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)

Monday, February 22, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 2

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

V. Huntington: I’d like to welcome David and Susan Jones to the House today. They’re longtime friends and constituents of mine. If the House would make them welcome, I’d appreciate it.

Hon. T. Lake: We have a Plant in the gallery today. The executive director of the Turning Point Recovery Society, Brenda Plant, is here with us. Brenda is a recipient of the Queen’s Jubilee medal and does tremendous work with Turning Point, providing addiction recovery services in the Lower Mainland for over 30 years. With over 3,000 men and women participating in their programs, they currently operate three facilities in the Lower Mainland.

[1335]

My daughter and I had the privilege of attending the Turning Point Gala last year. Jim Belushi was the keynote speaker. We were able to provide $1 million in support to the society to assist in their efforts supporting some of our province’s most vulnerable people. Would the House please join me in welcoming Brenda to the gallery today.

J. Horgan: It was my great privilege today to give a tour of this building and have a lovely lunch with two individuals. The first is David Williams, who’s the president of the Friends of the Nemiah Valley. David is joined today by another Williams, without the “s.” That’s Chief Roger William of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation in Tsilhqot’in territory, who, all members of the House will know, was the groundbreaking first person to take title to the Supreme Court and win with respect to First Nations rights and title.

It’s just wonderful to have Chief Roger William in the House with us today, and I know all members of the House will want to wish David Williams and Chief Roger William a very warm, warm welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: There’s a young woman in the gallery today who has done just a tremendous job. She used to work in our office. Kim Haslett is here today. She and her family relocated, and she is now working elsewhere. But she did an incredible job, was someone incredibly wonderful to work with, always saying, “How can I help, Minister? What can I do?” — all of those kinds of things. So, very appreciative. She’s a very busy mommy of twin girls now. I just wanted to make sure she knew how much we appreciated the effort she made and to welcome her here to the precinct today.

S. Robinson: I have a number of visitors today from Coquitlam-Maillardville. We have students from Our Lady of Fatima School joining us. It’s rather quiet up there, so I’m assuming that they have yet to make it into the gallery. But we have Miss Melissa Mobilio’s grade 5 class and Mrs. Stephanie Hoyer-Wright’s grade 5 class. We have a total of 45 students and 20 adults joining us. They’re certainly here in the precinct. I would ask all members to give them a warm welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: Today we have members from Scouts Canada joining us. It is a great pleasure to introduce Alamin Pirani, executive director for Scouts Canada. Alamin is from the Yukon and has been with Scouts Canada for 27 years professionally and 24 years as a youth member in Kenya and as a volunteer in Canada.

Bruce Hallsor is the legal counsel for Scouts Canada. Bruce is also from the Yukon and has been scouting for 31 years. Denyse Koo, deputy area commissioner for greater Victoria has been scouting for nine years. Eric Chow, the deputy area commissioner for greater Victoria, has been scouting for 14 years. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Tributes

DAVE MacKINNON

J. Shin: A week ago, on Valentine’s Day, New Democrats bid our farewell to a dear friend and my constituent, Dave MacKinnon, who left us all too early at age 69. A hard-working man, Dave spent most of his earlier days in various jobs, including a nickel mine and a logging camp, before going on to serve as a trade unionist and an industrial relations officer with the Ministry of Labour. Dave was also the president of the federal NDP from 1996 to 2001 and our candidate in the 2004 federal election.

His family recalls Dave’s passion for a number of things, most of all his family and his home, but also his other loves that are all tying for a close second, they say: playing cards, a good feed of lobsters and the NDP.

He is lovingly survived by his wife, Susan, and his children, Nicole, Craig and Gail; his stepchildren, Jessie, Devin and Sarah; his grandchildren, Mike, Alex, Emily, Nicholas, Ben, Isla and Maya; as well as siblings Estelle, Dan, Maureen, Justin, Betty and Ken and their families. Dave was apparently the favourite uncle of dozens of nieces and nephews.

So to Dave, thank you for your love for life and for people. You will be sorely missed.
[ Page 10558 ]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. S. Anton presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 18 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. S. Anton: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 18, the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2016. This bill is a collection of minor corrections and technical housekeeping amendments to various statutes.

As part of the statute revision process, the office of legislative counsel routinely identifies and brings forward these types of corrections. The minor corrections in this bill are part of the routine process to ensure that B.C. statutes are orderly and correct.

I’d like to take a moment at this time to recognize the tremendous work done by the office of legislative counsel for this House. I extend my sincere thanks to all the drafters, editors, coordinators, support staff and the others in that office for their dedication and public service. This is meticulous work. It’s careful work. We rely on it in this House. More importantly, the province relies on it to be done well and done properly, and they do that every day.

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

Bill 18, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) 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)

SCOUT-GUIDE WEEK

E. Foster: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Scout-Guide Week, which is taking place across Canada from February 15 to 22.

Scout-Guide Week is a celebration for Scouts Canada and Girl Guides of Canada, a time when both organizations can get together in the spirit of friendship and fellowship to honour their shared heritage. It’s also a great opportunity for all Canadians to recognize the limitless potential of our youth and acknowledge the work scouting does to instill values such as teamwork, leadership and public service.

For more than a century, these values and life skills have been taught through exciting outdoor programs which are developed and maintained by energetic and dedicated volunteers. These people give their time selflessly to help youth learn to cooperate, strive for excellence and give back to the community.

For millions of Canadians, adventure, teamwork and good citizenship started with lessons learned and memories made through Scouts and Guides. In fact, more than half of our country’s leaders participated in scouting and guiding in their youth, proving that not only do these organizations help to build stronger communities; they also shape future leaders.

I want to thank Scouts Canada, Girl Guides of Canada and their enthusiastic volunteers for working tirelessly to prepare young people for future success.

I ask the House to join me in wishing them all the best and a strong and a strong and vibrant future.

STEEL AND OAK CRAFT BREWERY

J. Darcy: In 1862, the first brewery in mainland British Columbia opened its doors in New Westminster. For 143 years, beer flowed within the Royal City, until the last of a long line of breweries, Labatt’s, shut its doors in 2005.

In 2014, those doors opened again as Steel and Oak brewing company brought the noble tradition of brewing back to New Westminster. Steel and Oak symbolizes the modernness of today while paying homage to the craftsmanship of years long past. “Materials of strength and durability — steel and oak — house, protect and nurture what we stand for most: exceptional-tasting craft beer.” Those are the words of Jorden Foss, co-owner with James Garbutt of Steel and Oak, both proud New Westminster residents.

Head brewer Peter Schulz studied brewing in Germany, and their beers combine German, English and North American brewing styles, techniques and ingredients. They opened with a red pilsner, smoked hefeweizen, hopped ESB and an English pale ale, but they now have many more types. Their beers are unfiltered and unpasteurized. Their tasting room, which is always packed, offers growler fills, bottle sales and tours.

Their beer is on tap at 18 New West restaurants and pubs, dozens of locations throughout the Lower Mainland and in Kimberley, Qualicum Beach, Courtenay, Kamloops and Kelowna too. They now employ 19 people, and they’re growing. They have a food truck out back, as well, on Thursdays, Fridays and most Saturdays.

They are strong supporters of our community and of a sustainable economy. Each week they deliver 1,600 kilos of spent wheat and barley to a small, family-run farm to feed their heritage pigs.

In November 2015, they won the first prize in the amber/dark lager category at the B.C. Beer Awards.
[ Page 10559 ]

As co-owner Jordan Foss says: “Our beers are kind of like children. You love each one for a different reason, and the dark lager has always held a special place in my heart.

Congratulations to Steel and Oak. You make New Westminster proud.

[1345]

EQUAL VOICE AND WOMEN IN POLITICS

L. Larson: Equal Voice is a national, bilingual multipartisan organization dedicated to electing more women to all levels of political office in Canada. Founded in 2001, Equal Voice brings women from across the political spectrum into its nine chapters across the country.

The UBC Alma Mater Society branch of Equal Voice worked with the Speaker’s office this year to produce a women in the Legislature program for a day to give young women a chance to shadow a woman MLA. This year, on February 17, nine young women from political science studies and law programs at UBC paired up with MLAs from both sides of the House to take a look at the internal workings of the Legislature through a different lens.

They were privileged to be able to witness the swearing-in ceremonies of two women MLAs — historically, the youngest female and the first Nations woman — a rare privilege. Equal Voice is an organization that stresses the importance of equality and multipartisanship and strongly encourages young women from all facets of the political spectrum to take part in this project.

They are confident that their women in the Legislature program will also serve the interests of aspiring female politicians, of which there are many. Their goals are to increase the number of women nominated as candidates, promote changes that would increase the number of women in politics, conduct outreach to inspire and engage women, encourage and equip women to run for office through an on-line campaign school and celebrate women who are in politics.

With a female Premier, a female Attorney General and Madame Speaker, our Legislature represents a strong female face to politics in British Columbia and leads in representation across Canada.

Thank you to Ava Ashrafian and Natasha Mahail, presidents of Equal Voice at UBC, and to all the members who participated. We look forward to hosting more young women from Equal Voice.

MARTIN MARS WATERBOMBER

S. Fraser: Well, sadly, it looks official. The last of the Martin Mars waterbombers will be put into a forced retirement. Only last year, the Mars was brought into the service when the worst fire season in the history of this province was well underway, and it performed flawlessly.

The Martin Mars waterbombers stationed at Sproat Lake near Port Alberni have been instrumental in fighting wildfires in B.C. for decades and have saved incalculable values of property and forest resources and, arguably, lives. Nothing else can come close to hitting a wildfire with the punch of the Mars and its massive payload.

The Mars waterbomber has been accurately described as B.C.’s Smokey the Bear. In the Shasta Lake fires in 2008, the Mars deployed 436,000 litres in a seven-hour flight period for several days in a row. When the Mars hits a fire, this massive payload smothers it with a swath measured in acres. It can extinguish a fire at its inception.

By my calculations, if the Mars had have been under contract to fly at the beginning of last year’s devastating season, a minimum of four fires on the coast that I’m aware of could have been knocked out at their inception. That’s what the Mars has always done best.

We in B.C. owe so much to the Mars aircraft and those involved in the Mars program. These aircraft have flown over 4,000 missions and dropped in excess of 8,000 loads, and there has never been and will never be a fire-fighting aircraft that can come close to the impacts these giants have had in protecting British Columbia.

I would like to offer thanks to all those involved in the Mars program for all you have done in protecting this province, and to all of my constituents and British Columbians for your support of these iconic and still incredibly valuable fire-fighting aircraft. To the Mars: I salute you.

ANIMAL ABUSE PREVENTION AND
REGULATION OF ANIMAL BREEDERS

J. Thornthwaite: In recent weeks, animal lovers across British Columbia, including myself, were shocked to learn that a large number of cats and dogs were being born and raised in deplorable conditions. I would like to thank the B.C. SPCA for taking immediate action to rescue a total of 84 dogs and cats from one facility in Surrey and 66 dogs from another in Langley.

British Columbians deserve to know that when they take a companion animal into their home, that animal has been born and raised a in secure and caring environment. Though British Columbia already has some of the toughest laws against animal cruelty in the country, we can and must do more. That’s why today our government announced it has begun taking action to target irresponsible commercial breeders of dogs and cats in this province.

[1350]

The first step we are taking is to recognize the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association’s code of practice as generally accepted practices for registered cat and dog breeders in the province. We are also consulting with stakeholders, like the BCSPCA, to determine how new laws can help them proactively monitor and take action against irresponsible breeders. We’re also working with responsible breeders, including the Canadian Kennel
[ Page 10560 ]
Club, to ensure that any new measures will only punish those who fail to raise animals in safe, humane environments.

We cannot accomplish this without the public’s help. Buyers of companion animals must be diligent and informed about the conditions their pets are born and raised in. We are committed to raising public awareness and promoting responsible breeders in our province. We are confident these measures will ensure that companion animals will be protected and treated with the love, care and respect they deserve.

FIELDS FORWARD INITIATIVE
IN CRESTON VALLEY

M. Mungall: This isn’t the first time I’ve spoken in this House about the amazing agricultural sector in the Creston Valley, and it certainly won’t be the last, because Creston fields are going forward.

Funded by the Creston and district community-directed funds from the Columbia Basin Trust, Fields Forward is a new initiative that launched in January, with 80 stakeholders, at a two-day forum in Creston. Bringing together a broad group of community partners that includes First Nations, local government and non-profits, this partnership will boost economic development in the agrifood sector and improve local food security.

Using the Vermont state farm-to-plate program as a model, Fields Forward plans to see the same positive results — job creation, new food and farm businesses, locally grown food served at schools, care homes and hospitals, new and upgraded processing facilities and additional and improved training programs. Using the concept of strategic doing, where partners focus on small, achievable goals rather than big talk and big ideas that often stop before they start, the Creston Valley is poised to make this all happen. And it will happen.

As I have said many times before, the Creston Valley grows the best food in B.C., with Kootenay waters and some of B.C.’s richest and best lands in the agricultural land reserve. Our community of hard-working farmers, business people and creative thinkers is equally rich, and they are ready for the tasks ahead of them. As Jesse Willicome says in his report on the launch forum, Creston’s agricultural sectors know that many hands make the load light. To be sure, with the many hands of Fields Forward, Creston’s agricultural sector and the local economy are heading forward.

Oral Questions

BUDGET PRIORITIES AND FUNDING
FOR LNG ADVOCATE AND WEBSITE

J. Horgan: Before the last election, it was all LNG all the time. We were going to have a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs. There was going to be an LNG plant running last year, according to the time frame of the B.C. Liberals.

Well, that’s all gone terribly, terribly sideways, even to the point where the Minister of Finance went back on his initial commitment to not put any money in the so-called prosperity fund until there were revenues coming from LNG. He disregarded that in this budget and somehow found $100 million in MSP premium increases to put into the Premier’s photo op fund. It’s not just the photo opportunity fund that got a bit of a boost by this government. We also see that the Premier’s own LNG advocate, Gordon Wilson, was just re-upped again, by order-in-council, to another $150,000 a year to advocate for LNG.

My question to the Minister of Jobs. Although we don’t have 100,000 jobs for British Columbians, we seem to have $300,000 for a former MLA. Can the minister justify $300,000 to advance LNG when there’s no LNG to advance?

Hon. R. Coleman: Now, I know that the leader opposite, the NDP opposition, whatever you want to call him, is no to natural gas development, no to LNG, has been all along, will continue to be that way.

[1355]

Your question, frankly, isn’t surprising to me, hon. Member, because you don’t want to recognize that there are 20 proposals in British Columbia today for liquefied natural gas. You don’t want to admit that there are 17 approved export permits for LNG in B.C. You don’t want to admit the fact that there has been close to $20 billion already invested in LNG in British Columbia. You don’t want to admit the fact that 11,000 to 13,000 jobs in northeastern British Columbia are still there today because of the drilling and activity of people being prepared to actually drill out the resource and get it ready for LNG as they come through the final investment decisions.

I know the member opposite relishes the fact that we may not have one today, because he wants to say something negative about the future of British Columbia, but I believe in the people of the northwest. I believe in the people in the northeast. I believe in the First Nations communities I’ve sat down with and across from in this file. This is a generational opportunity. It can change the future for them. We are going to continue to work for its success until such time as we’re successful, because it’s their future, hon. Member, that’s important to me.

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

J. Horgan: It’s always nice to have a contribution to this place from the minister of gas, but I think the only people who have a future so far, with respect to LNG, is Gordon Wilson. Now, when the Premier appointed Mr. Wilson, he had the task to “work with major proponent
[ Page 10561 ]
companies to encourage them to place procurement opportunities on the LNG–Buy B.C. on-line tool”— an appropriately named device, on the Internet. In fact, Mr. Wilson was supposed to have had that done by September 2014, reporting to the Minister of Jobs.

Well, I went onto the LNG–Buy B.C. on-line tool today, and I’ve been going on it for the past two years. I click on “opportunity” as most British Columbians would. What do I find? Do I find a welding job? Nope. Do I find anything for engineering firms? Nope. How about environmental consultancies? Nope. Nothing, zero, zilch, nada — not a single opportunity on the LNG tool that was supposed to be populated by the former member of this place Mr. Gordon Wilson.

Again, the only opportunity that I can determine from the order-in-council passed by the Minister of Jobs this week is to Gordon Wilson. Why is it that we don’t have money for bus passes, but we’ve got $300,000 to promote a website that’s got zero on it?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member opposite doesn’t like the idea that a portion of the work that’s being done in LNG is to connect B.C. businesses into the opportunities and companies for them to be able to do business in LNG. Mr. Wilson has been around the chambers of commerce around the province of British Columbia, getting them to have the opportunity.

I’m actually surprised at just how uninformed the Leader of the Opposition is. If he wants to look for a trade, he should go look at Find Your Fit. That’s where we’re connected to people with jobs and trades and opportunities in B.C.

At the LNG conference last year, over 3,000 young people went through Find Your Fit. I actually saw some First Nations youth take it, just in January, go through Find Your Fit to connect them to jobs and training and education so that they will have a future in northern B.C. — which you don’t support. You’d rather have those communities not be successful…

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: …than have a generational opportunity for jobs and training and a future for their small communities.

J. Horgan: Again, let’s bring the minister back from his fantasy land. The photo ops will come. You’ve got your 100 million bucks out of taxpayers’ pockets so you can continue to fabricate things over the next 12 to 24 months. But let’s go back to the issue at hand: Mr. Wilson.

I mean, he had one job to do. He was supposed to connect businesses to opportunities. They created a website for just that undertaking — so a complete absence of success on this front. I’m thinking to myself: “Why is it that there’s such a commitment to Mr. Wilson?” Why is there such a commitment to Gordon Wilson? If there’s anyone we should be saying no to, it’s him.

He said, before the last election, that everyone should vote for the Premier. Maybe that’s why you’re so connected to him. Or maybe it’s because his wife is writing a biography about the Premier. Maybe that’s why we’re so committed to him.

[1400]

Or maybe it’s because of his foresight. Before he became the LNG advocate, this is what Mr. Wilson, in 2013, had to say. “The most compelling reason to be concerned about relying on this golden goose is the fact that the LNG markets…may not materialize as we think. Even if they do, the prices they are prepared to pay for our product may be well below what is anticipated.” Well, it sounds like he’s saying no to something. But yet he’s going to get another $300,000 from B.C. taxpayers.

My question is to the Minister of Jobs. Is the only job out of the 100,000 jobs promised the one that Gordon Wilson got?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, maybe the Leader of the Opposition could go talk to the Haisla First Nations, whose unemployment rate has dropped almost to zero because of the involvement in this industry. Now, I know the members’ “rule of no” really means: “We don’t want to help First Nations change their opportunities or abilities and have them participate in a generational opportunity.”

I know that there are actual trades trainers up in the north right now connecting young people with their education, to upgrade them to grade 10 so they can actually be in trades today. That’s going on as we stand here and speak today.

There are 600 businesses that have already signed on to the tool that Mr. Wilson’s doing — 600 businesses that he has done. I also know that as we come through this year, you’re going to see more and more advancement on LNG. That will be no problem for them, because they don’t want the economic opportunities. They don’t want the success. They don’t want the jobs.

They’re opposed to anything that will actually give somebody a future and take them out of distress in some very poor communities to actually improve their job opportunities in the northwest part of this province, which I think is something to fight for and pursue. We’re pursuing it in LNG. We’re going to continue to pursue it in LNG.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know you don’t like it. I know it drives you crazy. What also drives you crazy is that it’s a former NDP cabinet minister that’s actually found a life and come over to the side of free enterprise.

Interjections.
[ Page 10562 ]

Madame Speaker: Members. All members will direct their comments through the Chair.

B. Ralston: I want to be fair. I have to correct my colleague. There are, in fact, others benefiting from the B.C. LNG web tool. In fact, it appears that the second-greatest beneficiary of this program is a company called FCV Technologies, which the B.C. Liberals paid $850,000 to build the on-line tool.

Can the minister tell the House why she paid a tech firm just short of $1 million to build a web tool that doesn’t actually connect B.C. businesses to LNG opportunities?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 13,000 people in British Columbia today — particularly in the northeast part of the province, but across the rest of the province as well — working in factories, for camps and those sorts of things, whose jobs are important to this government. To pursue LNG will actually stabilize that opportunity for them to continue to work in the industry long term, because without a place to send our gas, who’s going to explore and who’s going to pursue?

The reality is these guys are just opposed to that. They’d rather see those 13,000 people out of work rather than admit to the fact that it’s worth pursuing a generational opportunity on behalf of British Columbians. When you do that, you actually build the fundamentals to deal with it. You sit down with the companies and look at what the competitive nature is worldwide. And while you do that, you actually do it on the basis that you want to do what’s good for British Columbia, with a vision for the future.

Something else they also don’t have is any vision for the future. They just want to whine about somebody who’s doing a good job on behalf of British Columbia, connecting businesses to the opportunity. I’ve been in the room and watched in a small First Nations community when Mr. Wilson has presented and have seen the input. I’ve seen the activity. I’ve seen the engagement by these people.

You should accept the fact that that’s a good idea.

[1405]

B. Ralston: Hardly a spirited defence of Gordon Wilson, I’d say. B.C. Liberals always make sure their friends are taken care of. Clearly, Gordon Wilson has been taken care of, and so has Johann Starke.

And who is Johann Starke? He’s the CEO of FCV Technologies. He’s the man who ran digital advertising for the B.C. Liberals in the 2013 campaign. He’s one of the select group invited by the Premier to attend her cabinet swearing in. Why are taxpayers funding friends of the B.C. Liberal Party to fund an on-line web tool that doesn’t actually do anything?

