2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

E. Foster: I have three guests in the House today. First, I would like to say hello and welcome to my wife, Janice, who is here visiting the precinct, and to also take this opportunity to wish her a happy Valentine’s Day, because we won’t be back before then.

My other two guests are longtime friends Colin and Jacquie Mayes. We’ve known them for many years. Colin has served many years in the public service in different parts of Canada. Colin was the mayor of Dawson City from 1974 to 1976. He was the mayor of Salmon Arm from 1996 to 2005. And he was the MP for Okanagan-Shuswap, which takes in my riding of Vernon-Monashee and also the riding of Shuswap, from 2006 until his retirement last fall.

[1335]

Colin was a great supporter, certainly, of our area and took our concerns to Ottawa for many years. I wish Jacquie and Colin all the very best in their retirement and welcome them here to the precinct today.

M. Karagianis: I’m very honoured today to introduce two guests in the House. We have with us today JoAnne Landolt and Linda Proctor. You may recall that they have visited this House before. Linda’s granddaughter and JoAnne’s niece, Kimberly Proctor, was murdered nearly six years ago by two of her peers. They’re here today to continue to advocate for reforms, both provincial and federal, that would help prevent what happened to Kimmy from happening to anyone else in the future.

The Children and Youth Committee will be tabling a report today. It’s the end result of a two-year process of youth mental health hearings that we held around the province. The Proctor family participated in those hearings over that time period, ensuring that Kimmy’s story was always a part of what we were doing and that they could oversee the messages that came in and the work that we did.

They’re two very heroic members of a heroic family, and I’d like the House to please make them very welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Today, visiting us from my beautiful riding of Parksville-Qualicum, I’m pleased to welcome my constituents Carol Roberts and Don Quinn, as well as Val and Phill Rowley, along with Val’s brother Vic Audley and his wife, Pat. They’re here for their first question period.

I will also be presenting a petition to the House later, after question period, on their behalf in regards to safety measures to be taken on Roberton Boulevard in Parksville. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to introduce today two small business owners in Ucluelet who are here to see a petition being presented to the Legislature. It’s a petition that Michelle Coulter launched that has 65,721 signatures as of last night, and it grew by over 100 overnight, calling on the B.C. government to abolish MSP premiums. She’s joined by David Juniper, also from Ucluelet. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Tributes

NORM LEVI

S. Robinson: I’d like to extend an invitation to all the members of the House for a celebration of life for Norm Levi, who passed away December 25.

Norm was born in England and joined the British Army at 16 and was part of the British forces that liberated Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945. He was elected first to this House in 1968, representing Vancouver South, and then later Vancouver-Burrard from ’72 to ’79 and then eventually Coquitlam-Maillardville from ’79 to ’83.

When he was part of the Barrett government, he served as the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement, and he was also responsible for Indian affairs. As a cabinet minister, he decentralized power to the creation of community resource boards. He brought in PharmaCare and expanded community-based juvenile services and daycare services. He was also the first politician in British Columbia to arrange for settlement and restitution for cut-off Indian lands.

The family is inviting everyone in the House to join them in a celebration of life, to be held Sunday, February 21, at 2 p.m. at the Inn at Laurel Point. He is predeceased by his daughter Alisa and survived by his other two daughters, Dani Mate and Tamar Levi-Bandel, and his two sons, David Levi and Wayne Levi.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: In the House today, we have Gail Hausknecht and Dan Weinberger. They’re visiting from beautiful Campbell River on north Island. They’re among this wave of Albertans that have moved to greener pastures in British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Dalton: I’d like to also welcome JoAnne Landolt, who’s a constituent of mine, and also Linda Proctor. As
[ Page 10298 ]
was mentioned, they’ve brought forth Kimberly’s law as far as a number of proposals for youth offenders and with legislation that has both national and provincial implications. I just want to thank them and commend them for the tireless work that they have been doing. Would the members once again make them feel welcome.

[1340]

L. Throness: The world can only benefit from another Throness, so I’m happy to report that on January 13, Michael Warren was born to my nephew Chris and his wife, Krista. He came a bit early, but he’s doing just fine. He’s already gained a pound. Would the House please congratulate them.

G. Holman: I’m very pleased to introduce to the House today a young man from Saanichton, in my constituency, Payton Braun, along with his mother, Jaci, and his grandparents, Judy and Con. Payton is a photographer and recently won first place in the Show Us Your Canada photography contest, put on by Canadian Geographic. Did I mention that Payton is 13 years old?

Payton got his first camera when he was eight. He has his own website showcasing the diversity of his work and uses his photography for his own greeting card and calendar business. And just for the House’s information, you can find Payton’s work at paytonbraunphotography.weebly.com.

Would the House please welcome this talented young man and his family to the House.

S. Fraser: I’d like to join my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head in welcoming to the House Michelle Coulter and David Juniper from Ucluelet. I just want to say that it’s a testament to grassroots action on what seemed like a small initiative to fight against a type of taxation that hurts a lot of people. I also want to say I’ll be pleased to be speaking about that in my response to the throne later today.

Would the House please make them feel very, very welcome.

R. Lee: In the House today, I have a visitor, Michael Harrick. He’s the vice-president of the consulting services, CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants. They have their office in my riding. The company has 40 years of history. Please welcome Michael.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M201 — LAND TITLE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: It’s with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be reintroducing a bill that offers government one of the tools it needs to begin to properly assess and act upon the affordability-in-housing crisis affecting Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district as well.

There’s been significant conversation in the past few months about the role that speculation is playing in our market. The government came out with a number of documents purporting that foreign investment wasn’t a factor. These studies were vague and lacked any links to clear, rigorous evidence that supported the claim.

It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. The bill amends the Land Title Act to provide the government with the means of determining who is purchasing property in B.C. This includes both foreign investment flows — the role that corporations are playing in purchasing property — and if we have significant speculation coming from other places in Canada.

To be clear, this bill is not about identifying what specifically is driving housing prices to unsustainable rates but, rather, to ensure that the government is informing itself so that any future policy measures are based on a better understanding of what is happening with our provincial real estate industry.

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

Bill M201, Land Title Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M202 — UNIVERSITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2016.

A. Weaver: It’s also with great pleasure that I move introduction of a bill intituled University Amendment Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m sure members are aware of the two significant controversies that have plagued two of our universities recently: the controversy between the UBC board and the past president of UBC, Dr. Arvind Gupta, and the recent controversy concerning the decision to appoint James Moore as chancellor of UNBC.
[ Page 10299 ]

In both these instances, the conflict arose because of decisions the board made or in how the board acted. While the role of a board of governors is essential to the functioning of a university, the governance of a university must also be independent of any potential — real or apparent — political interference.

[1345]

It’s with this in mind that I bring this bill forward today. This bill amends the University Act to ensure that appointees from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cannot unilaterally set the tone and direction of a university board through having a majority of votes and that university boards cannot unilaterally appoint a chancellor for their university.

This bill will bring British Columbia to the same university governance standards employed by much of the rest of Canada.

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

Bill M202, University Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 3 — EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE
FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. Michelle Stilwell presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I move that Bill 3 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 3, the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016. This bill will amend the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act to simplify and improve the application and adjudication process for designation as a person with disabilities under the act.

In order to receive disability assistance, you must have the persons-with-disabilities designation from the ministry. This involves an extensive application process, along with medical assessments. But there are provincial and federal programs that have an assessment similar to the one for disability assistance. With this amendment, people who have been approved for services through one of those programs will now be able to receive the persons-with-disabilities designation without having to complete the full application.

Up to 1,000 people with disabilities will benefit from these changes each year, the majority of them being young people transitioning to CLBC services. It means less stress and faster access to disability assistance for hundreds of people every year. It’s a change that responds to what we heard during Accessibility 2024 consultation, and it addresses this government’s commitment to red tape reduction. It’s a change that makes sense, and I’m delighted that I can introduce it in the House today.

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

Bill 3, Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MOOSE HIDE ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN

S. Fraser: The Moose Hide Campaign is a grassroots movement of aboriginal and non-aboriginal men who are standing up against violence towards women and children. Wearing the moose hide signifies your commitment to honour, respect and protect the women and children in your life and to work together with other men to end violence against women and children.

Men standing up to end violence against women: this is a powerful statement and an equally powerful action. The 2016 Moose Hide Campaign is the fifth annual gathering and will provide learning opportunities for men and women by hosting workshops that explore various strategies to address violence against women and children in a good way. It is an opportunity to take action to educate ourselves, to role-model healthy behaviours for our children and to rebuild honest and trusting relationships between women and men.

Violence against aboriginal and non-aboriginal women and children is still a daily occurrence in this province and in this country, including family violence, domestic violence and sexual assault. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission tabled its final report in December of last year, and the 94 calls to action have provided a road map for reconciliation across Canada.

The Moose Hide Campaign embraces these calls to action and the recognition of the impacts of the residential school system, and so should we in this House. We all need to be determined to support activities that will end the cycle of violence that aboriginal and non-aboriginal women and children continue to experience today.

Many men are giving up food and drink today to enhance their spiritual awareness and focus on this campaign. This is called a fast — a misnomer, I would say,
[ Page 10300 ]
because according to my grumbling stomach, it’s going very, very slow.

[1350]

Timber Kings TELEVISION PROGRAM
AND Cedar Rocket VEHICLE

D. Barnett: By now, all of you and almost everyone in Canada has heard of Timber Kings. Timber Kings is the name of a reality television show based out of Williams Lake in which viewers get to see every week how master craftsmen build a different log home structure, from logs to a beautiful home. The program is now in its third season on HGTV in Canada and in more than 30 countries around the world.

The company behind Timber Kings is Pioneer Log Homes of Williams Lake, in the heart of the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Company founder and president, Bryan Reid Sr. and his son Bryan Jr. and their crew recently set a Guinness world record, not for building log houses but for building the world’s fastest log car. Yes, a race car constructed from a single cedar tree.

The car is named the Cedar Rocket, and it was recently tested at a drag strip in Arizona. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble never imagined anything like this. While Fred and Barney drove around on foot power, the Cedar Rocket is powered by twin 20-horsepower electric turbines.

In setting the Guinness world record, the Cedar Rocket reached a speed of 90 kilometres per hour over the quarter-mile track. The car’s body was shaped from a 240-year-old western cedar from the Bella Bella area. Bryan Reid Sr. plans to take the car on tour around North America this year and have it back home for the Williams Lake Stampede on the Canada Day weekend.

The Cedar Rocket is another example of the amazing ingenuity of the folks at Pioneer Log Homes, a company that continues to make us proud in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

ART KUBE

H. Bains: It is with great pride that I rise to speak about one of the great British Columbians of our time, a labour leader, recipient of the Order of Canada, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal and the Lynn Williams Award for Service to humanity by the Steelworkers organization of active retirees.

I would like the House to join with me to recognize brother Art Kube for his contributions to the labour movement in British Columbia and continuing to be a strong advocate to improve the lives of seniors in this country.

Art Kube immigrated to Canada in 1953. It was then that he began his lifelong journey fighting for workers rights and towards a just society. He promptly joined the United Steelworkers as an organizer prior to becoming a representative for the Canadian Labour Congress in 1960. Art wore many hats over the years, including president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, special adviser to the federal Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration and special advisor to the Deputy Minister of Labour.

Brother Kube continued his advocacy into retirement, advocating for seniors rights across this country, and served as president of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations and National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation.

Most recently, I was privileged to witness a presentation at the CLC winter school just a week ago where brother Kube was recognized by the president of the CLC, brother Hassan Yussuff, and president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, sister Irene Lanzinger, for his accomplishments. Art was presented with a plaque scribed with their motto: “What we wish for ourselves, we desire for all.”

From one Steelworker brother to another: congratulations, brother, on a lifetime of contributions dedicated to improving the lives of British Columbia.

SEYMOUR SALMONID SOCIETY

J. Thornthwaite: Today I rise to recognize a North Shore organization dedicated to nurturing and protecting one of British Columbia’s most valuable resources. For nearly three decades, the Seymour Salmonid Society has been enhancing local fish stocks by building and maintaining spawning habitats along the Seymour River. The society runs the Seymour hatchery and provides hands-on educational programs to elementary schools across the Lower Mainland which teach students about conservation and the importance of protecting and properly managing this resource.

In December 2014, a massive rock slide caused 50,000 cubic metres of granite to block part of the Seymour canyon, cutting salmon off from an important spawning estuary. Over the past year, the society and its volunteers have been busy rescuing the salmon that have been cut off, capturing and ferrying them upstream, one by one, so they could make it to the estuary to spawn.

[1355]

Despite these ongoing efforts, the lasting impact of the rock slide is threatening the Seymour’s ability to remain a salmonid-bearing body of water, which is why the society is partnering with the Squamish Nation to build an aluminum fence to trap and move fish upstream and developing a plan to use explosives to slowly chip away at the blockage.

I was very happy to meet with the society and its president, Shaun Hollingsworth, last month and along with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources and the Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness, hiked to the site to see it firsthand. I look forward to helping the society in their efforts to remove the obstruction and protect the future of the salmon river run.
[ Page 10301 ]

The dedication to responsible salmon stewardship is why the society is a respected voice for conservation throughout the province. On behalf of the community, I want to thank the society and its volunteers for continuing to promote education and conservation and for protecting a precious resource that belongs to all British Columbians.

ALEX CUBA

D. Donaldson: [Spanish was spoken.] “Because in you, I find everything I’ve dreamed of.” As Valentine’s Day approaches, many of us would like to be able to sing that to our significant others. If you had a voice like mine, it might actually do more harm than good. But not for a musician from Smithers. That is a lyric from the song “Sarah”, dedicated to his wife. It’s from his latest CD, Healer.

This Monday night, Alex Cuba will be up for a Grammy Award in Los Angeles for Best Latin Pop Album. He has already won three Latin Grammy Awards, two Juno Awards, and Healer is also nominated for a 2016 Juno — all this from Smithers, working as an independent artist.

He and his wife, Sarah, run Caracol Records out of their home. His bassist, Ian Olmstead, and Jake Jenne, on drums, are local guys, and the music video that won a Latin Grammy in 2013 was produced entirely in Smithers. It’s a great example of the knowledge economy, the creative economy that exists rurally and can expand outside of major population centres with the right supports.

Alex was born Alexis Puentes in Cuba, and during a 1995 cross-Canada musical tour he met Sarah in Victoria. They just celebrated their 20th wedding anniversary, and Sarah’s dad, Bill Goodacre, the former B.C. NDP MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, helped to host a celebration in Smithers in December.

Alex boarded a flight in Smithers — population 5,000 — yesterday and headed to L.A. and the Grammy Awards on Monday night. It’s his second nomination for a Grammy, and we’re all hoping for a win.

Whatever the outcome, you should know, Alexis, how proud you make us with your global achievements from a little town in northern B.C. Buena suerte, mi amigo. Good luck, my friend, on Monday night, from all of us in the north, around B.C. and in this Legislature.

MOOSE HIDE ANTI-VIOLENCE CAMPAIGN

J. Yap: Along with the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim and all colleagues in the House, today I’m proud to be wearing my Moose Hide pin. It marks the fifth annual Moose Hide Campaign in which aboriginal and non-aboriginal men stand up against violence towards aboriginal women and girls.

Everyone in this House stands with the founder of the campaign, Paul Lacerte, and all of the participants who have taken part in today’s gathering here in Victoria. We stand with all those who are taking part in all corners of British Columbia.

Whatever the problem, violence is never, ever the answer, and by standing together, we shine light on the violence. Silence perpetuates the issue. Actions such as today’s gathering address it.

We’re working closely with aboriginal leadership and with families to stop the violence. Last week, we co-hosted the B.C. family gathering for families of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It was a very powerful event, and I know that colleagues who attended were incredibly moved to hear the stories of family members.

Addressing violence against aboriginal women is a key priority in the vision for a violence-free-B.C. strategy, B.C.’s long-term strategy to prevent, respond to and rebuild from violence against women in our province. Our mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers have a right to a life without fear. Standing up for what is right is something that we all have a responsibility to do. It’s fundamental to who we are as British Columbians that our communities are safe places to live and to grow.

[1400]

To that end, I’ll continue to wear my moose hide pin with great pride, and I salute everyone who participated today and all those who continue to address violence in whichever form it takes.

Oral Questions

INVESTIGATION INTO
REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

D. Eby: Yesterday I raised the case of Mr. Liang Wei, a realtor who assisted his client in opening a bank account with fraudulent information, a realtor who personally deposited a bank draft obtained by fraud to that same account. This information came from B.C. Securities Commission sworn testimony.

The Real Estate Council has refused to investigate. Today we know why. They write: “The council cannot make a determination as to whether any of the actions were wrongful, but should the appropriate regulatory body make such a determination, the council would be very interested in those findings. We would then be able to open an investigation.”

So when the Real Estate Council receives credible information about realtors involved in fraud or money laundering, they don’t ask police for assistance. They don’t call the federal anti-money-laundering agency, FINTRAC. They don’t even open an investigation file. They do nothing.

Can the Finance Minister tell us, please, whether the reason he believes the Real Estate Council has the time to investigate itself is because it’s refusing to investigate realtors alleged to be involved in fraud and money laundering?
[ Page 10302 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: The responsibilities that accrue to the Real Estate Council are set out statutorily within the Real Estate Services Act. They impose upon the council both a significant responsibility and significant authority to examine the affairs of the industry and the affairs of licensees. That includes conducting investigations of licensees who commit professional misconduct, do “anything that constitutes wrongful taking or deceptive dealing” — anything that’s contrary to the public interest. Of course, there are other statutory provisions as well.

The record of the council demonstrates, I believe, that it takes those responsibilities seriously, as does the superintendent. I can assure the member that the government and I take very seriously the obligations that members of the real estate and realty community have to fulfil their obligations, both under the act and pursuant to federal requirements like FINTRAC.

In a market of the sort that exists in certain parts of British Columbia, it is fundamentally important that the consumer — that the customer, the client — be able to rely on the fact that real estate agents are acting in their interest, acting in good faith and acting according to the law. The Real Estate Council, now with the assistance of the superintendent, is going to ensure that that is taking place.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister says that the Real Estate Council takes its responsibilities very seriously, and he believes that they do so. He believes this even though last year, they received 536 complaints about various realtors, and they held one investigation hearing in the entire year.

On the Wei case, the Real Estate Council also wrote that they are refusing to investigate, because they’re hoping the courts will somehow step in for them. “If there should be a finding either in a court action or a FINTRAC proceeding, the council could then initiate an investigation to determine if there has been professional misconduct.”

Mr. Wei’s case is not going to court. There will never be a court finding in this matter. Even if there were, a prosecution would take months or years.

With mounting evidence that the Real Estate Council has failed to investigate and remove the licences of bad-apple realtors, why is the Finance minister asking them to investigate themselves?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don’t know if the member has a copy. If he doesn’t, I’ll happily send one over to him.

[1405]

I did write to the Real Estate Council, and I made clear what the expectations of government and I are in these circumstances. In acknowledging that they are taking steps to respond to some of the allegations of questionable practices and behaviour, I made it clear that my expectation is that the council will be examining both the adherence of realtors to existing rules and the rules themselves to ensure that they are adequate.

