers that were supplying — would all have been out of work. That is strictly because of the work that this government has done to promote their products around the world.

As far as the training and education goes, I worked in education for a short time and….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

H. Bains: It is very, very disappointing. I think British Columbians are looking for leadership from us and from our government. You cannot cure something if you don’t admit there is a problem, and that’s the problem that we see with this government. They continue to ignore. They think nothing is wrong out there.

Of all members, the member that responded should know better, because he was part of that tour, the bi-party Timber Supply Committee that was put together. We heard time and again from the professionals, from the community leaders, from the industry that there was a serious problem in inventory — inventory that is over 30 years obsolete that they are working under. This member should know better. They heard loud and clear how many hectares are NSR out there. We heard loud and clear the need to reinvest in silviculture.

The government — what do they do? They cut rather than invest in that area. Let me tell this government and this member that in 2002 our major industry players here had about six sawmills south of the border. Today over 30 sawmills are purchased by the same industry. Why? Because they don’t see opportunity. They don’t see leadership from this government. They are hurting. That’s why they’re fleeing British Columbia to go south of the border.

Of course, there are some other reasons, but because of lack of leadership, lack of vision from this government, a lack of investment in the forest industry is one of the major reasons that they don’t see a future in the forest industry here. We do. British Columbians do. That’s why we need to invest in forest health, in forest inventory and forest replantation. We don’t see that.

The members talk about log export — only 10 percent in the province. The member should know that over 30 percent — over 30 percent — of the logs harvested on the coast are exported. In the meantime, on the coast we have operators who are crying for those logs.

The member said, the word he used…. He said that they are exported because there are no domestic bidders. This member should know that over 110 times the timber export advisory committee advised the minister that those applications do not meet the surplus test. Over 110 times the minister overruled his own committee.

That’s why those logs were allowed to be exported, and the member stands up here to say that there are no bidders? So 110 times there were bidders out there, and 110 times this minister overruled. That’s not the way to grow an economy. That’s not the way to grow jobs.

PROVIDING CHILD CARE SUPPORTS
FOR WORKING FAMILIES

M. Hunt: The early years of a child’s life are the most important years in their development. Certainly, we see that even with the newest-born child and the bonding
[ Page 6200 ]
process to both their parents and their grandparents. Of course, I’m highly prejudiced on the grandparent side of that. We believe in making life easier for B.C. families and supporting our children in order to reach their full potential.

Obviously, families have choices. Some families choose to have a stay-at-home parent and, therefore, have a single income as their source of supply, whereas others will have two parents working. Even with those families where two parents are working, there is certainly the choice of child care, often with extended family and friends, and also with licensed daycare facilities. Even with the licensed daycare facilities, there are more choices in the programs, in the facilities that they offer and all the different opportunities that are contained within the variety of these facilities.

Our government understands the challenges that face parents as they struggle with the balance of raising their family as well as pursuing their work and their training opportunities. Access to quality child care is an important part of, in fact, finding that balance.

[1050]

That’s why the Ministry of Children and Family Development is investing $323 million in 2015-16 for child care subsidies. The ministry invests in child care subsidies, including special needs supports for low- and moderate-income families. They’re helping families to the tune of 43,000 children annually.

While the fees of the individual child care facilities are set by their operators depending on their programs and their facilities, the ministry provides partial operating funds to these facilities in order to lower the costs to parents. The ministry’s child care operating funds support approximately 5,000 licensed child care facilities and close to 107,000 child care spaces across the province.

In Surrey, specifically, what that…. In September of this past year a new 18,000-square-foot BrightPath child care facility opened in Clayton Heights. This offers parents year-round care for their infants, for their toddlers, as well as out-of-school care. That includes summer vacation time as well as their spring breaks. It’s one of the largest and latest facilities of this particular organization, and it’s a private company that is doing it. It’s not affiliated with government programs.

I toured this facility, and I was absolutely amazed at the facility. They had done their homework. They had looked through numerous demographic studies to analyze exactly where the best possibilities were for them. Certainly, that was to be found in Clayton Heights, where you have a large group of young families with young children because of the unaffordability of that housing in Surrey. Even though there are smaller lots, they’re very expensive, and so they often have two parents both working. They found this is the place where there was the greatest need for child care from the infant to age four category.

The facilities are absolutely amazing. This is a two-storey facility where they have not only separated classrooms, but they’ve got separated outdoor play areas. The children are together, building relationships and bonding with each other throughout the day, both in the classroom as well as outside. They have washroom facilities; kitchen facilities in each one of the rooms for their lunches, for their snacks; a sleeping area for their naps. You name it. It seems to me this facility had it. It was absolutely amazing.

In 2013-14 the Ministry of Children and Family Development has provided $16 million to child care subsidies for families in Surrey, which is just over 6,000 children in Surrey. The ministry has provided around $6 million to child care operating funds that is, in fact, supporting 9,435 spaces in Surrey.

Not only on the operating side of things, we also have major capital care support that is coming from the ministry as well. Since 2001 the Ministry of Children and Family Development has invested over $42 million in major capital funding to help community partners create more than 7,500 licensed child care spaces in B.C. In 2013 we committed $76 million to support the first three years of the B.C. early-years strategy. Part of this commitment is creating 2,000 new licensed child care spaces in addition to other initiatives within this strategy.

Last year, 2014-15, there has been a creation of 1,006 new child care spaces. Currently the ministry has announced that they are now taking applications for the second phase of this — which is, again, building another 1,000 child care spaces throughout this province in the coming year. These new spaces are part of the early-years strategy. We’re trying to help improve the access, the affordability, as well as the quality, of early-years programs, including child care, with the goal of 13,000 new spaces.

Between now and March 20, the child care providers who were not successful last time or those who are wanting to apply as their first intake are eligible for $500,000 for a non-profit organization, and up to $250,000 for private care organizations.

[1055]

In this past week I had people coming to me wanting more information on this because of the need for child care spaces in Surrey and, also, for their desire to see how they can make this opportunity work for them.