Hon. R. Coleman: I wouldn’t sweat it, hon. Member. In May 2017, we’ll be government again anyway, because you’re not going to get there being no, no, no to British Columbians — to economic activity, jobs and opportunities for the youth of the next generation.

You will not be successful, simply because British Columbians see through that “no” as you only being interested in your friends and insiders and not interested in the economy of British Columbia, not interested in pursuing a generational opportunity on behalf of communities and not about changing the lives of people. You actually pursue that opportunity with success as we go forward to create the jobs, the economic activity and the activity in British Columbia.

I know you don’t support any of that. You’d just rather keep those people, particularly those 13,000 people today who work in the oil and gas industry, out of work because you’d rather us not pursue the opportunity to send gas to Asia to keep their jobs stable.

S. Simpson: So far, the success of this website is 300,000 more dollars for Mr. Wilson and $850,000 for Mr. Starke’s company. Other than that, we can find no success in this website at all.

We submitted an information request on this site. We asked for any and all opportunities that have been posted on the government’s LNG–Buy B.C. website. And what did we get back? The response from government staff was: “No records were located in response to your request.” No records were located.

How bad can it be when government staff can’t find a single opportunity on the LNG–Buy B.C. website, where nobody is prospering from this, other than Mr. Wilson and Mr. Starke? Where are those opportunities?

Hon. S. Bond: We’ve been very clear about the importance of making sure that British Columbia businesses get the opportunity to take advantage not just of liquefied natural gas in British Columbia but of other major projects that take place in this province.

I can tell the member opposite that if we looked at the jobs plan that the members had, we’d have one number that we’d have to look at, and that would be the number zero, because in fact…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Bond: …it’s no to LNG, it’s no to mining, it’s no to forestry, and it’s no to major transportation projects. It’s no to Site C.
[ Page 10563 ]

We should be clear. On the website, there are 600 businesses that have registered — at the last time we looked at them. Mr. Wilson has worked around the province of British Columbia to talk to businesses, to talk to non-aboriginal and aboriginal alike, to say, “What can we do to remove barriers?” to ensure that they have the opportunity to participate in the economy.

Mr. Wilson has done good work. We intend to continue to see him do additional work.

DRINKING WATER QUALITY
AND TESTING IN SCHOOLS

J. Rice: Last week the Minister of Health told this House that his staff discovered highly elevated lead levels in school drinking water in Prince Rupert through “routine testing.” We now know that simply was not true. The sad fact is that the minister’s staff discovered this serious issue as a result of a school classroom experiment in Kitimat.

[1410]

Can the minister tell the House why he waited four years after discovering elevated lead levels in school drinking water in Kitimat before he decided to test the water in Prince Rupert?

Hon. T. Lake: We canvassed this quite extensively last week. I’m happy to repeat that as soon as the officials in Northern Health knew there was an elevated level of lead in the schools in Prince Rupert, mitigation strategies were implemented. The parents were made aware. Dr. Kendall has said that the studies, through the Centre for Disease Control, have indicated there is no widespread concern in terms of lead ingestion.

Where we are notified of concerns, mitigation measures are taken to ensure that children are kept safe. That is what’s happening in this situation.

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

J. Rice: That answer is not good enough. Prince Rupert has the oldest housing stock in British Columbia. The minister’s own staff said that when equivalent concentrations in residential water were considered, water more than doubled typical daily intakes.

I don’t know what’s more troubling: the fact that the minister waited four years to test the water in Prince Rupert, the fact that the minister pretended that they discovered the problem through “routine testing” or the fact that the minister says this is a common problem in older schools in the northwest, and he still won’t commit to testing other communities in my riding.

Can the minister tell the House why he just doesn’t seem to care about the health of other northwest communities and test the water for school children in Masset, in Skidegate or in Bella Coola?

Hon. T. Lake: We know that with older infrastructure, issues of leaching of metals into water is a concern. That is why we have a $12 billion infrastructure investment program on this side of the House. If that member wanted new infrastructure in her city, she would actually support a growing economy in her city to enable that to happen.

Infrastructure investments have to be made to address older infrastructure problems in British Columbia…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Lake: …which is why I know the members opposite will vote positively for a budget that invests $12 billion in infrastructure around the province of British Columbia.

J. Wickens: Here are the facts. They discovered elevated lead levels four years ago. The minister’s staff wrote a paper about it two years ago and recommended that the minister implement a program of provincewide testing. The minister didn’t do a thing until one of his staff tested the water in Prince Rupert two months ago.

Why did the minister ignore his own staff for two years?

Hon. T. Lake: As soon as issues become apparent, medical health officers take action. That’s what they did in this particular case. It’s what we do in the Ministry of Health. When concerns are raised, action is taken — in this case, mitigation measures, flushing system filters on the fountains, to protect the children.

As I said, it’s important…. Although the members opposite like to spread fear among parents around the province, Dr. Perry Kendall, who I actually have great respect for, and I think the members opposite do too….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: I think the members opposite have great respect for Dr. Perry Kendall and medical health officers around the province of British Columbia. Dr. Kendall has said testing from the Centre for Disease Control shows that there is no concern in terms of widespread elevated lead exposure causing harm to children in British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

[1415]

J. Wickens: The province’s chief medical health officer was surprised that this government had not tested for lead in schools in the northwest. The medical health officer for the northwest said: “It is not our mandate to be testing all schools across the north.”

Let’s recap. The minister claims that he does “routine testing” of school drinking water. His staff at the Drug and Poison Information Centre urged him to do routine testing of school drinking water, and his medical health officer says she does not have the mandate to test school drinking water. Why is the minister so indifferent to the safety of school drinking water in the northwest?

Hon. T. Lake: It’s important for people to understand what’s happening in terms of the water source that is being provided by the municipality. That is not the issue. It’s where you have older infrastructure. We know that in the past, before we had modern testing, modern availability, lead pipes, under some circumstances, will leach into water. This has been dealt with in infrastructure around the province for many years.

The medical health officer was not aware of the situation in this particular school district at the time. As soon as they were made aware of it, mitigation measures were taken. Again, the medical health officer for the province of British Columbia has assured parents that because of the low amount of water being consumed from those fountains around the province of British Columbia, it is not a concern in terms of exposure to lead. Having said that, where we know there’s a problem, action is taken. That is what’s happening.

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND
BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: After all the chaos and all the confusion that the Liberals created with bus passes for people with disabilities, we now know for certain that they are charging an annual $45 administration fee plus an additional $52 a month for the actual bus pass. So that’s a $624-a-year jump in costs for people with disabilities who are also living in poverty.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: Those are the facts of the matter. The Liberals can try to say it’s something that it’s not, but that’s what it is. That’s the reality for people with disabilities.

The minister says that it’s all about freedom of choice. Just what kind of choice does the minister imagine people receiving disability have? Is it a choice between bus passes and limousines, walking or hitchhiking? Or is it a choice between going out or being homebound? What choice do they actually have?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite is simply wrong. She’s the one spreading misinformation.

Let me try again, as I did last Thursday. Let me clarify and make things perfectly clear. The bus pass is still available to people with disabilities on assistance who choose to have it. Those who choose it will receive a $25 increase to their rates. The $45 administration fee was the same administration fee that was there prior. It’s the same administration fee that they will pay now if they choose a bus pass.

For 45,000 individuals with a disability receiving assistance in this province, they will receive a $77 increase to their rates. The change that we have made in this budget not only creates equity and fairness across the system to allow everybody in the system to receive the same amount of money no matter where they live. It also creates an opportunity for them to make their own choices. We believe people deserve to make their own choices.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

[1420]

M. Mungall: I just listened to what the minister had to say, and it sounds a lot like I was right. She just said exactly what I did. There’s a $45 annual administration fee. It has always been there, and it’s still there. And they had the audacity with this budget to add an extra $624 a year to the cost of a bus pass for people with disabilities. I don’t know why they refuse to admit to that.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. All members will come to order.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: All members will come to order.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: Those are the facts of the matter. I mean there’s really no dispute. I don’t know why the Liberals try to draw up that line. Maybe it’s because they’re still on the game of trying to make it look like they’re doing the right thing but refusing to do the right thing. That kind of shell game with people’s well-being is not okay. It is wrong.

No wonder advocates, groups and people with disabilities were stunned last week. This chaos and confusion that have been created by the government’s false announcement have left people in every corner of the province infuriated. If the minister doesn’t think they are, she only needs to look at her own social media accounts to know that that’s the case, because they get it.

It’s cruel. It is cruel to increase the cost of bus passes for people with disabilities on assistance by $624 a year. They
[ Page 10565 ]
have enough barriers in life. Why is this minister adding more barriers to people with disabilities who rely on this government for supports?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite is simply wrong with her facts. This policy change is an investment of $170 million of new money to disability assistance rates. The investment that we are making builds on the policy reforms and changes we’ve already made that are helping to break down barriers and increase independence for people with disabilities. This is providing choice to people with disabilities, providing them with an increase to their rates, as well as providing fairness across the system.

We are a government who continues to grow the economy so that we can make these investments: $1.2 billion in the next three years in social programs. That’s something to be proud of. That’s something I’m proud of.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

H. Bains: It’s always good to stand and entertain the minister from Vancouver — somewhere out there.

[1425]

This is my second opportunity, after I started on Thursday, to finish off my budget speech. What I said on Thursday was that the one thing that’s very clear in the budget: the top 2 percent in British Columbia will continue to get tax breaks from this government. So $230 million last year, $230 million this year, two more years — a total of $1 billion tax break for the top 2 percent.

Then you look, on the other side, at the ordinary working people, the middle class — those who don’t have means and a fixed income. B.C. Hydro continues to go up for them. MSP premiums continue to go up. B.C. Ferries continues to go up. Park fees continue to go up. ICBC premiums continue to go up. That’s the tough choice that this government has made.

As they have said — minister after minister, speaker after speaker — they had to make some tough choices. Those are the choices — choices very clearly…. The top 2 percent in the country get tax breaks. And those hard-working middle class and people on fixed incomes? This government continues to go deeper and deeper into their pockets. That is exactly what is happening.

Now, let’s take a look at what they are doing to some of the real issues that we all face out there. There is nothing about affordability.

Interjection.

H. Bains: I’m talking about affordability. The Minister of Advanced Education hasn’t got a clue what we are talking about when we talk about affordability. That’s very clear as he’s chirping away. There is nothing — no answers to the public transportation….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order. Order.

H. Bains: I think they will have their opportunity to speak. They have nothing to say. They keep on chirping away at other people. That has been the history of these two ministers at least. They chirp away out there. When their opportunity comes, they have nothing to say — nothing to say.

Let’s continue on. They have nothing — no answer here for a public transportation extension in Vancouver or south of the Fraser. There’s nothing to combat crime in British Columbia, especially south of the Fraser in Surrey, where we had 60 shootings last year. There’s nothing to deal with the forest industry that is on its knees under the watch of this government. Thirty-one thousand fewer people are working in the forest industry today than when they took over in 2001. There’s nothing to deal with the wait times at Surrey Memorial Hospital or other places anywhere in the province.

Here is one for the minister of post-secondary education — nothing to deal with all those students who need to go to post-secondary education and get their skills and training upgraded in order to get jobs in the future, because 80 percent of future jobs will require some sort of post-secondary education degree or diploma. There’s nothing. It’s becoming more and more difficult for students to get post-secondary education. Tuition fees continue to rise. That is the record of this government.

Let’s talk about some of the real issues, outside of these, that are faced by hard-working small businesses employed in the taxi industry and in the trucking industry.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, order.

H. Bains: Let’s take a look at the taxi industry first. Let’s take a look at that. I know they don’t want to hear this, and I know they don’t want to hear about the truckers issue either. I know that. You’ll see that when the truth comes, this government, especially those ministers who were involved in it, will just shy away and walk away from this issue.

Let’s talk about the taxi industry. There are over 2,000 families who depend on the taxi industry in the Lower Mainland; 2,000 licences are out there. You multiply by
[ Page 10566 ]
two, and you’re talking about 5,000-6,000 families that depend on the taxi industry. They mortgage their homes to buy those jobs. There are many drivers working in the taxi industry.

[1430]

What does this government do? About a year and a half ago, they were just playing political games with the taxi industry. That’s not the way to operate and come up with policies to deal with hard-working small businesses and hard-working people of this province. In 2014, the Minister of Transportation said “no way” to Uber. If Uber wants to come in, they must come through just like every taxi company and every taxi owner went through, to get their taxi licence. That was said in 2014.

Guess what. Uber is very, very rich — a $62 billion company. What do they do? Like they have done everywhere else, they went to the top. They went into the Premier’s office and hired two of her high officials: principal secretary Dimitri Pantazopoulos and Carling Dick. Guess what. Now they have a direct line to the Premier’s office. And they are working for a company called Maple Leaf Strategies which is lobbying, on behalf of Uber, this government.

Now the ministers are meeting with them, and I want to say this. One meeting took place July 21, 2015, with the Minister of Technology, who was chirping away here because he didn’t want to hear the truth. What happened after that? Minister of Transportation Stone changed. From “no way” to Uber, he went on to say, “It’s a matter of when,” not if. “Uber is inevitable.” That’s what the Minister of Transportation said after that meeting that took place with the Minister of Technology.

Something happened there, and the Minister of Technology has a lot of explaining to do to the taxi industry. Many of those people live in his riding. He has to come out and explain what it was that he said to Uber. What was it that he did in his capacity? Did he support his taxi industry? Or did he support Uber and start lobbying his government on behalf of Uber? He has to come up and have some answers on that. He has not said anything about that.

But the facts here are clear. After that meeting, things changed. The minister is saying that now it’s inevitable. It’s a matter of when, not if. When there was a lot of pressure from the taxi industry and the local communities, then the government said: “Well, not anytime soon.”

The minister was taking two or three different positions. When he went to the South Asian media, he had a different position. When he went to the mainstream media, he had a different position. But at the end of the day, the Premier took that file away from the Minister of Transportation and gave it to the Minister for TransLink.

Lo and behold, now we find out that his chief of staff’s daughter is Carling Dick, who is employed by Maple Leaf Strategies, which is lobbying this government on behalf of Uber. Clear conflict. I might say, it’s not a fault of Carling Dick or her mother, who was the chief of staff with the Minister for TransLink.

It’s the minister. It’s his responsibility. He must know what those conflict-of-interest rules are. He must ensure not only that he must not be in conflict of interest but that there should be no perception. He left no doubt in anybody’s mind that clearly there’s a conflict of interest.

Now the minister is saying: “Well, you know, we will not do anything until the election.” What a comfort to the taxi industry. He didn’t say that we will ensure that there’s a level playing field. Whether it’s Uber or somebody else or the taxi industry, they must come in through the same level playing field as far as the transportation rules and regulations are concerned.

He didn’t say that. He said: not until the election. What does that say? That clearly says: “You dare elect us again, and we will bring Uber in.” And the taxi industry knows that. They know that the jobs are in danger and they will be bankrupted by a stroke of a pen by one of these ministers. They know that. That’s one thing — how they’ve played games with the hard-working small businesses in favour of a multinational. That’s the record of this government.

[1435]

Now let’s talk about truckers. If you remember, there was a long strike at the port — the container truck operators. They were out for weeks.

They would not do anything when it was brought to their attention by Unifor, the union that represents many of those truckers, the UTA, the United Truckers Association. They would not listen to them, because they were warned time and again since 2005 that the shutdown was imminent. This government would do nothing.

This government will say: “Well, it’s the federal government.” The federal government will say: “No, the provincial government has to deal with this.” And when they get together, they say: “Well, the port has to deal with this.” So they are throwing this thing all over the place except for taking on responsibility themselves.

Yes, there was a port shutdown. I believe it was six weeks. Many businesses lost big-time as a result of that. Those truckers lost big-time. Even during the strike, this government continued to say: “Well, it’s their fault. We will talk to them if they go back to work first.”

Lo and behold, what happened? When we fought on the side of the truckers and this government brought in back-to-work legislation without even settling the issue, we were fighting here on behalf of the truckers. Then there was a settlement.

The same government, the ministers who were saying that it was the truckers’ fault — that it wasn’t this government’s fault — were tripping over each other to get it in front of the camera that they settled this dispute. Well, everyone was happy that the dispute was settled, and they promised that the truckers would get retroactive pay. They are guaranteed rates now. But guess what. They’re still waiting for the retroactive pay — still.
[ Page 10567 ]

Not only that, now the commissioner is in court over an agreement that this government signed, the Premier signed, the federal government signed, and the truckers are refusing to pay retro. Many did, but there are a few still out there, and the government is in hiding — not doing anything now, because they got their photo op.

Then the commissioner was appointed through legislation here. The port went ahead and hired new trucks. They brought in a new process to bring in the truckers who would qualify to come and work at the port. You know what? Again, a grade 5 student can do a better job. What did they do? They put in a process, and they put in a deadline that by that date, all those who wished to work at the port make an application, and these would be the prerequisites. They all signed on the prerequisites. This is what they did during their process.

Before the deadline was over, many applied, and they said: “You must have four points to qualify, out of ten.” They have a number of criteria. They give you points. If you get four, you’re in. But before the process was over, before the deadline was over, they raised the threshold to six points. Many people with five points were left out when people with four points were in. They had to go to the court to have that thing thrown out.

This is how badly they treat the truckers, and this government comes for photo ops, comes across as if they support the truckers, but once the photo op is over, they’re nowhere to be seen, and those truckers are left to fight their own fight. They were left with the understanding that this government somehow had solved their problems. Then what?

It didn’t even end there. Now there’s the issue of truck age — that those trucks cannot be more than ten years old. Here’s what the truckers have to say. I’ll read you the letter…. Mr. Ranjit Barn wrote this.

[1440]

He said:

“Here are some of the issues concerning the container truck owners and operators about the age limit on their trucks and the environment concerns imposed by the port and the TLS. One, Fraser Surrey Docks, Surrey, Fraser River. Many heavy hybrid trucks are using these facilities for many purposes from container yards, lumberyards, steel, metal. The users of the container yards are being forced to operate their trucks in accordance with the TLS requirement to meet the environmental concerns they have imposed. The users of the lumberyard and the steel and metal yard are not being forced to upgrade to make any changes to their trucks.”

Anyway, they can simply continue to use the existing trucks that do not meet any of the requirements imposed by the port.

The TLS has not said anything to the users of the lumberyard or the steel and metal yard users. Also, the container yard equipment…. They call them the yard hustlers. Those are the machines that they use within the yard to move those containers around. The machinery is quite old, and we are pretty sure that this equipment and machinery does not meet any of the TLS requirements for their environmental concerns. Clearly, this shows how this is not fair to the outside users of the container yard.

Two, Lynnterm — North Vancouver, North Shore, Burrard Inlet. These properties are also used by many trucks. As well, there’s no TLS truck age environmental requirement in place similar to what is used above with the Fraser Surrey Docks.

Three, Vanterm and Canterm Terminals on Commissioner Street. On Commissioner Street, there is Rogers Sugar, West Coast Reduction, Columbia Containers, VersaCold, Ocean Fisheries and many more businesses. Again, any truck is able to access these businesses, which are located on the same street as the Vanterm and Canterm terminals, but to access the Vanterm and Canterm Terminals, you need a truck that meets the TLS truck age and environmental requirements.

So you can see this clearly isn’t fair to the trucks using the Vancouver ports, as these regulations put in place are not fair and don’t really resolve any issue with environmental concerns that they are imposing. Clearly, on many areas of the Vancouver ports, only the container truckers are required to go with these restrictions: the age of the truck and the environmental equipment that they have to have. It’s not fair. Those are some of the things that are clearly, again, before the courts.

Now, let’s talk about some of the other issues. We have serious issues about WCB. PTSD. There are so many first responders who go through trauma, and there’s hardly anything for them when they are suffering from that trauma. They are left on their own. That’s not how you treat our workers — the way this government is treating them.

I’m told that my time is running out. That’s not very good. I’ve got so much to say. Then we have our education system. I have a lot more to say. I probably will speak again. My time ran out.

Hon. M. Morris: I’ve been listening, off and on, to the members opposite over the last couple of weeks, and some of the comments concern me, some of the comments that they make.

I think there’s an inherent responsibility with all elected officials, whether they be municipal local government, provincial or federal, to support our public institutions, like police and like many of the other institutions that we have. I’ve heard some information coming from across the House that’s not factual. In fact, I think it’s embellished purposely to promote fear into constituents. I can’t think of any other reason why some of the information would be presented in the fashion that it has other than to do that — and probably, you know, politically motivated rather than to consider the public good.

I’m going to concentrate on policing. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey made some comments, as other members have, with respect to Surrey crime. There have been broad statements about the shootings and the issues that are going on over there.
[ Page 10568 ]

The police are dealing with that in a very professional manner. If the members opposite wanted to get some of the factual information, all they have to do is ask. I haven’t had one request from the members opposite coming into my office to give them an update on what’s going on with the Surrey crime, with organized crime, with street-level crime throughout the province. I would welcome them, if they wanted to get an update on that, to come in and talk to me, and we can give them the actual facts.

I think it’s incumbent upon the members opposite, as it is for any other elected official, to assure the public that the institutions that we have in this great country of ours are doing the job necessary to keep everybody safe.

[1445]

I am going to talk about policing a little bit, because it does consume a fairly significant part of our provincial budget and municipal budgets. The municipalities are spending in excess of $1 billion a year on policing. The province is spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year on policing as well for the provincial jurisdictions.

Police officers spend their entire life dealing with other people’s problems. They’re protecting the public from liars, cheats, thieves, scoundrels of all types that prey upon the vulnerable citizens in our communities. The police are intervenors in domestic violence and all other types of societal violence that affects every individual that resides in our communities.