I said yesterday and will say again that the government and I have no sympathy and no patience for those who practise real estate who would seek to take advantage of clients or mislead them about interests that they, as realtors, may have in transactions involving their customers. Having said that, I also feel obliged, though, to say that in the vast majority of cases, I believe realtors take seriously their requirement to protect the public, protect the public interest and practise in a manner that is consistent with those highest ethical standards.

For those who don’t and who are motivated by greed or some other self-interest, the council and the superintendent will conduct their work and report out to the government and to me by April 15. If that doesn’t provide a satisfactory response, the government reserves the right to act itself.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a final supplemental.

D. Eby: The minister says he sent a strongly worded letter to the Real Estate Council. I’m sure they’ll read it very carefully. He also says that he has confidence in the superintendent of real estate, who he’s also sent over to help the Real Estate Council investigate themselves.

This week, the B.C. Liberal–appointed superintendent of real estate said she just heard about shadow flipping as a problem “over the last few days.” How can that be? Real estate agent William Metzger said it was 2013 when he wrote to the Real Estate Council about shadow flipping hurting buyers and sellers. The Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver posted a consumer warning on their website in August of last year. Even the Premier says her government has known about this for about a year.

Then again, the superintendent of real estate hasn’t seen a lot of problems for buyers or sellers in our real estate market. She posted the last consumer advisory press release on her website seven years ago, in 2008.

To the Minister of Finance: why is the superintendent of real estate being asked to lead this investigation instead of being investigated herself for failing to detect and stop these unscrupulous practices preying on B.C. buyers and sellers of real estate?

Hon. M. de Jong: I try as best I can to be fair in the deliberations that take place, even during question period. Yesterday I acknowledged, I thought fairly, to the member that I believe there is a legitimate issue for us to be dealing with and discussing and debating in this chamber. But to malign the character of the superintendent, to somehow cast….
[ Page 10303 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: To suggest that somehow this is an individual who is motivated by political considerations…. I can only assume that’s why the member made the comment he did.

She’s also the head of FICOM. This is one of the duties that she performs. The member is wrong when he makes the assertion that there has been no activity. I have a list — it is available to the member — of all of the enforcement actions that the superintendent has taken.

If the member wishes to be taken seriously, and I presume he does, then let us speak and debate the issue. The issue, to be fair, is the evidence that exists about realtors who are in a conflict of interest and not conducting themselves in accordance with their statutory obligations and in accordance with their professional conduct requirements.

[1410]

That is a legitimate issue. That is something that the government is interested in having the council and the superintendent deal with and expects a report on. When we get that report, we’ll make a decision on whether or not sufficient action has been taken or whether more is warranted.

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND
COLLECTION OF PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX

C. James: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance how much taxpayers have been shortchanged by his failure to act on shadow flipping. According to the Premier, government knew about this practice but chose to do nothing. The minister declined to answer how much property transfer tax revenues the province had missed out on and instead said the tax was only triggered when a property was registered.

My question is to the minister. Why is he not concerned that some realtors are using shadow flipping as a way of avoiding paying the property transfer tax?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, insofar as the property transfer tax, and the mechanism by which payment is triggered under the property transfer tax, has been in place since the 1980s, this comes as something of a revelation to the member. These non-registered means of transferring an interest in property, whether it is a share sale of a company, a beneficial trust or an assignment of a contract, have existed for the duration of the time the tax has been in place. So when the member asks what has not been paid, the tax is triggered by the registered interest and the registration of that interest in the property.

Now, happily, if the member will wait 72 hours or four days or whatever, there may be some news that even the crew of no can applaud, that even the crew of the good ship no will be able to stand up and applaud, as it relates to the affordability of housing. But I will have to wait with bated breath to see if that is in fact the case next week.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Well, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, the best we get from the minister is a half-hearted defence of the property transfer tax and the claims that he can’t do anything because the tax is only triggered when a property is registered. Well, doesn’t the minister see that that is exactly the problem here? If a group of unscrupulous realtors are using shadow flipping to shield transactions from the property transfer tax, why doesn’t the minister change the law to prevent that, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: I was tempted to ask the member why, in the ten years in office, they did nothing to change this…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: …why they did nothing to alter this egregious and outlandish…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Surrey–Green Timbers.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: …and outrageous loophole. But actually, I don’t need to ask them. I know why they didn’t change it.

It’s because in the ten years they were in office, assignments were taking place, but they were taking place for a different reason: because property values were going down in British Columbia. That’s why people needed to assign properties. Yes, in those days, vendors needed the instrument to protect themselves from the fact that people were fleeing British Columbia. Happily, today they’re coming back to B.C.

A. Weaver: I must admit I found that rather entertaining, if not…. I’m searching for an answer within the rebuttal there.

[1415]

For more than two years now, I’ve been raising the issue of affordability and speculation in the housing market. There are at least three dimensions to this: (1) incentivize government speculation, (2) a preponderance of vacant homes and (3) non-enforcement of illegal realtor transactions.
[ Page 10304 ]

I just reintroduced a bill to amend the Land Title Act, thereby providing government with access to critical information needed to understand who is actually buying properties in our province. Government inaction plays a substantive role in fostering speculation. The bare trust loophole that I’ve raised several times in this House for several years allows wealthy individuals and corporations to avoid registering at the land title office and so avoid paying B.C.’s property transfer tax.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Advanced Education clearly does not understand fundamental real estate, or he would actually understand here a little bit more about where I’m going with this.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation to close the loophole, which we are the only province in the country that still allows to exist, by following the lead of Ontario to actually apply the property transfer tax upon change in beneficial ownership instead of change in title? And if not, why not?

The Minister of Advanced Education should know better than to actually pretend this is not an issue in British Columbia, because it is. I speak to real estate developers, I have spoken to mortgage lenders, and I know that this loophole is being used in British Columbia for speculative purposes and to avoid paying property transfer tax.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think there are two issues, and to be fair, the member has raised them at various times and today used another tool of the Legislature to highlight one of them: the collection of information. I’m going to be a little cautious about what I say today, except to acknowledge that the unregistered transferring of interests in real property in British Columbia does have an impact. It also does have an impact on the amount of property transfer tax and the mechanism by which we collect the property transfer tax.

I am cautiously optimistic that when the member has an opportunity to see some of the provisions of the budget that will be tabled on Tuesday of next week, he will find favour with at least some aspects of that document that will respond to some of the concerns that he’s outlined today.

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

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY IN LOWER MAINLAND
AND VACANT PROPERTIES

A. Weaver: I hope on that day when I see that, the hon. Minister of Advanced Education will eat some humble pie, but I suspect that may not happen.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, I have to respond. The minister suggests I have a PhD in climate change. I don’t. I have a PhD in applied mathematics. This points to the fact that the members opposite clearly are not able to get their facts right on so many issues.

Madame Speaker: Question.

A. Weaver: When I was door-knocking in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain in one area a few weeks ago, I passed empty houses — empty house after empty house. I went so far as to estimate that one in three of the homes that I knocked the door on were empty. Houses, townhouses and condos that remain empty are driving up the price of real estate, making housing less and less affordable for far too many British Columbians.

Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation similar to what’s being considered elsewhere — in particular, Sydney, Australia, where the exact same problem is happening — that taxes vacant properties in urban areas in a revenue-neutral fashion to ensure that the money becomes available to pay the social costs associated with the lack of affordable housing?

Hon. M. de Jong: I feel like a spectator at the Cambridge-Oxford regatta here.

Let me say this. I will say candidly I’m not entirely drawn to the specific example that the member cites with respect to the Australian jurisdiction.

[1420]

I will say this. I think the idea that is captured within the private member’s bill that he has tabled earlier today has merit and relates to the need and the advisability of beginning by ensuring that we have a reliable database that tells us more about what is taking place in the market.

Beyond that, I’ll have to ask the member to be patient for a few more days.

UBER SERVICES AND
LOBBYIST ACTIVITIES

H. Bains: The government has developed a strange relationship with Uber. Madame Speaker, 2½ weeks ago the Premier took responsibility for Uber away from the Minister of Transportation and gave it to the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

Can the minister explain why he placed his office, through his chief of staff, in a conflict of interest by letting her arrange and sit in closed-door meetings between his office, Uber and taxi companies when his chief of staff’s daughter is the registered lobbyist for Uber?

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, the member opposite is wrong. There is no ongoing relationship with my chief
[ Page 10305 ]
of staff’s daughter with Uber. That was severed when, indeed, the responsibility for that was given to my ministry and myself to work with the taxi industry.

Like always, the members opposite are always behind the times.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey-Newton on a supplemental.

H. Bains: Let’s look at this government’s history with Uber. In 2014, the Minister of Transportation said “no way” to Uber. Then Uber hired the Premier’s former principal secretary. Then, in July 2015, Uber lobbyists set up meetings between Uber and the Minister of Citizens’ Services. Then, suddenly, the Minister of Transportation says Uber is inevitable.

Then the Minister of Transportation says they’re not coming anytime soon. Then the Premier gave the file to the minister, whose staff — clearly his office, through his staff — have a blatant conflict of interest.

Yesterday the minister took his chief of staff to meetings on Uber. According to the registrar of lobbyists website, his chief of staff’s daughter is still Uber’s lobbyist.

The minister clearly — clearly — placed his office in a blatant conflict of interest and didn’t tell anybody.

In this view, why would anybody trust that he will have a fair and transparent process on Uber and that he will place the public interest ahead of Uber lobbyist friends?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I think the member, again, is not willing to look at the facts. When something was brought to my attention after I was assigned the responsibility, action was taken.

I know the members opposite are jealous of the fact that this government has said we care about the taxi industry. We are going to work with them. We met with them, and we had a very good meeting yesterday, talking about the future of their industry and the people who have dedicated their lives and their families to that industry.

We are committed to not have any hidden agendas but to absolutely work with the industry so that we can ensure that the future of the taxi industry is protected and the lives of the families that are in that industry can move ahead in a positive way because of our sound economic policies, because we have balanced budgets and because we do care.

C. Trevena: What the minister seems to miss is that this is about government integrity. It’s not about the taxi industry.

Uber has a long history of employing well-connected lobbyists to get what it wants, and in B.C., it appears to have managed to make a very close connection in the minister’s office.

[1425]

The minister says he was aware of this conflict the day he was handed the job by the Premier. Can the minister tell the House when he told his chief of staff that she had a conflict of interest and had to recuse herself from the file?

Hon. P. Fassbender: When my chief of staff came and told me that she had a concern, she said that action was taken immediately. That was when I was informed that I was taking on this responsibility.

This is all about the taxi industry. It is all about the integrity of this government to not rush to decisions but to work with all parties, to make sure that we move ahead in a positive way. That’s the commitment of the Premier. That’s the commitment of the members on this side of the House. That is the commitment that I made to the taxi industry in the meeting yesterday morning. I know they walked out of that meeting pleased that we are working together in a collaborative and a cooperative way, and they were absolutely pleased with the outcome of that meeting.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Island on a supplemental.

C. Trevena: Maybe more pleased than we are about the answers that this minister is giving.

I’m sure the minister is aware of the standards of conduct for political staff. They were written by this government after several staff in the office of the member for Richmond-Steveston and the Office of the Premier were found to be abusing the rules in the quick-win scandal. They say: “Upon appointment, political staff must arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest or the perception of conflicts of interest arising.”

This conflict of interest has been talked of openly by those who believe that government is cutting a special deal for Uber. So why did the minister let it happen?

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’ve said it, and I will repeat it clearly and slowly for the members opposite. The minute there was even a question of perception, action was taken that very moment.

S. Simpson: We know that Uber is a globally aggressive company. We know they take the actions they deem necessary to get what they want, including hiring a lobbyist firm full of Liberal insiders. That’s their prerogative to do that. It’s the minister’s responsibility to ensure that there is no conflict and that any perception of that is above reproach.

The question isn’t: when did his chief of staff’s daughter get on or off the file? The question is: why is his chief of staff still on the file now, when in fact there is a connection with the family? Why is that? That’s the perception of conflict. The minister knows it.

Interjections.
[ Page 10306 ]

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: It grieves me when I see time and time again that the members opposite impugn the reputation of people who have the highest integrity, who work very hard on behalf of the offices of this government. I can say without equivocation that my chief of staff came to me when she even had the slightest feeling that there was going to be a concern and told me that action was taken, and I have the utmost confidence in her and the fact that action was taken immediately.

S. Simpson: What should grieve this minister is that apparently he and the rest of his cabinet colleagues don’t know how to follow the rules around conflict.

[1430]

If the minister is so sure about this, will the minister release information on dates when the daughter recused herself and on dates and times when he talked to his chief of staff about this? The bottom line is she shouldn’t be on the file when she has that connection on something as conflicted as this. Absolutely, she shouldn’t. Will the minister release the documents and information to support his assertion?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I will say, very simply, this.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Excuse me.

Vancouver-Hastings.

Please continue.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Again, the aspersions that are coming out from the members opposite are unfounded, unwarranted and totally inappropriate. I know that my office and my chief of staff have conducted themselves appropriately and were doing the right things for the right reasons, not the suggestions coming from the other side.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Thornthwaite: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth. This report covers that second phase of the committee’s special project in relation to child and youth mental health.

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

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Thornthwaite: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make a few brief comments. This report is the final report of the committee’s special project regarding child and youth mental health. In the report, entitled Concrete Actions for Systemic Change, the committee makes 23 recommendations to improve the delivery of child and youth mental health services in the province.

The committee special project was conducted in two phases. In November 2014, the committee issued an interim report highlighting six priority areas for attention, including improving services, integrating service delivery, and ministry leadership. In the second phase, the committee focused on concrete and practical solutions to the challenges identified in the interim report.

The committee’s recommendations are based on evidence heard during a public consultation process conducted over two years. Participants included organizations that deliver child and youth mental health services in British Columbia; ministries, including the Ministry of Health, MCFD and the Ministry of Education; individuals with lived experience with mental illness; as well as those with expertise in child and youth mental health; and individuals who have received mental health services, and their families.

I’m pleased to say that the committee worked cooperatively throughout this review and unanimously agreed to all of the recommendations in this report.

A key recommendation made by the committee is that a position for a minister of mental health be created to strengthen leadership and accountability for the delivery of mental health services in the province. Other major recommendations include support for an integrated model of service delivery where services are delivered in school and community-based hubs in child- and youth-friendly settings, a “one child, one file” philosophy, and 30-day targets for the assessment and treatment of children and youth.

In closing, I would like to thank all my fellow committee members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for Stikine. With that, I move adoption of the report.

D. Donaldson: As Deputy Chair, I’d like to make a few comments in the submission of this final report on behalf of the committee.

[1435]

I’d like to thank all the committee members for their hard work over the last two years, and especially the Chair, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour; and also the former Deputy Chair, still a member of the committee, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill,
[ Page 10307 ]
who, together with the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, initiated this special project; Clerk Kate Ryan-Lloyd for her work on the report; and especially the committee researchers, Helen Morrison and Alayna van Leeuwen, who did a great job of distilling and writing the document for us.

I’d like to thank those who presented to the committee and wrote in — the experts, the academics and the practitioners, but especially the families and the youth. Those were heartfelt presentations that we heard. They really made an impact.

The report states that children, youth and young adults “are suffering as a result of significant weaknesses and gaps in services.” It goes on to conclude that improvements to delivery are urgently needed.

The main recommendation, and the first recommendation, for a minister for mental health is a recognition that families and youth need an entry point into the mental health system, that it needs to be better coordinated in delivery, and there needs to be a stronger voice at the cabinet table to secure funding. The coordination aspect — an example of that is the “one child, one file” recommendation that’s in the report. That could have made a world of difference to children like Paige, and that’s something that could be acted on quickly. It’s not something that’s a costly recommendation.

As for securing funding, there’s a recommendation, an important one, about a 30-day maximum period for assessment and 30 days for treatment. That’s a recognition that even though that’s a 60-day period, that would be an improvement on what we have now. That early intervention is so important.

There are 23 recommendations. It’s a blueprint and a road map for a solution and for better service. I know that members of this Legislature themselves have family members or know of constituents who have experience with children and youth and young adults with mental health challenges. I urge the government to adopt this blueprint to address such a fundamental need that can make a life-changing difference for families and children in this province.

Motion approved.

S. Hamilton: I have the honour to present a report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. The report covers the committee’s annual review of the budgetary estimates of statutory offices. I move that the report be taken and received.

Motion approved.

S. Hamilton: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

S. Hamilton: Moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make a few brief comments.

This unanimous report summarizes the committee’s review of the budget proposals, annual reports and service plans of British Columbia’s eight statutory offices. This year’s review implemented the committee’s decision, taken last year, to enhance our oversight of statutory office budgets. We increased our meetings to provide a more detailed review of plans and priorities of offices, and we strengthened financial reporting to improve consistency and transparency.

The committee members and statutory officers welcomed these new measures. They have improved the effectiveness of the committee’s oversight. They’ve also enhanced accountability to British Columbians for the expenditure of taxpayers’ funds to support the important work of statutory offices.

It has been a very busy year for my committee. I want to thank all of the statutory officers and their staff, as well, of course, as my fellow committee members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, for their support.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

C. James: I’ll just add my appreciation to the Chair of the committee, as well as all of the members and the statutory officers.

I think that, as the Chair has said, we focused very clearly as a committee this year on making sure that we were getting more information, that we had more time to examine the offices and the work of the offices, which I think is critical when we’re taking a look at the budgets to be able to do that.

We had the opportunity to be able to have each of the officers appear, to be able to have more time to explore their work and better understand it and, therefore, to be able to take a look at the budgets in a much more thorough way. I think that was appreciated by all.

Motion approved.

Petitions

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I would like to present a petition signed by 169 residents in my constituency requesting changes to traffic on Roberton Boulevard in French Creek.

[1440]

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition with 65,721 signatures from people across British Columbia calling on the government to abolish B.C.’s regressive approach to collecting MSP premiums. As the petition states, B.C. should follow the lead of other provinces in eliminating flat-rate MSP premiums.
[ Page 10308 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

G. Hogg: Today, as we’ve heard in this House, marks the fifth annual gathering of men, the Moose Hide Campaign, to end violence against women and children. The founder of this national campaign, Paul Lacerte, this morning referred to the phrase namaste, which he said means “the light in me sees the light in you,” and he used that as a principle for addressing the issue of violence.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Paul talked about the national process, the national movement, to decolonize and to reculturize aboriginal people. During the opening protocols and welcoming this morning, the presiding elder talked about moving — moving from vision through a concept to reality, the process of taking an idea through a process to its existence. The process, in some ways, is similar to the intent of the throne speech through a budget and to actualization.

Attending the opening of the Moose Hide Campaign this morning reminded me of the honour I have to represent the people of Surrey–White Rock and to participate in the deliberative process of governing the province. It is an honour to walk into this building each day, to understand what it stands for and to be a part of its traditions and challenges, to know that there is a commitment from both sides of this House to present options to better the lives of British Columbians.

Governments always have challenges, and the task of prioritizing options is one of those challenges. John Maynard Keynes said that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. As an influential economist, he worked with and influenced many government policies, and he was named one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.

After working with governments for years, he observed that: “There is nothing a government hates more than to be well informed, for it makes the process of arriving at decisions more complicated and more difficult.” While it may be true that it makes it difficult — even more difficult — it also, when done well, makes decisions better.