We’re wanting to see these new facilities be close to recreational facilities and family resource centres but also the potential of them being on school grounds. Obviously, in a place like Surrey, where we have tremendous growth, it’s a challenge. But we have amended the School Act in order to ensure that boards of education are able to promote the use of their properties for child care purposes to support a seamless day of both school and child care for these….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
[ Page 6201 ]

M. Karagianis: I’m happy to rise and speak to the member’s comments earlier.

My first observation here is that I think the members on the other side of the House need to get in touch with reality for most British Columbians out there. The member started his conversation saying families have choices about going to work. The reality is those choices are very limited.

Let me state some facts to offset the glowing picture that the other member has just presented. In reality, in British Columbia right now only 18 percent of children under the age of 12 have access to child care spaces — 18 percent of children. So what does that say about the choices of the families — the 82 percent of families who have children who do not have access to affordable child care? What does that say about their choices?

Given that the child population is expected to increase by about 15,000 over the coming couple of years, to 2016, adding the couple of thousand spaces the member referred to here means that overall access will in fact be lower, not higher. So 15,000 more children coming into the system and a couple of thousand spaces to address it.

The reality is parent fees in British Columbia currently range from an average of $9,000 a year for preschoolers to $13,000 a year for young children. The fees continue to increase by 6 percent annually on average. What kinds of choices does that leave for families? Very few. Lots of families would like to participate and have two members in the workforce, but they cannot afford to go to work and pay child care at the same time. So their choices are limited.

I’d have to say, clearly, the B.C. government is not addressing the serious crisis in child care, and families across British Columbia know this. The percentage of zero-to-12 spaces for regulated child care here in comparison to across Canada is considerably lower. The average across Canada in 1995 was 8.4 spaces, and British Columbia sat at 9.6. Well, of course, we have not kept pace over the ensuing years and certainly over the last decade. So today we sit at the Canadian average of 20 spaces, and we’re at 17. Even in the national average across Canada, we are failing.

Spending per space is lower here in British Columbia than it is across the country. In 2008 the funding per regulated space in B.C., in actual dollars, was $2,438 compared to the Canadian average of $3,560. In 2010 the funding per regulated space was $2,341 — you can see that’s only a tiny little incremental increase from two years previously — compared to the Canada-wide average of $3,792.

In any measurable way, we are losing ground every single year here, and families and parents know this. Fees here in British Columbia are among the highest in the country. In 2012 median full-time monthly parent fees in B.C. were $1,047 for infants, $970 for toddlers and $761 for three- to five-year-olds. Now, I’m not sure if the member actually is in touch with what people are paying in their communities, but in 2012 the median full-time monthly parent fees across Canada were considerably lower. Elsewhere in every other province they are doing much better than us.

The last thing I’d like to say is that for parents trying to find child care in this province, it is a fragmented system — which seems to be the earmark of this government, to make it more and more difficult for people to actually find the various services and piece them together.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is responsible for child care subsidies, child care operating and capital funding, child care resource and referral programs, the early childhood educator registry, programs for children with special needs and the early childhood development program.

[1100]

However, the regional health authorities and the Minister of Health are responsible for child care licensing and for monitoring child care facilities and homes under the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. The Ministry of Education is responsible for all-day school kindergarten; StrongStart B.C.; Ready, Set, Learn; and for the early learning framework.

So if you were a parent trying to navigate your way through all of these piecemeal programs, you would not be blamed for having some difficulty.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

The government demonstrates over and over again that they are completely out of touch with the lives of real families in British Columbia, hard-working families who are trying to ensure that they can get out and earn a living and that women can return to the workforce. Yet it’s harder and harder to find affordable child care, licensed child care, in their communities. The crisis for child care providers around recruitment and retention continues to grow. The government is failing on all levels on this file.

M. Hunt: I have to admit I find it absolutely amazing that the member opposite says that I am not in touch with the real world and this government isn’t in touch with the real world. Maybe we have a slightly different way of looking at things, but I think when it comes to children, my wife and I had six, so I would say that that makes me well qualified to talk about it.

Our 14th grandchild is on the way, and somehow I think there’s no one else, or very few, in this House that is going to have more than 14 grandchildren of their own. So I would say that I’m somewhat qualified to talk about children and grandchildren, because we’ve raised them. I’m certainly proud of my children and grandchildren. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if we brought them into this House and you met them, you too would be very proud of who they are and what they are.
[ Page 6202 ]

It’s not that we’re out of touch with the real world. We’re, in fact, very much involved with it. But the choices are what parents have. We are here supporting them in their choices. The assumption made by the member opposite is that 100 percent of parents want their children in child care. That’s simply not reality — also that they all want a particular type and a particular form.

One of the wonderful things about a free enterprise system is there are choices for people — different quality of care, different facilities of care, different programs of care — and each one of them comes at different prices and different costs. For example, in Surrey, with this program that we are involved with, we have, in fact, had more than $694,000 of funded contracts going as part of developing 95 new spaces with this major capital program that we have.

We have Little Scholars Learning Academy, which has been granted $170,000 towards their project of $390,000 to provide 36 spaces in Cloverdale. Twelve of those spaces are for children under the age of 36 months, and 24 of those are for children aged three to five.

The Centre for Child Development, which we know is very involved in the special needs side of children and raising children, has been granted the full $500,000 as a part of their project of $712,000, which will see 37 multi-aged child care spaces being developed in Surrey, as well as the Kids Zone Child Care that is granted $15,000.

We see the difference in the number and the difference of volumes because of, again, different types of child care, different types of opportunities, parents being able to have the choice to be able to work with what they are choosing and what they want for their children.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 8 without disturbing the priorities of other motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 8 — AFFORDABILITY FOR FAMILIES

C. James: I’m very pleased to rise to speak to the motion:

[Be it resolved that the Government of B.C. has a responsibility to make life more affordable for B.C. families.]