We deal with the fallout and the worst-possible circumstances associated with substance abuse or mental illness that’s aggravated by substance abuse or aggravated by individuals who don’t take their medication or don’t take it frequently enough. The police are called in to deal with that.

The police investigate the nefarious deeds done by those intent on taking advantage of people right across our society, right from the lowest folks that are struggling in the sociodemographics that we have to the richest ones. Crime knows of no boundaries.

When the police aren’t dealing with issues like that on a day-to-day basis, they’re protecting the public from one another. Oftentimes, I’ve heard it described as babysitting. What I’m talking about…. A couple of examples. The police are admonishing those who disobey speed laws and ignore road and weather conditions. That leads to hundreds of unnecessary deaths and debilitating injuries. We’re admonishing those who persist in texting and reading while they’re driving, whose actions also contribute to hundreds of preventable deaths and injuries across the province.

Police provide impromptu counselling for those that are airing their problems in public or don’t know how to get along with one another, and subsequently, the police are called in. Oftentimes, it’s dealing with personal relationship issues. It’s dealing with marriage. It’s dealing with parenting. It’s dealing with behavioural modifications, perhaps, for siblings or for children at home — a multitude of issues that the police are dealing with on a day-to-day basis.

Police in British Columbia respond to tens of thousands of calls from the public and have tens of thousands of interactions with the public on a daily basis. They’re the default. They’re the ones that people call when they know of no other organization that can come to them with help. The police are front and centre in our communities, and I think they need the support of everybody in this House. They need the support of all the elected officials to ensure that they’ve got all the tools necessary to do their job.

When they do that job, they do it in this fantastic country of ours to the rule of law. The rule of law has been developed over centuries, and here in British Columbia — we’re no different than many of the other provinces — we covet that right in Canada. The rule of law has been developed to the point where it prescribes exactly how a police officer conducts their investigation, the steps that they need to take.

Those steps are…. You can’t rule any of them out. You have to take the steps as prescribed by the various courts and tribunals in this country. If you don’t, you stand the chance of losing a case when it does get to court.

Now, I remember a number of years ago that I used to do a lot of reading on various court decisions and court cases and tribunals that exist. I was reading about a convention. I believe it’s the Law Society of Upper Canada, but I could be wrong. It was a Supreme Court justice that was at this event, and he was making a keynote speech, and in that speech he said: “The main event is no longer the guilt or innocence of the accused. The main event is now the integrity of the investigation.”

That puts a lot of weight on the police officers — the men and women that are out there conducting those investigations — to make sure that they follow the rule of law in order to get successful prosecutions at the end of the day.

[1450]

During that process, the defence counsel oftentimes has the opportunity to test the integrity of the witnesses that attend — not only police witnesses but the victims of crime, the witnesses that happen to be around when a situation like that would take place. I think that leads to a lot of victims that we have out there, with not only sexual assault but domestic violence, to become silent. They don’t want to be forced into the rigour that we have within our court system to ensure that we are adhering to the letter of the law.

That adds more burden to police resources. We’ve got the victims of crime. We have all kinds of support units that go out and help these people through some of the traumatic situations they’re in. Those police budgets certainly get used up in situations like that.

Police in B.C. are funded in various ways. For communities of 5,000 people and under, the province accepts responsibility for that, and the province pays for 70 per-
[ Page 10569 ]
cent of the policing costs with the RCMP, as the provincial force in British Columbia. The federal government pays for 30 percent. If we get into communities that have 5,000 people or more, then that ratio goes, and it’s turned over to the local government, where they spend 70 percent of their local budget on policing and the federal government will kick in 30 percent.

Then we get into the communities with 15,000 people and more, like Surrey, where they pay 90 percent of the policing costs and the federal government kicks in 10 percent. Of course, we have our independent police offices throughout the Lower Mainland and British Columbia, where they cover 100 percent of the policing costs.

I just looked at Surrey. I’ll use that as an example, because it’s been raised in the House here over time, and it’s been in the news — you know, the Surrey crime rate and whatnot. The Surrey crime rate has actually gone down. Violent crime in British Columbia, violent crime across Canada, has gone down significantly over the last decade.

We did have a spike in Surrey last year, which is very concerning for us as government, but it’s just as concerning for the municipality of Surrey. It’s as concerning, or more, for the police in those communities. There’s nothing that will garner the attention of the police quicker than gunshots in a public place. And there’s nothing that will guarantee an up-close, personal relationship with the police than being the one that pulls the trigger in a situation like that.

Throughout the Lower Mainland, a number of years ago, we had the Organized Crime Agency of B.C. looking at organized crime — which is, you know, quite prolific in British Columbia. It has morphed into the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, which is a group of police officers from all the departments in the Lower Mainland, all the RCMP detachments.

The province is funding that to the tune of $60 million a year, which is largely spent in an urban environment. Most of the policing costs are covered by the municipalities, but the province saw this as a priority for us, and we’re putting a lot of effort into it to try and bring the street-level crime to a halt, to do everything that we can there. We’re doing that.

Of course, what we’ve done since we formed this group…. They’ve established a lot of different strategies and whatnot, and they’ve learned that these organized crime groups are connected right across the province. They’re quite prolific here in the Lower Mainland, but they are as prolific throughout the province here.

Coupled with the investigative capability of this particular unit, they’ve also established some anti-gang activities that try and dissuade young men, mostly — but there are young women involved in that — from joining these gangs and carrying on with those gangs. The combined forces special unit has done a great job in attending our prisons, connecting with these individuals on a regular, routine basis and offering them a way out of that kind of a lifestyle. There have been some successes to that.

To criticize the police throughout the province here, throughout the country, for not doing anything, I think, is wrong. The more support we put in their direction, I think, the more successful we’ll be, and the more understanding everybody will be, with what’s going on here.

[1455]

Now, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was also talking about Osoyoos. He had some comment…. I don’t have the paper in front of me with the exact quote. Basically, he was saying that Osoyoos is very depressed because of the Okanagan correctional centre that is being built in that particular area.

We do need a place to put these street-level crooks that the police are doing such a great job in apprehending. They’re going to be serving their time in jail to answer for the crimes that they’ve committed.

The Osoyoos correctional centre — the province has put $200 million into that facility in capital to build that state-of-the-art correctional centre. We’re going to be employing 250 new corrections employees at that facility — 250 new people coming into the community, living in the south part of the Okanagan and contributing to the local economy. Those are the direct jobs. There are many more indirect jobs that are related to the corrections centre that’s put there.

As a result of that…. I was meeting in that community not too long ago. House prices have gone up or maintained their value, but have been going up in many areas there. Employment opportunities. They’ve seen an increase in the population there. That’s been significant. So to say that Osoyoos is depressed, I think, is not factual. It’s something that this government is very proud of, to go and build a facility like that in partnership with the First Nations groups that are there.

I recently met with the mayor of Surrey. There have been comments about this government not responding to the request to put more police officers into Surrey. Number one, the number of police officers in a municipal area with more than 15,000 people — actually, with more than 5,000 people — is the responsibility of local government.

Last May the mayor of Surrey requested 100 more officers for the city of Surrey. I can tell you that, as of today, I believe there are about 83 or 84 officers that are on site. There are another five that have been identified, and the rest should be identified prior to the end of this fiscal year.

I think that’s remarkable, coming from that organization myself and knowing how the HR system works within the RCMP. To throw 100 more resources into that community when they were only requested in May of last year, of 2015, I think is a remarkable feat. The mayor is ecstatic. She’s very happy with the response that she got from this government and from the RCMP in ensuring that those resources are there.

Our Premier announced an additional $5 million for guns and gangs in the province here at UBCM. It’s been
[ Page 10570 ]
included in this budget for 2016-2017. That money is being geared towards activities like we have in Williams Lake, for an example. We’ve had a spike in street-level gang activity up there. We’ve put our Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit into Williams Lake to try and get a handle on those activities there. They’ve had some successes so far.

We’re going to make sure that that money is utilized to address the street-level gang activity right across the province and enhance what our combined special forces unit is already doing.

In addition to that, B.C. has done a remarkable job in developing integrated units. Our integrated homicide unit is one fine example there, where we do have resources from all the police departments and detachments in the Lower Mainland working collectively, along with significant provincial resources, to address the homicides that we have in the province here and throughout the Lower Mainland, with some significant successes there.

They are also supported by what we call the Real Time Intelligence Centre that we have in Surrey. This is a centre that gathers real-time intelligence from throughout the Lower Mainland that aids investigators to make on-the-spot decisions. In fact, the police officers have been able to predict, in several instances, where a crime might take place, and they’ve gone and been able to thwart the activities before anything really serious happened.

[1500]

The Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit…. They’re tailing these gang members around. They’ve identified who the main prolific offenders are. Oftentimes — in fact, it’s occurred several hundred times over the last five years — this group has received information where the life of another gang member has been threatened. There’s imminent danger for that particular individual, and they have a duty to inform. They’ve done that hundreds of times. They’ve gone and let a rival gang member know that this was a possibility up there so that they could take the appropriate action to stop that.

This shows the level of engagement that our police officers have in the Lower Mainland with gang activity and trying to subdue the street-level gang, the drug trafficking and the things that place the vulnerable people in jeopardy throughout the province here.

I thought I would bring those points up because it’s important that MLAs and government officials on all sides of the House, at all levels of government, support the institutions that we have. Whether it be police — in this case, because that’s part of my responsibility — or corrections or health or any other field that we have, we have dedicated bureaucrats throughout the province that are working tirelessly to keep everybody in this province safe and healthy and out of harm’s way.

Further to the budget, in January of this year, I hosted the 13th annual Natural Resource Forum for British Columbia. That was an outstanding success. We had 800 preregistrations for it. We ended up with 1,000 people attending. There was a trade fair. There were people from all across North America that were attending this event. There was optimism in the air, despite the commodity prices that are down. Despite all the pressures that we have worldwide, on economies right around the world, there’s still optimism there.

A lot of that optimism had to do with the level of interest that our government has taken into diversifying our economy to make sure that we’re not reliant on any one particular part of the resource sector. We have forestry, which has been a mainstay in British Columbia now for decades. It has helped build our schools, our roads, our hospitals and other social infrastructure that we have.

Mining has been another terrific part of it. They’re experiencing a downturn in commodities, as has happened in the past. We’ve seen that the tech sector has really grown in this province. Agriculture has really expanded in this province. Aquaculture has expanded in this province. There are a number of things now where we have….

Everybody’s out there working, contributing to the great economy that we have, which has led to a triple-A credit rating. The triple-A credit rating is something that people probably don’t really grasp. We’re the only jurisdiction in Canada right now that enjoys that triple-A credit rating. That gives us…. You know, if we were to have the same credit rating as some of the other jurisdictions in the country here, we would be spending, probably, an extra $2 billion a year on interest.

We can take that $2 billion and we can put it into policing. We can address the guns and gangs issues, like we have. We can put it into increased access for persons with disabilities. We can put it into social housing. We can do a number of things with that money, which is exactly what we’ve done. That comes from a strong economy.

There’s been criticism about the amount of debt that jurisdictions across the country have. The debt that we have…. I guess the way I’ve explained it to people back in my constituency — and family members, quite frankly, when they ask me about it — is that I try to turn it into something personal that everybody experiences.

We go to work every day, and we get a paycheque every two weeks. We take that money that we get every two weeks, and we decide how much we can afford after we’ve paid for our groceries. Can we buy a house? If we can buy a house, then that’s a mortgage. Can we buy a car? Those types of things.

When we look at our debt-to-GDP ratio…. The banks look at our income versus our debt when we go to the bank for a mortgage. That’s similar. We’ve got significant revenues coming into this province. We are investing in construction. We’re putting, I believe, $12 billion into infrastructure spending over the next number of years here now. That is going to benefit the children and our grandchildren of the future.

[1505]

We are paying down the operational deficit that we’ve had in this province now for decades. In this fiscal forecast that we have here, we’ll get it down to a very workable $2-point-some billion here within the next couple of years. But we have the opportunity to pay that off, probably, within the next five, six or seven years or so, which will be the first time since the late 1960s, I believe, which is significant.

If we take the interest that we’ve been paying on that operational deficit over the past number of years, it could have gone a long way towards paying for some of the social programs that we have.

That’s the track that we’re on. We’re making some great headway. I think this budget is an excellent budget. It shows that we are serious about addressing some of the socioeconomic needs that we have within the province here with those that need it the most.

At the same time, we’re going to make sure that we provide a strong environment for industry to come and work and for our resource sector to flourish so that they, in turn, can provide jobs for British Columbians and that we have a future for our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren down the road here.

We’re going to leave this province in a state where they’re not going to be paying for things that we’re getting today. They’re not going to be paying for the groceries — as our Finance Minister puts it — that we use today in ten, 15, 20 years down the road, like we have been the past number of years.

I wholeheartedly support this budget. I think that we’re making great strides. We’re an economic force to contend with, in the province here, and we will continue to be that economic force. We’re going to continue to grow our economy and continue to pay attention to the people within our society that need the help the most.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise, speak and give my response to the budget on behalf of constituents in Vancouver-Kensington. I’m going to be speaking against the budget. I feel that it does not meet the concerns of British Columbians, families in Vancouver-Kensington and small businesses throughout Metro Vancouver or the province.

I’d like to start with a few comments about the community in Vancouver-Kensington and what are, I think, some of the real strengths of the community and also how the 2016 budget misses the mark in terms of addressing the priority concerns and issues that have come forward to me.

Throughout the last year…. We have a very vibrant and resilient community in Vancouver-Kensington, and I think some of the organizations that really contribute to building such a strong community…. It is one of the most diverse in Metro Vancouver.

We have a high proportion of constituents who have immigrated to Canada from all over the world, and we have nearly three-quarters who call themselves immigrants and speak a second language — so, very diverse. We’re really seeing that reflected in many community organizations and thriving businesses in the area.

I enjoy, in Vancouver-Kensington, a high proportion of small businesses in some of the real developing areas in Vancouver — very dynamic in terms of businesses along Fraser Street, represented by the South Hill Business Association or along Victoria Drive, in the Victoria Drive Business Improvement Association.

I just wanted to mention that through the many celebrations marking lunar new year in Vancouver and, really, across the province…. It was during the occasion that I visited and talked to many small businesses along the area. I heard from them many concerns about how it’s difficult to run a small business and to be successful. It takes long hours. It takes a lot of work, and it’s really a full-time commitment. One of the comments that made a mark on me was from a business along Victoria Drive.

[1510]

I was speaking to the owner, who has been in business for over 15 years but was commenting that now they find it’s becoming increasingly difficult — difficult not only in terms of the day-to-day challenges of running a successful small business but also having to cope with the increased costs, with making rent and the increasing B.C. Hydro fees and other fees that were just becoming an increasing burden. This is also a recurring theme that I’ve heard from business owners throughout the area in Vancouver-Kensington, and I’ll be addressing some of those, as well, in my remarks.

Also of mention, particularly in Vancouver-Kensington, is that the South Vancouver community policing centre has a new permanent home there, thanks to Vancouver city, and a lease for a building. They’ve been looking for a permanent building since their last lease ran out, and it was through cooperation with the city of Vancouver that they were able to secure a new building, have it renovated and move in. This has been a very popular and successful program, supported by the community. We’re also looking to open up a satellite office on Fraser Street.

Continuing along remarks of when I talk to families and when folks come into my community office, I hear a number of stories with respect to the challenges that individuals and families are facing in Vancouver-Kensington around making ends meet. One of them…. I think it’s really laid out, the contrast, around what was presented in Budget 2016. It doesn’t meet the needs and the priorities and concerns of families.

I think that to really characterize a very stark contrast that reflects the values of the government being out of sync with British Columbians…. It is reflected in what we’re seeing — a continuation now of the tax cut for the top 2 percent. A tax cut, unsolicited and unrequested but, nevertheless, continued by this B.C. Liberal government for the wealthiest 2 percent, will see, over four
[ Page 10572 ]
years, $1 billion given to the wealthiest 2 percent in British Columbia.

That’s in the face of what we’re seeing — and to really contrast it to what is a very cold-hearted move: the removal of support for bus passes for people with disabilities. So on the one hand, we see, over four years, a tax cut to the wealthiest 2 percent — $1 billion. They’re continuing with that, on the one hand, and where are they taking it from? From people with disabilities and their ability for transportation, clawing back the support for a bus pass for people with disabilities.

As well, we see announced recently the creation…. We heard it as a campaign promise by the Premier in the 2013 election: the establishment of a prosperity fund. This was a prosperity fund — one of the promises, if you recall — that would be funded by revenue from our liquefied natural gas industry. We are still waiting for the first facility to be up and running. Nonetheless, that doesn’t stop this government, the B.C. Liberals, from proclaiming and assigning $100 million to this prosperity fund, which has been characterized as a fantasy fund. So $100 million, and not one dollar is actually coming from revenue of liquefied natural gas.

You may ask yourself: “Now, where does the $100 million come from?” This $100 million for the Premier’s fantasy fund is coming out of the pockets of British Columbians through a continued increase in medical services premiums. We are seeing a fantasy fund created not out of revenue — which was the initial promise — from the LNG industry but coming out of the pockets of British Columbians, coming out of the increases this year to the MSP premiums.

[1515]

This is really some of the contrast around the priorities and values of this government, reflected in the budget speech. We see the continuing tax cut to the wealthiest British Columbians, which will equal $1 billion over four years. We see the announcement that $100 million for the Premier’s fantasy fund will come not out of the industry but from the pockets of British Columbians. We’re seeing, as well, increasing fees that British Columbians are being subjected to — and families.

We see that there are increasing fees, not only in terms of medical services premiums…. We have an announcement that there will be some relief for families with MSP premiums — positive steps — that children will be exempt and that the threshold is being raised in terms of MSP premiums. However, the families and individuals will have to wait until 2017 before they see that relief.

We are seeing, overall, that those increases are continuing. The 4 percent MSP premiums are continuing to increase this year and next year. That is a steady reality for families.

In addition, we’re seeing not only increases in MSP premiums to families; we’re seeing increases in ferry rates, increases to ICBC, increases to hydro and to park fees. These are impacting the ability of individuals and families to basically meet their daily budgets, their monthly budgets, and it’s creating a hardship on my constituents in Vancouver-Kensington and individuals and families right across British Columbia.

I was disappointed that there was a lack of support for education. We did not see the needed support for education in this budget. There are a couple of different areas that I want to address with respect to a shortfall in education funding.

We see that the Vancouver school board is facing cuts up to $24 million. This is due to downloading of costs and, really, accumulating cuts that have come onto the school boards over a number of years due to underfunding and off-loading of the provincial government onto school boards, unfunded costs that are downloaded to school boards. These are going to result in cuts to services and putting increasing pressure on Vancouver school board.

We see that in the budget, under the Ministry of Education, funding for public schools is not even covering the cost of inflation, let alone covering the increase in student enrolment that is expected over the next year. In addition to that, with only a 1 percent increase in funding, it falls short of matching the cost of inflation.

We see also a decrease in the budget, a $21 million cut to capital spending on schools. This adds to the shortfall. We see that funding for public schools is falling behind and is not enough to make up even for the cost of inflation, as well as to account for the cuts that have taken place over the last number of years and, as well, reduction in capital spending.

We see an increasing pressure and an inability to reverse the increases in class size and composition that are becoming more and more complicated and are becoming more compounded. And this is in the face…. Just over a year ago, we heard from the Premier that class composition was the number one priority. We’re not seeing that reflected in this budget, and I’m very concerned about the impact in Vancouver and in Vancouver-Kensington. This is an issue that needs attention. We’re talking about a public education. That’s kindergarten to grade 12.

[1520]

I want to address, as well, the shortfall in post-secondary education. When we talk about the ability of British Columbians to access opportunities, we know that jobs, now and in the future, require people to have not only grade 12 education but to upgrade their skills in vocational schools or post-secondary education or other institutes to gain more skills and to have an opportunity for good-paying jobs in our economy.

We see that with this Budget 2016 and post-secondary education, the increase does not even keep pace with the cost of inflation — with the increase scheduled this year, only 1.2 percent. It doesn’t keep pace this year, and it also doesn’t make up for the cuts that have been imposed on
[ Page 10573 ]
post-secondary education over the last three years. That’s just with the ability of post-secondary institutions to offer courses to students.

On top of that, we have the issue of high student debt. We don’t see resolve or anything in the budget to address that or the high cost of tuition. This budget falls short in providing adequate levels of funding to post-secondary education. It does not address the issue and the difficulties of students who have high student debt. It also fails to address the rising tuition fees.

These are disappointing. In our economy and the need for post-secondary education, it really creates more barriers for students to have the opportunities in our job market. It burdens students with a high level of student debt.

In addition to the shortfall in the Ministry of Education and the shortfall in the ministry of post-secondary education, I also have concerns with the continuing lack of funding for adult basic education. Adult basic education is education for adults. It ranges from basic literacy and numeracy levels up to high school completion.

Adult basic education had been tuition-free in B.C. since 2007. At that time, the Minister of Advanced Education, Murray Coell, and the Minister of Education at the time, Minister Bond, stated: “This expansion of adult basic education will help more learners improve their literacy skills and prepare for better futures.” However, we saw a cut in December 2014. The provincial government announced a $6.9 million cut to adult basic education programming in B.C. and removed the tuition-free adult basic education mandate.

Since January 1, 2015, public post-secondary institutions were allowed to charge up to $1,600 per term in tuition fees for full-time adult basic education courses. Provincial governments will no longer fund school districts for tuition-free upgrading courses for graduated adults.

We know that adult basic education, when it was brought in…. The principle was that it should provide and increase the literacy and numeracy skills of individuals to be able to access the job market. That was a sound principle then, and it remains today. It has even more importance because we have such a demand for skilled labour.