Making good decisions is not simple nor easy. Evidence can help us understand what works, where, why and with whom. It can also tell us what doesn’t work. We can avoid repeating failures. Evidence also challenges what we might think is common sense.

For example, it may seem a good idea to increase police on the street to reduce crime, or to reduce classroom sizes, but evidence doesn’t necessarily support this. Studies — evidence — suggest that having more uniformed police on the streets might perceive to be making the public safer, but it can actually take police away from solving crime. Historically, politicians have tended to ignore such evidence because it is a popular belief that it works.

The process of decision-making, of support, of understanding and of gaining social licence is both complicated and difficult. Mark Twain said: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

As we plan for our future generations, one challenge is that of social engagement, of deliberation, of decision-making and of our youth and our youth’s involvement. All cultures tend to teach their mores and their values and beliefs through the process of play, and that often leads into sport.

[1445]

Pope Francis recently announced that the Catholic Church is putting its faith in the power of sport to bring about social change. He is making sports a focus of his papacy’s third global initiative on education. His three-day event will examine the role sports can have and play in society, from establishing relationships to helping promote health and wellness. This is the first time such a high-profile global institution has focused on the topic as a driver for social change.

United States statistics and studies have found that 75 percent of all children playing sports at the age of ten quit by age 12. Between 2008 and 2013, there were 2.6 million fewer children between the ages of six and 12 playing basketball, soccer, track and field, baseball, softball and football, a reduction of 8.8 percent.

We often emphasize performance over participation well before kids’ bodies, minds and interests mature, before they are physically, psychologically and emotionally capable to understand and to assimilate what often coaches and parents believe they should. Our goal should be to help every 12-year-old youth develop the ability, the confidence and the desire to be physically fit for life.

When asked about sport, 90 percent of six- to 12 year-olds said they wanted to have fun. It was the main reason that they played sports. When they were asked to rank what fun was and what fun meant, they said, firstly, it means “trying to be my best.” Secondly, it means having a coach that teaches and respects. Thirdly, it was having playing time. Fourthly, playing well together as a team. Next, getting along with teammates. And, finally, exercising and being active. Those are the first six. Number 48 on that list was winning. It often seems that coaches have that somewhat inverted in terms of their approach to it.

A good coach sees the potential in every child, and kids say they want a coach that respects and encourages them as a positive role model who gives clear and consistent communications, has a knowledge of the sport and is someone who listens. Parents, when they looked
[ Page 10309 ]
at these statistics and saw the reductions, said that they often drove their child home from a practice or a game, and the child was upset. They were upset because a coach had yelled at them, because somebody had yelled at them, because they didn’t get to play.

That was one of the reasons we were seeing the reduction. The other was a concern with respect to concussions, with respect to the physical well-being. I think it’s ever-important for governments to ensure that there are policies and practices out there that do ensure that we respect the physical, emotional and psychological well-being of all of the students and people that participate in the sports that are funded by the state.

It has been a privilege over the past while to work with some phenomenal people who are positively engaged in providing opportunities for aboriginal youth — leaders and role models such as Paul Lacerte and Rick Brant, who have worked so hard to put together a sport-for-life book that gives a number of options and challenges and ways of dealing with sport.

I’ve had the privilege of being in longhouses and the North American Indigenous Games, where British Columbia won the North American Indigenous Games and also won the Spirit Award, the first time that’s ever been done. We continue to win the Canadian games with respect to hockey, and certainly, the Canadian team of women won the World Indigenous Games gold medal for soccer and should be appropriately recognized for that.

The Premier’s aboriginal youth sports awards are happening in March of this year. There’s a Gathering Our Voices that the aboriginal people have every year. They’re expecting over 2,000 people to attend this at the Victoria convention centre, which houses about 1,500, so there will be a lot of people outside and watching on TV and being a part of it. There are going to be 1,500 youth on the lawns of this Legislature having what’s called a Nike move moment. The Nike Society Foundation is funding this move moment for 1,500 people. They’ve contacted Guinness, and they’re hoping to be able to set a world’s record with respect to that.

Microsoft has contributed $3 million to Right to Play, an international organization that’s looking at how we can encourage youth to be involved in sports.

[1450]

Right to Play started in Africa. A famous Dutch skater who won a number of gold medals set this up. He went off to Africa, where he handed out T-shirts to the people. None of the kids wanted these T-shirts, but they saw some long-sleeved shirts, and they wanted those. He found out they wanted long-sleeved shirts because they could tie them up into a soccer ball and use them, and that couldn’t happen with a T-shirt. That’s when he realized the impact that he could have, so he moved quickly to bring more soccer balls and more opportunities.

We now have that opportunity in British Columbia, as Right to Play has received $1 million a year for three years from Microsoft to work with aboriginal communities to have them more actively engaged in sport and the work around those.

The Semiahmoo First Nation, which is a part of the riding I represent…. Their Grand Chief Bernard Charles, who died a few years ago, left an incredible legacy. They hold a potlatch every year at Earl Marriott School. Troy Derrick, who is an RCMP member, comes and participates. He started a program called code blue, when they have their potlatch. This code blue he started out for Grand Chief Bernard Charles’s two grandchildren, to start working and getting them actively involved in physical exercise.

The aboriginal kids started coming to this program, and then they wanted to bring their friends. Now the program has expanded to about eight schools in Surrey. Alberta has contacted, wanting to know what’s happening with it. There are two communities in the north who are wanting to participate in this and actually are going to have an exchange with the Semiahmoo First Nation in terms of looking at how they can use this to grow and to understand.

Last week I had the privilege of being at the signing ceremony with ViaSport British Columbia and the Canadian Olympic Committee, as the Canadian Olympic Committee has made a decision for their first time that they actually want to get involved in from-cradle-to-grave sports. Instead of just looking at excellence, as the Olympic Committee has done for so many years, they’re now wanting to recognize and be engaged.

British Columbia was the first province to sign an agreement, an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, with the Canadian Olympic Committee where they’re going to provide $200,000 to us to look at how we can continue to look at development.

I had the privilege of meeting with the representatives of the COC some six months ago where they talked to me about the MOU and the ideas around it. I had some contributions that I thought were contributions. They kindly included some visionary statements into it that I provided, and then they modified and changed, but I think it reflects much more of a visionary sense rather than just the practical model of going back and forth in an MOU.

KidSport is also an active and important part of what’s happening in this province. The statistics I gave earlier were talking about kids dropping out of sport. Those were kids who had started in sport, and it wasn’t a financial issue for most of those that dropped out. Yet the biggest barrier that still exists for a number of kids participating in sport is a financial barrier.

KidSport, which started in British Columbia, is now a national organization. It is a tremendous contributor to providing the registration fees necessary for kids to participate in sports. The province provides about $400,000 a year for that. There are a number of chapters around the province that do that. We run a chapter in South Surrey–
[ Page 10310 ]
White Rock for all of Surrey. We have a fundraiser each year, in which we have been successful in one evening to raise over $100,000 to participate in providing the necessary funding for those kids to participate in the registration of the sports that they want to participate in.

I think our job, our process is much like that outlined at the beginning of the program, for establishing, reducing, managing the violence against women and children — a vision of greater equality, of greater equity, through a concept, through a plan, through a structure to proceed to a reality that is a better future of all of the people of our communities, of our province, of our country and the world.

One of my favourite little anecdotes is about three kids who are out in an elementary school playground. They are playing around, and then one of the kids says: “Well, my dad is so fast, he can take a baseball, throw it in to home plate and run in and catch it.”

The other kids’ heads are sort of spinning. The second kid says: “Well, my dad is faster. My dad can have his pyjamas on. He can be sitting on the edge of the bed and he can get up and turn off the bedroom light and be back in bed before the room gets dark.” Pretty quick. The third kid says…. His head’s kind of spinning. He says: “Well, my dad is even faster than that. My dad gets off work at five o’clock, and he can be home by 4:30.

[1455]

These three kids have different perspectives, different vantage points from which to see reality, their reality, seeing the world as they want to see it, seeing the world as they want it to be. May we find common perspectives that benefit everyone as we work through the processes that we are going through, through a throne speech, through a budget, and move optimistically forward for the betterment of all the people of our community and province.

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place in a debate that, I suspect, honestly, will be going on for next year and a half, a debate that is about the direction this province is going, a debate about what the future could look like for British Columbia, a debate that I’m eager to participate in.

But this throne speech did not give us the ability to debate because there were virtually no ideas. Gone is the over-the-top rhetoric about LNG that has so defined this government’s approach. Replacing it, however, is a familiar drumbeat that I remember hearing in 2012, before the last election: the world is a scary place; only this government has prevented complete collapse.

Yet, to make such a claim would defy logic, given this government’s record over the last four years. I remember sitting here, bright-eyed, in 2013, having just been elected, and listening to a throne speech that stated the government would “bring the liquefied natural gas opportunity home, creating tens of thousands of new jobs and leading to the establishment of the B.C. prosperity fund, which will be protected by law to eliminate our debt.”

Three years later this is clearly an empty promise, an unfulfilled vision that was never based in reality, a history that this government is quick to forget. British Columbians are hardly going to feel assured that this government has a concrete plan, given the direction indicated by the Speech from the Throne.

The undercurrent of their retreat away from their highly rhetorical promises of 2013 is the idea that there was no way the government could possibly have known that LNG would be delayed. “Unforeseen global conditions are posing new challenges,” Tuesday’s speech read. But these challenges, I would argue, were largely foreseeable, of course.

For the past few years, experts from a variety of fields have been outlining just how unlikely it would be for this industry to come to British Columbia as promised. Since 2012, I’ve been saying that this was nothing but a pipe dream. Since 2012, nothing has happened in this industry because the world is oversupplied in natural gas.

China now has excess gas. It is a seller on the international marketplace. And the price of future contracts would mean that, in British Columbia, we would literally have to pay people to take our natural gas. Finally, Iran, the world’s largest reserve of natural gas — almost 20 times that of all Canada combined — has recently had sanctions lifted.

Is there anyone out there who still believes anything this government has to say when it talks about LNG? I think it’s important for us to look at just how much was promised in order to understand why the government’s refrain that “success is not for quitters” is not simply, yet again, empty rhetoric. But not only that. It’s a dangerous approach to the management of public resources.

In 2011, the Premier said that she planned to take an “aggressive approach to the development of the natural gas sector,” and she was confident that British Columbia could “create a prosperous LNG industry that would bring local jobs to our communities and deliver important dollars into our economy.” Her office predicted that the Kitimat liquefied natural gas plant would be “operational by 2015.” Nothing much happening in Kitimat in the area of LNG.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: And yes, I have been to Kitimat, and I have toured the Rio Tinto Alcan plan, and there is a lot going on there, certainly.

But in fact there is no LNG development going on in Kitimat. In fact, the pipeline that was being processed there has simply had construction stop, and yet again, again and again, final investment decisions are kicked down…. The can is kicked down the road for years to come.

The NDP, citing jobs for underemployment, communities and a “better market in Asia,” were quick to support the development of an LNG industry, initially. I will say,
[ Page 10311 ]
of course, that they have seen the light, and they, too, recognize the empty promises that this government led British Columbians down.

[1500]

“I suspect…that if we have a facility in Kitimat and markets in Asia, then the activity in the northeast is going to continue to be hot rather than flat,” said the Leader of the Opposition in 2011.

“The risk to our coastline from LNG is insignificant. The benefit to British Columbians is quite significant,” he added a few days later.

The B.C. Liberals continue pushing their LNG — and until recently, supported by the NDP. In 2012, for example, the NDP said they were comfortable with fracking and supported increasing B.C.’s greenhouse gases in the name of reducing those in Asia. “We’ve been fracking in British Columbia for a long, long time — decades in fact.”

In fact, that’s true. Vertical fracking has been going on in British Columbia for many decades, but not horizontal fracking. Horizontal drilling is a relatively new construct both in British Columbia and the rest of the world, which is one of the reasons that there’s no market for B.C. gas, because everyone in the world is using horizontal fracking now, not just British Columbia.

In 2013, the Premier’s “aggressive approach” morphed into her entire re-election strategy, one based solely on the LNG industry. Massive promises were made to British Columbians: a debt-free B.C. by the end of the 2020s, a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs, elimination of the provincial sales tax, $4.3 billion in extra government revenue by 2020, $1 trillion in the new economic activity. The list went on and on. To quote again: “This opportunity is very real for all the people of our province,” she said.

In 2014, this chamber once again heard that LNG was “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs and a prosperity fund to eliminate the provincial debt.” Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, we heard that this LNG fiction was the “greatest single step we can take to fight climate change.” That’s almost a laughable quote.

As a climate scientist, I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, and I spoke against the idea. Climate leadership aside, which this government is so sorely lacking, it was clear that the economics simply weren’t there to support an LNG industry on the scale of what was promised, and a number of energy analysts were voicing similar concerns. Nonetheless, onwards we go.

The Premier told us that her plan to foster a competitive LNG industry was “showing results.” She was so confident in her vision that by April 30 of 2014, she stated that her government was meeting with key investors to “take the last crucial steps towards final decisions.”

By the end of the year, her plan was, by any account, looking a little iffy. The deal with Petronas wasn’t going so well, despite the Premier’s assurance that they were “absolutely on schedule” and that they were “going to get there on the timeline that they had set.”

The 7 percent tax that was originally proposed had been cut in half. The imminent deals that were just around the corner were dwindling in number. I stated in this House that this was an industry of “high-stakes promises and low-stakes delivery,” and I asked the government repeatedly about their backup plan if the predicted LNG windfall did not materialize.

The response from the hon. Minister of Natural Gas was that they knew they “will be successful on this file.” No backup plan. Not necessary. None.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: And the balanced budgets are being done, as the Minister of Health is pointing out — on the backs of individual British Columbians through things like speculation in the real estate industry and medical service premium increases. As we saw today, 65,712 British Columbians from around the province signed a petition saying: “Stop this.”

The government will listen or not listen, at their peril, because these 65,712 voters will be there in 2017 to send this government a message, bringing ten or 12 folk along with each and every one of them.

Come 2015, the government was still touting the LNG promises. Albeit, those promises had diminished significantly. The price of oil had fallen through the floor, while the government looked the other way and continued to insist that LNG was a “generational opportunity.”

By this point, however, the government had gone quiet on the big-ticket promises, and our Premier’s timeline had changed. Having an LNG plant operational by 2015 clearly wasn’t happening. But she insisted now that they were on target to have “three projects by 2020 up and running.” That’s a bit like kicking the can down past the next election — desperate, absolutely desperate, to try to get one — not two, but one — final investment decision.

[1505]

This government had a rare, unusual summer session for the sole purpose of legislating an agreement that ultimately amounted to a sellout of our resource — a desperate attempt to land an industry one final investment deal. That deal was and remains environmentally reckless, fiscally foolhardy and socially irresponsible.

It is undoing all of our climate leadership, as recently emphasized by a Canadian report on the environmental assessment in the area. Admitting what we already knew by the end of 2015, the Premier said timelines were probably going to be different than what she had promised.

Running parallel to the government’s over-the-top statements on LNG was a continued advancement of the Site C dam. The massive undertaking is perhaps the clearest example of how irresponsible this government is with public resources. The whole reason for building Site C,
[ Page 10312 ]
as the Premier stated in 2013, was because it was needed “for powering up these huge LNG facilities.” Oops. What LNG facilities?

This project was originally priced at $6.6 billion in 2010, $7.9 billion in 2011, and as of 2014, the estimate was set at $8.8 billion. I’m willing to stake a large bet today that it’ll come in around $13 billion when all is said and done, and this will be an example of public subsidy for an industry that is not going to come to B.C. any time soon — all to power these LNG facilities that we’re not going to have, with none appearing to be close.

Now, with this apparent excess energy whose production has crippled the clean energy sector in British Columbia, we hear that Site C may help to power Alberta — well, there’s a new idea — and we’ll put more public money subsidizing a transmission line to allow us to do so. To me, this sounds like a desperate attempt to salvage a bad idea that anybody outside of government’s inner circles would have realized was not timely and not cost-effective and irresponsible — a bad idea that happened to support another bad idea.

Here is the critical point. We have not seen one single investment decision in five years of political rhetoric about how promising the LNG sector is for our province, not a single investment decision to help fund all those big election promises — not a single investment decision, period.

I want to return to this line we heard on Tuesday — that “success is not for quitters” and that “success demands steadfast attention.” I would suggest that success is knowing when to stop throwing good money after bad ideas and having the courage to admit that you were wrong. That is, after all, what a fiscally responsible government would do. That is what a fiscally responsible Green government would do.

Anybody who has ever been in the stock market knows you don’t double down chasing a stock. Just ask anybody who invested in Nortel back in the day when it went from over $100 to pennies and change.

Despite the clear lack of progress in developing an LNG record, the Minister of Natural Gas stated last month that those who question this abysmal track record are “pessimists, short-sighted, reluctant to admit that LNG is making progress and securing long-term prosperity for all of us.”

Indeed, rather than switching tracks, they’re switching to being derogatory and defensive of their failed strategy while superficially referencing a diversified economy they have done little, if anything, to support. The Premier herself said the world is being divided in two: the people that will “say no to everything” and the people who would “want to find a way to get to yes.”

“I’m not sure what science the forces of no bring together up there, except that it’s not really about the science, and it’s not really about the fish. It’s just about trying to say no. It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future.” It’s about derogatory statements like this Premier is making — a complete and utter lack of understanding of the fundamental issues facing British Columbians that she would have the gall to say that.

Is there any reason why voter turnout in recent by-elections was only 20 percent? The people of British Columbia are fed up with this political rhetoric. They will vote for change in the future. They will vote for change like the federal government voted for change, like the American Republicans and Democrats are voting for change in their leadership. They will vote for change to get this government out of power. It’s been in far too long. It’s sending the signals to British Columbians that they do not want to hear.

The arrogance of that statement is simply outstanding. There are very good scientific reasons to not support the LNG pipedream of this government, not the least of which is the fact that pursuing the LNG strategy will throw our climate leadership out of the window, plain and simple. You can’t argue it the other way.

[1510]

Indeed, the continued rhetoric on LNG isn’t really about the reality of LNG in this province. It’s about trying to convince us that LNG promises are going to materialize if we just trust government. Heard that before? It’s about fear of British Columbians actually remembering what they were promised and realizing it’s not what was delivered. It’s about a fear of losing the next election.

The Minister of Natural Gas Development once told me that my opposition to his LNG pipedream would leave me eating my words, just as the Minister of Advanced Education said today. Well, it hasn’t happened yet. I have to admit I’m getting hungry for real government leadership in this province. Furthermore, I must confess my confusion about how this government feels it can insinuate that Alberta is not an example of how to run a province, while at the same time being entirely focused on developing a carbon-based commodity market economy in the same low-price environment. It’s precisely that that’s hurting Alberta.

For three years, we’ve had a one-issue Premier, caught up in the political promises she had to make to win the last election. We’ve had a supportive opposition up until recently. We have heard plenty of promises, and they have rarely been based in reality. This is an approach to government that is, sadly, being repeated on a number of fronts.

For example, let’s take a look at the B.C. jobs plan, which promised thousands of new jobs and is now in its fifth year. It has done nothing to fuel job growth.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: In fact, the employment rate in B.C. has dropped, hon. Minister of Health. The employment rate in B.C. has dropped since the B.C. Liberals took office.
[ Page 10313 ]
The employment rate has dropped since the B.C. Liberals took office, despite their B.C. jobs plan. As Stats Canada reported this past December, B.C.’s unemployment rate has risen to its highest level since December ’13. The pattern of job losses in our province is troubling, especially when considered next to skyrocketing housing prices.