Given the last discussion around child care, I think it’s even more fitting that we’re having this discussion around affordability for families. People might ask themselves what responsibility government has to make life affordable for families and why it’s important.

[1105]

I hear often the government across the way talk about the need for a strong economy, but I believe this government has forgotten that at the core of a strong economy are people. Our strongest asset in British Columbia — in fact, in every province and every country — is its people: hard-working British Columbians who every day are going to work to try and better life for themselves, often better their life for their children and their grandchildren, and who are working hard.

They don’t expect government to solve all of their challenges but certainly don’t expect their government to make their life tougher, with their own resources. Let’s remember, the money that government uses isn’t money from trees. It’s not money that belongs to the government or the B.C. Liberals. That’s the taxpayers’ money. That’s the money that belongs to the people of British Columbia who are working hard.

It’s interesting. If you take a look around the globe right now, you can see that democracies everywhere are recognizing that a strong and growing middle class means a strong and growing economy. If you don’t have that investment in people, you are not going to see strong economic growth. You’re going to see fast-growing inequality and a stagnant economy — which is, in fact, exactly what we’re seeing in British Columbia.

I find it interesting, if you look at quotes from various economists or people who are working around the world in this area. People across the way will certainly recognize Mark Carney’s name — currently the Bank of England governor — who said: “Prosperity requires not just investment in economic capital but investment in social capital.”

What we’ve seen with this government, in fact, is just the opposite. We have not seen an investment in people. We have not seen a government that has looked at how it can make life more affordable for B.C. families. In fact, we’ve seen just the opposite.

We’ve seen fees and services and premiums all going up. I know the speakers that follow me, on this side at least, will be talking a little bit more about the specifics of that. We’ve seen pressures on families and those pressures increasing. It’s getting tougher and tougher for people to get ahead.

So yes, families are paying more. That’s the direction we’ve seen with this government. But they’re also getting less. I think that’s what’s so frustrating — that families that are trying to get ahead, that are looking for that opportunity…. I’ll use the example of education, where they’re looking to upgrade their education so that they can get a better job, a better opportunity in life. They’re now having to pay for that, because the government has taken away the opportunity for people to do that upgrading at no cost.

If we look at the economic indicators: seventh place across Canada, here in British Columbia, for the percentage of people who are unemployed; the worst income growth in Canada. Our income actually declined in British Columbia.
[ Page 6203 ]

It goes back to the importance of making sure that you have a strong, growing middle class, that you support affordability for families. Otherwise, you get what we see in B.C.: a huge income gap, median income dropping, the only province where you’ve actually seen income drop. It’s not just that we’re not seeing median income grow. We’ve actually seen median income drop.

Well, that’s not good for the families. That’s not good for people who are working hard. It’s certainly not good for the economy in British Columbia.

So more fees, more costs, more premiums. Yet there was a choice made in this budget, and that was a choice to give the highest income earners in British Columbia — the top 2 percent — a tax break.

It’s not as though this government didn’t make a choice. They did make a choice. They made a choice to say to those hard-working British Columbians: “You don’t matter. You don’t count. You’re going to have to pay more. But by the way, the top 2 percent in British Columbia — we’re going to find some money for you.” Times are tight, tighten your belt but not the top 2 percent income earners. They don’t have to look at tightening their belt. They’re actually getting a tax break from this government.

When government talks about choices, certainly from my perspective, they are making the wrong choices. They are not investing, as this motion says, in affordability to make life more affordable for families, for hard-working British Columbians.

D. Ashton: On behalf of the constituents of Penticton through Peachland, I’m pleased to address the following opposition motion, entitled: “Be it resolved that the Government of B.C. has a responsibility to make life more affordable for B.C. families.”

[1110]

In light of the recent launch of the 2015 budget, which talks all about making life more affordable for families, we have quite a lot to tell this morning. Before I start, hon. Speaker, I just want to provide you with an outline of this morning’s debate.

I will begin with how a low income tax regime makes life affordable for British Columbians. Following that, my colleague from Vancouver–False Creek will focus on helping people in need. Naturally, we want to talk about parents and families, so the hon. member for Comox Valley will tell us about supporting parents in British Columbia.

Then the hon. member for Abbotsford South wants to talk about affordable housing and how that will benefit a great number of families in British Columbia. To wrap up the discussion, the member for Chilliwack will conclude the debate. I know all the members of this House will be looking forward to that.

Since 2001 the provincial government has consistently lowered the personal income taxes for a number of reasons. The primary reason is we want to keep life affordable for families in B.C. Low tax rates mean people have more money to spend or to save, but they have that choice.

It also makes British Columbia more competitive as a result. Investments always gravitate towards jurisdictions where companies and their employees enjoy a low tax regime, so this low tax regime is a huge competitive advantage for British Columbia.

There’s another effect of lowering taxes also. The more we do it, the more families at the lower end of the income scale get removed from the tax rolls altogether. As a matter of fact, as a result of the tax cuts combined from 2001, 400,000 low-income British Columbians paid no tax at all.

By balancing the budget for a third year in a row, we are able to deliver more tax relief for low-income British Columbians. Budget 2015 contains a provision that will allow an individual to earn up to $19,000 a year before paying any provincial income tax. This will benefit approximately half a million British Columbians.

We are also using the tax credits for British Columbians who are hoping to land their first job in the trades. To support them, we are extending the B.C. tax credit program through 2017. This program provides employers with the incentive to hire and train apprentices and give our young people the experience they need to succeed.

Eligible apprentices can qualify for up to $6,500 in tax credits over a four-year apprentice program. Employers, on the other hand, may qualify for up to $13,500 in tax credits as their apprentices progress. In addition, First Nation apprentices and those with personal challenges qualify for further enhancements through the training tax credit program. In effect, we are applying tax reduction in a deliberate manner with specific goals in mind.