We know, from the government’s own projections, that less than 5 percent of new jobs created over the next ten years will only require high school completion. So, certainly, there’s an importance for individuals to have the opportunity to upgrade their skills. Adult basic education programs are an investment in the future, and it’s an investment that we can make now, on the front end, that will show benefits not only for individuals but strengthen our economy into the future.

It’s a very shortsighted cut. Research shows that adult basic education course completion lays the needed groundwork for success in post-secondary education and labour market attachment. We know the value of adult basic education.

[1525]

I have, just down the street from my community office, the South Hill adult education centre, which offers excellent courses and provides that upgrading opportunity. I’ve met with many students and instructors about the value and benefit of being able to upgrade their skills, complete their diplomas and really transition into college courses.

We know that the graduation rate now is about 80 percent for high school completion. That’s the graduation rate, so we have 20 percent of students now that don’t graduate grade 12. This is a gap that is a priority and is important in terms of ensuring that these students who come out of the school system every year have an opportunity, through different life experiences and different realities, to access courses that will allow them to upgrade their skills and be able to find a job that is meaningful and that is important for our economy.

We know, as well, that adult basic education affects disproportionately the working poor. These are the individuals that are impacted. Now, with the cuts to adult basic education, the government has put in place a cap for tuition per term, which is $1,600 per term, which is equivalent to tuition for some master’s courses. We see that that’s a barrier, as well, for students who are seeking to upgrade their skills.

The charging of tuition fees for adult basic education learners creates another barrier for those struggling to improve their already life-challenging circumstances. We know that B.C. has one of the highest rates of poverty in Canada and is the last province in Canada to have an anti-poverty plan. That is also missing from the budget. This policy — the cancelling and continuing to not fund adult basic education — will exacerbate the already high levels of poverty and income inequality in British Columbia. In addition, people on welfare are not allowed to access adult basic education.

Adult basic education programs are an important component of ensuring the participation of marginalized groups in B.C.’s economy. It has been shown that accessibility to adult basic education is important to help traditionally marginalized people gain the skills necessary to earn a living wage and contribute to the economy.

This is an example of an investment that the B.C. Liberal government can make. It’s $6.9 million that would clearly benefit not only the 20 percent of students who do not graduate every year but, as well, individuals who want to re-enter the workforce — new immigrants, as well — to gain the skills that they need to enter post-secondary or trades training or certificate training courses, to be able to upgrade their skills and have better opportunities in our workforce. They feel that this is a very unfair and very shortsighted cut. It creates a big gap of opportunity for individuals to access opportunities.
[ Page 10574 ]

Now, $6.9 million — let’s look at that and compare that. This government cannot find $6.9 million to reinstate adult basic education courses, but the Premier could find $100 million for her fantasy fund out of the pockets of British Columbians. So $100 million in the fantasy slush fund for the Premier and a lack of willingness or political will or commitment to ensure that marginalized British Columbians have the opportunity to fulfil their educational goals and to be successful in our workforce.

[1530]

It’s a very shortsighted view. It just shows…. It really illustrates the lack of commitment and really exposes the priority of this government. On the one hand, the Premier sees fit to create a $100 million slush fund, a fantasy fund, but on the other hand, refuses to invest in what is characterized by economists, instructors and businesses across the board as a good, solid investment in our education system.

It provides the foundation to allow individuals to learn the skills that they need to be successful. So a shortfall of this government taking responsibility to lay the foundation to allow British Columbians to be successful.

I also want to address the crisis of affordable housing that we see in Metro Vancouver and right across this province. The lack of action that this government has taken over the last number of years really continues with the lack of commitment that we’ve seen in this budget.

We know that the government record…. We look at: why is there a crisis in housing? Why is there such a crisis in affordable housing in Metro Vancouver? It didn’t just appear overnight. We didn’t see it come up over the last month or few years. It’s actually been building and developing over the last number of years, and a big contributing factor has been the very poor record of this government in addressing affordable housing.

We see that building new affordable housing units has not been a priority for the Liberal government and has contributed to the very low stock of new units. While we have seen…. That characterizes the limited support. The government has tended to focus their efforts on rental assistance supplements, which is important; new emergency shelter beds; and the purchase of existing single-room-occupancy hotels.

Those are all important. These are all important programs, but we have seen a real lack of commitment and interest and action in this government. They have not been interested in creating new units.

These other issues around the rental assistance supplements and the emergency shelter beds address one piece of the affordability crisis. Between 2005 and 2010, we only saw 280 units of social housing units built. The number projected that is needed by the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association is that the province needs to build 3,000 new affordable housing units per year. We see that the province’s plan only adds 400 per year — over five years, 2,000 units.

It doesn’t come close to meeting the level of need for affordable housing in B.C. Again, a real failure of the budget to address the crisis of affordable housing, not only in terms of investing in the construction of affordable units. It is compounded, as well, by the reluctance of the government to close the tax loopholes and not collecting on property transfer tax due to shadow flipping, which has come to light not through the diligence of the government but through the media.

While it’s a clear ability of this government to take action and close that loophole to ensure that shadow flipping is disincentivized and to collect property transfer tax on those sales, this government, I guess through reasons known only to them, sees fit to leave millions of dollars on the table and not close that loophole. That is also contributing to the crisis that we are seeing around housing affordability.

As well, there is a lack of commitment to enforce accountability around investigating shadow flipping itself. Really, the record of the government around contributing to this housing affordability crisis in Metro Vancouver is clear. Budget 2016 does not take steps to address that.

[1535]

We see, also, that in addition to the shortfall in education, in addition to not meeting the basic needs around adequate funding for schools, adequate funding for post-secondary education and ensuring that students and individuals have access to adult basic education…. On the opportunity for British Columbians to access jobs, as well, we do not see any interest from the government in ensuring that companies that utilize temporary foreign workers coming into our province to access jobs…. There is no oversight.

There is no mention in the budget. There is no accountability that companies have to face when they are bringing in temporary foreign workers, and there is also no oversight of recruitment agencies as well.

We see that it rings hollow around the claims by the government that they are supporting jobs for British Columbians, and yet they have refused to take action to ensure that companies bringing in tens of thousands of temporary foreign workers are held to account and have any measure of accountability in British Columbia.

In addition, we see that what compounds that difficulty, that problem, is the reality that employment standards are not enforced. We hear that, well, companies using temporary foreign workers…. There is no oversight, and all these workers who come in have the same rights as any other workers. That’s on paper.

We know that because of their precarious stature and their vulnerable nature due to the structural limitations of the program, they are vulnerable to being taken advantage of. There is a need to ensure that employment standards are upheld and that they do not face exploitation. There is a severe shortfall of that, a lack of oversight.

I see that Budget 2016 does not meet the reality of
[ Page 10575 ]
the affordability crisis for families or for businesses in British Columbia, and there are many areas that are not adequately addressed.

D. Plecas: It’s a pleasure to speak in favour of Budget 2016.

What does the budget mean to British Columbians? British Columbians should understand what government is investing in, and they should understand what programs and services will benefit British Columbians. They should know what a balanced budget truly means to us and what our triple-A credit rating means: the highest rating we can achieve, a triple-A with a stable outlook.

We are the only province in Canada to achieve that rating. This means that the credit agencies have confidence in British Columbia, and we have a credible plan with little risk. We have a low interest rate on borrowing, and borrowing is important for infrastructure projects. It also means that we have more money to spend on programs and services that British Columbians can use and programs that are needed for those most in need.

I should emphasize…. Because we are so often criticized by members opposite for having a balanced budget, we should understand what that actually means. To put that in perspective, we can take, for example, the province of Ontario. Imagine if we had, in British Columbia, the same credit rating that they do. That would mean that we would have to dish out another $2 billion in interest payments. We don’t. That’s money we can spend on services for British Columbians, and we’ve done just that.

In terms of infrastructure spending, for example — the Port Mann Bridge, which has cut down on travel time for our constituents, my constituents in the valley in particular. That means that they can spend less time on the highway and more time at home with their families. Highways, as we know, are an integral part in moving people and products around the province. Widening the highway improves safety and decreases travel time as well.

[1540]

We’ve been working at reducing our operating budget since 2013. Our current plan is to have a situation where we are debt-free by the year 2020.

The benefits of reducing our operating budget and debt are evident in Budget 2016. We have been able to invest nearly $500 million which is funded by lower interest costs due to the retirement of our operating debt. By paying off our operating debt, we are freeing up more money to invest in programs and services. We can invest that $500 million into programs and services. This includes additional money to support children, families and individuals in need.

We are providing $673 million in additional support for those in need. It includes $217 million for the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support vulnerable youth and their families. We are providing $465 million for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to support those in need.

This new investment will fund more than 130 new staff, including 100 additional front-line social workers. More specifically, this investment includes $152 million to strengthen programs and services that provide for the welfare of children and youth. This includes child protection, children and youth in care and family supports.

There will be $11 million to support child care centres. There’s also $51 million for children and youth in care with special needs as well as for autism programs, and $3 million over three years to support adoption services and facilitate the adoption of children in care.

As many of my colleagues have mentioned, we are making changes to MSP premiums. Starting on January 1, 2017, children will be free under MSP. This change will greatly benefit families, especially single-parent families. In fact, this change will benefit some 70,000 single-parent families. This means an additional 335,000 people will see their premiums reduced, and an additional 45,000 people will no longer pay MSP premiums at all. Seniors will also benefit from enhanced premium assistance. To help everyone figure out if they are eligible for premium assistance, an MSP on-line calculator is now available.

Another aspect of Budget 2016 that will help families is the expanded eligibility for the B.C. training and education savings grant. We are moving the eligibility a year back to 2006, so children born in 2006 or later can receive $1,200 in grant for their RESP to begin saving for their future education. It’s simple enough to apply for the grant, and you can currently do so at credit unions and BMO branches across B.C. With an investment of just $50 a month, the initial $1,200 at age six would become $12,000 by age 18, when your children go off to college or university.

We’ve been able to make these types of investments because we have been prudent fiscal managers. We’ve been able to make investments in housing as well — like in my own riding, where we’ve been able to provide a temporary shelter and help clean up the homeless camp that has formed on what’s known as Gladys Avenue in Abbotsford. I’m happy to say that those tents that occupied the Gladys Avenue stretch, as of last week, were gone, and those people who were there in those tents are now placed in proper housing. We are able to provide further assistance and move those people into homes across the city.

This budget provides the opportunity for communities all across B.C. to partner with the province and provide affordable housing. I don’t think we can say enough about what the province has done overall over the last decade in terms of housing. The fact of the matter is that we have a Housing Minister who’s made it possible for us to provide more supportive housing units per capita than any other place in North America.

[1545]

We have to make tough decisions at times to make sure we remain fiscally prudent, and that takes leadership. We
[ Page 10576 ]
don’t get long-term economic opportunities without balancing the budget and paying down the operating debt. We are working for the future of British Columbians so that the next generation is better off than we are.

Agriculture has also been an important industry for those of us in the valley, and it is an important industry to B.C. overall. Agriculture is one of our key economic drivers in the province. In 2014, we had the highest-ever sales of B.C. food products at $2.3 billion. We have high quality and a diverse range of food products produced here in B.C., and we are focusing on both encouraging British Columbians to buy local while also promoting B.C. products worldwide.

Our international trade office in B.C. and trade missions have played an important role in growing B.C.’s exports. In fact, our exports also set records in 2014, at $3 billion. Last week the B.C. Agriculture Council commended our investments in agriculture. They applauded our increased investments in agriculture that support the growth and sustainability of agriculture in the province.

I want to quote what the chair, Stan Vander Waal, said. He said: “Investment in the resilience of B.C. agriculture is an investment in the health of British Columbians and the long-term success of our provincial economy.” He calls our fourth consecutive balanced budget “a positive step in the right direction.”

Some of our investments in agriculture include investing an additional $3 million over the next three years in the Agricultural Land Commission. This will help them monitor and enforce compliance on land located within the agricultural land reserve to keep farmland for farming.

The farming community works hard, and they are very generous. I’m pleased to see that, in this budget, Budget 2016, we have introduced a new tax credit for farmers. The farmers food donation tax credit is worth 25 percent of the fair market value of qualifying agricultural products donated to a registered charity that provides food for people in need and to help the school meal program.

We have some of the best agricultural products in the world, and I’m happy that we are able to provide help for farmers with this tax credit, while they are providing food for those in need. We are also continuing the agriculture in the classroom funding for fruits, vegetables and dairy. In that regard, we are providing an additional $2 million to the Buy Local program.

We all visit our local farmers markets for fresh, local produce, and I am pleased to see that we are investing more to encourage British Columbians to buy and enjoy our locally made and produced products. Like many communities across our province, Abbotsford has a booming craft beer industry. We are seeing an increase in craft beer sales and the number of craft breweries opening up in communities across the province. You can tour around many of our craft breweries and wineries.

In fact, in the Fraser Valley, the hop industry is seeing a rebound. Hop farming dates back to the 1860s in the valley and was once a booming agricultural product in the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. The industry died out for a number of reasons: disease, pests and a growing international supply.

However, thanks to B.C.’s booming craft brew industry, local beer producers are eager to buy local and get the hop industry rolling again. The Fraser Valley is one of the best hop-growing environments in the Pacific Northwest in fact — if not the world. Last fall Abbotsford hosted B.C.’s Hop Fest, Canada’s first wet-hopped beer festival.

Hops are one of the key ingredients that make beer, and wet-hopped beer is a unique beer that can only be made immediately after hops are picked and before they are dry. I’ve had the pleasure of visiting our craft breweries and hop farms in my community.

I’m also pleased to see, on another note, that we are investing $55 million in emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives. This includes upgrades to dikes and flood protection. Both of these are important issues to my constituents. The Fraser River is slowly chewing away into its banks, and we will need to improve dikes and take other measures to forestall a catastrophic flood.

[1550]

On the matter of housing affordability, which has been mentioned here in the House, we are also making it more affordable to buy a home. With the real estate value for property transfer tax purposes being moved up to $750,000 on the purchase of a new home, it means that people in the province can save as much as $13,000 on their new home purchase. This change is something that will benefit my constituents and people all across this province.

Those who have concerns about foreign ownership will be pleased to see that, once again, we will be collecting information so that we have the correct data. Starting this summer, individuals who purchase property will need to disclose if they are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada and, if neither, their home country.

We have made significant investments in housing, as I’ve already mentioned, over the last 15 years. When we talk about what the province has invested in housing, we need to remember that it doesn’t just include what municipalities or the federal government have invested.

We have provided $355 million in this budget for affordable housing over the next five years. This will support more than 2,000 new units of affordable housing for people with low to moderate incomes. That’s just what the province is committing. When we partner municipalities and we see what the federal government will invest, we can see that this investment will triple to $1 billion.

Economic development also helps our First Nations communities, especially in the north, where the opportunity of LNG and other resource developments provide jobs and other opportunities for First Nations. As we’ve already heard, that investment has already topped $20 billion on LNG. They understand our land and the importance of economic stewardship. First Nations show
[ Page 10577 ]
their leadership in their communities, working hard to have the best opportunities for their members.

In sum, we’ve been working hard to balance our budget year after year. This being the fourth consecutive year of reducing our cost and saving money through reducing our operating debt, we have lower interest costs and can invest more in families. We are leading the country in economic growth and job creation, and we have a strong, diverse and growing economy. All in all, we are in great shape, and we made it that way.

R. Austin: It’s my pleasure and privilege to rise and stand to respond to Budget 2016 on behalf of the residents of Skeena.

I’d like to just take a quick moment to give a shout-out to my staff. It’s another year on. I want to thank Denis Gagné, who’s been with me for nine years in Terrace, for all the work that he does each and every day representing me in the community, as well as Roberta Walker, who has been with me in Kitimat for coming on to almost 11 years. I’m very fortunate to have staff who’ve stayed with me a long time. They do a great job, and I just want to recognize that.

When I was sitting listening to the budget last Tuesday, it kind of reminded me a little bit of waking up in the middle of the night when you can’t sleep. You turn on the TV, and you end up on one of those infomercial channels where the product that’s being sold is the best that’s ever been created. It’s all good news. You never hear any downside to that product. It’s only $99.99, and it comes with a set of Ginsu knives if you pay for it now.

The interesting thing about the difference between an infomercial and a real budget from a government is that after the spin and the good stuff, you expect also to hear the nitty-gritty, the real details of what’s happening in the budget. To be honest, this budget ran for over an hour, and most of it was kind of infomercial-type material and very little actual details of changes. Really, there wasn’t a huge amount of changes in this budget.

I’ve been here now for coming on 11 years, and I’ve listened to budgets where there have been huge changes, numerous changes, but this one only has a few. I’ll get to them in a minute — things such as the prosperity fund and the change in MSP premiums.

[1555]

But here’s the thing. If you listened to the budget speech last week, you would think that all of our citizens in British Columbia are, in their daily life, being very successful and having no worries and no concerns, blessed to live in the only province that apparently is doing so well that all of us should feel safe and secure financially and socially in our homes.

Now, where I live — and from the people I speak to — there’s a huge disconnect between the average life that people are struggling with and the kind of speech that came from the Minister of Finance last week. I think those are the things that I want to speak about today.

There really are two kinds of British Columbians in this province in the sense that, yes, some are doing very well and others, to a large extent, are struggling. It’s not just those who are marginalized or who would be socially and economically classed as poor, but the middle class in this province is also struggling.

The last six months has been a huge change in my neck of the woods. We had the end of the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter build. During that time, all the planes going back and forth to Terrace and the northwest were full because workers were coming in. We had a massive camp of 17,000 people. We had a ship in the harbour with 450 people. It was all full of people who were coming to work.

Now, if you were to speak to those people at that time, they would probably have agreed with the Minister of Finance that — you know what? — things are good. They were all earning fantastic amounts of money — great jobs.

However, that has ended now, and many of those folks who were coming back and forth, who worked in the trades, have not been able to find jobs since then. In fact, I know amongst just my colleagues here in the opposition, I have colleagues here whose relatives were working in Kitimat, a town that I represent. Those very same colleagues’ families are no longer working because they couldn’t find work.

That’s what we have in this province. We have those people who are doing very well, and we have those who are struggling, wanting support and recognizing that the government needs to be there to try and create an economy that works for everybody not just some of the time, but all of the time.

Let’s get to a part of this budget that, of course, wasn’t talked about. That was a continuation of last year’s tax break of $230 million for the wealthiest 2 percent. I happen to live in a riding that doesn’t have a lot of the 2 percent living in my riding. Perhaps, largely, that’s the reason why I’m here.

But honestly, if we can find money to continue — this is the second year now — that tax break of $230 million to the wealthiest 2 percent, then surely we can find money to do all kinds of things for regular people who perhaps aren’t in such financial advantages as the 2 percent.

In fact, during the course of this parliamentary session, the four years in between elections, this government will have found close to $1 billion for those people who are the wealthiest people in our province. I don’t think that can honestly be said to be a government that’s working in the best interests of all British Columbians.

In fact, the government at the time said, “Oh well, you know, the only reason why we charged these people more taxes was because we were going through a crisis” — the financial crisis of 2008. Well, this morning I was listening to the federal Finance Minister talk about the state of
[ Page 10578 ]
the Canadian economy. You know what? Things are very difficult today and getting worse.

In fact, I believe that the federal deficit, which was apparently supposed to be balanced — although I think nobody actually believed it was — is now sitting at $18 billion. There are provinces right across Canada…. The overall economy is in very dire straits — not a time to be continuing to give the wealthiest in the province a tax break.

One of the major platforms of this Budget 2016 was the government’s decision to create an LNG prosperity fund. Of course, I think they’ve left the LNG out of it now — they’re just calling it a prosperity fund — and I’ll tell you why. It’s because, of course, during the election of 2013, this was one of their major platforms. It was that we were going to have an LNG industry. It would have not one, not two, but multiple LNG plants, which would be going by now. One of them would actually be going by now.

As a result of that — this huge LNG industry — we’d have 100,000 jobs. We would have billions coming into the coffers of the province of British Columbia, and a portion of those billions would go into a prosperity fund for the future of British Columbians, a bit like the heritage fund in Alberta.

[1600]

But that was a fantasy created by this Premier, an exaggeration created by this Premier, in order to get elected. We don’t have the LNG industry here. Not one company has made a final investment decision. We don’t have the 100,000 jobs.

I’ve got to say this, though: at least this Premier is consistent. She created that fantasy, and it hasn’t appeared, but don’t worry. She’s created the fantasy fund, which at least maintains the illusion that we actually have the kind of income coming in to create a prosperity fund.

So where has this prosperity fund been funded from? Well, guess where. It’s being funded from the taxpayers of British Columbia. With there not being the 100,000 jobs yet, and without the billions of dollars coming in, what do we have? We have to take $100 million out of taxpayers’ pockets in order to create this fund. That’s $100 million that could be going to other forms of assistance to British Columbians, which they need.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It’s kind of odd. We on this side of the House say that it’s really the MSP premium. It doesn’t really matter where it came from. It just so happens that the MSP premium increase happens to be $100 million this year. So it’s kind of odd that that’s the same amount of money that has gone into this fantasy prosperity fund.

You know, the government likes to talk about the MSP premium changes as being all good for everybody. I certainly would agree that those who are single parents are going to benefit by having children no longer covered by MSP premiums. That certainly is a good thing.

But let’s have a real debate about MSP premiums. The reality is that only British Columbia and Ontario even have a premium on health insurance. The rest of Canada pays for its health care out of general taxation. Why do they do that? They do that because the bulk of taxation comes in from taxes that are not regressive. We have an MSP premium system where those who don’t get premium assistance pay the same amount, whether you make $35,000, whether you make $100,000 or whether you make $200,000.