Again, mirroring the government’s outlandish LNG promises, the B.C. Liberals have repeatedly vowed that every British Columbian would have a family doctor by 2015. There’s another promise. But unfortunately, 2015 has come and gone, and there are an incredible number of people still in need of a family doctor. In fact, here’s another statistic. Fewer British Columbians have a regular doctor now than before the government made these lofty promises. Right now in British Columbia, it’s estimated that over 200,000 people are still actively looking for a family doctor.

The minister has gone quiet on that one. I wish he’d actually look at the statistics there and fulfil the promises his government made and send that in the wrong direction. Given this government’s complicated history with doctor shortages, however, what I find most concerning about the B.C. Liberals’ promise to provide every British Columbian with a family physician is not that they have failed. One only has to look back at the struggles Canada has, as a country, in maintaining the appropriate numbers of GPs to know that B.C.’s doctor shortage was never something that could have been fixed in two years.

What is most concerning is that British Columbians were repeatedly misled about what could be realistically achieved. British Columbians deserve better. They deserve real politics. They deserve real statements. They deserve statements in government that are grounded in reality, not political rhetoric that has no hope to ever transpire, simply because the government is concerned about winning, winning at all costs.

Now, I would ask all members of the government opposite to take a look and read the comments of the previous member, the member from the White Rock area, and what he was actually talking about there — talking about coaches, talking about winning. It’s pretty clear to me that that speech said a lot about this government and its approach to winning at all costs — saying whatever it takes to get through lunch, saying whatever it takes them to get through dinner, going into rope-a-dope to pretend issues don’t exist.

We’re beginning to see a pattern emerge with this government, whether it be promises of 100,000 jobs, a debt-free B.C., unrealistic job growth, a GP for every British Columbian, unicorns in the backyards for all kids by the age of 20. The government is long on rhetoric and short on the leadership required to truly make things better for British Columbians. Real leadership is desperately needed in this province.

Only when this government is honest with British Columbians about our strengths and weaknesses can it bring forward a real vision that positions British Columbia as a leader in the 21st-century economy. Such a vision starts by being clear about what our real strengths are as a province — our people, our place and our resources.

[1515]

British Columbians are among the best educated in the world. Our high school students are consistently ranked near the top of global comparisons. The OECD program for international student assessment identifies B.C. as continually ranking at the very top in science, mathematics and reading.

The strengths go beyond academic comparisons. Travelling around this province for the past three years, I’ve found the same thing everywhere I’ve gone: British Columbians who succeed by bringing innovation into their work. Small and family-owned businesses are the heart of innovation. They know that the market is competitive, yet they are finding ways to succeed. In many cases, in most cases, this is despite the lack of government support, not because of it.

We have such an opportunity in B.C., the opportunity to grow our economy in sunrise industries like the tech sector and the renewable energy sector. These are rapidly growing economic sectors that we need to nurture in our province.

I recently attended the B.C. Tech Summit in Vancouver, kind of an afterthought by the B.C. government in August of last year.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I do know about the B.C. Tech Summit. I know that it was only thought of as a last-minute thing in August of last year, and staff were tasked to get it done. This is not a government that has put any long-term effort into some particular issue.

When I attended that, I had a chance to sit down with numerous entrepreneurs who are working in the creative economy. I was able to hear firsthand their views on the challenges and opportunities faced by their industry. This is exactly the type of sector that has been largely neglected for the past three years by a government fixated on a windfall.

We have another: the agricultural sector. Government’s response? “Let’s have another conference on this.” Rather than nurturing this industry….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: First conference on this. Thank you to the member for Saanich South.

Everyone I have met with talked about the physical draw of our province.

Interjections.
[ Page 10314 ]

A. Weaver: I’m so glad that I’m working up some of the ministers opposite. It’s clear that I’m actually hitting a nerve there with some truth, which is getting them to be a little upset.

Everyone I met with talked about the physical draw of our province…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

A. Weaver: …as one of the main reasons they remain here. Over the generations, the beauty of this province has attracted talent and investment from across Canada and, indeed, the world. The reason is simple. People want to live here. They want to take advantage of the lifestyle opportunities that exist. People move here and they stay here to be active and surrounded by unparalleled natural beauty.

Our province attracts and retains people who believe in creating a better society. We also have the natural resources that position us to be a leader in the clean tech and resource technology sectors. Our opportunity is more than just exporting physical goods. We should be exporting our best practices and cutting-edge technologies. Unfortunately, our government is no longer spearheading those values. We are not the climate leaders we once were. Instead, we are promoting fossil fuel development.

The government is subsidizing the destruction of ancient forests that should be saved. Other ecosystems are so poorly managed that we have to cull one species in the name of saving another, bringing B.C. into global disrepute. Wild salmon, erring and oolichan stocks are falling in many regions, while the B.C. government ignores the province’s role in their protection and dismisses the vital importance of these fish in sustaining the environment and First Nations culture. Instead of addressing these issues honestly and head on, we see a government kicking the can of responsibility down a never-ending road.

The government consistently says that they are world leading. They say it because they know British Columbians want to be world leading. We want to be ahead and modern. Simply proclaiming that something is world leading does not make it so. You cannot bestow such a title on yourself. Only with the hard work of actual leadership and vision does such recognition come from abroad. That leadership is lacking.

This is what I had heard from the tech entrepreneurs who dream of a new creative industry in this province and who believe in the potential for British Columbia. They want to live here. While they were encouraged that government is finally paying attention, as of August of last year, to what could be a powerhouse industry in the province, the challenges they face are the same that all British Columbians are facing.

Affordability. It’s hard to tell if this government merely took its eye off the ball with the crisis of affordability in the Lower Mainland. They do seem to have turned hyping an industry that they politically chained themselves to into a full-time job. I get that. Either way, this is one of the fundamental challenges our province must come to terms with if we are to create an environment that fosters the growth of resilient local businesses in the creative economy.

The government has ignored the low-hanging fruit available to solve some of the housing affordability issues, such as closing the bare trust loophole or ensuring that it has the data to make evidence-based decisions. Similarly to LNG, this government has ignored all the warning signs and expert advice along the way. That is not looking out for young families. That is not showing leadership. Frankly, that’s like standing as a deer in the road looking at the headlights of the car as the economy comes and crashes down on you.

[1520]

Grounded in the housing affordability crisis is a strong sense that fairness is fundamentally lacking in our province’s approach. Vancouver is a city of people from all walks of life, but this government’s policies risk hollowing out that region by supporting the speculative industry rather than small business owners who give this city its heartbeat.

Making life affordable and fair for British Columbians means MSP premiums need to be eliminated. Why is B.C. the only province that perpetuates a fundamentally unfair system to help pay our health care services?

In our current system, someone making $30,000 a year pays the same premium as someone making $3 million a year. This unjust measure has been carried out year after year in an attempt by the government to show that they have lowered taxes. But to lower taxes and then create specific fees that disproportionately affect the lower-income bracket to pay for health care services is hardly fair, and British Columbians are noticing.

In fact, it was my constituents who brought this concern to me. I visited a local seniors centre home to learn from my constituents what challenges they were facing. With fixed incomes, the almost annual increase in MSP rates has acted like a shadow tax, taking a greater and greater share of their income — this from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head. And let me tell you, it is not one of the least well-off ridings in the province of British Columbia.

The more I looked into this, the clearer it was that MSP premiums needed reform in the province. We’re the only jurisdiction that hasn’t found a progressive way to levy health care costs. We need to follow the step Ontario has taken and roll MSP premiums into our income taxes. There’s no cost increase here. It takes a shadow tax this government charges in fees, a head tax, and instead replaces it with a graduated payment on your income tax return, just like CPP and EI.

Reforming MSP premiums — not tweaking it slightly, to pretend that you care — is what real government
[ Page 10315 ]
leadership looks like. It’s a commitment to making the lives of British Columbians better.

Listening to the problems affecting those who live in this province is part of good governance. But when the people of Shawinigan Lake have voiced strong and valid opposition to a project, the government has ignored them. When First Nations oppose a project in their own territory, they are dismissed as the forces of no. This is not collaborative governance. This is not listening. It’s certainly not about reconciliation. This is not what British Columbians expect from their government.

The throne speech specifically states: “Getting to yes on economic development does not mean cutting corners or bowing to external pressure.” I’m wondering right now what the residents of Shawnigan Lake think about this. I’m wondering what First Nations think about this. And I’m wondering if First Nations believe this government is sincere when, not once but twice, the throne speech uses the possessive “our” to describe First Nations. Our First Nations — unbelievable, coming from a government that suggests that it cares about the importance of listening to First Nations in British Columbia.

Our province is blessed with a mixture of human and natural resources that, with real leadership and deliberate action, are poised to take off. With the right policies and measures in place, combined with the right approach, we can have a cutting-edge modern economy while ensuring a just society. This is what building on our strengths, rather than chasing political promises, can bring us.

By leveraging our renewable energy sector — which, sadly, is hurting right now because of the irresponsible government decision on Site C, burdening future generations with public debt to provide power at below-market cost to an industry that will never transpire here — our critical natural resource sectors of forestry, mining, aquaculture and agriculture have the potential to join forces with the tech sector and create new, innovative ways to sustainably harvest our resources at greater value than before.

Unfortunately, this vision cannot flourish if government remains tied to the political promises it made four years ago. As their previous dream of an LNG windfall hits the hard brick wall of reality, the government now seems directionless. Yes, they are taking a few commonsense steps to address a small number of real crises facing British Columbia, but they are ignoring the vast potential of what this province and its people can do. With this approach, they are saying no to leadership. They are saying no to a prosperous future for British Columbia and no to what B.C. could be.

With heads in the sand, it would appear that the forces of no are not just on this side of the House. They are, frankly, on the other side of the House.

With that, I thank you, hon. Speaker, for your time and will say to you that I will not be supporting this throne speech in the House.

[1525]

Hon. M. Morris: Before I start, I’d just like to recognize…. The session was called back in. And again, it reminded me of my first day, after 2013, when the good folks of Prince George–Mackenzie elected me to come down here to this great place, this institution, to represent their interests and provide a strong voice in Victoria for the people of Prince George–Mackenzie.

Of course, bringing that strong voice to Victoria means that I’m away a lot from my area up there in Prince George. As a result of that…. Things keep running quite well up there. I have to give full credit to my staff up there. My constituent assistants, Charlotte and Sharon who work in my Prince George office, and Willow, who works in the Mackenzie office for me, very adequately and professionally represent the interests that I have for the people in Prince George–Mackenzie and look after the needs of the people up there very well. Thank you very much, ladies, for doing that.

I also have to thank my good neighbours. I’m away a lot. We live in a bit of a snowbelt up there, and despite the fact that I bought my wife one of the best snow blowers on the market, there are still times when the snow still accumulates in the yard. I’ve got a great neighbour, Alton, who comes over and does his best to help out. So Alton, again, I appreciate that and all the good work that you and your lovely wife, Sandra, do to help make our life a little easier up there.

It’s people like that that give me the opportunity to provide the strong voice here in Victoria for the folks up north.

I want to talk a little bit about Prince George–Mackenzie. We’re right pretty much in the geographical centre of British Columbia. We’re connected by a north-south highway that goes right from the great urban centre we have here in the Lower Mainland all the way up to the Yukon and beyond into Alaska.

We’re also in the crossroads of the east-west highway that provides access to the great Port of Prince Rupert and provides transportation routes for folks heading into Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and into eastern Canada.

We’re also blessed to have the railway coming north, south, east and west through Prince George as well, providing limitless transportation opportunities for the resources that are harvested, with respect to our trees, and to the many mines that we’ve had operating throughout the central Interior of British Columbia and through the northern part of British Columbia.

Oil and gas activities all rely on the rail transportation significantly to get their product to market — to the coast in Prince Rupert, to the Deltaport down here in Vancouver and throughout the rest of the country. We have pipelines that come north, south, east and west as well, supplying natural gas to our folks out along the west coast and the north coast in B.C. — also, down here. The good folks….
[ Page 10316 ]

The previous speaker from Oak Bay–Gordon Head enjoys a very nice lifestyle down here because of a lot of resources that we bring down from northern B.C. He gets up in the morning, he turns the thermostat on, and he’s blessed with that natural gas that comes from northeast B.C. through the big steel pipes that transport the gas down here.

The steel comes, of course, from the ground. The metallurgic coal comes from areas in my riding. The hydroelectricity — when he turns the power on, good chance that’s coming from W.A.C. Bennett dam, from the Peace Canyon dam and through many of the other hydroelectric facilities that we have scattered throughout the province that provide B.C. with, I think, around 97 percent clean energy. It’s one of the best in North America.

We still have some of the cheapest rates in North America because of the infrastructure that’s in place.

We’re investing in Site C. I heard a few comments with respect to Site C in northeast B.C. Site C is underway. It’s providing a lot of jobs for people and will provide jobs for people for the next decade or more before it comes on line.

We’re going to have power to provide power to our natural gas facilities in northeast B.C. and our LNG facilities that we’re going to have on the coast of B.C. And we will have them, contrary to a lot of the comments that I hear coming from across the floor.

[1530]

In addition, we see a bit of a downturn and members opposite and the member from Oak Bay–Gordon Head talking about excess power on the market. Yeah, unfortunately, we’re going through a dip in commodity prices in mining. We’ve seen the prices of copper, we’ve seen the prices of gold, and we’ve seen the prices of coal and other precious metals go down to the point where our mines are really struggling and some of our mines have had to close.

That’s provided some opportunities to, perhaps, sell power to other users. But this is also an indication B.C. is still flourishing economically, in comparison to all the other provinces in Canada. That’s a direct tribute to the diversity of the resource sector and the industry that we have in British Columbia.

Right now the forest sector is doing very well. The difference in the dollar is contributing to that. Our mills and our logging industry are in full swing right now, and they’re the ones that are really picking up the slack for us as mining is going through a lot of the low commodity prices that we have.

We will see LNG come on stream here eventually, down the road. In the meantime, mining and natural gas, our tech sector, our agricultural sector and all of the other sectors that we have in British Columbia — including tourism, which is significant up in the interior of the province, as it is throughout the rest of B.C. — are helping to pay the bills so that we can have that lifestyle that we have in British Columbia. It’s helping us maintain that triple-A credit rating, and it’s helping us maintain a lot of the social structures that we have in place here.

I did hear the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head commenting on Ontario and wanting us to follow Ontario’s lead. I think he called it real government leadership with respect to how they pay their medical premiums and whatnot.

I have to remind the member opposite for Oak Bay–Gordon Head that Ontario is in a real deficit situation there. They owe a lot of money. They’re scrambling, trying to figure out how they’re going to cover the deficits that they have in their operating expenses from year to year to year. I wouldn’t want to be in the Legislature in Ontario. There are some significant challenges that they’re trying to overcome there.

The throne speech talked about fiscal responsibility. It’s our key theme. We must live within our means. You know, I’ve got five great grandchildren at home — well, not great-grandchildren. I’m not quite to that stage yet. I’ve got five terrific grandchildren at home, who are going to be taking their place in society as they get older and into the working world and becoming professionals or whatever they decide to do. Whether it’s pipefitters or welders or teachers or police officers or following in my footsteps or their father’s footsteps, they’re going to be wanting to live in a society that offers the same opportunities that we have.

You know, if we indebt our children and if we start living a lifestyle that is far beyond our means today, that means our grandchildren are going to have to be paying that off. I’m certainly not in support of that. We’re going to have a strong focus, then, on sustainable growth and creating opportunities in all regions of the province, where everybody has an opportunity to get out there and work in whatever profession that they decide.

I recently have been given a task…. Before I go to that, I think I’m going to also talk a little bit about the natural resource forum that we put on in Prince George every January, for the last 13 years now. This year it was a sold-out event. I think we had over 800 pre-registrations for this event. We had well over 900 people — probably around 1,000 people — attend the event, from across Canada.

As I was wandering through and talking to many of the industry leaders that were there — and we had many — a lot of them came up and were remarking on the climate in British Columbia, the fiscal climate in British Columbia. Even though we’re going through the downturn right now that we’re seeing with the commodity prices and everything else, there was a general air of optimism with all the attendees at this particular event there.

They were also commenting on the fact that this government was demonstrating exactly how committed they were to resource development — sustainable resource development and diversified resource development in this
[ Page 10317 ]
province — by the number of ministers and MLAs and government officials that we had there. I was pleased to see, as well, that there were members opposite attending this event and listening to what the strong cast of speakers had to say during the time that they were there.

[1535]

Recently we held an event in Prince George, a couple of weeks ago, that was attended by myself, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation and the Attorney General of the province. It was the families of the missing and murdered women from British Columbia that were there. In fact, I ended up talking to attendees that had come right across the country.

I sat down, and I listened to a lot of the stories and a lot of the events that these women — mainly women — were subjected to over the years. It brought back to mind many of the files that I worked on back when I was a police officer, many of the homicides that I was investigating or had contributed investigational service to.

There’s a lot of tragedy out there that we recognize. There’s a lot of domestic violence right across this province of ours, right across this country, and it’s something that this government is taking seriously. We’re putting a lot of effort into it.

We’re going to try and see what we can do to change the lifestyle that a lot of people have evolved into as a result of domestic violence, as a result of addictions, mental health and the social situations that they’re in that contribute to that type of family life.

Domestic violence was hampered a lot by silence. We’re trying to encourage everybody to speak up and talk about it a little bit more. Don’t sit silent any longer when you have personal knowledge of some person — some woman, some child —who’s been violently assaulted, sexually assaulted or abused. It’s time that everybody stood up and started talking about that.

It’s time that systems were put back in place within families, within the matriarchal structure of a lot of the First Nations communities that we have in the province here, in order that they address it as well as the support services that we have within government, within the police, within social services, within health and education. I think it’s something that everybody needs to have a look at. That’ll be one of the areas that I’m certainly going to be looking at as the minister responsible for public safety.

One of the other areas that has drawn a lot of concern throughout British Columbia…. Organized crime, gangs, street-level drug activity have been quite predominant throughout the Lower Mainland but throughout all of British Columbia. I’ve had an opportunity to take a look at that. It has refreshed my memory, I guess, as to the dedication that our police officers have and the people that are involved in combatting these types of activities have in trying to put a stop to it.

The focus on gangs has provided an opportunity to identify who all the prolific offenders are. There’s a program right now that the police right across the province have. They’ve identified the main players in these types of situations. We’ve got people that are watching them on a constant basis.

We have a Real Time Intelligence Centre that’s been developed out of the Surrey RCMP headquarters here for all of British Columbia that monitors real-time events so that we can stay on top of the crime and, hopefully, predict a lot of times where it’s going to happen so that we can prevent it from happening in the first place.

In addition to that, this government pours about $60 million a year into an organization that we call a Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. It’s a combined unit of all the police forces in the province, RCMP as well as independent forces. These folks travel throughout the province. They’re not restricted by any boundaries. They’re not restricted by any particular jurisdiction. Their whole focus is to disrupt the street-level organized crime.