Students in B.C. also benefit from tax reduction. I can remember, as many can in this House, we didn’t have very much money available when we were all students, and most of us had to work at some point. But full-time students can now claim a tax credit of up to $200 a month when filing their income taxes. This helps offset the cost of living, or it can be put towards their education. Part-time students also can claim up to $60 a month.

In conclusion, I can assure you that the government of British Columbia will continue keeping taxes low, especially as our financial situation improves. That is how we are going to continue to keep B.C. affordable for all families across this incredibly wonderful province.

A. Dix: The motion we’re debating this morning from the Finance critic of the NDP, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, states: “Be it resolved that the Government of B.C. has a responsibility to make life more affordable for B.C. families.”

If you look at the area in particular of B.C. Hydro, you see deliberate policy decisions taken by the government that have, in fact, harmed and made life deliberately less affordable for B.C. families, that have transferred risk and
[ Page 6204 ]
cost from the government, in some cases, and from big business onto B.C. families.

Just consider this, because we sometimes talk about these issues in the context of decades. In the period of the 1990s, when the NDP was in office, we saw an increase in B.C. Hydro rates of, in rough terms, about $25 a year for the average B.C. Hydro residential customer. That has shifted dramatically over time. Since this government has come to office, that increase has been about $524.

[1115]

In other words, what we’ve seen — this is all after-tax payment by residential customers of B.C. Hydro — is a shift of the burden onto those residential customers to pay for what? To pay for choices made by the government.

Let’s list off some of those choices: the creation of the B.C. Transmission Corporation — an abject failure that the government had to, in fact, itself eliminate after only five or six years in being. The tab picked was up by those residential customers.

Deliberate policies around self-sufficiency in energy — so-called self-sufficiency in energy — that forced B.C. Hydro to buy energy it didn’t need at prices above market value. Who paid for that? Average B.C. families. The benefits, in fact, all of the market risk, all of the price risk was absorbed by the government, which protected itself….

When they talk about balanced budgets, really what they’re talking about, in large measure, is this shift onto B.C. Hydro, the creation of deferral accounts and the shift of the burden onto residential customers and away from the government and away from the IPPs, onto residential customers.

This has, sadly, meant that if you’re an average customer of B.C. Hydro — and this is going to continue over time — you’ve seen your rate go up $524 a year, heading up to $800 in the next few years. And so for many people just that….

Don’t consider other increases by the government. The shift in the tax burden onto flat taxes onto the middle class and away from progressive taxes has been part of the government strategy. The people who have paid the principle price for this are people just above the threshold of premium assistance. In other words, people largely in the range from $30,000 to $70,000 a year in income, which in Vancouver — in my constituency — and in most parts of British Columbia, given housing prices, is not a lot of money to survive on.

What we’ve had are deliberate policies by a government that have undermined affordability for B.C. families with respect to B.C. Hydro. Decisions made about energy purchases…. We have seen many go directly from residential customers for power we didn’t need, losses of $250 million a year, paid for by B.C. families.

We’ve seen the elimination of the B.C. Utility Commission’s role — contrary to what the government campaigned on — which has meant overruns and improper assessments of projects paid for by B.C. families. We’ve seen the government itself raising rates, taking money that B.C. Hydro didn’t earn that’s going to be pushed onto residential customers in the future in order to pretend a balanced budget. The cost, again, borne by residential customers and B.C. families.

In short, it’s a policy designed to benefit the few at the expense of the middle class. A policy that I think most British Columbians reject. A policy contrary to that of previous governments, Social Credit and NDP alike. A policy that says that the benefits of B.C. Hydro, a corporation we all own, should be reaped by the few and not those who own the corporation.

In short, we need a new approach, one that respects the BCUC, respects residential customers and puts their economic interests, which reflect the economic interests of society, first and not second or third in the government’s view.

S. Sullivan: I was once asked a question that really surprised me. The question was: would you rather be the richest person in the world 100 years ago or an average person today? It’s something that I think everybody should think about. It was a very interesting question to think about what has happened to our economy and to the social programs that we enjoy and to the technology, the medical, all of the improvements that have happened over these years. An interesting question to ponder.

I would like to address this motion with some facts about what our government has been doing to make life more affordable for B.C. families.

[1120]

Now first of all, our government has shown a commitment to keeping life in British Columbia affordable by not spending more than we collect from taxpayers, by introducing our third consecutive balanced budget.

Through strong fiscal discipline, we are able to find room for modest investments that strengthen and encourage growth in key economic sectors, sustain core public services and make life a little easier for families and those in need. We have investments in areas like health care, education, social assistance and services that would not be possible without the healthy and diverse economy that B.C. has today.

B.C. families generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. With the changes made since 2001, an additional 400,000 low-income British Columbians now pay no provincial income tax whatsoever. Our government has enhanced the B.C. tax reduction credit, benefiting about 500,000 low-income taxpayers.

Our government has also reduced income taxes for most taxpayers by 37 percent since 2001, and today an additional 400,000 people are no longer paying B.C. income tax.

Examples include: individuals earning under $20,000 pay $693 less in provincial income tax than they did in
[ Page 6205 ]
2001; senior couples earning $40,000 a year pay $774 less in provincial income tax than they did in 2001; an individual earning $50,000 a year pays $1,334 less in provincial income tax than they did in 2001; and a family of four earning $70,000 a year pays $2,000 less in provincial income tax than they did in 2001. Individuals can earn up to $19,000 before paying any provincial income tax.

Some of the cuts that have been made since 2001. In the budget of 2001 there was a 25 percent tax cut. In 2005 we eliminated income tax for the lowest-income earners. Since 2005 the lowest-income earners have paid no provincial income tax. In Budget 2007 there was a 10 percent cut and then in 2008 a further 5 percent cut.

Regarding the Medical Services Plan, our government is committed to providing a health care system that meets the needs of all British Columbians. To keep health care at sustainable levels, we are increasing funding by 4 percent this year. Annual increases in health care spending have amounted to 5.5 percent, which has outpaced average increases to the MSP, which have been 2.4 percent a year.