It is fundamentally unfair to pay for a portion of our most important service, health care, in such a way that those who are making far more pay the same as those who are making far less. It’s fundamentally unfair. It’s wrong. It should be scrapped.

We should go to a form of taxation where it is coming out of general revenues so that we see it as a progressive form of taxation. The more that you earn, the more you put in and the more you help those who are in need of health care. That is the best way to have it, not to be fiddling around at the edges and saying: “Oh, well, we’re taking care of this group. We’re taking care of that group.” At the end of the day, MSP premiums are fundamentally unfair.

It isn’t simply MSP premiums that have gone up in this budget. Hydro rates have gone up, ICBC rates, ferry fares, even camping fees. Where I live, we have a wonderful campsite, situated on one of the most beautiful lakes in northern B.C. It is a form of relatively inexpensive holiday for those who want to take their kids to a provincial park. Even that is being hit with an increase in rates.

For the government to constantly quote about having low taxes the whole time…. Yes, there are some low taxes, but there are all kinds of hidden fees which hit people. Again, these are all flat fees. They’re, again, not any form of progressive taxation.

Now, we’ve talked about the LNG fantasy fund. But there was another major element of how this government, in 2013, went about getting re-elected. We’ll all remember that famous bus that the Premier ran around in for the 28 days of the election. It had a big sign on it, saying: “Debt-free B.C.”

The sign, of course, was a fixed sign. It said “Debt-free B.C.” It didn’t say, “Debt-free B.C.” and, oh, in brackets: “Only the operational part of our cumulative debt, but not the capital cost.” No. It said: “Debt-free B.C.” To the average citizen, what they were telling British Columbians was that this province would become debt-free. Debt-free means debt-free. Of course, three years later, we are now seeing the government saying: “Oh no, no. We never meant ‘debt-free B.C.’ We meant ‘debt-free on the operational side but not on the capital side.’”

[1605]

Well, maybe what this government should have done is they should have got one of those signs on the buses like those ones that appear on the SkyTrain telling you which
[ Page 10579 ]
station you’re coming to — one of those movable, fluorescent readerboard signs. It could have gone on the bus, saying “Debt-free B.C.” and, in brackets: “all of the operational debt but not the capital debt.” Then that sign could have moved on the bus continually and would have been at least truthful to British Columbians, instead of the kind of fantasy that they put forward in the last election.

The reality is that we are going to have a much higher total debt at the end of this budget cycle than we ever had. In fact, this Premier wants to talk about being No. 1. I’ll tell you what she’s No.1 in. She is No.1 in being the Premier of a province who has increased the provincial debt greater and faster than any other Premier in the history of Canada. How is that for No.1?

I want to, at this point…. You know, we’re also accused of never saying anything positive. Let me say something positive. There was announced in this budget a rural dividend of $75 million over three years — so $25 million this year. I want to thank the member for Cariboo North, who informed us on this side of the House that she is going to be taking care of that program. While it’s not ready immediately, it should be ready by March. At that time, she’s going to let those of us who live in rural B.C. know how the program operates — and the ability for us to then find people in our neck of the woods who want to try and apply to that. That’s a good thing.

Now, of course, they’ve called it a dividend fund. It really isn’t a dividend fund because it isn’t coming from any specific industry or any dividend. It’s just a pot of money that, I think, recognizes that in many parts of British Columbia, with the downturn in mining and some challenges in forestry and the LNG industry in a wait-and-hold pattern, a lot of people are really hurting. At least that’ll help a little bit.

I’d like to take a few minutes to have a discussion about how we in this House and how we in British Columbia talk about jobs and the environment. I say jobs and the environment rather than jobs versus the environment because I think, to a large extent, the conversation in the last 20 years in this province has been very detrimental to British Columbians, to how we bring people together, to how we create a better job situation and to how we protect our water, our earth and our air.

Often the debate that happens, not simply in this chamber but around British Columbia, is that it’s either one or the other. Any time you speak up in support of something environmental, to be concerned about a potential environmental mess or catastrophe, you are somehow, then, against jobs. Any time you simply promote jobs and ignore environmental concerns, well, then you are only jobs and you are not environment.

Interjection.

R. Austin: Let me use a couple of examples. There are many people in my neck of the woods — and in the minister’s who is heckling me — who for years fought the Enbridge gateway pipeline. He would know many of them, just as I do. When I first spoke out against the Enbridge gateway pipeline, others on that side of the House said I was against jobs.

It turns out that many years later, after there has been endless debate and the National Energy Board had its long-standing hearings on the Enbridge gateway project, the government also decided, in the end, that the Enbridge gateway project had environmental concerns that were so great and didn’t benefit First Nations, etc., that it wasn’t a good project.

I never turned around and said: “Well, finally, you guys have woken up and seen that putting bitumen into tankers on the north coast of British Columbia is simply a dumb idea.” It was always a dumb idea. It was a dumb idea when it was first thought of. It’s a dumb idea today.

[1610]

You know what? Someone recently referred to the Enbridge gateway project as the zombie project. It doesn’t matter how many times you kill it, it gets up and keeps walking — in spite of the fact that now we have a new government in Ottawa, the federal government, the new Liberal government there, who have been elected to ensure that they put a ban on crude oil tankers off the coast of British Columbia.

That’s coming down the pipeline — no pun intended — and yet we still see Enbridge gateway trying to promote this idea that you can put bitumen onto the north coast, into a part of the province where, if there was an accident, it would be impossible to clean this up. Not only does the stuff sink to the bottom, but it would cling to all of the coastline, which is inaccessible to a large extent.

It was always a dumb idea, but the reality is that it took six years for this government to come to an agreement with this side of the House that it wasn’t something that was feasible. It’s not that they decided to be against jobs or not. It’s a question of understanding that what British Columbians want are good jobs — good-paying jobs that are respectful of indigenous rights, that protect our air, our water and the soil that we have. That’s what British Columbians want from both sides of this House — not from one or the other but from both sides.

Similarly, let’s just continue this jobs versus — or with — environment debate. We had a debate around the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline. Those of us on this side of the House made a decision, and there was a lot of debate as to when the decision was made and the consequences of it. Some people said it really hurt us as a result of it coming in the midst of an election. That’s another debate. But the point is this. At the time, that side of the House said, once again: “Oh, you guys are against jobs.”

Of course, a couple of years later, they then write a letter to the National Energy Board which is looking into whether the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion is
[ Page 10580 ]
a good thing. And guess what. Our Premier — I’m not going to say she’s against jobs — has also decided that the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion is not a good thing and not in the interests of British Columbia.

Here we are with two large projects which, at one time, the government used to club us over the head on this side of the House, saying that we were not supportive of jobs, until, of course, they came to their realization that these projects bring more risk than benefit and that British Columbians, overall, don’t want to mess up what we have here, which an incredible environment. We are so fortunate to live in one of the most spectacular places on earth.

The reason I bring the debate forward is to come to something that I spoke about just a month ago, in Prince Rupert. Again, what we have here…. There are multiple LNG proposals right across British Columbia, but there is one particular LNG project, which is situated in a place where…. Listen to this, hon. Speaker. In the 1970s, the then Department of Fisheries of Oceans — it had a different name then — did an examination of Lelu Island. It looked actually at an industrial development on Lelu Island right beside Flora Banks, one of the largest eelgrass beds in the entire Americas.

In the 1970s, the scientists at what was then DFO decided that Flora Banks was critical habitat for fish — for the entire system of salmon that live in the entire Skeena watershed — and that this was not a good place to have an industrial development. Now 40 years later, what do we have? We have one of the LNG plants deciding that this is where they were going to be located.

Once again, people come forward and say: “Look, the risk to salmon and what that would do to not just the environment but to the economy of the northwest, what it would do to the ecosystem, what it would do to the cultural values of First Nations people who’ve lived there long before Europeans ever arrived…. This doesn’t make sense. It’s not a good place for an LNG plant.”

Once again the government comes forward and says: “Oh, you’re just against jobs.” No. None of us in this House…. I’ve never met a politician who was against jobs. Who actually, as a politically elected official, would want to be against jobs? I mean, that would simply be stupid. You’d want to have your citizens have jobs.

[1615]

At the same time, as people who are elected, we are elected, and have a responsibility, to make sure that there is something for the next generation and the generation after that.

Once again, we get tied into a debate. What does the Premier…? This in an important thing. Whether you like the Premier or don’t like the Premier and whether you agree with the Premier or don’t agree with the Premier, the fact is that the Premier of this province represents us all.

For her to stand up and say to those in the northwest, including hereditary chiefs, scientists, community activists — to call them a ragtag bag of people simply because they don’t agree with one particular project that she has been promoting for the last three years…. If they had been a First Nation, say, for example, in my neck of the woods, who have been very supportive of LNG plants in a place where you don’t have the risk to wild salmon, then of course they’re heroes. Then she takes them to conferences after conferences and trots them out and says: “Look. Here we’ve got First Nations support on this industry.”

When you have hereditary chiefs in another place, saying, “Wait a second here. The salmon have been here for millions of years. They’ve been using this eelgrass bed in order to get bigger so that they can go out into the ocean, get bigger and come back,” then, apparently, those people are a ragtag bag of people.

It is really shameful that the person who we look to, to set the tone in British Columbia, to be the one who represents all of us, at the end of the day, whether we like it or not — that she can actually be that disrespectful when, on the other hand, she comes in here often and talks about the new relationship with First Nations.

If the local First Nations, who actually have rights to Lelu Island, say, “Wait a second here. We have serious problems with this project,” the least she can do is be respectful and not be demeaning and refer to them as ragtag.

While I was there, we heard from scientists who have specifically been working on Flora Banks. Here is one of the interesting things. They have done genetic testing of all the juvenile salmon in Flora Banks, and every single run of salmon right up the Skeena watershed reside in that eelgrass bed.

What we’re talking about here is putting at risk the entire salmon ecosystem of the Skeena watershed so that we can have some jobs in an LNG plant. That is what we are putting at risk. It’s no doubt people get frustrated and don’t have confidence in how we handle this industrial development and protecting our environment when we have to deal with things like this.

Here’s another instance. Again, in my neck of the woods, down in Kitimat, Rio Tinto recently finished their smelter build and are now in the process of adding all the parts that will eventually make up the entire new smelter.

The good news is that as a result of this new smelter and the new technology it brings, we are going to have a much cleaner smelter, not just for the workers who work there — of course, that’s most important — but also for the general environment. Four out of the five toxic substances that they have monitored for the last, I guess, 60 years that Rio Tinto or Alcan has been there are coming down dramatically. That’s the good news.

The unfortunate news is that with the increase in production of aluminum, we are now going to see a vast increase in SO₂ emissions. The company, Rio Tinto, designed their smelter in such a way that they could have put in scrubbers. At the end of the day, they decided
[ Page 10581 ]
that they weren’t going to put the scrubbers in. They designed it in order to have scrubbers, but they didn’t put the scrubbers in.

This created, naturally, a lot of concern for the citizens who live in the Kitimat-Terrace airshed. The decision to allow Rio Tinto to increase their SO₂ emissions was made right in the midst of the 2013 election. I think it’s very unfortunate to have an important public policy decision…. I know it’s a statutory decision made by civil servants, not made by politicians. Nonetheless, it was unfortunate to make that decision in the midst of an election.

Anyway, once that was given, people challenged the way, the process, upon which that decision was made. They felt that there wasn’t proper consultation. There was a challenge to that. There was a semi-judicial hearing that happened partly in Kitimat and partly down here in Victoria.

[1620]

Two very courageous women, Emily Toews and Lis Stannus — two teachers, as it may happen — decided to challenge this through the environmental process. I attended a little bit of that, and I read the updates every day. I found out some very interesting things about this process. Here’s one that should give us all cause for concern. During the process, the Environment office in Smithers allowed one of their senior scientists to go and work for the proponent, for Rio Tinto.

Let’s put this into perspective. You’ve got an independent government office, Environment B.C., with people who work in the office in Smithers. They are there, and their statutory duty is to make sure that it is safe and that all of our environmental laws are passed. They allow one of them to go and work for the company that they are then supposed to regulate.

Now, to me…. Never mind the outcome. Never mind the fact that perhaps it may turn out after they have done all of this monitoring that the SO₂ emissions don’t have an effect. Let’s just say for a second they don’t have an effect. There’s something fundamentally wrong when those who are working to protect the environment go to work for the proponent who they’re supposed to be regulating. I don’t think that brings much confidence to British Columbians when that’s allowed to happen. But that’s what happened.

Needless to say, even though the challenge got turned down, people are very disturbed by that kind of behaviour. People believe, and I believe, that our job in this Legislature is to set the standards. Then companies that want to do business here will have to come and behave in such a way that they fulfil those standards.

I don’t believe it’s the job of a couple of teachers — God bless their souls — to be doing our work and trying to uphold environmental standards in northwest B.C. That is the job of the government of British Columbia, not the job of regular citizens. They expect that of us. But that didn’t happen in this case, and it’s a crying shame.

You know what? It is this kind of thing that creates the division in this province, that creates the us and them, that creates the kind of environmental war zones that happen so often in this province. It doesn’t help us to bring investment here.

It makes it very challenging for companies that want to come here. They hear: “Oh my goodness. We have to deal with complicated First Nations issues, and there are too many enviros in British Columbia.” It doesn’t help when we have a government that doesn’t understand that by listening to people and figuring out at the outset, not waiting five or six years to say this project is bad…. If they could figure out at the outset and listen to the communities and the people who know best, we would have a far better outcome.

Hon. T. Stone: It is certainly my pleasure to take my place in this debate and to speak very proudly, very strongly, in support of Budget 2016.

Before I get into some specifics on the budget, though, I would like to just take this brief moment to acknowledge and thank my family at home. We all know that we wouldn’t be able to do what we do here if it wasn’t for the loving and unconditional support that we all have on our home fronts.

Chantelle and my three little girls have been and continue to be hugely supportive of what I’m doing here. I’m not sure they appreciate the weekly trips to and from Victoria. When I’m cuddled up on the couch with my little six-year-old on Sunday before I have to head to the airport, it’s tough to leave. But we’re here to do some important business on behalf of British Columbians, including all of our children.

I want to acknowledge my mom and dad, who are probably watching right now, because they don’t have lives. Actually, truth be told, my father, just a few weeks ago, had a back operation and is on the mend.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I think you should withdraw that.

Hon. T. Stone: I should withdraw that? [Laughter.]

I will not withdraw. My dad probably whispered that in your ear.

Anyway, my dad’s doing great. So hi, Mom and Dad, if you’re watching.

[1625]

I also want to acknowledge my constituency office staff, Maryanne, Pat and Leah, who do an exceptional job to support me on the home front in the constituency. The vast majority of stuff that comes through the doors are things that are handled very ably by the staff that I have in my office. I couldn’t do what I do and be away as often as I am if it wasn’t for having terrific people on the home front.

And obviously, the people of Kamloops–South Thompson. I’ve talked previously, most recently in the
[ Page 10582 ]
throne speech, about just what a wonderful constituency it is to represent, and I’ll talk a little bit more about Kamloops in a moment.

I do want to take a moment, though, to offer a few comments in reaction to a few themes that the member for Skeena just presented to this House. He spent a good, considerable amount of his speech talking about the LNG industry in British Columbia and all the doom and gloom wrapped around that, from his perspective.

I just find it outrageous. I find it outrageous that the member for Skeena, who is in the epicentre of British Columbia’s LNG opportunity, continues to stand in this House and talk about this industry as if no progress has been made and no progress will be made. It’s not even worth trying.

The hon. member for Skeena, the hon. member for Stikine, the member for North Coast — again, all three of whom are really in the centre of this opportunity — these individuals can couch their opposition to LNG in the guise of concern for the environment. They can couch their opposition under the guise of concern for First Nations consultation. They can talk about fracking and how they support it or maybe they don’t. Maybe they do, or maybe they don’t. At the end of the day, they don’t support the liquefied natural gas industry in British Columbia.

The member for Skeena represents communities that have been the direct beneficiaries of $12 billion of direct investment that’s already been made in the LNG industry in British Columbia. If you were to have walked around the streets or driven around Terrace or Kitimat five or ten years ago versus months ago, anyone with their eyes open would know just how dramatically those communities have changed, how much energy there is in those communities, how much optimism there is for the future.

There has been a tremendous amount of investment in the LNG industry to this point: $20 billion if you actually include the acquisition of Progress Energy. But let’s just focus on the $12 billion. Several of those projects are right in the Skeena member’s constituency, and he doesn’t support the LNG industry. When you look at other related investments…. I had the great pleasure, and this is, again….

I don’t understand why the member for Skeena never talks about it. He never mentions the dramatic growth in passengers to and from the Northwest Regional Airport in Terrace. He doesn’t talk about that. We were just in Terrace last July to announce a very significant infrastructure investment in the Northwest Regional Airport, an investment that will see an expansion of the terminal there, a $16.4 million expansion of the Northwest Regional Airport, which is in the Skeena member’s riding.

Did he bother to show up for the announcement? Did he bother to show any interest in the public announcement that was made? The answer, hon. Speaker, you already know, but I’ll say it. The answer is no. The member for Skeena was nowhere to be seen on that day.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: On that trip, I was also very pleased to announce a second significant infrastructure investment near where the member lives, in his constituency. It was a $37 million investment in eliminating the last road-rail conflict on Highway 16 — Mile 28, the last remaining road-rail conflict — a $37 million investment in his constituency. Did the member show up on that occasion to support that announcement? He did not show up.

[1630]

This member for Skeena was missing in action on both of these major investments, just as he is missing in action on the LNG opportunity in British Columbia. I think that that is a tremendous shame…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members will come to order, please. Members.

Hon. T. Stone: …for his constituents and for all British Columbians.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, one speech at a time. Thank you.

Carry on.

Hon. T. Stone: The member for Skeena, the member for Stikine and the member for North Coast have all been missing in action on the LNG opportunity. That is a real shame. That’s a shame for the dozens upon dozens of First Nations communities that have expressed support for the LNG industry, that recognize the opportunities that this industry represents for their communities.

He can stand in this House, and he can talk about the great relationships that he has with First Nations and how near and dear their interests are to his heart. Show that interest, hon. Member, by getting behind First Nations, by getting behind those First Nations communities that recognize the benefits that LNG can provide their communities — and the non–First Nations communities, whether it’s in Kitimat or Terrace or other communities in and around the member’s constituency.

Again, an opportunity like this has not come along in a very long time for the northwest.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville says the opportunity hasn’t come along. Hon. Member, $20 billion has been invested in LNG to this point, cre-
[ Page 10583 ]
ating thousands of jobs in communities like Terrace and Kitimat and all along Highway 16. Perhaps the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville should get out of the Lower Mainland a little bit more, tour this province and talk to people on the ground.

I digress. I just felt it was important to get on the record that generally the members opposite don’t support the LNG industry. Generally, they don’t support the jobs and the opportunity that this generational opportunity will present. But in particular, for the three members from the northwest, it is beyond disappointing that they have been missing in action on this opportunity.

Back to the community that I represent, Kamloops–South Thompson. I’m very proud to have lots of great things happening in my community. I spoke about many of them in the throne speech. I’m not going to go through a tremendous amount of repeating myself there.

Needless to say, Kamloops is doing really well these days. It’s a city of 85,000 and growing. The First Nations are engaged in lots of economic development, whether that’s the Tk’emlúps or the Skeetchestn, Whispering Pines, Neskonlith, Little Shuswap or Adams Lake. I’ve enjoyed, over the last 2½ years, working with the city of Kamloops, Mayor Peter Milobar and council there; the village of Chase — Rick Berrigan and council there.

There’s lots of exciting economic development taking place throughout the entire Thompson-Nicola regional district, including the communities I represent of Savona, Pritchard, Monte Creek, Monte Lake, Westwold and Knutsford.

I’m very proud of our university, which continues to grow. Thompson Rivers University is increasingly becoming a big part of the province’s jobs plan as they’re continuing to focus efforts at training more and more individuals for those high-in-demand jobs that are needed today. I want to acknowledge that this year is the 45th anniversary of Thompson Rivers University. A lot has been accomplished in those 45 years.

Lots of tremendous organizations in Kamloops that always punch above their weight, whether that’s the United Way or the Kamloops Brain Injury Association, the chamber of commerce, Venture Kamloops and so many others.

I’ve been pleased, very fortunate over the last year, to preside over a number of very important community infrastructure announcements that have taken place in Kamloops, whether that be the emergency raw water intake project in Kamloops, the Pritchard community sewer system upgrade, the Savona wastewater project, the Chase sewage treatment upgrades or a wide array of road upgrades and rehabilitation projects in and around the Kamloops area — and, of course, the continued four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway between Kamloops and the Alberta border.

In fact, I’m very proud that this government has invested over $200 million in four-laning between Monte Creek and the village of Chase — projects that are recently completed, projects that are underway and the next couple of projects that will be underway later this year.

[1635]

The Kamloops economy continues to further strengthen. It continues to grow and become even more diversified. Unemployment in Kamloops hovers in and around 6½ to 7 percent, depending on the month that you look at. That contrasts to just under 14 percent unemployment in 2001.

Air traffic at the Kamloops Airport is up 10 percent year over year. It was up about 8 percent last month, again, year over year — very strong passenger numbers. In part, that was because of infrastructure investments that this government made in the Kamloops Airport a number of years ago. And, yes, I was in attendance at those announcements for the Kamloops Airport.

Housing starts are very strong in Kamloops.

The tech sector is rapidly growing — a cluster of tech companies in Kamloops today — and employing hundreds of individuals. The Kamloops Innovation Centre, essentially, is serving as an incubator and is now working very closely with new Kamloops-based tech companies as well as Thompson Rivers University to provide mentoring and coaching and expertise to help those companies commercialize their products and actually go to market.