They know who these individuals are. They’re following them around. They’re searching vehicles. They’re seizing vehicles. They’re seizing weapons. They’re seizing cash. They’re seizing drugs. They’re doing all of these things, but at the same time, they’re also providing opportunities for these folks to leave gang life.

There are letters that they provide some of these gang members, saying: “Listen, we know who you are, and we’re going to be on you all the time, but if you want to get out of that, just let us know, and we’ll help you. We’ll help you straighten out your life and get away from those folks.”

[1540]

These street-level gangsters that are going around look over one shoulder and see their rival gang members that are trying to do them harm. They look over the other shoulder, and they see the police. They’re wondering: “Do I have an out?” Well, they do have an out. They’ve got an opportunity now to go to the police and say: “Listen, I need some help to get out of there, to get out of this life and straighten out and become a good citizen for British Columbia.”

We have that system in place. We have police officers going to gang members who are incarcerated in prison and saying to them: “Listen, you have options now. You don’t have to go back to this lifestyle. You can come out, and we can help you get straightened out and pointed in a different direction.” There’s a lot of work that’s being done out there to try and reduce the amount of gang activity and violence that’s out there, which makes British Columbia a safer place. And this is going throughout the entire province.

B.C. is also leading the way in Canada for integrated units within British Columbia. We have integrated homicide teams. We’ve got integrated border enforcement. We have several various integrated teams throughout British Columbia, particularly in the Lower Mainland here, that are concentrating on different areas of organized crime,
[ Page 10318 ]
different aspects of crime, and the results are very significant. We’ve seen a significant reduction in crime. There has been a steady decrease in violent crime and crime in general right across the province here for the past several years in a row.

There was an unfortunate spike in Surrey in 2015, but we’ve got people on those individuals. We’ve identified who those individuals are. We know who they are, and one of these days they’re going to be housed in the other part of my file, which is corrections. We’ve got some great corrections facilities around the province here, and we’ve got beds available for them. We’re going to do our very best to put those individuals behind bars and help them straighten out so that we can get them back on a different track of life and maybe become productive citizens for our folks in British Columbia here.

Road safety is another priority of mine and of our government. We’ve got a number of initiatives here. Our government initiated the immediate roadside prohibition program here a number of years ago. It has had its challenges over the years — challenges that have taken it to the Supreme Court of Canada, which pretty much supported the IRP program the way we have it here in B.C. today.

I just introduced a few changes to the regulations not too long ago. There’ll now be mandatory remedial training for people that have their licences suspended for alcohol or drug consumption if they fail a roadside test. There are also mandatory requirements that they have. Between six and 16 points, we’re going to put an interlock device on their vehicle if there’s alcohol involved in that.

Sixty-one drivers lost their lives last year in British Columbia because of impaired driving. There are 61 families that were impacted by that. There are children; there are grandchildren; there are mothers, daughters. All have been impacted as a result of those 61 people that were killed as a result of impaired driving or driving under the influence of a drug.

Those are 100 percent preventable deaths — 100 percent. There’s absolutely no question around that. That’s why we’re taking strong measures with the immediate roadside prohibition program in order to prevent that and knock those types of incidences down to zero. We want to have the safest roads in North America here as soon as we can, and that’s one of the steps that we’re taking in that direction.

There are many things that this government is doing. The reason why we can do a lot of that is because we’ve got the triple-A rating. That’s because we’ve got a balanced budget and we’re spending within our means.

I’ve heard various figures reported about the amount of money that we have available to us. If we had the same credit rating as some of the other provinces, we’d be spending billions of dollars more on interest on the money that the province owes. But as a result of that, we can put those billions of dollars now into social programs, into public safety and making our roads safer and making our communities safer for everybody that we have.

[1545]

We have a program that has been around for a long time, since I was a police officer: electronic monitoring, where we would be able to monitor an individual to ensure that they were staying where they were supposed to be staying instead of being incarcerated in a provincial correctional centre. That has since been modernized. In the last couple of months now, we’ve got GPS ankle bracelets that we put on individuals who pose a high risk to reoffend and pose a high risk to the public but still are better off remaining in their own home or in some other facility.

This GPS device will track them anywhere they go. If there’s a no-go zone, where they’re not supposed to be around children or schoolyards or anything like that, this gives us another tool, another opportunity here to monitor them and successfully intervene if they’re heading in that direction. It offers more options for people to try and rehabilitate these individuals and reintegrate them into society so that they do become productive members of our social environment that we have.

We’re doing a lot of work in British Columbia to keep our communities safe and to keep people safe. We’re doing a lot of work in British Columbia to diversify our economy so we can afford to do all these things and to keep everybody working. The more people we keep working, the stronger our economy gets and the more attractive we’ll be to the world’s tourists that want to come here and spend their tourist dollars and see what beautiful British Columbia has to offer.

I support the throne speech, and I’m looking forward to this government moving things ahead right across the province.

J. Darcy: It is a pleasure to rise and take my place in the debate on the throne speech. I want to begin by thanking the people of New Westminster for allowing me the opportunity, the honour, to be their member of the Legislative Assembly and for the opportunity to speak today on their behalf.

Other people always speak about their communities. We are a growing community, but we are confined to about 6½ square miles. So when New Westminster grows, we grow up rather than out. We’ve grown to 67,000 people in a pretty compressed area, about 6½ square miles.

One of the beauties of that is that I have the opportunity every single day when I’m in my constituency to hear from people about what their concerns are, about the issues they want me to be speaking out about on their behalf in this place. They take every opportunity to do that, whether it’s in the grocery store, whether it’s on a street corner, whether it’s at one of the hundreds of community events that take place every year in New Westminster or
[ Page 10319 ]
whether it’s in my very busy constituency office on Sixth Street, where people come every single day of the week, many of them for our assistance in dealing with the challenges that they face.

I want to take the opportunity to thank my constituency assistants, who are the ones who are there holding down the fort every single day when we are here in Victoria or whether I’m out across the province dealing with the concerns of people about health care as the Health spokesperson for the official opposition.

Nadine Nakagawa has worked with me since my constituency office opened and does a simply amazing job. Michael Cheevers has been with me for a couple of years but is moving on soon to other pastures. He’s been a very energetic and dynamic addition to our office. Very soon Laura Sunnus will be joining us and will help to make up a really wonderful team in our community office, together with all of the volunteers who help us out so much of the time.

I mentioned that my constituents are not at all shy in sharing their views with me. Every year, at the time of the throne speech, at the time of the budget, and also many other times during the year, I ask for their opinions, and I ask them what stories, what issues they want me to share in this House. They certainly have done that, and I will spend a good part of my time today sharing their concerns.

[1550]

The people of New Westminster are very hard-working people. It’s a community that is steeped in tradition but also very, very forward-looking, very energetic, a very diverse community, attracting people from dozens of places and every corner of the globe.

One of the things that I’m so incredibly proud of in my community is the way in which they come together to support one another and how they come together in a united way. They put aside whatever differences they might have on politics, on ideology and on a wide range of issues. When something needs to be done to move forward the best interests of our community, to support people who are most in need, to welcome newcomers like refugees to our community, there is nothing more beautiful to behold than the way that New Westminster comes together.

I want to share a story about how our community has been responding to the refugee crisis, because it says so much about my community, but I think it also says a whole lot about how we need to work together to support people who have lived in this province for many years, to build a better economy, to build better social programs, as well as to welcome newcomers, and to do it in a way that does not pit one part of a community against another, one part of the province against another, people who might sometimes disagree pitted against one another. But it’s how we can truly unite for the best interests of a community and for a province.

As the stories about the refugee crisis in Syria continue to appear on our screens and people have more and more knowledge of it, I was overwhelmed in my community office with people offering to help. It’s people saying: “I can help with teaching English as a second language.” “Here’s some money for food.” Donating clothing, furniture. “I’ve got a spare room.” “I’ve got a basement apartment.” “I can help people to navigate the system. I’ve been through it myself.”

So I decided, together with our federal Member of Parliament, Peter Julian, to host what I believe was the first public forum, community forum, to welcome refugees in the province of British Columbia. On four days’ notice, 200 people crammed the hall. To say there was standing room only is an understatement. They were sitting on the floor. They were out in the lobby. It was a beautiful thing.

We had the entire cross-section of our community represented there. I had gone to so many of them in advance to say: “I want everybody else to know who’s here and that we really are a community coming together to speak with one voice.” One after another, they spoke up and they expressed what they were willing to do and to contribute to welcome newcomers to our community.

We’re talking about the chamber of commerce. We’re talking about churches and other faith organizations, the Islamic association, the mayor, city councillors, school trustees, youth. One of the young people who stood up and spoke was himself at first a refugee from Iran who ended up in Syria and then came to Canada, to New Westminster, and talked about what it meant for the community to have embraced him and his family and supported them.

There were trade unionists there. There were artists. There were community agencies, all of the organizations that support newcomers and refugees and immigrants, and lots of folks who just wanted to be there and to do the right thing. An incredible outpouring of support. A remarkable coming together.

What was also very striking was that those people also spoke about the needs that are going unmet in our community and in our province. They talked about the poverty level in this province — one out of five kids living in poverty, many of them going to bed hungry at night. They talked about the numbers that go to food banks still.

They talked about the pressure that already exists in our classrooms, the lack of supports for English as a second language, special needs kids, the trauma that these new students would be bringing, post-traumatic stress disorder, and, therefore, the need for additional supports in the classroom so that we don’t make a situation that’s already difficult much worse.

They talked about how they couldn’t find family doctors or primary care and that that would also be a challenge faced by newcomers. They talked about the programs — English for academic purposes, which this
[ Page 10320 ]
government has cut — and how much those programs are going to be needed for newcomers.

Most of all, they talked about affordable housing and what a big challenge that already is and, as we have seen so very clearly, what a huge challenge it is to house people that we are welcoming to our province.

[1555]

But what was remarkable was that nobody raised their voices to say: “It’s us versus them.” Nobody raised their voices to say: “Take care of us. Don’t take care of them.” It was very much about: “We will support newcomers, and we will also reinforce our commitment to create good jobs in our community, to build a strong local economy and to build stronger supports for everybody in the community.” As I said, an amazing coming together, and not a word of divisiveness was spoken.

There was not a partisan word spoken for that entire session, organized by an MLA who was a New Democrat, a Member of Parliament who was a New Democrat. A candidate in the last federal election said afterwards how pleased he was and how impressed he was. Not a partisan word was spoken. It was really about the community coming together.

I thought about that. Those memories kept passing over me when I heard our Premier in the last few days and when I hear in the throne speech the words that say: “If you’re not for us, you’re against us. If you don’t believe that what we’re doing is the best thing we could possibly be doing on the face of the earth for people of British Columbia and for our economy, then you’re just naysayers.”

There has to be a different way. There has to be a different way to make decisions. There has to be a different way to do politics. I’m very proud of the fact that our community….

We have our election disputes. Of course we do. We have candidates who run and believe in what they stand for and debate with great vigour. But we sure as heck come together to support people, to support our community and to support people moving forward in our community — every single person.

I have to say that when I listened to the throne speech, it’s like there’s a movie reel that’s passing through the mind — thinking of the stories and the issues that people in my community have raised with me and seeing whether their concerns appear in this throne speech.

You know, we don’t expect that a throne speech is going to have detailed budget commitments. No, that’s for the budget. But surely, people in my community and across B.C. have the right to expect that there will be echoes in a throne speech of what the priorities of this government are and that there would be echoes of them actually listening to people out there about what really matters to them, even faint echoes. I have to say, after knowing the concerns of people in my community, there weren’t even the faintest echoes of those concerns in this throne speech.

I don’t think my community, the hard-working people of New Westminster, are any different or their concerns are different than those of people across the province. It’s really, in this throne speech, from the Premier’s perspective, as if there are two British Columbias.

The British Columbia that she speaks about with such bravado and such bragging is not the British Columbia that so many people in my community are living every single day — hard-working British Columbians who pay their taxes, who work very hard to support their families and who are struggling every single day with the lack of affordability of their daily lives. An enormous, enormous challenge. We didn’t hear this Premier or any of the members opposite speak to that issue at all.

For the Premier, it’s all about slogans. “We must have the courage to say yes,” and: “Success is not for quitters.” The Premier dismisses everyone who disagrees with her — as the Leader of the Official Opposition said so eloquently earlier today — as just simply a ragtag band of naysayers.

Well, I can tell you that the people in my community are far from being quitters. They fight hard and they work hard every single day to support their families, to give their children the opportunities to be able to succeed in life.

They would dearly love to have a government that indeed has the courage to say yes. Yes to a real strategy for affordable housing in British Columbia. Yes to a real regional transportation plan in the Lower Mainland in order to reduce the incredible traffic congestion that we experience in New Westminster, which is at the crossroads of the Lower Mainland.

[1600]

Yes to investing in public education for the future of our children and the future of our province. Yes to improving access to post-secondary education so that, indeed, we can build that diversified economy of the future that we so much need. Yes to an economy that works for all British Columbians.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Yes to ensuring that health care really is there for people when they need it and where they need it. Yes to finally taking real action on MSP. I will return to that issue — the unfairest tax that we in have in this province, to be sure. Yes to ensuring that our seniors have the dignity and respect that they deserve. Yes to affordable prescription drugs. Yes to a sustainable economic strategy and stronger environmental protections.

People in my community say, yes, we should have the courage to say yes to all of those things. But saying yes to all of those things was completely absent from the throne speech — completely absent.

I want to share some of the stories that my constituents shared with me, in particular when I asked them: “What
[ Page 10321 ]
matters most to you? What stories do you want me to tell that you believe that this government should be paying attention to and that should be the focus of what we do in this House?” And over and over again, the issue of affordability, and especially housing affordability, is what my constituents have expressed to me.

They believe that this government is absolutely asleep at the switch when it comes to the housing affordability crisis in the Lower Mainland. This government has known about the crisis — the scandal, in fact — in the Lower Mainland housing market for some time and has failed to take action.

I want to share the words of two young people, business owners in my community, about affordable housing. “My wife and I are getting worried about housing affordability. Houses are now getting beyond the reach of the middle class, especially for growing families. I’ve been in Canada, and I’ve been working full-time for several years, and we only qualified for a $500,000 mortgage. In the New Westminster area, prices for detached houses are now approaching $1 million.”

That’s in New Westminster, not the west end of Vancouver — New Westminster. And as he points out, that’s twice the amount that he and his wife are qualified for. “How can we possibly afford to pay those kinds of prices?”

He also goes on — and this was a number of weeks ago — talking about how housing has now become the target of foreign buyers for investment and flipping to make quick money and that there’s very strong evidence that foreign buyers are driving up the price of housing. He is calling on this government to take action in order to ensure that housing becomes more affordable for families like his so that foreign speculators are not able to drive up the prices the way that they have.

He says:

“This has to stop. If this continues, the hard-working Canadians will be pushed out of their beloved city. A housing crisis is looming, and it’s ready to burst.

“How can I stand a chance against these foreign buyers? My wife and I own a small business. We follow the rules. We employ Canadians. We serve Canadians. We pay our taxes in full. We earn and spend our money here in Canada, unlike foreign buyers. I would like the government to look into this and to act before it gets out of hand.”

There is nothing in this throne speech to assure Christian and Connie, who wrote to me about affordable housing.

On the issue of MSP premiums, I can’t tell you how many constituents I hear from on that issue. I can’t tell you, as the official spokesperson on health, how many. I have heard from thousands of British Columbians just in recent weeks alone on this issue.

How can it be that someone who earns $30,000 a year pays the same MSP, the same unfair health tax — let’s call it what it is — as someone who earns $300,000 or $3 million. It’s the unfairest tax of all, and we know who’s hit the hardest.

[1605]

There are some people who are covered by employer plans, and the MSP is paid by them. There are some at the very lowest income levels who are subsidized. There are an awful lot of people in between, for whom this is an enormous hardship.

Under the B.C. Liberal government, MSP premiums have doubled since the Liberals came to power — doubled. Other provinces have seen fit to take action to replace MSP with a far fairer way of paying for health care. We’ve doubled MSP premiums in this province under the B.C. Liberals.

The Premier first says that she’s going to tinker with it, that she’s going to tweak MSP. Then the Premier is quoted today as saying: “Yes, it’s antiquated. It’s old, but it’s really hard to try and make some sensible changes that we need to do.” At the very same time, we hear the Finance Minister saying that we need to keep the MSP so that people know that they’re paying for health care — one of the most ridiculous arguments of all.

First of all, the Finance Minister says — and he’s right — $19 billion is the Health budget. MSP is about $2.5 billion of that. The logic there, frankly, I think, escapes British Columbians. Also, what does this mean? Are we going to say that if we want people to understand that we have to pay for education, there’s going to be a new education tax? If we want them to understand that we have important social services in British Columbia, we’re going to have a social services tax? We’ve heard about public safety. Are we going to have special taxes for public safety?

For a government that says it wants to reduce red tape, that line of argument makes absolutely no sense. Other provinces have found a way to pay for their health care system in a manner that is far more fair. There is absolutely nothing in this throne speech about changing the most unfair tax of all in British Columbia.

One of the issues I’ve heard about a great deal from my constituents, and from people who teach at Douglas College in my community, is about access to English language programs and, in particular, English language programs for academic purposes. We know very well, and we’ve spoken about it in this House, that this government has cut the funding for post-secondary education, with a direct impact on some of these programs.

I met with Mahshid a number of weeks ago, who emigrated from Iran in 2009. She talked to me about how hard she worked in order to upgrade her English skills, because she was a trained professional in her own country and wanted to once again work as a nurse here. She knows that she needs to have good, solid English language skills, and she worked very, very hard — the 260 programs, the 350, the 360, the 460, you name it. She worked very, very hard at it, and she still has a few years to go in order to be able to take a nursing program and to be able to work in the profession of her choice.

She also talked about how the gate kind of closed not long after she was moving through that program and how
[ Page 10322 ]
many other people are in her same position today, who very much want to upgrade their skills. Many of these are people who came in as skilled workers, who were professionals in the countries from which they came. They want to be able to practice in their own professions. They are working at very low-paid jobs, often two or three jobs to make ends meet. Then, too, the additional burden of having to pay for these programs out of their own pockets puts it out of reach and creates a very, very serious barrier.

Mahshid said, very eloquently: “We came to Canada for our future, but our future is being taken away.” She also spoke, as did the instructors who were with her, that it’s one thing to charge a toll for a bridge — in this case, some tuition — but it’s quite another to put a toll on a bridge which doesn’t exist. It’s best for now, they said, to rebuild that bridge. I received so many emails on that same issue.

I will speak briefly about health care today, with some stories from my community as well, one about wait times — colonoscopy wait times in particular, an issue I’ve raised repeatedly in this Legislature. The government has held press conferences and put out statements saying not to worry: “We’ve got the situation under control.”

[1610]

Well, this woman writes to me and says:

“I need to voice my opinion on wait times for medical procedures and highlight my own experience. I have an appointment booked for a colonoscopy in one year. I booked it last August. My appointment is scheduled for August of 2016. My doctor says the delay is due to the lack of time at the hospital for the doctor.

“I feel the need to voice my opinion, even though my heart tells me that it might not make a bit of difference. But it’s important that our elected officials know how people are feeling. A one-year wait is not acceptable,” she says, “and people die waiting for simple appointments like these.”