Premium assistance rates for low-income British Columbians remain the same, with those who qualify continuing to pay lower rates than in 2009. Now, as of 2014, in June, more than 800,000 British Columbians pay no MSP premiums. That’s about 20 percent of the population. And 33 percent of B.C. seniors receive some level of premium assistance and will continue to as long as they remain eligible.

Regarding the MSP premiums, those with zero to $22,000 per year pay nothing, regardless of their living situation. If people make between $22,000 and $24,000, they pay $12.80 for an individual, $23.20 for a family of two, $25 for a family of three or more.

D. Eby: It was interesting to hear the member for Vancouver–False Creek speaking about the tax cuts of this government. The people that I talk to…. Ask them: “Do you feel like you’ve got more money today to spend, or do you feel like you had more money to spend for your family in 2001?” You’d think, if they listened to the member from False Creek’s speech, they’d tell you they had lots more money now. He said: “We’ve done all kinds of tax cuts. They’ve got so much money. Life is so much better and easier for them.” They say the complete opposite.

I want to just take a few seconds to explain why that is. It’s not unlike my message earlier to the member from Sea to Sky around the hotel room tax. Sounds great. You’re going to use it to pay for tourism. But guess what. It’s all going to general revenue, and you’re going to be poorer in the process.

[1125]

Hydro rate hikes — a 6 percent rate hike this year. It’s going to bring in $286 million for this government. And $93 million for this government through new MSP rate hikes, $206 million through new ICBC rate hikes, $61 million through new B.C. Ferry fare hikes, $62 million through new tuition hikes and $6 million through the change in the homeowner grant threshold. That’s just this budget. That is just one year of this government’s work.

Families across this province are also facing higher rents, and not just slightly higher rents — significantly higher rents. The B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association says that 23 percent of the people who rent in this province are paying more than half of their income for rent. And so you ask yourself: what was this government’s response? Was it a tax cut? No.

The Minister for Housing went into the media and said he’d like to get rid of rent control. What little rent control exists in this province, he’d like to get rid of it. That was this government’s response to make life easier for renters, the 23 percent of renters who are already paying more than half of their monthly income to rent.

When you hear things like that, it becomes rapidly apparent why the member from False Creek’s speech, although it sounds great, makes very little difference in the day-to-day lives of British Columbians.

Vancouver, where I live, is already one of the most expensive cities in the province, and yet this government wanted to increase rents in it, even on the low end. The Minister for Housing is selling a building called Nicholson Tower, in the West End, full of low-income seniors. They’re selling it to a non-profit housing society. Again, like the hotel tax used for tourism, it sounds great, except it’s currently 70 percent non-market housing — 70 percent of the units — and that’s going to drop to half of the units after the sale.

As people move out, people who are non-market renters, seniors who can’t afford to pay the full rent, will be replaced with somebody paying full rent. We’re losing non-market housing at the low end as well — all this on top of all of the rate increases that I started off by talking about.

What’s happening for students in my constituency, for families who are sending a student to school at UBC, in my constituency? UBC is increasing the rents for students in residence rooms by 20 percent. This province’s student loans cover the cost of rent, books, tuition and meal plan at UBC. Did it cover the full amount before this rent increase? No, it did not. Even if you get the full student loan, you cannot afford a full academic year at UBC. And now rents are up 20 percent.

We heard the Minister for Housing’s proposal: “Well, let’s just get rid of the limited rent control that we have in the province.” This is what happens when there’s no rent control: a 20 percent increase in rents for students at UBC because they are exempted from the residential tenancy branch rent control restrictions.

This is what happens. And yet the Housing Minister is out there saying: “Let’s have a look at this. This could be a great opportunity for the province.”

If you’ll just give me one second. I’ve just lost my place, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 6206 ]

Deputy Speaker: You have 34 seconds left.

D. Eby: Well, then, I’ve found my place. I’m at the end of my speech. Thank you for the heads-up. Those are my remarks.

D. McRae: I’m pleased today to stand in the chamber and respond to the motion: “Be it resolved that the B.C. government has a responsibility to make life more affordable for B.C. families.”

I’ll be honest here. I was a little worried about this topic when I heard it first. I thought that maybe the members opposite wouldn’t have time to talk about all the programs they wanted to in their opportunities, in their five-minute speeches. So at the risk of maybe stealing some of the material from their speeches about some of the great programs that British Columbia has and offers its families, I thought I’d fill them in, and then, if I do apologize in advance that I’ve actually touched on some of the topics they want to talk about, we can talk about that later.

Now, I’m sure the members opposite are very aware of the B.C. early childhood tax benefit that we talked about in the budget. It will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 children who are under the age of six coming up this year. This is putting money in the pockets of families with children who need it the most.

As well, it’s also really important, as we talk in this chamber…. I know that many people are infatuated by the advertising for RRSPs, but another financial vehicle is coming forward in the near future: the B.C. training and education savings grant.

[1130]

This is for children who were born after January 1, 2007. It’s $1,200. These are opportunities where families can go in to see their financial advisor, go into their bank, participate in fiscal vehicles and get their application this August. It’s really important that families don’t waste time, that they get in there early.

The $1,200 they invest has an opportunity to compound, to make sure there are savings there for children when they graduate from high school. If families are fortunate enough to be able to add on a little bit extra going forward, I know that’s an added benefit as well.

I’d be remiss, of course, to not talk about the RDSP opportunity that the federal government and the province are working so hard to highlight at this time. Again, to the members opposite and members of this chamber, if you are an individual who is eligible for a federal disability tax credit, if you’re under the age of 49, it is really important that you investigate the RDSP. It’s just a registered disability savings plan. It’s an opportunity to make sure that we’re helping families save for later on in life.

Again, to remind the members opposite, if families do not have any dollars extra to invest in an RDSP, if they are of low income or struggling, the federal government will actually give you $1,000 a year for up to 20 years. That’s $20,000 of money from the federal government. This is dollars that you can use to invest.