We’re home to a new wine industry in Kamloops. I did mention this in my throne speech. Again, we now have four wineries. There are a couple more on the way. There’s a new Kamloops Wineries Association. Trish Morelli and her team have done a terrific job. I was very proud to work with the Kamloops Wineries Association on a signage program — essentially establishing what is now known as the Kamloops Wine Trail and putting up some nice signs to welcome people to Kamloops and to experience the wine trail.

Domtar continues to be a significant employer in Kamloops and just celebrated its 50th anniversary of operations in Kamloops. Business confidence in Kamloops is very strong. I think there’s a whole bunch of reasons that that is the case, but I’m very proud that this government has played its part.

In terms of the budget, with our neighbours and with trading partners around the world somewhat struggling, it’s never been more important than it is now for British Columbia to continue to be focused and to continue to be disciplined. That’s why I’m so proud of our fourth consecutive balanced budget. British Columbia now has the strongest and the top-ranked provincial economy in the country. That is indisputable.

Growth in British Columbia will be at nearly double the rates of the rest of the country, and this province is expected to lead in economic growth not just this year but next year and the year after as well. That means that we’re able to invest more in health care, more in educa-
[ Page 10584 ]
tion, more in other services and supports that the people of British Columbia have come to need and expect.

Hon. Speaker, 52,000 net new jobs were created in British Columbia last year alone, which meant that British Columbia had the single largest percentage increase in net new jobs of any province in the country. The members opposite scoff at this — number one in the country in job creation. B.C. has an unemployment rate that’s one of the lowest in Canada, and there are now more British Columbians working than ever before — 2.3 million British Columbians.

We continue to be highly competitive with respect to taxes. We’re the only province that now has a triple-A stable credit rating. We continue to be the only province that gets an A grade from the CFIB for not just our words but our actions in cutting unnecessary red tape.

We’re poised to eliminate B.C.’s operating debt. The members opposite have made much about this. The fact that we’re very close to eliminating British Columbia’s operating debt for the first time since 1975 is freeing up hundreds upon hundreds of millions — actually, billions — of dollars of resources that would otherwise be used to pay debt, debt costs, debt-servicing costs. That is now available for health care, for education and for other services.

[1640]

The members opposite clearly don’t understand that part of the equation. If British Columbia had Ontario’s credit rating and Ontario’s debt-to-revenue ratio, we would need an additional $2.4 billion to service the debt. Those are dollars that would be squandered on debt-servicing as opposed to health care, education and other strategic investments.

The total taxpayer debt-to-GDP ratio continues to decline. That’s good news. While there are certainly headwinds that our province is experiencing in certain sectors — some sectors are experiencing some challenging times at the moment, mining being one in particular, with very low commodity prices — there are sectors of our economy, many sectors, that are doing exceptionally well. I mentioned the tech sector earlier — 86,000 jobs and growing twice as fast as the provincial economy.

I’ve heard members opposite mention that the government should be doing more for the tech sector — as if we just discovered that there was a tech sector in the last budget. It wasn’t that long ago that we announced an investment of $100 million to expand the venture capital program in British Columbia to invest more, faster, in more tech companies, to help them commercialize their products.

We continue to have very competitive tax rates and credits, including enhancing the funding for the small business venture capital tax credit program, which was included in this particular budget. We continue to build a strong research environment in British Columbia, through our universities. We are doing a lot to support the tech sector, and the tech sector is growing as a result.

Many in the House, before me, have already talked about the booming film industry. That has a little bit to do with pretty generous tax credits that we have in this province. Tourism has never been stronger than it is today. The numbers are up. They’re up 11 percent year over year — exceptionally strong.

Airports are thriving all across the province, creating hundreds upon hundreds of jobs. We’ve seen a growth in manufacturing.

I also want to take this moment to touch on the International Maritime Centre and shipbuilding generally as well. We did make an announcement as part of last year’s budget to invest $3 million over three years to establish an International Maritime Centre.

The goal was to attract eight new maritime companies and create 200 new direct jobs and foreign direct investment of $18 million by 2018. We’re well on our way. The first success from the initial investment in this office took place last year with AAL, a Singapore-based shipper and one of the world’s largest maritime companies, opening its first Canadian office in Vancouver.

The centre complements B.C.’s support for the shipbuilding industry, as well, which has also never been busier and more vibrant or competitive than it is today. That’s in large part because of our government support through a number of training tax credits over the years as well as a recent $300,000 investment in shipbuilding and ship repair training programs at BCIT and Camosun College last May. This particular sector is going to continue to grow in the months and years ahead.

With respect to some further specifics of the budget, I want to touch on a few things. Again, funding for health care is up. It will increase $3.2 billion over the next three years — so roughly half a billion dollars per year for each of the next three years, just as health care has increased year over year since 2001.

Education funding is up $110 million in this budget. In fact, education funding is $1.2 billion higher today than it was in 2001, even though enrolment is down by over 70,000 students. The members opposite, in likely standing up in unison and voting no to this budget, are essentially voting no to an additional $110 million for education, voting no to an additional half a billion dollars a year for better health care in this province.

This budget includes…. I have to say this is one of the areas that I’m most proud of. That is the investments that we’re making in British Columbians who need the help the most — $673 million combined for the Ministries of Children and Families and Social Development and Social Innovation, including a $170 million increase in the persons-with-disabilities income assistance. These are real and significant investments in families and in vulnerable youth and in persons with disabilities and other British Columbians in need.

[1645]

I am extremely proud that we have made these investments. We are able to make these investments because, first and foremost, our fiscal house is in order.

I’m very proud of the budget’s inclusion of expanding the eligibility for the B.C. training and education savings grant by one year, to January 1, 2006. Although I will declare a conflict on this one: I have a six-year-old daughter, so now she’s eligible for the training and tax credit. I’m very pleased about that.

But to remind members of the House — this is a one-time payment of $1,200 for every child in British Columbia. This eligibility change that we made moves the eligibility date from January 2007 to January 2006, thus expanding the credit to an additional 40,000 children in British Columbia.

In the last election, the members opposite wanted to get rid of this education tax credit. They will stand up in this House, and they will vote, again, no to expanding this credit to these additional 40,000 children.

The budget includes $75 million for a rural dividend to assist communities under 25,000 to strengthen and diversify their economies. The members opposite are going to vote no to the rural dividend.

The budget includes a whole bunch of worthwhile initiatives related to housing, including $355 million to expand affordable housing in this province — almost an unprecedented investment in housing. I want to mention, as well, the move to eliminate the property transfer tax on purchases of new homes up to $750,000.

While it’s very difficult for members opposite who represent constituencies in the Lower Mainland — and perhaps don’t get out enough, don’t get around the province enough and don’t understand that there’s actually an entire province of British Columbia outside of a few neighbourhoods in the Lower Mainland — the change on the property transfer tax on the purchase of new builds up to $750,000 is going to have a dramatic and positive impact on home construction and benefit communities all across this province — in Kamloops, in Dawson Creek, in Prince George and Nanaimo and all over.

The members opposite are going to stand up, and they’re going to vote no to those changes in the budget.

Hon. Speaker, $95 million more for wildfire prevention and mitigation. The members opposite are going to vote no to that, as well.

Emergency management. We’re investing $65 million for flood mitigation, and search and rescue. The members opposite are going to stand up, and they’re going to vote no for these investments, again, which are going to do a great deal to assist with not just flood mitigation but also to provide much-needed additional resources for the men and women who risk their lives with search and rescue in communities all across our province. The members opposite are going to vote no to this part of the budget as well.

This now brings me to infrastructure. You know, while we’re paying off our operating debt, we are borrowing to build. In fact, the fact that we’re paying off the operating debt at the rapid clip that we are is giving us even more wherewithal to continue to invest record levels in infrastructure.

So $12 billion will be invested in taxpayer-supported projects over the next three years. That’s $3.1 billion for transportation, $2.9 billion for health care and $2.5 billion for post-secondary institutions. This continues this government’s record level of investment in the public infrastructure that British Columbians have come to expect and to need.

On top of that, there will be an additional $8 billion of self-supported infrastructure projects, mostly B.C. Hydro. That brings to the total $20 billion that we will see invested in infrastructure in British Columbia over the next three years.

We’ve actually invested $18 billion in just transportation investments alone since 2001. I was very proud, about a year ago, to launch B.C. on the Move, our ten-year transportation plan. I’m very pleased that this budget actually provided for an additional $240 million in transportation-related infrastructure investments over the next three years. That’s an increase. That’s going to mean being able to do more projects faster in all corners of the province.

[1650]

We’re working very closely with the new federal government, pleased that the federal government has increased their levels of federal support for infrastructure, pleased that they’ve confirmed that projects that were announced prior to the federal election will proceed as planned, looking forward to further details from the federal government on the green, social and the transit components of their infrastructure plan.

We are ready to partner with them on the rapid transit projects in the Lower Mainland. We are ready to partner with them on the George Massey Tunnel project. We are ready to partner with them on the continued four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway, on port expansion, and on and on the list goes.

I’m also very proud that we have made the point, and I think very clearly, very strongly, to the federal government — and I have been making this point for two and a half years — that ferry infrastructure must be included as eligible infrastructure projects under the Build Canada fund. I am hopeful that as a result of the efforts of many on this front, the federal government will be amenable to changing or at least removing the restriction that’s currently in place for ferry infrastructure.

I’m very proud of the Highway 16 five-point action plan that we released just before Christmas. That’s going to make a real difference for highway safety along Highway 16. I’m very proud of the fact that in this budget, we’ve increased highway maintenance by $36 million over the next three years. That’s going to make a real difference with respect to highway safety across the province.
[ Page 10586 ]

I’m very proud of the fact that we have created the B.C. prosperity fund, with an initial investment of $100 million. After all, we are generating an operating surplus, we are paying off our operating debts — soon it will be eliminated — and we have chosen to devote some of these dollars for future generations. I happen to think that’s a heck of a good idea.

I’m very proud to stand behind our Premier and her vision. I’m very proud to be on a great team that is making a difference each and every day across the province. I’m very proud that our team has a plan, great ideas. We’re creating jobs. We’re growing the economy. We’re investing in infrastructure. We’re investing in additional supports and services that British Columbians really need.

I am very proud that we’re doing all of this for the futures of my three little girls and the children and grandchildren of this province. I wholeheartedly support Budget 2016.

G. Holman: I’m very pleased to speak to Budget 2016 today. Before I get into my remarks, I do want to just respond briefly to the Minister of Transportation and pass on my regards and the regards of my constituents for his role in doubling ferry fares on minor routes over the past decade. I want to thank the minister very much for that, and you can be sure that my constituents will remember that.

I did want to make some comments about my constituency. First of all, and as many of us do, I thank my constituent assistants Ryan and Marina and again note the passing of my former CA Deb Hartung.

The constituency of Saanich North and the Islands is truly one of the most beautiful and diverse constituencies in a province blessed with beauty and diversity. I want to, again, thank the voters of Saanich North and the Islands, who have given me the honour to represent them in this Legislature. I invite all of you to visit Saltspring, the Penders, Galiano, Saturna and Mayne islands and the municipalities of Sidney, Central Saanich and North Saanich on the beautiful Saanich Peninsula.

Saanich North and the Islands is one of the more complicated constituencies in British Columbia with respect to governance, with four First Nations, three municipalities, two electoral districts within the capital regional district and the Islands Trust, a unique entity in British Columbia that’s responsible for land use planning. It makes for a very interesting political context in which to work as an MLA.

There’s a very strong social justice and environmental ethic in Saanich North and the Islands and a very high level of community and political engagement. I’m proud to say that volunteerism in our constituency is alive and well and that at just over 70 percent, Saanich North and the Islands had the second-highest voter turnout in British Columbia in 2013.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the Saanich First Nations — the Tsawout, Tsartlip, Pauquachin and Tseycum — for allowing us to live and prosper on their lands. The First Nations of southern Vancouver Island are among the few who have signed a treaty in British Columbia — in this case, the Douglas treaty.

[1655]

In their view and mine as well, we’ve not lived up to the spirit of this treaty, and I promised, when I was elected, to work hard to establish better relations with First Nations, to defend their culture and heritage, to support their economic development initiatives and to be their advocate in this Legislature. I want to come back to the issue of reconciliation with First Nations later in my remarks.

In my inaugural budget speech, I promised my constituents that I would work hard to represent their interests, and I promised the members on both sides of the House that I would be as constructive as I could in carrying out the important work of this Legislature. I’ve done my best to live up to this commitment.

I do believe in the importance of partnerships and a collaborative approach, among all government levels, to achieve community goals. I’m committed to playing my role in this, just as I did for six years as Saltspring CRD director, working with Liberal MLAs Murray Coell and Ida Chong and the Liberal government. I’ve done my best, in turn, to continue that legacy of non-partisan cooperation at the local level.

What was striking to me during the last election campaign was the degree of consensus among the candidates on some very key issues of importance to our constituency — about the need to manage and support B.C. Ferries as if it was part of the public transportation system; about addressing the highest child poverty rate in Canada and, in particular, the conditions in First Nations communities; about the need to provide more help for special needs kids in our classrooms; about the need to avoid the risks of oil tanker traffic and address climate change; about the importance of encouraging local food production; about building affordable housing; improving public transit; and better protecting old-growth forests and our precious marine environment.

I was very proud that the platform our party put forward in 2013 addressed these issues and how we would pay for it. I still regard the commitments made in this platform as my touchstone. I promised my constituents that I would pursue all of these policies, and I’ve done my best to live up to that commitment.

While I’m talking about NDP election commitments, I want to touch on the nonsense coming from the other side of the House about the ’90s — the dismal ’90s, so-called. The record is actually quite clear if you look at the data.

The growth rate in GDP, in employment and population were all higher during the ’90s than during the Liberal terms of office. Ferry fares, MSP premiums, tu-
[ Page 10587 ]
ition fees were half of what they are now and hydro and ICBC rates much lower. Thousands of affordable housing units were built, despite the federal government backing out of this area altogether.

The first modern-day treaty in Canada was signed, and the B.C. Treaty Commission was established.

Finally, parkland in British Columbia was doubled, to create the largest network of protected areas in any North American jurisdiction. In fact, the NDP, in only three terms, has created most of the parkland in British Columbia. I’m very proud to have played a minor role in both of these legacies, in both the Nisga’a treaty and the protected areas strategy, during the ’90s.

I want to make some more specific comments about the budget. After a divisive throne speech that described many First Nations and the hundreds of thousands of citizens opposing the Liberal government’s agenda as the forces of no and quitters, we were presented with Budget 2016.

The Finance Minister compared the favourable reaction to his budget by bond-rating agencies — you know, those same kinds of agencies that ranked toxic U.S. bank debt as triple-A investments, which nearly brought down the world economy; those agencies — with getting a good report card. This is a very interesting analogy coming from the Finance Minister, given the Liberal legacy of hundreds of shuttered schools, while class sizes and the number of unassisted special needs children are growing rapidly.

I wonder what grade our teachers — who’ve been forced to take this government to court to enforce contract provisions regarding class size and composition — would give this government on education. According to the Ministry of Education’s latest data on class size and composition, learning conditions in B.C. schools continue to deteriorate.

[1700]

The number of classes in B.C. with four or more children with special needs has gone up to over 16,500, which is the highest rate it’s ever been. Despite this huge increase in students with special needs, the number of classes in B.C. with an assigned educational assistant actually went down by 430. Class sizes have also increased significantly, with the number of classes with 30 or more students increasing by 25 percent this year.

The 2016 provincial budget does take some very modest steps, in a pre-election year, on a few issues raised repeatedly by the opposition — the inequity of regressive MSP premiums, the lack of affordable housing and cuts to services to children in government care. But this budget cannot paper over the consequences of 15 years of cuts and austerity for our most vulnerable citizens and huge increases in regressive fees of all kinds, while rich and powerful political donors to the Liberal Party are rewarded with tax breaks, privatization and deregulation.

The economy is growing in southwest B.C., but many businesses and citizens are struggling in rural areas, including the Gulf Islands, whose economies have been crippled by the shortsighted ferry fare increases brought on by this minister who just spoke to the House a few minutes ago.

The consequences of Liberal government policy choices include the highest inequality levels and child poverty rate in Canada, the highest food bank use and number of homeless in B.C.’s history, wage growth that is second lowest in Canada, private job growth that is fourth lowest of all the provinces, the highest student and overall consumer debt loads and the lowest education funding per student. That’s the legacy of this government — 15 years.

Budgets are being balanced by the Liberals on the basis of billions in hydro, ferry, tuition, MSP, ICBC and PharmaCare fee increases that hurt lower- and middle-income families the most. The Liberal government has also imposed funding cuts and regulatory changes that have stripped resource management capacity in British Columbia and left us with a self-regulated professional reliance model, resulting in fiascos like the Mount Polley dam tailings breach and the toxic waste dump in the Shawnigan Lake drinking watershed.

There is a growing disconnect between the everyday reality of British Columbians and the pronouncements of our photo op Premier. You’ll remember the promises of “Debt-free B.C.” in the 2013 election, but the Premier is actually increasing debt at a record pace. She’s also committed $9 billion to a Site C dam for which there’s a much more cost-effective alternative, an alternative that does not destroy thousands of hectares of farmland and First Nations traditional territory.

Budget 2016 takes such bizarre pronouncements to an absurd level by establishing a $100 million so-called LNG prosperity fund, essentially financed not by a non-existent LNG industry but by another 4 percent increase in MSP premiums, the most regressive user fee that you can possibly find to raise revenues for government.

The members opposite express dismay about the negative attitude about this budget on this side of the House. Yet they are apparently fine with the Premier referring to First Nations in northwest B.C. trying to protect eelgrass beds threatened by the Petronas LNG plant, supporting one of the largest salmon runs in North America — salmon runs that they have stewarded for millennia….

The Premier referred to this group as “a ragtag group” of naysayers. At a time of truth and reconciliation, when we need to be working with First Nations, this kind of thoughtless and divisive rhetoric is insulting and unbecoming of someone elected to public office, not to mention a Premier, and taints the honour of the Crown.

My report card comment for this Liberal government budget. The Premier needs to pay more attention in class, stop her bullying and get an arithmetic tutor.

[1705]

I spoke earlier about how this government has balanced its budget through massive increases in regressive user fees, which it pretends are not tax increases. The doubling of MSP premiums over the past decade is probably the most egregious example of such increases, which go right into government general revenues — about $2.5 billion this year.

Hydro and ICBC rate increases take a more circuitous route through annual dividends amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars every year paid by these Crown corporations. Despite the fact that, for example, B.C. Hydro is awash in short- and long-term debt, government continues to force these Crown corporations to pay dividends to prop up its finances and create a so-called balanced budget.

You might be surprised to know that even B.C. Ferries, which was created by W.A.C. Bennett to provide reliable and affordable marine transportation to coastal communities, also pays a dividend to the province of about $6 billion a year. These regressive fee increases don’t just hurt ratepayers. They hurt businesses of all sizes throughout British Columbia, and this is supposed to be a business-friendly government.

I spoke earlier about the so-called LNG prosperity fund and the disconnect with reality that this announcement represents. There was another announcement in this budget which demonstrates that disconnect even more clearly and demonstrates the mean-spirited nature of this government.

The Finance Minister stated in his introductory comments to the budget that the true character of a society is reflected in how it treats the most vulnerable. In the 2016 budget, the provincial government finally raised rates for people with disabilities by $77 per month, and this is after nine years without any increase whatsoever. Even after this increase, the monthly disability rate in British Columbia is one of the lowest in Canada, and social assistance rates remain frozen. The most vulnerable in society — and their assistance rates have been frozen for years.

B.C. is still the only province in Canada without a poverty reduction plan. It gets worse. Hidden in the fine print of the budget, the Christy Clark government announced that the annual provincial bus pass for the disabled would be replaced by a much more costly monthly pass. This clawback means that most of the disabled would effectively receive only $21 a month extra for shelter, food and the basics for survival. And this is after being frozen for nine years — $21 a month.

It was only last year that the provincial government, under pressure from advocacy groups and the official opposition, finally agreed to end its unfair clawback of child support payments to single, mostly female, parents. Remember, also, that in 2015, the Christy Clark government gave the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia a tax cut amounting to $230 million a year. This says it all about this Liberal government. This says it all about this provincial budget.

I did want to conclude my remarks by saying a little bit about a constructive alternative to Site C. We’re always being criticized by the other side of the House because we’re so negative. We don’t have constructive alternatives to propose. Well, in fact, with regard to Site C, a $9 billion investment — the highest infrastructure investment ever made by the province of British Columbia…. It’s being challenged in the courts by First Nations and a number of other groups.

We’ve got a better alternative, an alternative that would be lower in cost, would create more jobs and would distribute these jobs throughout British Columbia, not just in one particular area of the province, without submerging thousands of hectares of prime farmland and First Nations territory. Rather than further driving up hydro rates, households and businesses will save money as a result of our Power B.C. alternative.

In fact, we’ve challenged government — we’ve challenged the Premier — to take their plan to the Utilities Commission, the independent regulator that was created to evaluate such proposals. We’ve challenged the government to take their plan and compare it to ours, to Power B.C., with its emphasis on conservation and smaller-scale renewables.

[1710]

Power B.C. would be better for the economy and the environment. If government wants to put its money where its mouth is, they should take their plan to the Utilities Commission.