She deserves better, and there’s no hint in this throne speech that this government will do better. Hallway medicine has been endemic at Royal Columbian Hospital — but right across the Fraser Valley, right across British Columbia. Again, empty promises. “We’re going to fix the problem.” And yet it persists and, in many cases, gets worse.

One woman writes to me about her 75-year-old mother who was admitted to Royal Columbian. She wrote this a few weeks ago, and at the time, her mother had been admitted ten days before and was still remaining after ten days in the emergency department.

“My mother has been placed in a bed and has not been moved from the emergency ward in ten days,” she says. “She requires a procedure for her back. Due to the fact that she remains in emergency, she is unable to sleep due to the constant activity around her — as well, the area where she remains all day and night in her bed because she cannot walk. Because of cuts,” this person says, “it’s filthy, never mopped and cleaned.

“We are asking why she isn’t immediately transferred to the geriatric ward, and we also would like to know when her operation is going to be, which everyone agrees is urgently required. After ten days and nights in the emergency area, she deserves to be provided access to a room in a general ward.”

This 75-year-old woman deserves better. But there’s nothing in this throne speech that inspires any confidence that this government is going to do any better.

I hear over and over again from parents about the need for better educational supports in our classrooms. I touched on that earlier — about special needs children who aren’t getting the supports they need. Teachers and special education assistants do the very best they can, but they are stretched to the max. The situation is getting worse, not better, and it impacts the ability of every child in our schools to learn.

The students in New Westminster — the students of British Columbia — deserve better. No indication in this throne speech that the government gets that.

You know, this government is very big on bragging — bragging about the financial situation in the province. But they omit some very, very important facts when they talk about the slogan, about “Debt-free B.C.” emblazoned on a bus back in 2013. Yet B.C.’s total debt has gone up by $9 billion since the debt-free B.C. was first pronounced in 2013.

When we’re talking about good fiscal management, you only have to look at so many of the major infrastructure projects that have gone way, way over budget to know that those words about good management of our finances ring hollow, whether we’re talking about the Massey Tunnel replacement project; Port Mann — $1.5 billion estimated, went to $3.3 billion; Vancouver Convention Centre — $341 million over budget; B.C. Place roof. The list goes on.

The government also loves to brag about jobs and the economy but very, very selectively uses statistics to try and tell the story it wants to tell and not the true story that impacts people in my community and across the province.

The reality is that the unemployment rate increased by 1.3 percent over the last couple of years, owing to the fact that more people started looking for work than who found jobs. The reality is that the B.C. jobs plan has been a major failure and, essentially, a public relations effort, with the private sector job growth being sixth place in the country, not leading the country.

[1615]

Of course, in this throne speech — no mention at all about doing anything about people at the lowest level, about having the lowest minimum wage in the country.

All of the eggs in the LNG basket. Now the Premier is starting to adjust the record. First, this was going to create 100,000 jobs. That’s what we were promised. And a prosperity fund to pay for health and education forever — $1 trillion in economic activity. Now the issue is, if you’re a naysayer and if you don’t support every single proposed project, then jobs will be at risk.

We need to be talking about a diversified economy — not just spin about it but a real plan for a diversified economy. That’s what people in my community tell me every single day. They want us to be talking about the film industry. They want to be talking about high tech, the knowledge economy, supporting arts and culture, sup-
[ Page 10323 ]
port for small business, for tourism, for our hospitality sector, for a new health care hub that we hope to build around the Royal Columbian Hospital.

Our community comes together to support that kind of economic development, but there is nothing in this throne speech that tells people in my community that this government gets it. Quite the contrary. The talk about diversified economy is rhetoric. It’s spin. There’s no meat on those bones. There are no details whatsoever to inspire confidence.

In conclusion, I have to say that there are so many things missing from this throne speech that my constituents in New Westminster have asked me to come here to speak about, issues and priorities that they’ve said are important for them and for their families — good jobs, a diversified economy, affordable housing, health care that’s there for them and their families where they need it and when they need it, dignity and respect for our seniors.

It’s a throne speech that’s bankrupt of substance, out of touch with the needs of British Columbians in my community and across the province, and I will not be voting in support of this throne speech.

S. Sullivan: I’m very honoured to be the MLA for Vancouver–False Creek. I want to acknowledge and thank the voters of Vancouver–False Creek for enabling me to be their representative. I have so many people to thank.

First of all, first and foremost, Lynn, who has been such a vital help to me. She helps me in so many ways, and I certainly would not be able to do this job without her. I fell in love with her when she was ten, but I was nine, so we’ve known each other for a long time. She has my deepest love and respect, and I’m very grateful for everything she has done for me.

I want to also acknowledge some other people who have been so supportive — Cris Garvey, who is my constituency assistant. I inherited Cris Garvey from a former MLA, Mary McNeil, who inherited her from a former MLA, Lorne Mayencourt. I secretly wonder if she considers me the temporary help. She has been such a rock for that riding. She knows all of the resources. She knows where to go to get help. So many constituents can come in with a whole variety of problems, and she has been at this job for so long that she makes me look good. I’m very grateful for her.

I’d also like to acknowledge my legislative assistants, Kadagn and Eric. They do some incredible support for me — my own situation. You’ll find them doing far more for me than they would for most MLAs, and I am very grateful for their willingness to go the extra mile.

[1620]

Vancouver–False Creek is a truly remarkable riding. I call it downtown British Columbia. It has got so many interesting businesses and cultural groups. You’ll find, in my riding, more than 1,000 mining companies. British Columbia — Vancouver–False Creek especially — is doing so much mining in this province and around the world.

Several years ago I was asked by the Large Scale Mining Association of Colombia to go down to Cartagena and to Bogota and make a speech about mining. I thought: what is it that makes me able to make this kind of speech and get this kind of invitation?

They said: “Well, a lot of the mining that’s going on in Colombia…. When we looked at all of the variety of things that are going on, they’re all headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia. Vancouver is considered a place of environmental concerns, social consciousness and inclusiveness. It represents so much of the best of what we aspire to in Colombia, and we wanted you to come to Colombia to talk about that.”

When I thought about it further, I looked at…. Our convention centre looks out on the most important view, one might say, in the province. It looks out on sulphur piles. One of our most important tourism destinations, Queen Elizabeth Park, is a rock quarry. One of the most visited sites in British Columbia for tourism, Granville Island, has, right beside the market, a cement plant. Mining is such an important part of our province, and it is, surprisingly to many people, such an important part of downtown Vancouver and Vancouver–False Creek.

We also have welcomed recently the new, wonderful building called Telus Garden, and 1,000 new employees moved in to that. It’s a $750 million building — wonderful innovations, environmental innovations. These skyboxes that extend right over the street were very innovative and such a wonderful amenity for the employees there. Each of those skyboxes has gardens on the top of them. Employees can go and enjoy the beautiful scenery, as you can see the mountains right from there.

It also is developing an interesting feature: an alleyway that is completely animated, with interesting stores and facilities. It’s going to be, we hope, the future, when you can see our laneways in the downtown being used in a more innovative way.

We have many arts and culture groups in Vancouver–False Creek. You can think about the Vancouver Art Gallery and the important work they do, the Dance Centre, the civic theatres — the Orpheum Theatre, the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, the Playhouse theatre. All of these theatres are so important to the cultural groups of our city and the riding. Out toward Vanier Park, you’ll find the Maritime Museum, the Museum of Vancouver, the planetarium.

A lot of interesting things go on in the riding. The riding is very diverse. We start from Kitsilano — Kitsilano and Fourth Avenue, this ground zero of what used to be the hippie culture many, many years ago. It’s morphed and transformed in so many ways, and it has a very interesting diversity of businesses.

[1625]

We see Kits Point and the remarkable quality of life you’ll find there. Of course, you’ve got the industrial areas
[ Page 10324 ]
right beside Granville Island. There are all sorts of architecture firms and print shops and innovative industry that is developing there. Granville Island itself has 300 businesses. It’s, I believe, the number one tourist destination in the province.

The south side of False Creek was developed in the 1970s. It’s recently been rated the number one neighbourhood for quality of life in Canada, in a recent study.

Of course, then, the Olympic Village. I was very involved in the rezoning of the Olympic Village and also, in my term as mayor, oversaw the construction of the Olympic Village. Less than five years after the first resident moved in, the loan for the Olympic Village was paid off. Not only was the entire development made at no cost to the taxpayer, but the taxpayers also got a whole bunch of stuff — seawalls, parks, a community centre, social housing, daycare. All of these were with no cost to the taxpayer; they were all paid for through the revenue that came from the development itself.

Then you’ll find Science World is also in my riding. That’s an institution that does so much for our young people in encouraging them to be more curious about the world, to understand and get inspired to learn about their world and about science and to recognize how important it is that science and technology have such profound impacts on our quality of life and the future well-being of all of us.

Part of my riding is also Chinatown — part of Chinatown. Chinatown is going through big changes, and just like the area right next to it, the Downtown Eastside, a lot of young people, a lot of young artists are moving in, a lot of new businesses. It’s just an incredible diversity of economic generators that are part of that, and it’s especially wonderful to go around and see some of the art studios there and how we have some of the most incredible artists and creative people in the province doing some wonderful work there.

Also, International Village. We have a new school being built in International Village. My riding of Vancouver–False Creek was the very first area in North America to actually have a new elementary school built in the inner city. For so many decades, people have been fleeing the centre of the city. Right now, Elsie Roy School is full to the brim, and we need so much more in terms of investment in elementary schools.

We’re finding that there are a lot of young families that want to raise their children in the downtown. This has been quite a surprise for many city planners over the years.

If you go to the Roundhouse Community Centre in the early morning, you will find a traffic jam of baby buggies, as all the young mothers who are going out for walks will stop by the coffee shop there. And the arts-oriented community centre is the only community centre in the city that is actually focused on the arts, not on sport. We’ll find so many young mothers are in the neighbourhood.

[1630]

So many young mothers are choosing to raise their children in the downtown. They like the quality of life, the access to amenities. It’s turned out to be a big challenge for government to try to make sure we can keep up with the demand.

Then we have downtown south and, of course, the Concord Pacific lands, north False Creek. False Creek itself connects to 22 kilometres of seawalls. That started, actually, many decades ago — the effort to try to connect our seawall to make public access to all of the seawalls. Over the decades, the city has been purchasing all of the private buildings on the waterfront.

Now the citizens benefit from an incredible experience when they can travel all around, by foot and by bicycle, the seawalls and go right around, out to Kitsilano, go around False Creek, go around Stanley Park, come right back past the convention centres and come down Carrall Street and reconnect with the seawalls again. The opportunities for quality of life are just incredible.

Then we have downtown south, which is also rejuvenating. One of the new cultural facilities is called Post at 750. It’s in the CBC building. It was created as an amenity during a rezoning many years ago. I was on the council at that point. Recently it has been refurbished, at $1.8 million, and four very important arts groups have moved in: the DOXA Documentary Film Festival; the Music on Main and the wonderful programs created by David Pay and his team; Touchstone Theatre; and the PuSh festival, which is actually just completing now their two weeks of wonderful programming.

Lynn and I attended the monumental show at the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. It was a jam-packed, sold-out dance performance.

Those four groups have gone into a cooperative, and they’re working together in a very open, planned building so that you can have a lot of crossover pollination, one group to the other. It’s pretty nice to be able to see how most of these groups came from some pretty sad buildings that they used to be housed in. Now they’re in this beautiful, brand-new facility. It just lifts your spirits to see these people doing the important cultural work that they do in those beautiful, beautiful offices.

The BMO Theatre Centre just opened. Twenty million dollars has gone into this, mostly from the city, although I was very pleased to be able to assist in a $1 million contribution to that. With 240 seats, it has two groups: the Bard on the Beach and Arts Club Theatre organization. These two very important and large theatre groups in the city have come together and have decided to work together to make sure that they can both continue to operate very good quality programming. Not only do they have the 240-seat theatre, but they have places to teach young people about theatre and also some pretty nice facilities for the makeup and the props that are necessary for their work.

We have another important development which I was pleased to be able to facilitate some support for, which
[ Page 10325 ]
is the Christ Church Cathedral. They’re creating a new bell tower. They’re upgrading their roof which was having a lot of difficulties.

[1635]

This facility is not only a church, but it is a place for very wonderful artistic performances. Lynn and I have attended many of them there. A lot of the arts groups that require smaller venues will go to the church, and they will have festivals, etc., in that beautiful, beautiful building.

I can just say that I’m very pleased that when I was a city councillor in the 1990s, we rezoned the north False Creek, the downtown south, the International Village and Coal Harbour. Half of Coal Harbour is in my riding. It is really a true pleasure for me to wander around the neighbourhood and remember how these were all just ideas and visions that we had as to what we wanted to see with those areas, and to be able to see the fruits of the labour of so many people that have gone, and to see how quickly it’s happened. Literally just a couple of decades ago it was a very, very different place, mostly industrial land, mostly abandoned, in a way, because there were real changes happening in the economy at that time. Now to see the quality of life that’s been created is a real pleasure.

We have a couple of important initiatives in the riding. The St. Paul’s Hospital — that’s been a matter of a lot of discussion about what to do with that. Do we rebuild on the site, or do we go to a different site? The decision has been made to increase the number of beds from 400 to 700 and to move it. Right now it’s just on the west of my riding, and it will move just to the east of my riding.

The thinking that is going into this, the idea of having a large campus with…. Right now they would be able to change it so that rather than a lot of very small rooms that require a lot of people to be patients in the room together, it will be mostly going to individual rooms, which is much better for people’s health, for infections and things like that.

This St. Paul’s Hospital is not just a hospital to Vancouver. It’s a hospital for the province. It especially has some pretty important experts in cardiac and kidney issues. It does very good work.

The other important development in the riding is Emily Carr University, which will be moving from Granville Island and, thanks to a $100 million contribution from the province, will be developing a brand-new campus just outside of my riding in the Grandview Highway area.

Tourism is a very important part of my riding. I note that people can get off the airplane in the Vancouver Airport and within 20 minutes be in my riding on the Canada Line. It’s truly a great, great asset for the city and the province and the riding.

British Columbia. Here we are with a 240-some-odd-billion-dollar GDP out of Canada’s $2 trillion. The riding is…. As I say, I like to refer to it as downtown British Columbia. It has so many of the head offices and the support, the services — the professional services, lawyers, accountants, etc. — of British Columbia. If British Columbia were a country, we would rank 31st in the world. It’s an incredible province. Even though my riding is only, I believe, the smallest riding in the province, about six square kilometres, I think it punches way above its belt, and it is truly an honour that I can represent that.

[1640]

I want to say a few words more about the throne speech. The main concern for me is that we’re having a situation in the world economy where things are uncertain. We see what’s going on in Alberta and the tough times that they’re having right beside us. We see other areas of the world. We see the slowdown in China, etc., which has been such an important part of our economy. So we have to maintain our steadfastness. We’ve got to make sure that we stick to our guns, stick to the plan that we have.

I’m so pleased to see that we will be introducing a fourth consecutive balanced budget. Talk about our triple-A credit rating, which is becoming scarcer and scarcer in this world. I think that the Minister of Finance and our Premier are doing a fantastic job and steering this ship through the potential downsides that are all around us.

I wanted to make just a brief comment about one of the issues that has been on people’s minds quite a bit — the housing prices. This is something that all of us are challenged with and all of us are working to try to get a handle on. My own thinking about it is that house prices, any kind of price, are a function of only two things — two things only: supply and demand.

I believe some of this has definitely got to do with what happened a few decades ago when large areas of the city were downzoned. The West End was downzoned. We lost a lot of supply. Supply of housing was seriously constrained. We have been able to deal with it partly by upzoning areas in my riding, and we have been so lucky to have benefited from those upzonings. I believe this is going to be a challenge for the civic government, the city government, which does control the supply of housing in the city. It’s all about rezonings.

Another concern has been expressed — the issue of people who don’t live in their high-value houses. We have to realize that generally, as a rule, the higher the value of the house, the less time a person will spend in it. It’s just a fact that at this very time, right now as we speak, there are whole neighbourhoods in Phoenix, Puerto Vallarta, Palm Springs, Palm Beach, Maui and Los Angeles full of Vancouver people who have other places in other jurisdictions, and they choose to spend time there. That does happen. That’s simply a fact that we have to understand.

But I do think that if we can find a way to break through the logjam of restricting supply, we will be able to get control of the price of housing. I note that Ryan Holmes of Hootsuite has written a very powerful article. Here is a man who is doing so much for our economy,
[ Page 10326 ]
hiring people and trying to do more. He finds that he can’t hire people and he can’t keep people because of the price of housing. He has recommended that the city government take on the challenge of increasing the supply to manage this problem.

I just wanted to reiterate my support for the throne speech and to thank the Minister of Finance for his steady hand on the helm.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

K. Corrigan: Why, thank you, hon. Speaker — another member from Burnaby. It’s nice to have you in the chair today.

I rise to respond to the throne speech.

[1645]

Before I get into the heart of what I had planned to say, I do have to respond to one of the final comments of the member for Vancouver–False Creek, who said that the housing crisis is the responsibility of city government. I note that the member is no longer a member of city government. I doubt that the member would have said that a decade ago when he was the mayor of Vancouver. However, he is saying that now.

I just want to point out one little thing. Social housing is the responsibility of the provincial government. It always has been.

I know this government is trying to foist social housing responsibility onto the backs of taxpayers and homeowners through property taxes. That is inappropriate. That has never been the way it has been, nor should it be. It is the responsibility of the provincial government, not local governments which are providing all sorts of services for their citizens with the use of only eight cents on every tax dollar. Let’s see the provincial government try to do their job on eight cents of the citizens’ tax dollars.

I also want to say, in response to that comment, that the city of Burnaby asked this Liberal government several years ago if they could have the right to zone areas for rental. They would have the ability to have the control that the member talks about so that they could protect rental housing in the city of Burnaby. They were flatly turned down. So the government has not given control, has not allowed cities to do one of the things that they could have done, which was to protect the supply of rental housing. That is impossible to do, and it’s because of this government that it is impossible to do that.

I want to thank some people, to start with. I want to thank the wonderful people in my constituency office that work with me.

There is Cate Jones, who has been with me from the beginning of the time that I became an MLA, seven years now. Very experienced, wonderful with people, very knowledgable about government. She has helped so many people that have walked through the door or phoned our office, and with her experience, has been very successful in helping them — and sometimes helps and calms down people who are really disturbed and upset about the way they believe the provincial government has treated them.

I just can’t say enough. Plus, we have a lot of laughs and a lot of fun. She is a great friend and serves our community well.

Most recently, Jason Blackman-Wulff has come to my office. He brings a whole different set of experiences. He is a first-time city councillor in Squamish and has recently joined my office. I’m very pleased to have Jason. He is there for a certain amount of time — we’re not sure exactly how long — as Isaac Vallee, who is also a young CA but has gained a lot of experience and is also very, very good, is off on a travel adventure for several months.

In addition, Heidi Reid looks after me when I’m over here, and my critic responsibilities. I thank Heidi so much for keeping me organized in the critic role.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about my community of Burnaby. I represent the constituency of Burnaby–Deer Lake, which includes the Metrotown area. It is a very diverse community. It is very ethnically diverse, and it’s also very economically diverse.