It’s so important that you do these RESPs early because of the power of compounding interest. It’s just a great place to make sure that there’s more money, for persons who are eligible, when they get to that older stage of life.

I’m sure members of all sides of this House recognize that I am one of the members who has two children. I had a great time this weekend to spend with them. I’m sure many people in this chamber are excited about the children’s fitness equipment tax credit, along with the children’s arts credit.

While our schools do an absolutely phenomenal job providing both athletic opportunities and artistic opportunities, many families take the opportunity to invest in community events. I know my daughter is working on a dance recital coming forward, and we’re excited to see it.

As well, I know the members opposite have also talked about the high cost of living in Vancouver and other places in British Columbia, and I acknowledge it. It is a struggle. It was a struggle for me when I was younger — it still is sometimes — and a struggle for my parents and my grandparents.

But if families think it’s really necessary, they have the ability to defer their property tax. Again, I wouldn’t say it’s the right vehicle for everybody to take, but it’s something to explore. Sometimes there are emergencies that come up. If you have a home and you’re relatively new in your equity world, you might want to take that opportunity to replace a hot water heater if it were to break, or maybe your roof needs to be replaced.

As well, I know that the Minister of Agriculture, if he were here, would want me to highlight the farmers market nutrition and coupon program. It’s an opportunity in 47 communities, almost all across the province, for people to receive $15 in coupons weekly. It benefits almost 10,000 individuals getting products from our local producers in our communities. It’s just a great opportunity.

I’ve had an opportunity here to stand in this chamber and talk about some of the programs that we have in this province, in this government, to make life a bit more affordable for families. But as I’ve said in other speeches in the House, we are always committed to doing more and revising programs.

That’s why I’m so excited to see, with a fast-growing economy — in fact, the fastest-growing economy in all of Canada — that there will be an opportunity for this government to continue to make investments like we’ve done in the past, as we go forward, and to make sure that this province has great opportunities for families, for seniors, for all British Columbians.

I’m proud to be a member of this chamber, and I’m proud to be a strong British Columbian.

J. Darcy: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion that government has a responsibility to
[ Page 6207 ]
make life more affordable for B.C. families. The fact of the matter is that British Columbians are paying more for health care and they’re getting less.

We see that, and we hear that, every day — with longer wait-lists, with families not being able to find family doctors. I am bombarded with e-mails and phone calls literally every day. But it never fails to astound me to hear members opposite repeating the mantra about this government having lowered taxes when, in fact, people are being hit with fare hikes and fee hikes everywhere they look.

A tax hike by any other name is still a tax hike. The fact is that people are paying more for health care and they’re getting less. The government brags about controlling costs in health care, but frankly, they’ve just shifted the responsibility for those health care costs on to individuals and on to families.

We’ve spoken on many occasions about the hikes in MSP premiums already — a 100 percent increase since the B.C. Liberals were elected in 2001. MSP for a family has now reached $1,728.

[1135]

While members opposite can talk over and over again about those people in our province who are able to get subsidies or who are able to get premium assistance, the fact of the matter is that there are an awful lot of people, on modest incomes and middle incomes, for whom MSP premiums really hurt.

It is also the flattest tax imaginable — certainly the most regressive form of taxation that there is. But it’s not just MSP. I think it’s important to look at this government’s record of delisting various health care services, which means that individuals and families pay more. One good example of that is out-of-pocket eye exams, which can cost a family several hundred dollars a year.

Physiotherapy. We have thousands of people in this province who have hip surgery or knee surgery every year. The rehab, with physiotherapy that follows that, is absolutely critical. It used to be covered. Now what happens is that you have your hip replaced and you get three coupons for physiotherapy — three coupons, when in fact, you ought to see a physiotherapist twice a week for at least three months.

Who pays for that? Well, if you’re lucky enough to have a good private health insurance plan, you’re covered. An awful lot of families don’t. They either pay thousands of dollars for private physiotherapy, or they go without.

PharmaCare deductibles have gone up. They went up in 2003. For families and individuals under 65, deductibles rose from $600 to $800 for those who qualify for premium assistance, and from $800 to $1,000 for those who do not.

Lack of affordability, frankly, means that people are forced to make unacceptable choices. Many seniors, many families, make choices about essentials. They make choices about the quality of food that they’re able to put on the table or whether they’re going to be able to pay for their prescription drugs. Yet this government made the choice of a tax break totalling $236 million for the top 2 percent of the population.

What about our seniors? Residential care rates went up in 2010 and 2011, requiring seniors to pay 80 percent of their after-tax income on care fees and making British Columbia’s daily care rates the most expensive in Canada.

We can talk all we want about controlling health care costs and about lowering taxes. The reality is that seniors are paying more, that British Columbia families are paying more. These are people who have spent their entire lives contributing to our community, our province and our society. Yet they have a meagre amount of money left over, if any at all, after they pay the residential care fees. A senior, for instance, with a before-tax income of $22,000 will be forced to pay almost another $2,000 a year for long-term care since those major hikes came into effect.

This government does have a responsibility to make life more affordable for British Columbia families. Shifting the burden of health care spending onto individual families means that either families go without or they pay far, far more.

The members opposite can repeat the mantra over and over again — as they do in response to anyone who raises these issues from the official opposition, in response to any of those B.C. families who raise concerns about affordability — about having lower tax rates. The reality is that when you’re paying more for health care and getting less, you’re making life less affordable for British Columbia families.

D. Plecas: On behalf of my constituents in Abbotsford South, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this morning’s debate on the motion — “Be it resolved that the Government of British Columbia has a responsibility to make life more affordable” for British Columbians.

I’d like to thank my colleagues who spoke earlier in this debate and outlined how low-income tax supports for low-income British Columbians and measures specifically targeted at parents keep B.C. affordable as a place to live and raise a family.