The Utilities Commission, by the way, was created by Bill Bennett, who, unfortunately, just a few weeks ago, passed away. The Utilities Commission is one of his legacies. The Utilities Commission, the last time it looked at Site C, turned down that project. Yet the Premier — in comments which I find quite tasteless — at Mr. Bennett’s funeral, stated very clearly that her plan was to ensure that we had spent so much on Site C that a new government would be unable to back out from that ill-considered investment.

This is an indication of the fiscal management that this government feels so proud of. We’ve got the highest consumer-debt levels in Canada. Our debt levels, as a province, are literally approximately $150 billion. The reason why that’s so high is because, as the Auditor General indicated, we should be including the liabilities incurred by B.C. Hydro to private power producers. Those debts extend over decades, and that should be included in the provincial books.

While this government is crowing about its financial prowess, a closer look at the numbers says otherwise. And the mean-spirited nature of this government through the past decade and more…. This is the reason why I can’t support this Liberal budget in 2016.
[ Page 10589 ]

M. Dalton: I’m happy to stand in support of Budget 2016. First of all, I want to say that it’s a real privilege to represent both Maple Ridge and Mission. I’ve been doing that since 2009. It’s a beautiful part of our province. I’ve found it, personally, very fulfilling to serve my constituents in both communities.

It’s hard to believe that we are just a little over an hour away from downtown Vancouver. If any of our viewers have never been in that area, I encourage them to come over and to explore. They may want to buy a home, because a lot of people are doing that in the area.

There are a number of pristine lakes tucked next to the mountains, including Alouette Lake, where we have Golden Ears Park, which is one of the busiest parks in British Columbia. There’s overnight camping there, but there are also picnic areas. It’s a beautiful place to explore. There’s also Stave Lake, which is part of the district of Mission. We’ve recently opened a new campground in this recreational area.

Zajac Ranch is located here, where Mel and Wendy Zajac have a camp for children with disabilities, including spina bifida, Down syndrome and other disabilities. Mel and Wendy were recently awarded the Order of B.C.

Hayward Lake is in the area. It’s right below Stave Lake dam on one end and Ruskin dam on the other. B.C. Hydro has a really nice day park there, and it’s great for families. It was closed for a couple of years, during the first part. Part of this was because of the seismic upgrades happening to Ruskin dam, but it’s now open.

On the topic of Ruskin dam, that’s a $750 million project which employs hundreds of employees from the general area. It’s the oldest dam in B.C. Actually, I’ve had a tour in there a couple of times. There’s a lightbulb in the dam, in the administrative area, that’s been on for 80 years. So they’ve been very careful when they’re doing these upgrades not to disturb that. It’s still going on.

Even though it’s a project that goes on for seven years, the residents do appreciate the attention that B.C. Hydro is giving to their own safety. They live right below it, and they certainly don’t want to have that older dam give way and flood their entire area.

Last year we awarded the largest single contract for construction in B.C.’s history. It’s a skill-testing question. The answer is Site C. This one contract is expected to create approximately 8,000 person-years of employment over the eight-year contract.

[1715]

It will provide business opportunities for local, regional and aboriginal businesses. Job fairs are currently being held up north. During this past weekend, lines up to three hours long were there for people that were looking to put their names forward to find employment.

How does the NDP, the opposition, feel about all of this? Well, they’re opposed. It’s interesting. I was listening to the comments from the member for Skeena who said: “We’re not against jobs. No one is against jobs.” Yet, they are against the sites, what we do to make jobs, whether it be dams or construction projects. There’s a long list — the Port Mann Bridge, other things, LNG — to which they are opposed. That’s what creates…. Those are the job drivers in our province.

Site C will provide clean energy for British Columbians, and it’s renewable. B.C.’s electricity needs are forecasted to be another 40 percent over the next 20 years. While our focus is on conservation to meet this demand, we are also reinvesting in our aging assets and investing in new assets — as I mentioned, the Site C clean energy project.

B.C. Hydro invests an average of $2.5 billion per year to expand, upgrade and maintain our electric generation, transmission and distribution systems. These investments support our growing population and growing economy. They also help keep our hydro rates low, as we do have the third-lowest rates in North America.

Investments made years ago under W.A.C. Bennett benefit us today. The B.C. Liberal government has continued with these investments, thinking of the future. Some projects that are currently underway include the two new generating units at Mica dam near Revelstoke, and the replacement of the 68-year-old John Hart generating station at Campbell River.

Some recently completed projects include the new high-voltage Interior to Lower Mainland transmission project, the Merritt area transmission project and, of course, the northwest transmission line.

Contrast that with the NDP record. During the 1990s, B.C. Hydro did not complete or even start any of the major projects that were on its wish list at the end of the 1980s. There were no new transmission lines or other major infrastructure projects, and very limited work was done on existing infrastructure.

It’s stupefying. The NDP didn’t invest when they were in government, and they’re against investments now. They’re against the building of the LNG industry, against Site C, against run-of-the-river projects, which are clean and green.

We’re dependent on generating power. The lights in this chamber come from electricity. It comes from somewhere. It needs to be generated. That’s what we’re investing in — these dams and the LNG industry too — so that we can provide very affordable rates for British Columbians. We are making these investments in B.C.’s hydro infrastructure.

We have a fiscally prudent budget, but it’s far from being threadbare. We’re making record investments in capital projects and infrastructure. It’s surprising that we’re able to do all this, make these investments and still maintain a fourth consecutive balanced budget. It hasn’t been easy. There’s been a lot of belt-tightening, but it’s paying off.

Business confidence is high, and this leads to investment. It leads to job growth and employment. The Conference Board of Canada says that B.C.’s balance
[ Page 10590 ]
sheet is the envy of other provinces. We had 6.8 percent growth in retail sales last year. That’s tremendous. More business — there’s more prosperity. There are one million people that either own or are employed in small businesses. So this wealth in the retail sector is making a difference. It’s really making people, individuals, much more prosperous.

When things are not going well, the opposite happens. It’s called layoffs. B.C. enjoyed a 1.2 percent growth in employment last year — 50,000 more jobs. We contrast this with our neighbour to the east, as 100,000 jobs were lost. This isn’t gloating, but it is contrasting.

Lots of what is happening in Alberta is due to world energy prices. We are not immune to that either. Our resource sector is extremely important. But I will say that the NDP government in Alberta has not engendered business confidence. It would seem to me that it has lost its fiscal bearings with a massive, multi-billion-dollar deficit.

[1720]

Why do I even mention the situation in Alberta? Well, my hope is that the stark contrast between our two provinces will serve as a flashing warning light next year as we face a general election. There’s a direct impact between the government we choose and our own personal well-being, impacting not only the private sector but also the public sector.

I was a public school teacher for 15 years prior to getting elected. I remember during the ’90s pay increases that were zero percent, 0.5 percent or 1 percent, and there were strikes by the BCTF during these years.

I’m very pleased that teachers signed a six-year negotiated settlement. Good for teachers, good for families and good for the students, most of all. One feature of the settlement was an incentive based on B.C.’s economy and growth, and last year teachers and the public sector employees received a 0.045 percent — almost half a percent — increase above and beyond the negotiated settlement.

Part of the contract was that if our economy grew above and beyond what was forecasted in the budget, half of that increase…. Teachers, nurses and others who had negotiated these settlements would enjoy an increase also. Every public sector servant that was part of this negotiated settlement received between $300 to $1,000 extra, and this is cumulative.

In 2014, we saw 3.2 percent growth. The Economic Forecast Council estimates that B.C.’s economic growth in 2015 was 2.6 percent, and they’re forecasting 2.7 percent next year and 2.4 percent in 2018-20. We’re projected to have strong economic growth and to continue to outpace the national average.

This has the effect of attracting migration from other provinces. In the last quarter alone, we saw over 6,600 people from other places in Canada move to British Columbia. When people are employed, they feel secure. They make purchases, which brings even more benefit to the economy. Maple Ridge and Mission are doing well. There’s a lot of construction happening.

I live in Albion, which is part of Maple Ridge, on the 240th corridor, and there are hundreds and hundreds of homes that are going up. What’s happening? Well, people are selling their houses in the more expensive parts of Vancouver, and they’re buying homes in Maple Ridge and Mission at a fraction of the cost — new houses. Or they’re first-time buyers that are moving to my region.

I know what that’s about. Over 20 years ago, my wife and I were living in Burnaby. We were looking for a place, and we found that it was just too expensive in Burnaby and Coquitlam. We realized we could maybe get something, but we could get a lot more for our dollars 20 years ago, and the same is true today, in…. First of all, we moved to Pitt Meadows, then Maple Ridge, and I’ve never regretted it. I raised my family in the area and worked here.

Maple Ridge and Mission are quite happy to welcome residents from throughout British Columbia and the Lower Mainland, and there are lots of places, like I said, going up in this area. So come and take a look. Both the school districts grew last year.

Now, the budget did present the property transfer tax changes, which is very positive for my communities. It’s eliminated, for new construction, homes up to $750,000, which, I would say, is over 95 percent of the housing stock in Maple Ridge and over 99 percent of the housing stock in Mission. This will help the construction industry, and it adds to the employment. People get jobs.

I was visiting a church in Coquitlam yesterday. I met this aboriginal fellow, and he was telling me he’s a framer. He’s got a job. He had struggled with drug addiction for many years, and he said he’s been clean now for the past eight months and doing well. He’s got a job. This is good, and it’s encouraging. It’s great to see him and his friend employed in the economy. When people are employed, they feel good about themselves. It’s one of the best things they can do. I was just really pleased to see the difference it was making in his life.

[1725]

This will help the construction industry. This property transfer tax change will also make purchasing a home more affordable, with savings up to $13,000. Something else it’ll do is that it will increase housing stock. That’s only for people who are residents, and that includes people who are moving here from other parts of the country but are becoming residents. So that’s positive. The new real estate purchase forms will also include residency.

We’re seeing a rising real estate market. I’ve heard complaints from the opposition, how that’s a really negative thing. Well, I think it’s a positive thing in many respects. There are hundreds of thousands — perhaps millions — of families, of British Columbians, that enjoy living in their own home. This, I would say, is extremely import-
[ Page 10591 ]
ant for seniors, because their retirement investment, a lot of it, is based upon their homes.

They sell their home, they downsize, and they have a real substantial nest egg. That’s very important, especially in these days when the interest rates are so low. Beforehand, when interest rates were higher, they could get a good return and live off that return. Well, that’s not the case right now. So the way for seniors and retirees — many of them don’t have a pension, or it’s not sufficient — is that they rely upon their homes as equity.

We saw a 10.9 percent increase in housing starts last year and a 20 percent increase in value. The housing market in the Vancouver area has historically been more expensive. It’s a high-demand area. It’s a beautiful area, and there are a lot of opportunities. Our population, according to B.C. Stats — the greater Vancouver area — just passed the 2.5 million mark, and we’ve seen a growth of 70 percent since the mid-’80s. You contrast that with the rest of Canada, and it’s double. The rest of Canada is about 35 percent. So it’s growing quickly.

B.C. has had 2.6 percent annual economic growth since the B.C. Liberals gained government in 2001. Compare that to 1.9 percent in the rest of Canada. Now, contrast that with the opposition when they were in government, the NDP, and we became a have-not province for the first time. It was an only-in-B.C. recession. The rest of the country was doing well, and in B.C., we were really struggling.

That was with a lot of the economic decisions that the NDP were making and that you can hear reflected in a lot of their comments. When you bring that into public policy, taxation or implement holding back construction, it leads to recession. It’s a real recipe for recession.

As for health care, Budget 2016 sees an annual increase of 3 percent in health care, which is about half a billion dollars per year cumulative. In three years’ time, the health care budget will be $1.6 billion more than it is today. It will be about $19 billion at that time.

We’ve introduced some changes to the Medical Services Plan premium assistance, effective January 1, 2017, which will help lower-income families, individuals and seniors with the cost of living. For the first time, all children will be exempt from MSP premiums. This will directly benefit 70,000 single-parent families.

We’re also expanding premium assistance, which will allow an additional 335,000 people to see their premiums reduced, and 45,000 people will no longer be paying MSP premiums at all. The cutoff will go from $30,000 and move that to $45,000.

Our seniors advocate, Isobel Mackenzie, said last week that many seniors are not receiving premium assistance when they’re actually eligible. She found that 66 percent of seniors pay the full premiums, when the number should be fewer than 50 percent. We have a new MSP calculator now available on line to help people determine if they are eligible or not. I’m sure you could possibly talk to even your local MLA offices and just have a discussion there if you’re not sure — speaking to the seniors.

[1730]

We’re seeing lifts to Children and Family. Budget 2016 is providing significant increased funding, a total of $673 million of additional support for children, families and individuals in need. That’s very positive. This includes $217 million for the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support vulnerable youth and their families, and $465 million for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to support those in need and to increase monthly disability incomes.

I’m mentioning some different additions to the budget — health care, half a billion dollars a year; Children and Families, $673 million. Everything in the budget…. It has been mentioned by other members. If we had the same debt-per-capita ratio as they have, for example, in Ontario, we would be paying $2 billion more in interest charges — just that alone. We just would not be in that position. The fact that we have held the line, been careful and prudent for many years, has allowed us to be able to bring these lifts.

Does it meet all the needs? Certainly, it doesn’t. Certainly, there’s a lot of room for…. We desire that. We do desire to see — for all British Columbians, especially those that are having the most challenges — those lifts increase. That will occur and is occurring as our fiscal situation is improving. Because we have made those decisions as far as expenditures and held the line, we’re not being saddled with these extra interest charges, and we are now benefiting from that.

It’s hard to say no. We all hear the challenges that many people are facing, whether it be people with disabilities or those struggling. Our hearts, all our hearts…. We do care about them, but it’s just a matter of realizing that in the long-term interests, not only for those we face but for the future generations, for our children, we need to make those proper decisions today.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

These new investments will fund more than 130 new staff, including 100 additional front-line social workers. This includes implementing recommendations in the Plecas report.

We are strengthening programs and services that provide for the welfare of children and youth, including child protection, children and youth in care, and family supports. We’re providing $11 million to support child care centres. There is $51 million for children and youth in care with special needs, as well as autism supports. We see $3 million over three years to support adoption agent services.

We also recently announced 21 new early-years centres. I was pleased to see that two of these centres will support my region, with a centre at the Katzie Cultural
[ Page 10592 ]
Education Society and at school district 42. These centres are tailored to meet the needs of each local community and provide convenient one-stop access to supports and services that will allow children to learn, grow and thrive.

Budget 2016 establishes the B.C. prosperity fund — seed money. There’s an inaugural commitment of $100 million from the forecast 2014-15 surplus. This will be for the long-term legacy for generations to come. The goal isn’t just to keep it at that; it’s to increase it. The prosperity fund is intended to help eliminate B.C.’s debt over time.

You’ve got to start from somewhere. Financial advisers always say…. Even for those that find it very challenging economically, they say put aside a little bit, even if it’s $25 a month. Put something aside. It’s the principle of putting it aside and allowing that to grow. That’s what we’re doing. We’re not wanting to spend everything. We’re trying to put it aside to allow it to grow. I believe that this will grow. Give it a few years, it will become something quite dynamic.

Now, of course, we’ve been mocked as far as a government. “Oh, LNG. Where is that?” Members, the opposition, have called it a fantasy fund. Well, there’s been $20 billion so far spent in LNG just in the preliminary work. That’s very significant. Thousands of jobs.

We’re moving forward. If we were to follow what the NDP says and just give up on it all…. Well, this is an opportunity that we cannot do…. We need to go forward, and I believe that generations will be very appreciative, British Columbians to come. This is something we’ve got to keep on doing, and we are. It’s a lot of work, but we’re focused on this.

[1735]

The prosperity fund is intended to help eliminate B.C.’s debt over time and to make investments — in health care, education, transportation and family supports — which provide benefit to future generations.

We are maintaining our low taxation rates. B.C. continues to have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada when all taxes are included, including consumption taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes. Now, contrast that with the NDP record, when we were taxed to the hilt.

One example is the small business tax. It was over 9 percent under the NDP. Right now it’s 2.5 percent. We’re talking thousands of dollars. On $100,000, you’re looking at a tax rate difference of about $6,500 or $7,000 — just in the first $100,000 — between then and now.

I remember when the B.C. Liberals were first elected and they cut taxes. I know that made a big difference for myself, personally, and my family. It really helped us to provide for the needs of my own children. At that time, I wasn’t even a B.C. Liberal. I appreciated what they were doing in a practical sense.

We’ve been working at diversifying our economy. Our B.C. jobs plan has eight key sectors. One of them is aerospace. B.C.’s aerospace industry is booming right now. Last week we had an announcement at Conair in Abbotsford, which I attended as well as the minister and many others. It was a great event. I don’t know if most British Columbians realize how important the aerospace industry is to British Columbia. There are over 10,000 employees. It’s an over $1.3 billion sector.

Conair will be providing their next generation of RJ85 air tankers for the 2016 wildfire season. The RJ85 is a converted four-engine jet aircraft. This high-speed air tanker also includes a B.C.-developed retardant delivery system which is considered to be one of the most advanced systems in the world. These Conair aircraft are flying all over the world. Five of these tankers are in operation in the U.S. and Australia.

B.C.’s aerospace industry continues to grow and establish itself in markets around the world. CAE, which was formerly called Canadian Aviation Electronics, announced it would be establishing a flight simulator in B.C. It’s a multi-million-dollar contract. That’s very positive news. It will be specializing in firefighting.

Another sector that’s really key and booming — record levels right now — is film. You can hardly walk around in some of our communities without bumping into a film shoot. Maple Ridge and Mission have a number of versatile filming locations that are being taken advantage of.

I was at an event a few weeks ago held by the movie industry that honoured Danny Virtue. He’s a Mission resident. He has three studios in B.C., including a ranch in Mission and a studio in Maple Ridge — Bordertown — and Kamloops. He’s a longtime leader in the film industry, and there have been many films that have been shot in his studios. In Maple Ridge and Mission, there are picturesque parks and dikes — some prime filming locations. A new studio was just opened last year. Ridge Studios is a 23,000 square foot facility that just opened up.

The economic impact from film and television productions benefits Maple Ridge and Mission and communities throughout the province. A one-day shoot can provide upwards of $10,000 in the community.

The B.C. tech sector is also booming. It’s the fastest growing of the eight key sectors of the B.C. jobs plan. The technology industry in B.C. already employs 86,000 British Columbians at wages about 60 percent higher than the industrial average.

Recently we announced a $100 million B.C. tech fund to help promising tech companies get the capital funding they need to start their businesses. These are smaller companies. We’ve also got large companies that are establishing themselves or expanding in B.C., including Microsoft and Sony, which are opening up facilities in Vancouver with hundreds of employees. So it’s very positive.

As for natural resources, we are fortunate in B.C. to be blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We are strengthening our ties with India to promote a stronger B.C. wood brand there. It’s a very important market.

[1740]

The forestry industry is seeing a significant upswing in production, especially with markets that we have developed in China. That took a lot of work. I know that ministers and others…. The Premier has made numerous trips to China. We have seen an increase, as far as wood sales there, of about 1,000 percent. I believe it’s over $1 billion in sales to China alone. So it’s very significant. It takes work.

We’re doing the same with India. It has paid off in spades, the attention that we’ve put in with China, and we’re doing this with India and other locations.

We have seen sales of B.C. food products rise over the years. Agriculture is also a very important industry. In 2014, we saw $12.3 billion in food products and our exports worth $3 billion. The wine industry for the first time last year came to over $1 billion. In addition to promoting our products worldwide, we’re also focusing on encouraging British Columbians to buy local.

I’ve got a couple more pages here. But I want to make sure, in case I get stopped by the Speaker, that I thank…. I have a couple of thank-yous to add here, so I’ll just interrupt that for a second.

I do want to thank my hardworking team: my constituency assistants in Maple Ridge–Mission, Linda Kingsbury, who has been working with MLAs for many years. She and Nancy Nagy, who also works at the local food bank, and Laurie Geschke help to cover for Carly Fedyshen, who has been on a mat leave and is coming back. Also, Mark Duynes — a great fellow. He has worked with me for a couple of years, but he found better opportunities in the private sector. So I’m competing with the private sector.

I do want to thank them for the work. They are key to serving us and representing us in our ridings, as they are for all MLAs here. I want to thank my Victoria team: Rhiannon Martin, who is my legislative assistant; Ashley Stewart, my communications assistant. And thanks to all the caucus support team in the east annex. They do a great job.

I must make mention of my wife, Marlene.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Dalton: I’m being cut off here. Got to say thank you to my wife, Marlene. I got her in there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to support this budget.

M. Mungall: I rise to take my place in this evening’s debate on Budget 2016. I think I’m going to pick up where the previous member left off, with just a few thank-yous. I’ll start with my husband, Zak Matieschyn, who is a wonderful person and a nurse practitioner in our region. He’s a very dedicated nurse practitioner, a wonderful husband and a huge support in my life. I thank him very much for that.

I also would like to just extend some thanks to my constituency assistants Lauri Langille, who has been with me since 2009, and most recently, Tessa Bendig, who has joined my office following the movement of Curtis Bendig to the new Member of Parliament’s office. Curtis was an excellent CA, and Tessa will also be an excellent CA.

Of course, the local staff here in Victoria, in the Legislature, are just outstanding. Susan Farmer has been my LA for many years and currently is working in the leader’s office. And I’ve been blessed to have Meagan Blaquiere to be my legislative assistant while here in Victoria. She’s new to the position and is just doing a fantastic job. I’m so fortunate to have these people working with me for the benefit of the people of Nelson-Creston.

Before I move too deep into my conversation and remarks on the budget, I would just like to acknowledge some of the great work of people who are impacted by and contribute to this budget. Of course, taxpayers are what this budget is all about, whether they are receiving the benefits of a budget or whether they are contributing to the revenue side of that budget. No doubt, many people in Nelson-Creston are on the contribution side of that.

One of them I’d just like to mention and wish the best of luck to this Thursday at the Small Business B.C. Awards. Mandala Homes has been nominated for Best Workplace in British Columbia. I truly hope that they win because I’ve seen the work that they do with their staff in terms of making it the best workplace.

[1745]

They truly do value and honour their staff and do everything they can to make it a wonderful place to go to work. They build homes, and so they want to make sure their staff feel at home when they are at work.

In this budget, there are a few things that I want to highlight that are definitely going to benefit my region and are a good reflection of what happens when community advocates for their needs. First off, Selkirk College will be receiving $14.2 million for a $19 million project to renovate Silver King Campus in Nelson. This, interestingly enough, is the first major renovation that the Silver King Campus has had since 1964, when it was built. Here we have an institution that’s been around for 52 years this year. It’s going to see its first major renovation.

Now, this funding didn’t come from government benevolence by any stretch. This funding is coming from years of hard work and advocacy by Selkirk College. I have brought that advocacy to this House on a few occasions, asking the minister to please consider the importance of upgrading a trades campus when we’re seeing the need for trades jobs to be filled. I believe the stats were that there would be a million job openings in B.C. by 2020, if I am correct. There’d be a million job openings that we needed to fill, many of them in the trades.

Therefore, we needed to put investments into the trades to ensure that young people, people of any age or
[ Page 10594 ]
people wanting to retrain, for example…. A lifetime of work in one sector, and they find that they’ve lost their job. They need the opportunity to retrain — and retrain in something that they’re passionate about, something that they’re interested in and something that they have the skills to build on, perhaps.

We needed that upgrade desperately at Silver King Campus at Selkirk College. We finally, after years of advocacy, have that commitment, and we’re very happy to see that.

Another point that I know that farmers and food bank advocates and food security advocates have been advocating for in my area is a tax credit for donating food by farmers. I can speak from personal experience.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

When I was the coordinator for the Nelson Food Cupboard, we worked with farmers on a regular basis to acquire fresh, nutritious, locally grown produce for the food bank. Farmers never failed to step up to the plate and donate. It wasn’t being recognized. I am pleased to see that that will now be recognized and that they will be able to get a tax credit for that. I think every person in this House sees the good in that.

But a few good items in a large budget that impacts all British Columbians doesn’t necessarily make it a good budget. I was sad to see the tremendous amount of what I can only summarize as smoke and mirrors that were put forward in this budget. Listening last week to the Minister of Finance give his budget speech, there was a lot of smoke and mirrors — a shell game. We saw the government give with one hand in many instances and take with the other not too far down the line in his speech.

One of those shell games was with the Medical Services Plan premiums. Everybody in British Columbia is likely very well aware of the MSP premiums. Most people have to pay the premiums. What they know is that whether you’re making $30,000 a year or making $300,000 a year, you’re paying the same rate. That’s what’s been going on in this province under the B.C. Liberal government. Everybody’s been paying this flat tax.

[1750]

In this budget, the minister made the announcement that children would no longer be charged for MSP premiums. Now, that sounds really good, but at the same time, they’re raising MSP by 4 percent again. I think it was best characterized — I saw it in social media — as this. A family goes to the restaurant, the kids get to eat for free, but the parents are paying more just to be there.

I mean, this is incredibly frustrating when you take a look at what families were paying just in 2001 — just 15 years ago — for MSP. They were paying $864 per year for a family. Well, now, in 2016, a family is paying $1,000 more for MSP — $1,000 more. This is just part of the parcel of smoke and mirrors, of a shell game, where you see the government give with one hand only to take away with the other. Kids are going to eat for free, but the parents are going to pay more at the end of the day.

Here we are in 2016 with families paying $1,000 more per year for MSP than they were in 2001. Where is that increase going? Is it going to health care? I mean, the minister did talk about how it was very important that people know that health care isn’t free.

You know, that was a very patronizing comment. I don’t think British Columbians believe that health care is free and magically appears out of nowhere and that there is no cost. They know that they have to pay their taxes and that the bulk of their taxes goes to medical. The public is aware of that. They don’t need to be patronized at all, but that’s what the Minister of Finance did, and it was very frustrating to watch that.

Not only were they patronized in this way, but now they’re having to pay more to hear that. They’re having to pay more in MSP premiums, and a grand total of everybody paying more works out to be about $100 million more, which is the same number going into the new prosperity fund, a fantasy fund.

This prosperity fund…. The promise that was made to British Columbians was that this fund would be populated with revenue from LNG. That’s what it was supposed to be for. That’s what this government promised. They even stepped back and said, “We’re not going to do a prosperity fund right away,” when they were first elected, “because we need to bring in LNG.”

Well, here we are, 2016 — not a dime from LNG coming into the coffers, by the Minister of Finance’s own admission. Not a dime, but they make a prosperity fund anyway. Who’s paying for it? Well, people who are paying a flat tax. They’re paying MSP, and instead of that going into health care where it should be….

In fact, they shouldn’t even be paying MSP. They should not. This is a flat, regressive tax that should no longer exist. It’s time to get rid of it and create a more equal way of addressing the costs of health care, a more fair way. We all know that way is through the progressive income tax system, but that’s not the way the Liberals do things. They want to make sure that people making $300,000 a year are paying the exact same amount as people making $50,000 a year. That’s not fair, but that’s the Liberal way.

That MSP money is going into this fantasy fund that is there for the Premier’s photo ops. She can dip into it whenever she wants a photo op — maybe another Om the Bridge, because it was just so successful the last time. Dip into that for that photo op fund.

[1755]

That’s the taxpayers who are paying that, and that’s not fair. That’s part of this shell game that we see time and time and time again with this budget.

It’s not the only shell game, though. Of course, there are others. One that I think is quite notable is the housing plan. Now, this plan was announced just before the
[ Page 10595 ]
budget. The words used to describe it were “historic” and “the best plan in North America.” Just because this government says something certainly doesn’t make it true. The best example of that in a more recent situation is, clearly, this housing plan. They say it’s historic. They say it’s the best in North America, but that isn’t true at all.

It’s not even better than the plan that they had in their 2015 service plan. What they announced with this budget was $355 million over a five-year time frame going into 2,000 new units. Well, we’ll see if those 2,000 new units are actually new units. For one, we know the history of this government in kind of fudging things around on that. But let’s look at their 2015 service plan in comparison to this announcement.

The service plan from last year promised $418 million over four years — more money over less time, $83 million more over less time. In fact, if we look at what the annual allotments are this budget year, the government is now promising $50 million, which is $90 million less than what they promised last year, when they promised that this year would see $140 million. For next year, 2017-18, $50 million again. But that’s $19 million less than what we saw promised in their 2015 service plan.

So if we even look at the government’s own plans, the announcement made in this budget for housing isn’t even historic. It isn’t even the best plan, because their modest plan from last year is actually better than what it is this year. But let’s throw some smoke and mirrors at it, make a few things up, and hopefully nobody will notice.

And hopefully nobody will notice that 2,000 units over five years is actually 2,600 units less than what is actually needed, according to the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association. They say that we need about 3,000 units per year just to get back up to where we need to be to truly address the need for affordable housing and to reduce homelessness in this province. That’s what they’ve been saying. That comes from a study that was done in November of 2015, so it’s not outdated information. It’s actually very current information available to this government.

But they reduced their initial promise from last year and slapped “historic” onto that promise, hoping that nobody would notice that it’s not historic. It’s not the best plan in North America. It’s not even better than the plan in the 1990s that saw 1,000 to 1,500 new units built every single year, not even close.

It’s really unfortunate that rather than doing the right thing, this government chose smoke and mirrors as the way in which they were going to approach any announcement on housing.

Now, this next shell game is one that has truly been upsetting for not just myself, not just for Nelson-Creston, but for people all across this province. That’s this new bus pass plan for people with disabilities.

[1800]

Now, in the minister’s budget speech…. I think everybody had the same reaction as I did when I heard this in the speech: “$170 million over three years to increase income assistance rates for persons with disabilities. The increase in rates will take effect September 1.” I think everybody was pleased to see that. After nine years of no rate increase whatsoever for people living on $906 a month, well below the most conservative of poverty lines put out by the Fraser Institute, I think everybody was pleased to hear that some type of increase to rates was going to happen.

When we talk about an increase to rates, we often think that it’s going to increase the shelter portion and the cost-of-living portion of rates for persons with disabilities. But that’s not actually what happened. That’s when the minister changed the tune. We get to a place where they announce that they’re going to increase rates by $77 a month to address transportation needs.

But here’s the tricky part. They’re clawing back most of that. For people who need a bus pass, they’re going to have to pay the $45 annual fee that’s always been there, plus $52 every single month, just to have the bus pass. For people who got a special transportation subsidy, up to $729 a year, they’re going to get $66 of their transportation rate increase clawed back every month. Every month that’s what’s going to happen.

Interjections.

M. Mungall: It’s a shame that cabinet ministers don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about around the program. They should. They made this decision in cabinet meetings that is affecting the lives of 100,000 people in this province. If they don’t understand this, they only need to go to their own staff or to the Disability Alliance webpage, which has laid this out just as I said.

To repeat, $52 a month is a new cost to the bus pass program, and if you don’t get a bus pass, you can get $66 a month clawed back from your $77 to address other subsidized transportation. I know that the members opposite don’t believe that the $52 a month is a new fee, a new cost put onto people with disabilities, because the minister, in his budget speech, made it sound like it wasn’t. This is what I read. This is what he said. Some get $52 for a bus pass; others get a special transportation subsidy. Almost half of those on disability — roughly 47,000 people — get nothing.

Some get $52 for a bus pass — that just wasn’t accurate. It just wasn’t. No matter how much Liberals, members opposite, might try to say that it is, it just wasn’t. The reality is that people who receive disability paid a $45-a-year administration fee for their bus pass — period, full stop. That’s what they paid. Anything on top of that is an increase. It’s an increase of $624 a year, and $52 a month is going to be clawed back off of their cheque the moment they spend the $45 of the administration fee out of their own pocket.

[1805]

That’s an important thing to note. People with disabilities always had to pay the $45 annual fee out of their own
[ Page 10596 ]
pocket. So when I hear the government, on one hand, say that that program always existed, and I know it’s just not factual, that’s part of the smoke and mirrors.

When I see the government give with one hand a $77 increase and then find a way to claw back the vast majority of it, that’s a shell game with people’s well-being. So why are they doing this? Why are they playing this shell game?

They say it’s about freedom of choice. Every time I hear them say that, it’s clear to me that they have no understanding of what life is like for people with disabilities, living on disabilities, and what kind of choices they have and what choices exist when someone is living in poverty. They don’t have a choice between bus and taking taxis all the time. Taxis are expensive, and that’s why they need a bus pass.

That’s why, time and again, jurisdictions all over North America have valued providing people with disabilities a low-cost to free bus pass. They have enough barriers in life. Let’s help remove some of those transportation barriers by ensuring that they have accessible transportation at the lowest possible cost. In B.C., we know that that cost was $45 a year. In fact, it’s not just my words saying that.

I go to Accessibility 2024. Now, this is the government’s plan for making B.C. the most progressive province in Canada for people with disabilities by 2024. I go straight to page 9, where we have the plan for accessible transportation. Here’s what I read.

The goal: “B.C. communities have the most accessible transportation options in Canada by 2024.” What can they do? “B.C. Transit and TransLink are committed to fully accessible bus fleets. B.C. Ferries is committed to improving accessibility and continues to improve service for customers with disabilities. Continue to work with communities to support discussions on transit options for persons with disabilities.”

Nowhere does it read: create an increase to the bus pass program of $624 a year. Nowhere does it read that, because everybody knows that doing that is cruel and unfair. It is unjust, and it does nothing for people with disabilities but make their lives harder.

It’s at this time that I think that we need to take a closer look at some of these issues and direct the government to do so. At this time, I would like to move an amendment that I have placed on the order paper. The amendment reads:

[Be it resolved that the motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: “That the government recognize the cumulative effect of the increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families.”]

On the amendment.

M. Mungall: I’ll take just a few moments to speak to this motion very briefly and to point out that the reason we have this amendment is because we see fee increases taking place all across the board for British Columbians.

MSP, as I said, is increased by 4 percent on January 1 and will increase 4 percent next year, as well, costing $100 million more per year for each increase. That’s coming from British Columbia taxpayers.

Hydro rates have increased. They have increased by 28 percent already, since the Premier came into power in 2010, and will go up again on April 1 by another 4 percent. This collects about $150 million more in revenue from the very same people who are paying MSP, for the most part.

ICBC premiums. Well, they’re going up too — 5. 5 percent last November and will increase again next year. Last year’s increase collected about a $130 million more from customers.

[1810]

Park fees. That’s right. You want to go camping with your family? That’s going to cost more, too, for the second year in a row. Bridge tolls — going up. B.C. Ferry fares — going up. Meanwhile, $1 billion in tax cuts for the rich — $1 billion in tax cuts for the richest 2 percent in this province.

Now, you don’t hear members opposite brag about that. In fact, they don’t really want to talk about it very much — that they’ve given $1 billion to their rich friends while forcing people with disabilities to pay even more for a bus pass program. That’s what is going on, and we don’t think it’s fair. On this side of the House, we think that government ought to do its due diligence and start to analyze and truly understand the depth to which it is digging into taxpayers’ pockets.

With that, I move the amendment to the budget, and I’ve completed my overview comments on Budget 2016. I look forward to the debate that is going to take place on this amendment. I do hope that government members support this amendment and that they see the value in understanding the cumulative effects that impact British Columbians across this province when they jack up MSP, when they jack up ICBC, when they jack up Hydro rates, when they jack up camping fees, when they jack up bus passes — how that impacts people right across this province.

At the end of the day, we have to answer to them for what we take out of their pockets, so we better have a better understanding of how that impacts their lives. I look forward to the debate.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I rise to speak against the amendment. This amendment, I think, in its essence characterizes the difference between the two sides of this House.

Our side of the House is driven and characterized entirely by optimism, by strength and faith in the future, by the goal of making British Columbia a better place for all British Columbians across all parts of the province and all parts of the social spectrum. We do not believe
[ Page 10597 ]
in a gratuitously negative, cynical point of view that has been expressed by the member opposite in the lead-up to her amendment.

We believe that this is a province with a bright and beautiful future based on a few features that we believe in. The first is an enterprise culture.

This province has been built upon immigrants like me, like some of my colleagues, who came to this place for the opportunity to prosper in a safe, productive and fair society. We have had exactly that opportunity. My colleagues along the backbench here represent a kaleidoscope of culture and ethnic backgrounds. Many of us are immigrants, and we’re glad to be here because this is a society that believes in opportunities, that believes in enterprise and allows people to prosper when they invest in themselves.

That is exactly what this government encourages. We encourage investment in ourselves, in our people, in the individuals in British Columbia through some of the lowest tax rates in the continent. We inherited a situation in 2001 when the members opposite had driven up marginal tax rates to the highest in North America. This was unconscionable and resulted in 50,000 British Columbians moving out of British Columbia, including members of the professions who found that their opportunities were greater elsewhere.

This government turned around that opportunity by taking down marginal tax rates to the lowest in Canada, with a couple of technical exceptions, and that’s where they stand today. More particularly, to make sure that all British Columbians benefit to the maximum possible extent, we abolished income tax for incomes below $15,000 of net income. That is an extraordinary testament to the progressivity of our policies. We made it essential and core to our goals to make sure that all British Columbia would benefit from this, most particularly, low-income British Columbians.

Secondly, we encourage investment. In today’s world, we can only look at the huge opportunity we are generating with the Site C project — $9 billion of investment in British Columbia, in British Columbians. Today there were job fairs in Prince George and the Peace country which resulted in strong turnouts of skilled individuals who intend to make their living for the foreseeable future earning their living on those jobsites. They will earn their way in British Columbia.

[1815]

If they elect to move here from Alberta, if they elect to return here from Alberta or elsewhere, we welcome them. We do not build walls around the province like the members opposite seem to advocate.

This province’s population is growing. When I arrived here, the population was 1.6 million. It’s now 4.7 million, through endogenous growth, through interprovincial migration and through immigration, because this is a land in which we can prosper.

In my own ministry, we can look at the investments we’re very proud of. The new campus for Emily Carr University of Art and Design. This is a leading institution ranked in the top ten in the world in its field. We are building them an entirely new campus for $130 million.

We’re not doing that in a profligate way. We’re doing that as part of a public-private partnership to control costs, to keep the project on time and to deliver a new anchor position on Great Northern Way in Vancouver that will clean up a relatively run-down neighbourhood and lead to the kind of prosperity for all people in the neighbourhood that we seek.

We are building new hospitals — brand-new hospitals in Campbell River, in Comox, in communities that need to have the secure base of a reliable health care facility. We’re doing that out of part of an enormous capital plan we have for hospitals, including Penticton, including the rebuilds that have occurred in Kamloops and Kelowna and the expansions that are going on elsewhere — the massive capital investment in the new B.C. Children’s Hospital.

That, in itself, reflects our enterprise culture. Teck, our leading mining company, one we’re very proud of, is the lead sponsor and the name donor to that facility — $25 million was donated by Teck. That arises from the kind of enterprise that British Columbia has been built on.

We all know of Teck’s facilities in this province, whether it’s coal mining or hard-metal mining and their smelter facility in Trail. That’s the kind of prosperity that drives the ability to donate to a facility like the new B.C. Children’s Hospital.

We are also in a situation now where we face unprecedented lows in the commodity markets. If this had been 30 years ago or 50 years ago, this province would be in a deep, deep recession because of the state of lumber markets and the state of the price of copper and coal. Yet we find ourselves the top performers in the Canadian economic spectrum.

The Conference Board of Canada has projected that we will lead the country for the next three years — and this in the midst of a commodity slowdown that is unprecedented in the last 20 years.

How has this happened? Through prudent management, a diversified economy and the kind of prosperity that we seek, the kind of optimism that we live on and that we breed in this party in distinct contravention to the views taken on the opposite side of the House here.

We can also look at our environmental record. We are leading the continent with our carbon tax. It works. We have a highly efficient vehicle fleet compared to the rest of the continent. We have an entirely viable carbon tax that our population has accepted, and we have used that revenue to drive down income taxes, because we believe in investing in British Columbians and investing in this province so that we can all prosper in the future.

We have a situation in this province where we invest heavily in health care — $17 billion this year, roughly $2
[ Page 10598 ]
million an hour. That will increase to $19 billion by the end of this fiscal period, because we believe in investing in British Columbians. Thereby, we provide the best health outcomes in the country at an affordable price. It’s expensive. But we believe in that investment, because we provide for British Columbians.

One can also look at the opportunities in education, where we have produced the best academic results in the K-to-12 system in the country — No. 3 in the world. How has that happened? We have great teachers. There’s no doubt about that. We have a six-year deal with those great teachers. We have provided public education of the highest calibre across this province.

I’m proud to say that my own children are in their 39th year of public education this year in high schools in Vancouver. I have two university students in my family and one grade 12 student. All have been through the public education system throughout and have prospered and done well in it, because we believe in opportunities for British Columbians.

I hear the sniggering on the other side of the House about these important issues. But these matter to British Columbians because we are in an environment that is very challenging economically, yet at the same time, we have been able to produce for British Columbians.

We’ve produced the services British Columbians need and want. We’ve produced the things that are needed in the world markets, and the prosperity in the province is unprecedented. This is now a province with a GDP of $225 billion a year. That is an extraordinary accomplishment when we’re No. 1 in the country in health, education and economic prosperity.

[1820]

Now, the members opposite chuckle and snigger and talk about fees. Well, let’s talk about fees. MSP pays 1/7 of the cost of health care in this province. The rest comes from general revenue, whether it be fuel taxes, gaming income or any of the numerous other sources, including sales tax and income tax. Children are exempt as of this budget. This is a highly progressive measure designed to take the burden off families with children.

Low-income individuals are exempted from MSP fees. We now have a situation where two million British Columbians pay no MSP fees whatsoever. Their health care is provided free at point of service. If they have an income below $15,000, they pay not a nickel in income tax, and they pay no MSP fees. This is a remarkably progressive measure that we are proud to support.

The members opposite talk about hydro rates. Well, this is becoming absurd. We have the lowest hydro rates imaginable, the third-lowest on the continent after Quebec and Manitoba, all generated from government-owned hydro. And 97.8 percent of our electrical energy comes from green, clean sources due to our hydro projects. Yet the members opposite want to snigger and undermine and chip away at something like Site C. Our past and our future have been built on high-quality hydro projects. We only need to visit the Columbia River Basin to see the amount of income that spins off from those turbines on the Columbia River system, to the benefit of all of us.

They now want to talk about ICBC premiums. Let’s remember what happened in 1973. The NDP government put in a uniform public insurer. What’s happened since then? There have been compensation claims. I have been a lawyer myself. Some of the members opposite have been lawyers. They know that people who are in motor vehicle accidents make injury claims. Those injury claims have become more expensive. That is why premiums rise.

It is not some kind of parasitic, vulturous activity that this government sponsors to go and suck blood out of motorists. It’s a way to compensate the victims of injuries from motor vehicle accidents. Yet the members opposite seem to think that these three items — MSP fees, hydro rates and ICBC premiums — are some kind of social evil that needs to be defeated or crushed or driven out of our system. This is preposterous.

To suggest that ICBC premiums are somehow regressive taxation on motorists? How on earth else would accident victims be compensated for their injuries? Do they suggest it come out of general revenue? Tax the rich for motor vehicle accidents? This is absurd.

With that in mind, I suggest, noting the hour, that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.

Hon. A. Wilkinson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:23 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