It’s very diverse in terms of the topography. Burnaby has 25 percent of our community as parkland. That’s something the city of Burnaby has managed to do through hard work over the last few decades. It has managed to protect 25 percent of the land, which is interesting and quite an achievement when you consider that the city of Burnaby is smack dab in the middle of Metro Vancouver.

We have a high number of renters, and we have a high degree of poverty in Burnaby–Deer Lake. On the other hand, in Buckingham Heights, we have one of the most high-end neighbourhoods, most affluent neighbourhoods, in the Lower Mainland.

[1650]

When I talk about ethnic diversity…. There was a recent study done that determined that Burnaby is the most ethnically diverse community not only in the Lower Mainland or British Columbia but in Canada. The way they measured that was…. If you were to walk around Burnaby, what they say is that with our ethnic diversity, the odds are that seven out of eight people you meet will have a different ethnic background than you do, which is astounding but not surprising, as I see the great variety of people — ages, economic backgrounds, countries of origin — in our community. It’s made Burnaby absolutely vibrant.

You know, when you talk about the ethnic diversity, I’m really thrilled that I’m going to be going to, and have been going to, lunar new year celebrations. I was out with city councillor Anne Kang handing out red pockets at Crystal Mall just this last weekend, and we’ll have our big lunar new year celebrations at Crystal Mall. I’m sure the Chair
[ Page 10327 ]
will probably be attending those celebrations at Crystal Mall. It’s one of the highlights of the year.

We’re also blessed with a diversity of businesses — manufacturing in the middle of a city. We have very successful manufacturing businesses. We have a great variety of successful high-tech businesses and an amazing film industry.

I just want to say a special hello and thank-you to Alec Fatalevich, who has developed the largest film studios in Canada right here in Burnaby in Canadian Motion Picture Park. Alec is a driving force, and he has worked very closely with the city of Burnaby to develop…. I don’t even know. Every time I go down there, they seem to have opened a new studio.

Some of the studios are as big as B.C. Place. It’s an amazing place to go, and it’s certainly been the site of some huge blockbuster films and some smaller ones and some ongoing television shows. I think Godzilla was filmed there. We have a whole variety of films that have been and are being filmed there.

I want to congratulate the city of Burnaby. I know that the member for Vancouver–False Creek was talking about credit ratings, and I note that cities in B.C. generally have a triple-A credit rating, largely because of the Municipal Finance Authority. So congratulations to Burnaby and all the cities that do so well.

We also have a community, I think, that is successful not only for businesses — and we have great success with our businesses — but for planning the community in a way that makes it economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. I think it’s something to remember, which I know that the Leader of the Official Opposition was talking earlier about, that it is possible to run government in a way that is balanced. It’s the only way to do it.

I think that’s what’s happened in my community. Burnaby is well managed. It’s well run — a debt-free city with hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank and healthy, growing reserves to pay for future infrastructure. But it does understand that you can find a balance and you need to find a balance, and you need to find that balance between economic sustainability, social sustainability and environmental responsibility.

I want to also mention and recognize the great work that the Burnaby school board does. Hon. Chair, you know, and I’ve said it many times in this chamber, that I was really pleased to have been a school trustee in Burnaby for three terms. I know that the board of education does an amazing job. A leading-edge district it has been described as, and it certainly is. It’s certainly been the originator of many programs, like the StrongStart program. All sorts of different programs have originated in Burnaby. So congratulations.

I particularly want to congratulate Ron Burton. He is presently the chair of the Burnaby school board. He has been the chair several times, in fact, because he has been on the board for well more than a quarter of a century continuously. He has served our community very well, so congratulations to him and to all the school trustees as well as the wonderful staff.

[1655]

I’ve been into every school, I think, in Burnaby over the time that I was a school trustee and since. I went to, I think, about six or seven Christmas shows this year, and it’s one of the things I look forward to the most — going to the elementary and sometimes high school but mostly those elementary school shows where we see the evidence of the great work that our schools do and our teachers do.

It’s the dedication of those individual teachers that brings out the very best of kids at Christmastime in their school shows — musically and in terms of acting, speaking. They bring out the very best. And also all the behind the scenes: children and parents, the parent volunteers, and of course the teachers and the administrators who make it all possible.

That’s the work that they do at Christmas, but they do amazing things in our schools all year long. We wouldn’t have such a strong society as we do if it wasn’t for the great leadership and wonderful examples and dedication of our teachers.

I also want to today recognize a few friends, good friends, in the labour movement. I want to congratulate Mark Hancock, who has recently been elected as president of CUPE national, the largest trade union in the country, a public sector trade union with well over half a million members.

I was really proud that I was a researcher for eight years at CUPE. I had some very good friends. I was very proud to be a part of a union that worked hard to ensure that wages and conditions of the half-million workers were good — and to work for the safety of workers.

Congratulations to Paul Faoro, who has now moved up to the president’s position in CUPE BC. And I want to say hi to my good friend Sharon Prescott, who has been at CUPE for a long time. She was in government prior to that but has been in CUPE for a long time and is probably one of the stabilizing and driving influences for strategy and vision and direction somewhat behind the scenes.

I want to also wish a happy retirement to my good friend and former research colleague Keith Reynolds. I wish him a very happy retirement. He’s retiring this year after spending a couple of decades — almost a couple of decades — at CUPE.

The same to all my friends at CUPE BC, in the regional office and across the country.

One of the things that was special about CUPE as a union is that they worked for their own members, but they also were committed to work for justice and fairness and good wages and working conditions and safety for all working people, whether they were members of unions or not — and also worked on causes that they felt were justice causes that had nothing to do with the workplace. So thank you to everybody from CUPE.
[ Page 10328 ]

And the best of retirement to Paul Moist, who has retired as the president of CUPE national.

Much of the positive progress that happens in terms of equality, opportunity and fairness has come through the struggles, determination and sacrifices of those in the labour movement. Unfortunately, progress, equity, fairness — they’re rarely granted by those that have it. I guess every time somebody wants to gain something, there are others that feel that they are losing power or they’re losing money. So generally, the rights that we have are fought for. They’re not given; they’re fought for, whether that’s civil rights, women’s rights, workers’ rights, children’s rights or equality rights, and that fight continues.

So when we have a throne speech like we do, when we have a throne speech and we have a budget, it is within the context, I think, of…. We have to remember that there is an ongoing fight, at least to me there is, in terms of seeking equality and equity and opportunity and fairness.

I also want to recognize a few other labour leaders.

[1700]

At this point, I just want to particularly say that I’m very pleased that over the last several months, couple of years, there are some wonderful women in positions of leadership in unions in this province — people like Irene Lanzinger, who is the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, the umbrella organization for labour in British Columbia; and Stephanie Smith, president of the B.C. Government Employees Union. Those women follow another great woman labour leader, our own member for New Westminster, who was the past president of CUPE nationally.

Speaking of women, I am also thrilled that, as a result of the two recent by-elections, we’ll have two new wonderful women joining the official opposition: Jodie Wickens, representing Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and Melanie Mark. I’m also really happy to report that that will bring the female contingent up to 43 percent of our official opposition caucus. We’re really looking forward — all of the official opposition caucus is looking forward — to welcoming them into our caucus and into the Legislature.

I want to talk about a couple more things in my community that matter. We have a throne speech which sort of lays out broad strokes of what government is or isn’t going to do, and we will have a budget next week. In the past few throne speeches, in the past few budgets, I’ve heard nothing about a real concern that I have and residents of Burnaby have and, I’m sure, the Speaker has. It’s the fact that we have an aging hospital in our community.

We have a hospital, parts of which are over half a century old, a hospital which was mentioned in the 2013 Liberal platform as — this would be the platform before the election in 2013 — “underway or in progress,” but I don’t believe it has been mentioned since then. We have a hospital that, as far back as 2001, a master plan was done by the government that said the hospital needs to be replaced. It says it is seismically very fragile and in the case of a major earthquake would, essentially, fall down. There has been tinkering with the hospital, but there have been, certainly, no major upgrades.

The Liberals, unfortunately, despite the master plan and the recommendations in 2001 that said the hospital needs to be rebuilt; despite the fact it is seismically so frail; despite the fact that when it was revealed about four years ago that there were 84 deaths, the doctors at the hospital unanimously — all the department heads — said were related to the age of that hospital…. Despite that, we have had no action.

I see nothing in the throne speech that gives me any hope that Burnaby Hospital is going to be replaced, and I have seen nothing in the past throne speeches of the last few years, and I’ve seen nothing in the budgets of the last few years.

Our leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition, has said that it is time to get on with it. I wouldn’t be surprised if we get another promise in the run-up to the election. But since it’s been promised before, I hope that the people of B.C. don’t get too hopeful. Perhaps they need to vote differently next time so that they can be sure to get….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: Well, certainly not Burnaby Hospital. The member is talking about hospitals. The Burnaby Hospital — a new hospital has been needed since…. So 2001 was the first report, and there has been nothing done, despite so many deaths and despite the fact….

Interestingly, in the run-up to the 2013 election, the hospital was shamelessly used by members of the government as a way that they could get votes in Burnaby. In fact, a leaked document said: “We are going to announce. We’re going to say that we we’re going to build a new hospital, and we’re going to run a candidate that will take out the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake. But we don’t actually….”

The document said: “We can announce that we’re going to have a committee” — and a committee was, in fact, formed — “and we’re going to talk about the hospital, and the beauty of it is that we don’t even actually have to spend any money. We’ll do polling, and we’ll think about spending money, but we don’t really have to do….”

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: That was. Brian Bonney was involved in that.

Interjection.

[1705]

K. Corrigan: I believe Brian Bonney is before the courts, so I refuse to talk about him, because the matter is before the courts.
[ Page 10329 ]

Brian Bonney, Mark Robertson and Pam Gardner signed that document. It was very clearly a ruse in order to try to get votes with, very specifically, no intention to build the hospital, which is really unfortunate given how many people died related, according to the doctors at the hospital, to how old the hospital is.

So it is time for us to get a new hospital in Burnaby. I look forward to the budget next week — or throne speeches that say right off the top: “Guess what. We’re going to build a new hospital.”

I also want to talk a little bit about…. People have been speaking about housing. We’ve been talking about the failure of the provincial government to have done anything, to intercept the problems with housing and the shadow flipping. We’ve been raising that.

But I want to talk about another problem, another real issue for residents of Burnaby that hasn’t been talked about too much, and this is the real problem that we have with the rising prices. For some people this will be seen as a windfall, but when I look at people like my son and daughter-in-law, who recently bought a house not in Burnaby but in New Westminster…. They have a half-million-dollar-plus mortgage. They are putting so much of their income into that house. They recently got a property assessment, like many other property assessments in Burnaby and across the Lower Mainland, that was well over 20 percent. They are going to see an increase in their property taxes of well over $400.

For some people, that’s okay, but for them, and for thousands of seniors or young people or people who are property-rich but don’t have high incomes, it’s a real problem. And not only is it causing real problems for a lot of people in Burnaby and New Westminster and other communities in the Lower Mainland, not only is it a real problem for them, but in fact the province is making a windfall at the expense of taxpayers, at the expense….

Interjection.

K. Corrigan: What’s that — move?

The member from Cariboo has said to lower the mill rate. Of course the city is lowering the mill rate. They are not increasing the taxes. But the reality is that for all of those people whose property goes up more than the average, they are going to be hit, and so many people have.

The other thing that has happened and the reason there is a windfall coming from the Lower Mainland is that so many people are losing eligibility for the homeowner’s grant. That is a real issue. In Burnaby alone, 7,000 properties, 7,000 single-family homes, had B.C. government property assessments with increases at or above 20 percent. So those people will be hit by higher taxes.

In addition, of the 32,000 single-family homes in Burnaby on the 2016 assessment roll, less than half of them are going to be eligible for the homeowner’s grant this year. What that results in is that homes for people who live in the Lower Mainland, particularly in the more urban core, are going to be subsidising taxes for the rest of the province. I mean, that’s just the way it is, and the province is taking the windfall for this. Despite the increase of the threshold, which, by the way, leaves it still below what the threshold was in 2013….

[1710]

In 2013, the province collected $715 million in property taxes after the homeowner grant was factored in. In the 2015 budget, the province predicted it was going to make $763 million in taxes, and last year’s budget predicted that property tax revenues, after the threshold, would rise to $819 million. That is, directly, policies of this government to not have the threshold increase in order that people would continue to get the homeowner grant. In Burnaby, only about 78 percent, I believe, of the homeowners are going to qualify for the homeowner grant, whereas the aim for the province was supposed to be in the high 90s. That’s a real issue for Lower Mainland residents.

I know that people will say: “Well, just move.” I think the Premier said we’re supposed to move to Kitimat or Terrace if we’re having problems with the housing. The problem is that people have…. If they’re moving, their jobs are in this community. If they own a house and their jobs are in this community, they can’t just leave. I could sell my house, but where am I going to go? It’s a problem of equity, and it’s also a windfall for the government.

I’m concerned about transit in the Lower Mainland. We have a Premier who has made the transit problems worse by forcing a referendum on the city of Vancouver — a referendum that particularly, with absolutely no support from the provincial government, was destined to fail. We have no way of having the operating costs for the system covered. Unfortunately, in the Lower Mainland, what this has resulted in is that there are often students or people going to work or seniors — maybe seniors who don’t drive anymore — waiting for one, two, three buses.

The only way that TransLink has been able to deal with the higher costs and the inability to increase the revenue is by cutting services. As this government talks about building roads, building bridges, it is, at the same time, ignoring the transit needs of the Lower Mainland and blaming it on local government when it was this Premier who forced a referendum, destined to fail, on the Lower Mainland.

I want to talk for a few more minutes about how things have changed in the throne speeches. I did a little comparison of the last few throne speeches and this speech. Before the last election, the B.C. Liberals made lavish promises to the people of B.C. — apparently made up, I would assume, for election purposes. “Debt-free,” the slogan said on the side of the election bus, $100 billion in an LNG windfall and a promise that we would have an LNG plant in place before 2015.

Well, British Columbians have not yet seen a dime, and they won’t any time soon. Even as the Premier and
[ Page 10330 ]
the Liberal government have cut back on environmental regulations and signed agreements slashing the public benefits from these projects, both in terms of financial reward to the people of British Columbia and jobs for B.C. residents, we are yet to see any final investment decisions.

Remember those promises, the numbers that were thrown around? It was exciting. I don’t know who came up with those, but I hope they’re not responsible for forecasting the future of British Columbia at this point — although I doubt it was forecasters. My guess is it was spin doctors, So $1 trillion in GDP, $100 billion in royalties, three LNG plants by 2020 — all those golden eggs in one glorious basket.

Apparently, I’ve reached the end of my time and will take my seat.

[1715]

Moira Stilwell: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to rise and speak in support of the throne speech. In short, I want to echo the tone of the throne speech and its commitment to staying our course, particularly when it comes to getting our fiscal house in order, building on our economic successes and reaching out to further diversify our economy — which is currently enjoying a top spot in Canada in a difficult period — and taking on challenges such as housing affordability and what that means to families and communities, particularly in greater Vancouver.

My constituency, Vancouver-Langara, is smack dab in the middle of many of the rapid changes and challenges in urban British Columbia — rapid change in the landscape from replacing single-family homes, where many of my constituents grew up, with multiple condominiums and townhouses that sell for rapidly rising prices.

The Canada Line runs right through my riding and is often so filled that my constituents ride in the opposite direction to the airport to get a seat or place to sit or stand while they ride to their destination downtown.

Multiple large, previously provincially owned properties, including the George Pearson lands, are slated for massive redevelopment. It can be a full-time job just managing your public planning meeting schedule. I’ve not heard a whisper of NIMBYism and have met with many individuals and groups with valid concerns about how health and education services will be provided to the estimated 40,000 new neighbours arriving shortly.

I hear valid concerns about traffic congestion in areas where the alleyways already function as thoroughfares, not even able to contemplate the traffic that the new Massey Bridge will dump into our streets.

My constituents have brought their patience and persistence, wisdom and ideas to all of these discussions. I want to thank all of my constituents for the civility in their civil concerns, say how much I have enjoyed working for them and with them over the past seven years, and say thank you for the honour of serving you.

I start by supporting the underlying theme of the speech, best summed up in one of the opening lines: steadfast, resilient and the courage to say yes. As we all know in this House, British Columbians were unequivocal in their choice. They said, with no uncertainty in their voice, on their ballots, yes to yes. They could not have been more clear or more pronounced.

All of us know that getting to yes isn’t always easy. We’re a proud democracy, and voicing our opinion is something all of us in this House and province cherish. Sometimes it’s easy to get drowned out by the loudest voices, which can be the naysayers and sometimes even the yea-sayers who speak through emotion and ideology, sometimes without what sounds like facts or science.

I don’t want to diminish anyone’s passion or their right to speak their case. We all bring our own backgrounds and experiences to political work. Politics is by nature a human endeavour. I am prompted to quote loosely — I think, Pete Seeger — when I say that humans are just perpetual hope machines.

As politicians, we are by nature optimistic, or we wouldn’t be called to work in and with our neighbours and communities and run for public office. We all come to try to get things done for the people of British Columbia. My own nature and training makes me uncomfortable with making grandiose Good Ship Lollipop promises to patients in my medical professional life and my fellow British Columbians in my political life.

Astronaut Chris Hadfield helped me express better, I think, how I approach my desire and ambition to contribute positively to the people and province of B.C. I want to read what he says.

“My optimism and confidence comes not from feeling that I am luckier than other mortals, and they sure don’t come from visualizing victory. They’re the result of a lifetime spent visualizing defeat and figuring out how to prevent it.

He goes on to say:

“Like most astronauts, I am pretty sure that I can deal with what life throws at me because I have thought about what to do if things go wrong as well as if they go right. That is the power of negative thinking. It’s about getting to how.”

In my life, both professional and political, defeat is causing harm to people. Victory is helping the people of British Columbia live the lives they hope for. Getting to how means to listen to the voices of B.C. families, B.C. workers, tradesmen, tradeswomen and B.C. businessmen, together who build communities, create jobs and invest in the future. It doesn’t mean being risk-adverse but means taking calculated risk, knowing when to hold them and when to fold them and knowing when to change tactics, understanding what’s working and what’s not.

[1720]

Big ideas like Site C or LNG or well-thought-out pipelines that move B.C.’s and other provinces’ resources to markets around the world are at the core of our province’s future and our country’s future. Big ideas, national ideas
[ Page 10331 ]
are the stuff of legend, and more importantly, they are fundamental to the success of our province and country.

For instance, at 9:22 a.m. on November 7 in 1885, the last spike was pounded into our transcontinental railway here in B.C. That ribbon of steel helped bind a nation together, and it was a major incentive for British Columbia to join Confederation in 1871. It was also key to building Canada’s export economy. It was definitely one of the biggest yes projects in the history of the country, and it’s hard to imagine a Canada or our economy without it.

Just ahead to 1950 and then the start of the Trans-Canada Highway, some 8,000 kilometres long, opening in 1962 and completed nine years later in 1971. Like the transcontinental railway, it connected our country and became another transportation link as we moved Canadian goods across the country and around the world and allowed us together to know our country and countrymen.

In 1954, this country went to work on the St. Lawrence Seaway, that marvellous engineering feat of locks and canals that connect the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. I remember recently reading a son’s recollection of when his dad, who had land on the seaway, on the St. Lawrence River, had his land expropriated. He told his son: “Yes, I’m sad, and yes, I will miss it, but this is for the greater good of all Canadians.” They don’t make them like that anymore.