I’d like to touch on the subject of housing and what the government does to make British Columbia more affordable. Through B.C. Housing, our government has created two specific low-income housing programs. One is specifically targeted at seniors, called the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters, otherwise known as SAFER. SAFER provides cash assistance for eligible residents who are 60 or over and pay rent. This program currently services 17,000 British Columbians.

[1140]

The second program, the rent assistance program, gives cash assistance to eligible low-income families to meet their monthly rent payments. Currently 10,000 families in British Columbia receive rent assistance. As a
[ Page 6208 ]
measure to predict affordable housing stock for the most vulnerable citizens, our government has purchased 23 single-room-occupancy hotels since 2007. Many of these buildings are in need of repair. In fact, 13 heritage sites are currently being restored through a private-public partnership with the federal government.

The total cost to the province is $87 million, with an additional funding over a 15-year period. We are working in partnership with the federal government, which is contributing $29 million through the P3 Canada fund.

As the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors, I’m proud of the fact that our government is committed to providing the best care for seniors, through the seniors rental housing initiative. Through this innovative program, we are providing $123 million to oversee the creation of 1,200 new housing units for seniors with disabilities in more than 40 different communities.

In fact, just last April I attended the official opening of Lynnhaven. This particular facility provides affordable rental units for seniors in Abbotsford. Working in partnership with the city, the federal government and the Lynnhaven housing society, we built two four-storey wood-frame buildings with 32 studio units each. The Lynnhaven Society has provided housing for seniors for over 50 years in Abbotsford. As a local resident, I know just how popular this fantastic program is for our seniors.

Naturally, most seniors prefer to stay in their homes as long as possible, and that’s why the government initiated the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit. It’s worth up to $1,000 to assist individuals 65 and over with the cost of certain permanent home renovations to improve accessibilities for seniors — like a ramp, for example. The credit can be claimed by seniors whether they own their home or rent and by individuals who share a home with a senior relative. In addition, homeowners who are 55 or older, a surviving spouse at any age or a person with disabilities can also defer paying all or part of their property taxes, at low interest rates.

These are just a few examples of how our government is making British Columbia more affordable for people of all ages.

K. Corrigan: I’m very pleased to rise on this resolution: “Be it resolved that the Government of B.C. has a responsibility to make life more affordable for B.C. families.”

Well, I’ve heard lots from the other side about various programs, but here’s the reality. The biggest investment, the biggest tax cut, the biggest chunk of change that was shifted with this budget was a $230 million tax break for the 2 percent highest earners in the province of British Columbia — the biggest shift of all.

That’s one group of earners in British Columbia that life is going to be just a little bit more affordable for, and I’m really happy for that group of people. But for the rest of us, and particularly for people who are low income, life is becoming more and more unaffordable in British Columbia. Despite all the particular programs that the members on the other side have been talking about, the median incomes for British Columbians have gone down 2.8 percent since 2006. People’s incomes are actually going down at the same time as costs are going up.

I’ve heard my colleagues talk about some of those costs — things that are making life more unaffordable for British Columbia families. The cost of health care, MSP premiums going up. The choice that this government has made on policy that has resulted in B.C. Hydro rates going up very significantly.

[1145]

The cost of MSP, the cost of B.C. Hydro — and I’m going to add another one. I’m going to talk about my spokesperson area. It’s another area that is becoming less and less affordable and, therefore, an area that is becoming less accessible: the post-secondary education system. It’s a shortsighted approach to make post-secondary education less accessible to citizens. If nothing else — in addition to making more secure, fulfilled people — it also makes good economic sense to adequately invest in our post-secondary system.

In fact, the research universities made a submission to the select standing committee back in September of 2014, saying: “University graduates, on average, have higher annual earnings and employment rates, are more resilient during an economic downturn and, in fact, are instrumental in the economic recovery. Drivers of change, new ideas and efficiencies, this pool of talent must be sustained to fully realize the province’s potential.”

It is good for our economy, and it’s good for individuals. But what is the reality in our province? Well, unfortunately, the provincial budget for post-secondary education has actually decreased — a cumulative reduction of $50 million in two years. Over the past several years a decreasing portion of the cost of university has been paid for by government and an increasing proportion is being borne by tuition.

In fact, post-secondary tuition along with hydro and MSP are some of the fastest-growing forms of funding for the provincial government at the same time as we’re giving a $230 million tax break to the richest British Columbians.

Tuition fees have doubled since 2001. Student loan rates, interest rates, are the highest in Canada, and for many students the debt is crushing. Extensive surveys of students by the B.C. government itself found that more than half of the students end up in debt at the end of their university career.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, that most of those that are in debt are certainly not the sons and daughters of that group of 2 percent of British Columbians who got a $230 million tax break. It is middle-class families and poorer families. If they are in debt, it’s harder for them to go. It takes them longer to go to university, it takes them longer to complete, and it means that less of them are going.
[ Page 6209 ]

I don’t think any of us in this chamber wants to end up where we are going, which is creating a two-tiered system, which makes it easier for the rich to go to university and harder for the rest of us, and particularly difficult for those that don’t have a lot. BMO says that the average debt at the end of university in British Columbia is $35,000, the highest in the country.

I’m very pleased to have supported this resolution. Unfortunately, we’re making it more difficult instead of less for families in British Columbia.

J. Martin: It is with great pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack and participate in the debate on this morning’s motion. In this debate I would like to outline how a diversified economy and balanced budgets make our province not only the most desirable place in Canada but also the most affordable place in the country.

First, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who spoke earlier in this debate and outline how lower taxes, how providing specific supports to people in need, how assisting parents and providing affordable housing options all contribute to making this province an affordable place to live and raise a family.

Now, every program and income tax measure that my colleagues describe are made possible because we have a diverse economy and because we have a balanced budget. These are the two prerequisites making life affordable. So let’s face it. It would not have been possible to balance this budget over the past three years without a robust economy. By keeping taxes low and fostering an investment-friendly environment, we have been able to diversify and expand markets for B.C. exports.

As a matter of fact, the Conference Board of Canada has just revised its long-term outlook for the country, and they predict that B.C. will lead Canada in economic growth in 2015 at 3 percent, with our export industries leading the charge.

By leading numerous trade missions overseas, the Premier has succeeded in finding new customers for our goods, including forest products, minerals and agrifood, not to mention our tourism and high-tech supports.

How does British Columbia remain competitive? It’s because with each budget, this government has committed to lowering taxes as the economy improves.

[1150]

This begs the question: if the opposition is committed to making British Columbia more affordable, why do they keep voting against balanced budgets? By voting against three consecutive balanced budgets, the NDP and its leader voted against doubling rent support to seniors and rental assistance payments to low-income families. By voting against the past three balanced budgets, the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP opposed every single tax cut for those on low income.

The NDP can lecture about affordability all they want, but they will never really say where they stand on tax cuts. When asked directly if the NDP would raise taxes on the people of British Columbia, the Leader of the Opposition refused to answer the question. We are left to answer that question ourselves by examining how members of the opposition view taxes.

During the budget debate, as little as a few weeks ago, the member for North Island noted: “I like taxes. Taxes are good. Taxes are very, very good for us as the public.” Or how about our colleague from Skeena? “I don’t regard taxes as a bad thing. I know we have lots of to-and-fro in this House. The members on the other side often sort of use the word ‘tax’ as…a bad thing.” Well, at least these two members are honest, and they didn’t avoid the question.

The fact is that if the Leader of the Opposition had his way, he would return British Columbia to the oppressive tax regime of the NDP the last time they were in power. We all remember those days — eight deficit budgets in a row, six consecutive credit downgrades. B.C. became a have-not province. One in ten British Columbians was on social assistance.

Now, British Columbia has always punched above its weight. We have always been a net contributor to Confederation, and then we had to become one of the have-not provinces. We had to go cap in hand with our little cardboard sign to Ottawa: “Please help.” B.C. deserves better than that. We never want to return to those days.

Affordability under the NDP is just out of the question. It costs almost $2 billion a year to maintain that 10 percent of British Columbians on welfare. That’s $2 billion that never went into health care, never went into education, never went into social services or anything else. The NDP has voted against $146 million annually to help child care, against $20 million for income assistance programs and against $106 million for Community Living B.C. The $250 for the children’s fitness tax credit — they voted against that, as well as the $1,200 training and education savings grant.

Making life more affordable for British Columbians requires more than making a lot of noise about it. It requires doing the things that this government is doing and will continue to do.

R. Austin: It’s a privilege to rise in the House and speak, on behalf of my constituents in Skeena, to the private member’s motion brought forward by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, which reads as follows: “Be it resolved that the Government of B.C. has a responsibility to make life more affordable for B.C. families.”

The member who started out speaking — I think that he may have spoken second — started off by describing some facts that he wanted to put on the public record. I represent a constituency that, it’s fair to say, is fairly marginalized, has a large population of people who are struggling — really, really struggling financially. But it’s
[ Page 6210 ]
not just in my constituency and in the northwest where people are struggling. There are pockets all over British Columbia of people who are deeply struggling financially.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Let me just tell a few facts. Despite this being one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada, 10.7 percent of the population — that’s 476,000 British Columbians — live in poverty. If you were to use the market basket measure to measure poverty, which includes the things that people actually buy on a daily basis — things that people have to buy no matter whether you’re wealthy, whether you’re middle class or whether you’re poor — then that would rise to 16.5 percent of British Columbians, or 735,000 British Columbians who are living in poverty.

The child poverty rate is 11.3 percent, the highest in Canada. It has been the highest for eight out of the last nine years.

Most of these people living in poverty are working. It’s not as though they are unemployed. Very often we hear from the other side: “We just want people to go get a job.” Most of the people in this province who are living in poverty have a job. At least one parent in the family is working. Over 100,000 people currently, in British Columbia, are using food banks, and 30 percent of those have children.

[1155]

I’d like to take my little time here to talk about something that B.C. is really lacking, and that is a child poverty plan. We are now the only province in the whole of Canada that doesn’t have a child poverty plan or a poverty plan per se — one that is legislated, one that has strict goals, that is measured and is passed in this House, which will force us to recognize the reality of many people who are living in this province.

It was 2002, 13 years ago, when Quebec became the first province in Canada to recognize that the way to deal with poverty in their province was to actually enact a plan. Fast-forward to today. Quebec has cut their poverty rate by 25 percent.

This isn’t just about the moral issue. It’s actually good economics. Why? Because the province actually benefits by reducing poverty. Let me give you an example. They have an incredible daycare program there. For every $7 that is put into the child care program, it recoups $1.05, while Ottawa receives a 44-cent windfall. That’s what we’re talking about here: making investments which actually improve the quality of everyone’s life and make good economic sense.

Newfoundland and Labrador in 2006 followed in Quebec’s footsteps here. They had, just like British Columbia, one of the highest poverty rates in the country, but after several years they have become one of the provinces with the lowest poverty rates in the country — now only 5.3 percent of the population. So this makes sense.

Let me give an example. Many years ago the federal government decided that it would enact legislation to reduce poverty amongst seniors — a worthy cause, I think everyone would agree. Now today in Canada we have one of the lowest rates of seniors poverty. Why? Because legislation was brought in to give a guaranteed income supplement to every senior to try and move them out of poverty.

What I’m saying is that we have a responsibility. We have the ability here to actually legislate and make public policy that would benefit all British Columbians. Take that in contrast to what we’ve seen here in the budget brought down just a week and a half ago. We saw in the budget a week and a half ago a….

Hon. Speaker, you’re about to say something?

Madame Speaker: Noting the hour, hon. Member.

R. Austin: Oh, okay. Let me just make this last point.

We saw ten days ago a budget that actually made things much harder for the average — certainly for the poorer — people in our province and gave a tax cut….

Hon. Speaker, noting the hour, I do move adjournment of this debate.

R. Austin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 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