When Queen Elizabeth and President Eisenhower opened it in 1959, it was another signal that Canada would do everything it could to move our goods to world markets. Whether it was the transcontinental railway, the transcontinental highway or the St. Lawrence Seaway, we found ways to get to yes and then figured out how. Good old Canadian know-how. We found ways to move Canadian goods and resources to the world, and in doing so, we built a country and created jobs and strengthened communities and made a future for all of us.

This province and country are blessed with an abundance of resources, resources the world wants and needs. For instance, our Canadian LNG will go a long way to helping countries such as China and India reduce their dependence on coal-fired power plants and, in the process, help the world breathe a little easier.

While financial investment decisions have yet to be made, our province has already benefited from some $20 billion in investment. Pipelines, railroads and shipping are critical to moving Canadian resources to market. Doing them safely and with expertise goes without saying, but it goes better with saying: why wouldn’t we be the best in the world in all aspects of getting our and the whole country’s resources to tidewater and beyond?

The five conditions laid out by our government for pipelines are not obstacles but five important calls to action, to getting to how — good old and good new Canadian know-how. All Canadians have a stake in meeting these challenges. The five conditions call for Chris Hadfield’s power of negative thinking. We can handle what is thrown at us. We can make good on every one of the five conditions, and we know how to do it. Meeting every one of these conditions will take skills, technology and innovation, all of which help create good-paying jobs for people in B.C. and beyond.

This confederation of ours, after all, is a partnership. We’re in it together. Like so many other British Columbians, I know that international trade is vital. It’s vital to this province and all provinces. With it, comes the kind of economic diversity that can build real wealth and weather tough times.

That same international trade is part of the reason we have the best economy in the country right now, a balanced budget and a credit rating that is the envy of the nation. Our total exports are now worth over $35 billion every year, an increase of more than 40 percent since 2009 — impressive. I expect and hope that the downside of our low oil and gas prices — namely, the low Canadian dollar — will bring sound upward movement this year and next.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

With a year to go before the next provincial election, I get the feeling that British Columbians will have an equally clear choice again next time — yes to getting to how we can generate jobs and prosperity and the revenues we need to build infrastructure and provide social service. Let’s unite and deal together with what is being thrown at us by the world economy. This government is the party for yes, and we are not for turning.

[1725]

That applies equally to another major issue that we introduced in the throne speech and that we’re set to tackle and hopefully solve. As a mom who watched her kids grow up in a Vancouver neighbourhood, I am sad to think they may have to move away if they want their own home because they can’t afford to live in their hometown.

I don’t believe that anyone’s entitled to live anywhere. But the sad reality is that over the past 30 years, housing has become a commodity. I, frankly, don’t think that’s what a city is supposed to be. Stratospheric house prices are sterilizing our cities, driving out lower- and middle-class workers of all kinds, forcing young people to postpone forming families and making it difficult for employers to attract skilled workers to build their businesses.

I’m glad our government is taking on this sensitive topic in order to find ways to make our cities, particularly here in the Lower Mainland, safe, secure, affordable and accessible to people who live, work and pay taxes commensurate with the price they paid for their house.

Transparency in costs is always welcome and may help the conversation. Fraudulent realtor practices should be ended. Dual agency is of questionable value to clients.
[ Page 10332 ]
These are all important, but ultimately, until governments choose to look at the source of funds and who is buying homes, we really won’t know what levers we have.

When I buy a house, the government can know exactly where every penny of the purchase price has come from, yet our governments claim no understanding or interest in how offshore or illicit cash comes into the housing market.

The strong economy we enjoy today in British Columbia is due, in part, to our diversification. We know that companies choose to locate based on three factors besides tax rates: housing prices, education and personal safety. Quality of education and safety are largely related to a healthy tax base.

Housing prices and high rents are repeatedly listed as a barrier to recruit workers in the tech sector, a sector we heard is of great significance to our bottom line, with more than 86,000 British Columbians working in the sector at wages 60 percent higher than the average across the province.

Words have power. Everyone in this House knows that. Words have the power to capture our attention, capture our imagination and give us motivation to move forward. Those words and their impact are never more powerful than when they are spoken in this House. That’s why yes and no resonate so well. Those two simple, strong words sum up years of politics and boil down often to the essence of things that separate us.

No is always the easier of the two words. It ends stories. It stops the conversation. But yes gets us to where we can be like astronauts and figure out how, in the face of all sorts of events that we cannot control, we can steer towards a strong economy, good jobs and the revenues we need for public good.

Yes is definitely hard. Yes puts in motion changes, and changes us and forces us to find solutions to get to how. It gives us a common purpose to keep building this incredible, rich province and gives us the confidence to deal with what is thrown at us. Things turn out the best for those who make the best of how things turn out.

No one is sure where growth in the global economy will come from in the next few years. Resource producers in many countries are continuing to stockpile commodities, producing them at costs above current prices, producing gluts that may last for a long time.

Let’s turn our minds to the sectors that maybe we have not given enough attention to in the past few years and that can benefit from the low dollar — lumber, as we have heard, and many kinds of manufacturing that may need some capital to gear up with new machinery and new hires to take advantage of recovering U.S. markets and elsewhere where our prices have returned us to competitiveness.

Let’s measure our success in full and well-paid employment of young British Columbians who will be able to start their families, as so they should.

Words matter, and no word in this House matters more today to British Columbians than yes.

S. Fraser: It’s wonderful to take my place in the debate on the response to the throne speech 2016. I would be remiss if I did not mention my constituency assistants that help me in my constituency. Brenda McLean is home with terrible flu and has been all week, and Patty Edwards is trying to carry the fort. I just want to thank them so much for doing what they do on my behalf and our behalf in the Legislature, and helping so many people.

[1730]

I would like to begin by recognizing, with the greatest of respect, the two new members to our Legislative Assembly, and I understand they’ll be taking their place here next week: Melanie Mark from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Jodie Wickens from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. They both just won their respective by-elections, and they will be taking their place in this House very soon.

This shouldn’t be a partisan thing. This is about democracy. Both of these young women won their seats. They worked hard, and they should be recognized, I think, regardless of party affiliation. I was disappointed. I’m not really casting blame here, but I thought they were here in the House on the floor for the throne speech. I was certainly hoping that there would have been recognition of our newest members to this august place.

On behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly — I want to get this on record — I would like to formally welcome Jodie and Melanie to this place. I wish them all the best, and I congratulate them for putting their names forward, for taking a place in the public office. It is not easy, as all of us in this place know. It’s a fairly big sacrifice. It’s a sacrifice to your family and, in many ways, to yourself. You have to split yourself in several different directions — a different type of job than I’ve ever had before. So I congratulate both Melanie and Jodie, and I am welcoming them to this place.

So the throne speech. I’ve been through…. I think this is my 11th throne speech that I’ve heard, and I always listen with interest. This one’s pretty thin, I would suggest. There seems to always be a slogan in the throne speeches that I’ve been involved in, listening to in this House. We’ve had many throughout the years. This time around it seems to be “Getting to yes,” which may…. Oh, it didn’t get any applause.

I guess we’re going to hear that, “Getting to yes,” as a slogan. That’s going to be over and over and over again as we roll towards the election in 2017 — ad nauseam, I would suggest. It’s an interesting tactic. It’s a very subjective thing, saying “getting to yes” and talking about the bravery of getting to yes. Yes is in the eye of the beholder. Yes can be yes to something very bad.

The way this is being portrayed by the Premier and members of this government, obviously, as we roll towards
[ Page 10333 ]
an election is that if someone says no — in other words, disagrees with a government position — they are to be the forces of no. They are to be vilified — they, individually, or collective groups, organizations, or the opposition doing their job in this place to try to hold the government to account, which is often difficult.

We’ve had some problems in following what the government does. They’ve been less than forthright in many cases, as we’ve found. They’ve destroyed documents. They’ve made it very difficult for us to do our job. But we are, I believe…. With two new members, that makes us, by my count, probably the largest opposition party in the history of this Legislative Assembly. It may be tied for that, but this would be, I think, as big as it’s ever been.

It’s an interesting tactic to vilify those that do not agree. In essence, that is the use of the term “getting to yes,” which means that no is something bad. We’re starting to hear that over and over again. We’re hearing it from the Premier in press conferences, we’re hearing it in this House in response to question period, and we’re certainly hearing it in response to the throne speech.

I would submit that it is a tactic that’s reminiscent of George W. Bush. Remember that “You’re either with me or you’re agin me”? That’s the tactic that was used there to justify war — with some success, I would suggest — by the former President of the United States. It doesn’t make it right.

[1735]

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Please, indeed. It’s a good thing here.

I guess if you’re going to vilify someone for not agreeing with you, I would be in that category. As a member of the official opposition, I disagree with much of what is being done by this government. The check and balance of the parliamentary system, if you will, is designed to do just that. Having a government that tries to vilify those that question the government’s decision-making, their wisdom, their fluidity with facts, their looseness with such things….

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Fluency, not fluidity.

S. Fraser: I think both could be applied. A fluidity and a…. No, fluency. Fluency of facts. I’ll work on this a little bit. Thank you to the minister.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

S. Fraser: Anyways. Me, doing my job as an official opposition member, disagreeing with government or questioning them, is a hindrance, I see, as the government sees it.

They are working on not just us in the opposition. Treaty 8 chiefs, I guess, fighting to protect their territory from having it flooded, the territory that they’ve been in for millennia. They’ve been standing against this government’s decisions in this case, in this one case.

I’ve been up to Fort St. John a number of times recently. In my meetings, and not just exclusively with Treaty 8…. There are many groups up there that are having some questions about the wisdom of this government’s decision to flood 100 kilometres of some of the most valuable agricultural land left in the province — and, of course, massive amounts of territory that have been inhabited by these First Nations for millennia. I guess they would also be the powers of no, because they criticized the government’s decision.

Now — and maybe I’ll get into this in a little more detail — this is a decision that the government wouldn’t even allow the independent body, the B.C. Utilities Commission, to oversee. That’s the job of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Any government that does a major project…. Well, let’s make sure it’s in the best interests of the people of the province, the taxpayers of the province, the First Nations in the province. We have this august body set up to do just that — to oversee.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Set up — thank you very much — by the late Bill Bennett, who we’ve just recognized in this House this week.

This government decided that their decision to build this dam, to great opposition…. Well, let’s take away the ability of the body that’s supposed to oversee it, to scrutinize the work there being done. Obviously, they have something to hide. With that, if this was a good project, if this was a getting-to-yes moment for the government to build this dam, why would they not allow the independent body to do its job and protect the public?

I don’t believe that Treaty 8 is on the wrong side by criticizing having their territories wiped out and flooded. Or the farmers and ranchers of the Peace River Valley, who are just as concerned. I guess they’re being vilified too, in this throne speech. It’s the theme of this speech.

Or residents opposed to dumping toxic waste in their watersheds, in their water supply area. I guess they, too, would be the enemy, because they are trying to speak up for where they live, for their lifestyle, for their health, for the health of the environment that they inhabit. So they’re an impediment, according to this throne speech.

[1740]

Or how about this — all the mayors and elected councillors represented at the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the UBCM, who oppose the Liberal mismanagement of our coastal ferry system? They did the cost-benefit analysis on that the government refused to do. The failure to manage that essential resource is costing coastal communities — their economies — billions of dollars. That work should have been done by this government.
[ Page 10334 ]

We should criticize to try to make sure the government does their job and protects the public interest. But they don’t. Now, in this throne speech, anybody that isn’t with them is agin ’em. They’re the enemy. That’s a brutal wake-up for elected officials in our municipal system and city governance systems in this province.

It’s not about yes or no. It is about doing what’s right. It’s about doing the right thing. It’s about making decisions in the best public interest. This place, where we stand today, is all about check and balance. It is the parliamentary system. This tactic of trying to vilify those that aren’t saying yes, aren’t agreeing with everything they say and do, is counter democratic. It is contrary to the parliamentary system that we are here to work under and represent.

It’s not about yes or no. It’s about having all the facts to make decisions, having all the input, not just from the opposition or the independent members that inhabit this place when we’re sitting but from all British Columbians. It’s about having independent scrutiny, like the B.C. Utilities Commission. Make sure that the people of British Columbia are getting the best bang for their dollar — absolutely. Or maybe there are better alternatives, that government is not an autocracy.

The tactic may have some effect, but it is wrong. Listening to the public is right, not manipulating the facts or destroying the facts or not writing down the facts. That’s not good governance. We didn’t hear anything about that in the throne speech. Not throwing out inane, divisive slogans instead of a robust democratic political system that we should be having here.

I guess my constituent that was in the audience today in the gallery…. Michelle Coulter was here. She’s from Ucluelet. Now, not very long ago she started a petition. I spoke with her at length last week. She just did this on her own on Facebook. She’s no expert. She’s no enemy of the state. I’ll tell you that. She’s concerned, as a family member, that this government is taxing the heck out of them. I don’t know if that’s parliamentary, but I will take that under advisement. It’s true. She isn’t alone. Tens of thousands of people in British Columbia signed this petition. They took the time to do this. They’re saying enough is enough.

When it comes to, in this case, MSP payments, you’ve got a flat tax that this government has increased seven, eight, nine, ten times. I’ve lost track now. It’s a huge burden on families, taxpaying families, and this is a cash cow for this government. “We’re not raising taxes.” Well, you’re not raising progressive taxes; you’re increasing regressive taxes that hurt so many people in British Columbia and benefit the very few. We should have such a debate in this House about tax policy, the difference between progressive and regressive taxation.

[1745]

We have some of the worst poverty statistics in the country, and we have for way too long under this government. The prosperity that these members seem to be talking about is not being felt by British Columbians — some at the top, some of their friends but not people like Michelle. She called it for what it was when it comes to MSP payments, a regressive flat tax that this Premier has been using as a cash cow. It helps pay for massive tax breaks for the very, very wealthiest.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: This is striking a chord, I can see, with ministers, with the government side. It’s a redistribution of the wealth, moving it from regular families to the richest in our province — paying for it by fees like MSP.

Michelle is a constituent of mine, and she started this petition. Here’s what she says. This got signatures from close to 70,000 people so far in British Columbia. “It’s a regressive tax. It’s completely unfair to charge someone making $30,000 a year the same amount as someone who is making $3 million a year,” says Michelle, whose petition has almost 70,000 signatures on it.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: Again, I see the government…. So we’re going to vilify those 70,000 people, too, for speaking out.

Michelle Coulter says: “I am not surprised. People have had enough, and it’s time for the Premier to stop her bullying tactics and start listening to us taxpayers.” That is what she says.

Saanich psychiatrist Lori Vogt is one of the people who signed the petition. Now, Dr. Vogt says she has become increasingly concerned about the stress that high MSP premiums is putting on low- and middle-income B.C. families. This is a psychiatrist, okay? Yeah, another naysayer to be vilified, to roll into the election. She goes on: “I have families in my practice who are working. They’re not on social assistance of any type, and they’re going to food banks.” This is the prosperity they’re talking about. Dr. Vogt says: “That’s abysmal in this province that we can’t even feed our kids.”

Medical Services Plan rates have increased this year to $150 a month for families of three or more and $75 a month for singles, for anyone making $30,000 a year or more. In other words, the same amount…. If you’ve got to take that amount of money when you’re making $31,000 a year for your family and you’re paying exactly the same thing as the person that’s making $3 million, the percentage of your income is causing you hardship — extreme hardship.

The good doctor goes on. This is a psychiatrist, right? “If you’re going to have to choose between paying the rent, paying grocery bills and maybe a dental bill or something like that, you’re going to do that before you pay MSP premiums. I think it happens more often than people realize,” Dr. Vogt says.
[ Page 10335 ]

I guess Michelle and Dr. Vogt and the tens of thousands of people that have signed this petition, according to the Premier, are a problem. They’re not to be listened to. They’re an impediment to their yes.

If you’re a scientist, a First Nations leader, an ichthyologist living in the Skeena Valley, a beautiful part of our province, and you raise concerns about your way of life, your economy, your lifestyle, your salmon, you’re a rabble-rouser, according to the Premier, and a ragtag group. I wasn’t at the meeting, but these people care about where they live. They have a right to have a say about what happens where they live, and they have a right to be listened to with respect.

[1750]

That’s not happening with this government or this Premier. Making light of people that care deeply about their home where they’ve raised their families or where they’ve lived for millennia is not helpful, and it’s not the sign of any kind of good governance. It appears it is going to be the pattern right through till May of 2017.

Divide and conquer — that’s the plan. In essence, that’s the theme of this throne speech.

Let’s say yes to working with British Columbians — British Columbians like Michelle Coulter, who did this petition. She’s raising legitimate concerns. Getting 70,000 people to sign on inside of a month — those are legitimate concerns. They are reflective of the people of this province, these concerns. All the way from Ucluelet. People signed this all over the province. I applaud and salute Michelle for doing this.

Let’s address the real needs of the people first and foremost in this place, not the top 2 percent. The Liberal government and this Premier’s economic model makes families earn less and pay much, much more. The Premier, in a previous meaningless slogan, “Families first,” has increased fees and taxes by over $1,000 for the average family. Of course, this is what is irking the likes of Michelle and so many others, thousands of people, in the province.

Since she became Premier, B.C. has had the worst wage growth in the country, the highest levels of household debt and some of the highest levels of child poverty. It’s not just massive increases on MSP payments. It’s hydro. It’s ICBC payments. Tuition fees. Tolls. Ferry fares. Even park fees. These are taxes. These are regressive taxes, and they’re being dismissed by the government as having no detrimental effect.

“We’re not raising taxes.” I mean, that’s as absurd as saying they’re not increasing the debt more than any other government in the history of this province. These are absurdities, and the tactic is to repeat them over and over again and dress them up with a slogan.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Premier has given a $230 million tax break to the top 2 percent income earners, while the business at the food banks is booming. I don’t know if that is part of the economic development picture, the rosy picture that the government seems to be thinking of. This is not a good thing. You should not be taking from those that need it the most to give to those that need it the least. You do not have to be a raving socialist. You do not have to be Robin Hood to get this.

Since 2011, B.C. has had the worst wage growth, and we are falling even further behind the national average. This isn’t good news for the people of this province. It’s not.

How about a Premier that wants to get to yes on helping families, not hurting them? Family first. I guess if you’re a rich family, that is an accurate statement, maybe. But for everybody else in the province — like 98 percent, the rest of the people in the province — these Liberal policies are hurting. It’s not families first. It’s families last, under this government.

We need a Premier and a government that wants to protect the public. But she’s not saying yes to helping British Columbia. Look at what she’s saying yes to.

[1755]

Site C I’ve mentioned before. It’s a massive taxpayer-funded project that the government refused to allow the independent scrutiny by the independent body — the B.C. Utilities Commission — and making….

The B.C. Utilities Commission, introduced by former Premier Bill Bennett — Social Credit Premier Bill Bennett — is there to protect the people of British Columbia from many things, but including a very bad decision made by government, a unilateral decision that denied the scrutiny of the body that’s supposed to oversee it.

I am getting the time sign here, I see. I thought I still had four minutes left.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place, because I have so much more to say at the next sitting.

S. Fraser moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.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 © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada