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)

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 4

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

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Allow me to warmly welcome June Draude, visiting from Kelvington-Wadena in Saskatchewan and a member of the Saskatchewan Legislature for more than 21 years. Please make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. Rustad: I call the continued debate on the amendment to the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

On the amendment (continued).

C. James: I rise to speak in support of the amendment to the budget. I think it’s probably a very good thing that we had a lunch hour between the closing of the remarks by the Minister of Natural Gas and for Housing and my response, because I have to say I think I probably would have got myself into trouble. So I think it’s best that there was a break and time to take a walk around the block and think about the words that had been said by the minister.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I start that way not because I get upset at the other side insulting us or our policies. We are all fair game. We are all in here as politicians. We are all in here making a decision about issues. We have a right to have that debate and that divide and that difference of opinion. But I have to say that what upsets me is the lack of respect and the lack of regard for differences of opinion or for the reality that people are facing in British Columbia. That, I have to say, from the minister in particular, was very hard to take, and it makes this amendment even more critical.

I just want, for those who are listening, to just read the amendment again. This is a proposed amendment to Budget 2016. The amendment says: “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.”

So why is this amendment important? Why do I believe it’s important, and why do I believe this is an amendment that should be supported? Why would this amendment come forward? Why would we, on this side of the House, bring this amendment forward?

[1335]

Well, I think listening to the minister before lunch make his comments pointed out to me how critical it is to bring an amendment like this forward to ensure that the voices of British Columbians that have been forgotten by this government are heard in this Legislature — that they have a right to have their views clearly pointed out, a right to have the reality that they are living each and every day on the record in this Legislature, and that should be recognized as part of Budget 2016.

This is a voice that it’s clear from the budget is not being listened to, has not been listened to and certainly now is not being listened to.

You know what? I heard members on the other side, and I’ve heard members during the budget debate, stand up and talk about the strong economy we have in British Columbia. I heard a member on the other side the other day talk about B.C. being the envy of Canada. Well, a budget exists and a strong economy exists, from my point of view, to benefit all British Columbians. That’s why you have a strong economy.

I hope that our economy in British Columbia continues to grow. I hope our economy is strong. I hope we have diversity. I hope that industries will continue to build and to grow. But as they do, that should benefit all British Columbians. As we point out in this amendment, it’s clear that that’s not being recognized by this government. It’s clear that this amendment is critically important to be able to really point out the pressures that families are facing.

This government has done more than simply ignore the pressures that families are facing. They’ve actually made that pressure worse. The families that I talk to each and every day in my own community, whether it’s simply being in the community, grocery shopping, out for a walk, or whether it’s people who come to my constituency office…. It is not the issue for families that they expect government to solve all their problems. They don’t.

In fact, the people that come to me are usually reluctant to come to their MLA. It’s an avenue of last resort. They’ve tried to fix challenges and problems themselves. People are proud. They’re working hard, they’re trying to get by, and they’re trying to manage. When they come to talk to their MLA, they’re usually, as I said, at the end of their rope. They’re not wanting government to fix everything. But they certainly don’t expect their government to make their life tougher. They don’t expect their government to make it more difficult for them to get by.

As this amendment speaks to, the cumulative effect of the increases to a range of taxes since this government has come in, in 2001, has made life tougher for British Columbians. Whether families or seniors, whether singles, whether young people, people are struggling to get by.
[ Page 10618 ]

When they hear the government stand up and talk about taxes being low, about everything being the best in British Columbia, it’s insulting to those individuals who are doing everything right, who are trying to get by, often working two jobs, often juggling and trying to manage child care and manage their rent. They know that things haven’t gotten better. They know that it’s difficult.

I want to take just a minute, as we’ve done in our amendment, to talk a little bit about what those areas are, where the difficulties for families are coming from, where the difficulties for adults and children and seniors are coming from. It’s very clear that although the government can call them fees, call them increases, call them whatever they want, these are taxes, plain and simple.

In fact, the Premier, before she was elected Premier, actually said that herself. She said herself that you actually have to include all of the cumulative costs on families to really know the burden that people are facing. It’s ridiculous to think that you wouldn’t include the cost of MSP taxes, that you wouldn’t include the cost of hydro rates, that you wouldn’t include those costs that families have to pay for, because that adds to their burden. They are taxes.

Let’s start off with hydro rates. Hydro rates not only have increased over the last number of years but, in fact, are going to continue to increase for the next years, as the government has identified, all the way through to 2018, under this government.

[1340]

We’ve seen, since 2001, a 74 percent increase in hydro rates, and this year, 2016, we’re going to see a 4 percent increase in hydro rates. In 2017, we’re going to see a 3.5 percent increase in hydro rates, and in 2018, a 3 percent increase in hydro rates. That’s an average of more than $300 for a family. That’s a lot of money for a family that is struggling to get by.

Hydro isn’t one of those optional things. It’s not one of those areas where you can say: “Well, I just won’t take hydro. I won’t worry about it. I don’t have to have the increases.” People need hydro. They need their lights on. Often, in many places, hydro is heat for families. They’re having to make very tough decisions and tough choices to try and manage this kind of bill by the end of the year.

I think the other impact on hydro rates that is important to recognize…. In fact, even the government acknowledged that it’s a problem in an announcement that they made a few weeks ago. Hydro and competitive hydro rates was always one of the real advantages to British Columbia. It was one of the areas when businesses — whether it was mining, manufacturing or other businesses — were looking to British Columbia to invest…. Those competitive hydro rates provided us with a great opportunity to be able to attract investors. Clean energy and competitive rates were a great opportunity to bring that investment here to British Columbia.

Now, with the rates going up, we’re losing our competitive edge. We’re losing the ability to be able to attract investment because of those competitive rates.

You saw it in the government’s announcement. They’ve said to mining: “We’re going to defer, for now, your hydro rates.” Well, that’s a pretty clear statement that they know that it’s a problem. They know those hydro rates are a problem.

Yet what does this government do? Well, a whole range of things, including continuing to take a dividend from hydro into government coffers, which could go back into supporting, again, competitive rates, supporting families, as we point out in our amendment, supporting hard-working British Columbians. But no, that’s not the direction the government decided to take.

What about the medical services premium tax? This tax, again…. I heard the minister before lunch stand up and say that it was important to have a medical services premium tax because that made sure that people understood that health care costs them money.

That’s the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard. I’ve heard a lot of arguments coming on issues, but that is a ridiculous argument — to say that the public doesn’t understand that health care costs and to say that the public doesn’t understand that their taxes and MSP don’t, in fact, cover health care costs.

The public knows that health care has a cost to it. The public knows that we have to contribute. But why would we contribute through a regressive tax system like the MSP where if you’re making $50,000 a year or you’re making $1 million a year as a family, you pay the same amount in MSP taxes? How does that provide fairness for British Columbians? How does that support our health care system or any other system? It doesn’t.

It fits along with the other promise that the government made long ago when they said that you were going to see medical services premium taxes raised with the increase in the health care budget, that as the health care budget was increased by a percentage, you’d see the medical services tax increase by a percentage. Well, that went out the window as well.

You’ve seen a 108 percent increase in medical services premium taxes since 2001, and you will see, all families will see, a 4 percent increase this year and next year under this government. That’s incredible, when you take a look at the pressure that that adds for families — $1,797 a year, more than doubling the income tax that the family pays.

Again, when the government says, “We keep taxes low,” well, you add on the amount — or more — that they’re already paying in income tax in medical services tax. I’ll come back to the budget itself and the specifics that were in the budget around the medical services tax as well.

The government admitted in this budget that the medical services tax is not fair. They tinkered around the edges. I’ll speak a little bit more about that as I go along.

Why they didn’t just make a commitment that they were going to begin the work to get rid of the medical services premium tax…. I think the public is scratch-
[ Page 10619 ]
ing their heads, trying to figure out why the government, once again, decided to ignore the pressure that families and British Columbians are facing.

[1345]

What about ICBC rates? Well, yes, we saw those rates go up as well. Basic rates have increased 48 percent since 2001. In 2016, they’re expected to go up between 4 and 7 percent this year. Again, taking a look at the amendment, how can the government say that they’ve taken into account what families are facing if they haven’t looked at the cumulative impact of all of these taxes and additional fees and services that the public is now paying?

For those people who have to go back and forth on the ferry…. Obviously, I’m a Vancouver Island MLA, and many of my colleagues are. But there are also many people who travel back and forth for business, for family, from the Lower Mainland to the Island. What about ferry fares? Ferry fares have increased 77 percent since 2001. That’s for a family of four going between Vancouver and Victoria.

If you were travelling on the smaller routes — between Nanaimo and Gabriola, for example — that’s gone up 100 percent under this government. It will continue to go up 1.9 percent each year for the next four years. Again, coming back to the amendment, the cumulative impact on families, on British Columbians, is very clear when you take a look at all of these fees and services.

Similar to hydro rates, ferry fare increases don’t simply impact families and people living on Vancouver Island. It has a huge impact on the economy of Vancouver Island. It has a huge impact on economic growth on Vancouver Island — the costs, of course, of goods and services coming back and forth. The cost of doing business back and forth increases.

There was a wonderful report done by the Vancouver Island municipal association a couple of years ago that was brought to the minister at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting to talk about those pressures, to try and have the minister recognize the real difficulty that it causes us on Vancouver Island. And yet, again, that was ignored. The fees and services continued to grow.

Post-secondary education. All those people who are working hard, working that second job, trying to put a little bit aside to be able to send their child to university or to college or to a training program…. Tuition has more than doubled under this government.

Even seniors aren’t exempt. Long-term-care for seniors rates have increased — in 2003, 2010, 2011 — by 93 percent, so at an incredibly vulnerable time for families, looking at a family member moving into long-term care and having to make those tough decisions, having to look at the economics of being able to support that as a family. And does this government make it easier for them? No. This government makes it tougher by again increasing the cost.

I haven’t even mentioned a whole range of fees and services, including park fees that the government decided to raise again this year, as they did in 2015, as they did in 2010, 2008, 2005 and 2003. Even that little bit of vacation that many families look at as “perhaps that’ll be affordable” has continued to increase.

It’s not simply anecdotal to take a look at the impact that this is having on families. The statistics show that as well. The statistics show that it’s harder and harder for families to get by.

One of the statistics that I think really points that out is the fact that B.C.’s consumer debt is the highest in the country. It’s a report by the B.C. Chartered Professional Accountants. It’s not the New Democrats saying that. It’s the chartered accountants saying that per-capita debt — every adult and child in British Columbia — was $10,000 higher than the national average, $58,621. That’s huge.

That’s a huge pressure for families that they’re facing, a huge difficulty for them. The people that I know that go into debt only do it for the necessities and then worry and worry about how they’re ever going to get themselves out of that. How are they going to be able to put a little bit aside?

[1350]

The other statistic that really pointed that out is the use of payday loans. Vancity did a report around the use of payday loans in British Columbia between 2012 and 2014, right in that time period when we saw the government and all of their budgets increasing fees and services and costs to British Columbians.

What did they find when they did this survey? They found out there’s been a 58 percent growth in the use of payday loans — higher than anywhere else across the country — right here in British Columbia. They did a survey of individuals who were using payday loans to talk to them about what they were using payday loans for. I think sometimes people imagine that someone’s going to a payday loan for a vacation or for something extra. Well, in fact, what they found is that people are using payday loans for necessities because they’re not able to manage to pay their rent and their hydro bill and their MSP bill. These are not extras we’re talking about. These are the basics that families are struggling with.

Again, when you look at the next statistic, I think it’s no surprise to anybody. If you look at wage growth in British Columbia — which, again, is a very important indicator around the strength of a province; is the economy benefiting everyone, which it should be — B.C. is ninth compared to anywhere else in the country. I think it’s no surprise when you look at the poverty rates, when you look at one in five children living in poverty in British Columbia, when you look at the fact that we once again have the highest child poverty rate in this country — right here in British Columbia. It’s a shameful statistic that all of us should be driving and working towards ending, that all of us should be making a commitment in this Legislature.

In fact, we have tried. We have come up with ideas for poverty reduction plans. We put legislation forward over
[ Page 10620 ]
the number of years — certainly, since I was elected in 2005. We’ve tabled that legislation every year since. And we are the only province left now in this entire country that doesn’t have a child poverty reduction strategy — the only province. We stand alone. Yes, we’re number one. We’re number one at not having a child poverty reduction plan.

That’s not something I hear the government members standing up and being proud of. That needs to be fixed. That needs to be changed. That is a statistic that we should all be working towards eliminating. It shows why this amendment is so important because the government often likes to pretend that life is just fine for everybody in British Columbia, and it’s not.

Just think what it might look like if a government actually passed this amendment and actually recognized the cumulative impacts of increases in MSP premiums, increases in that unfair tax; increases in hydro rates; increases in ICBC premiums; and all the other fees and hidden taxes on British Columbians. Step 1 might be that hard-working British Columbians actually become first on the priority list by this government. That might happen if we actually looked at the cumulative impact. I always like to hope. I always like to be an optimist.

But if we look at Budget 2016, that’s not what we saw. In fact — I think this is what angers people — when the government says that a budget is about choices and they’ve made choices…. Last year we heard the Finance Minister say it was time for everybody to tighten their belt. It was time for everyone to recognize that the economy was still fragile. We all had to be cautious when it comes to spending. Yet while the government says that on one hand, on the other hand, they do actually find resources in the budget. They did actually find $230 million, and they decided to use that $230 million to give the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia a tax break.

At a time when families are struggling, at a time when the cumulative impact — as our amendment shows — has a real impact on how people are getting by, the government says: “Oh, but we can find $230 million. We can put that aside for millionaires in B.C. They don’t need to wait for anything. We’ll give them a break.”

That was in last year’s budget. That’s again in this year’s budget. I would imagine that even the members on the other side would understand how that might make someone angry — someone who is just trying to get by, who isn’t able to put anything away, paycheque to paycheque, who lives in fear that their secondhand car is going to break down and of how they are going to manage to get to work.

[1355]

Or what if their child needs dental work, and they don’t have any money put aside? Or what if an emergency happens, and they have to miss a day of work because their child is sick and they need to come home? There isn’t any extra. There isn’t any give for so many families in British Columbia.

I hear those stories in my office. I see those people in tears who aren’t able to save, who are trying to do everything right. And government just makes it tougher and tougher and tougher for them.

Those are the people who look and say: “You know, I get that times are tough. I get that we all have to be cautious with spending. But when the government can find $230 million and they can put it aside for the top 2 percent income earners, I think they probably could have managed for a while. I think they probably could have gotten by while we help the people who need it the most.”

That’s the difference in choices. That is the difference in philosophy. And that wasn’t the only thing. Budget 2016 actually made another choice by this government. They made another decision to find dollars.

The public will remember that the Premier has been talking about LNG and her laser focus on this industry and that there was going to be a prosperity fund, and the prosperity fund was going to solve all of the world’s problems. We were going to have no sales tax. We’re going to have debt-free B.C. You name it, and I think the Premier has listed it at one time or another as something that was going to be solved by the prosperity fund.

Yet here we are in 2016 — no LNG plant, as the Premier promised would happen, so no revenue coming in from LNG. Yet the Premier decides that in this budget, in 2016, she’ll take $100 million and put it aside and put it in this fantasy fund. That’s $100 million not from increased revenue from an imaginary industry that the Premier talks about and hopes might arrive some day. It’s $100 million of taxpayer money that has gone into the Premier’s fantasy fund so she can save herself embarrassment by saying money is in that fund.

I’m sorry. The public sees through that. They see the pressures every single day that they’re facing. They know the struggles that they have paycheque to paycheque. They know that this government made a choice to take that money, to take that money away from offering any kind of relief or any kind of support to them and their family.

As I have said, and as we’ve said in our amendment, there are many choices that the Premier could have made. Did the Premier decide that she’d deal with increasing hydro rates for the families or ICBC premiums or tuition or ICBC rates?

Now, I mentioned tinkering around MSP. Yes, this government did say in this budget that they’re going to make some changes to MSP. They’ve admitted that it’s a bad tax. They’ve admitted it’s an unfair tax. Well, if a tax is unfair, you address it. The government didn’t address it. They said: “Yes, some people will get a break. But by the way, even those people who will get a break don’t get a break until January.”

The Premier didn’t wait to give a tax break to millionaires. She didn’t say to them: “Oh, you’ve got to hang on.
[ Page 10621 ]
We don’t quite have enough money yet.” The Premier didn’t wait to put $100 million in her fantasy fund and say: “Oh no, no. I think I’ll wait and see if the industry actually happens.”

But to hard-working British Columbians, to children, to others who are going to get the little bit of a break that the government offers in the budget? “Oh, you have to wait until January. And by the way, some of you actually will have to pay more after January. We’ll give some people a break, but others will actually have to pay more.”

The government is going to continue to collect more revenue from the medical services premium tax, more revenue in this budget. Don’t forget, in addition to all of this, your MSP premiums are going up 4 percent this year and 4 percent next year.

So even on the MSP tax, the public has to wait. The Premier makes her choices, once again, pretty clear for British Columbians. “You’re at the bottom of the list. You don’t come first. I’ll take care of my fantasy fund. I’ll take care of my embarrassment and not getting the industry to be here. I’ll take care of the top 2 percent in British Columbia, but you as families? No, sorry, you’re either out of luck, or the few of you that we’re going to provide support to, you’re going to have to wait.”

[1400]

I think nothing speaks more clearly to this than the issue of bus passes for disabilities. Again, when we’re taking a look at the government’s budget, they say to people with disabilities, “You’re going to get an increase every month, but by the way, we’re taking away the yearly bus pass, so now you’re going to have to pay for it every month,” and pretend that people should be grateful for that.

Well, I’ve been on the phone with people over the last couple of weeks, and I can tell you: they are not grateful. They are not grateful at all. They are angry, for good reason. That is the worst of the worst when it comes to politics, for a government to pretend: “Here, we’re giving you some great support, and you should be proud and pleased and happy about it,” and instead, sneakily, quietly: “We’re taking away your annual bus pass that used to cost $45 a year. And by the way, now you’re going to have to pay $52 a month for your bus pass.”

The poor individuals who have received this news are worried about how they’re going to manage things, who thought they were getting an increase and now find out they’re not. Or the increase is so small, it’s not going to make a difference for them.

That, again, speaks to the character of this Premier and this government, speaks to what the public has had to put up with over the last number of years, and speaks to the importance of this amendment, the importance of recognizing the pressures that people are facing — not pretending that everything’s fine, not pretending and telling families: “Don’t worry. Everything’s great in British Columbia. Everything’s rosy. Not sure why you’re complaining. If you’re complaining, I guess you’re part of that ragtag group of people that I’ve already called out as a Premier.” Unbelievable.

For those families who are struggling, who are trying to get by, and for those families with the highest increase in debt in this country, what did the government offer them?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Members, order.

C. James: They offered them an insult, and that’s what we see so often from this government.

I would encourage members to go back and take a look at the amendment again, to ask what the harm is in collecting the cumulative impact of all the fees and services and hidden taxes that this government has put on families. Why would you be against actually looking at the reality that families are facing? I guess the government would be against that, because they haven’t done anything to help families. In fact, they’ve made it worse. With that, I’ll take my seat.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to join this debate, speaking against the amendment but in favour of the budget. As always, it is a tremendous pleasure to have the honour and opportunity to be able to speak in this Legislature on behalf of my constituents in Nechako Lakes and to have a chance to also be able to be involved in a government that is making a such a real and positive change for the people in British Columbia.

I want to start, of course, with recognizing we’re on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people but also to take a moment to recognize the hard-working people that are in my office. In my constituent office up in Vanderhoof, with Nadine Frenkel and Lori Derkson, they do great work on behalf of me, for my constituents and within the riding. We often don’t get to have as much time in our riding as we’d like. I just want to thank them for the work they’re doing.

I also, of course, want to recognize the people in my ministerial office, here in Victoria: Cameron Ehl, who’s my chief of staff; as well as Ed Sem, who is my executive assistant; Connie Roberts and Rani Sketchley — all of them do great jobs — and, of course, Lisa Leslie, in communications.

But I think probably the one thing I really want to say is to thank my lovely wife, Kim, and my family. Without their support, without their care and love, there’s no way I would be able to have an opportunity to do this in the first place.

Before I go into my remarks on this, I do want to just maybe make reference to the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill in terms of some of the comments she just made.

[1405]

I don’t know whether to use the phrase from the member for Cowichan Valley and talk about jiggery-pokery or to perhaps talk about fertilizer, but whichever case it may be, there’s a lot of misinformation that I’d like to be able to correct. In particular, I find it very interesting…. The member opposite was talking about hydro rates, and I’m talking about the challenge around losing competitive rates and losing competitive challenges. We are the third most competitive regime in North America. We remain that. But, unlike in the 1990s, we’re actually seeing over $2 billion a year investment in infrastructure, badly needed investment that meets not only the needs of the day but the needs for our future.

But what I find most interesting is, when the member talks about it, hidden behind there seems to be an implied policy — that, for something, perhaps they would like to see ratepayers’ increase on rates, or taxpayers in particular, to be able to compensate what rates would be. I wonder if the member opposite would care to talk about raising taxes to offset hydro rates, if that seems to be what they’re planning to do.

On MSP, we have done an incredible thing here in this budget in the changes that are happening. There are approximately now two million people in British Columbia that will no longer be paying MSP — two million people. Think about that. It’s quite remarkable, in terms of what those changes will do and what the benefits will be for those people that will no longer have to be paying MSP or will be paying those reduced rates.

On post-secondary education. The member talked about our rates going up, yet she will stand and vote against the budget. She stood and voted against having the education savings account created for students to help offset some of those costs of post-secondary education.

The one that I find perhaps most rich is when the members opposite talk about child poverty and child poverty rates. So let’s talk about that. After a 38 percent increase in the 1980s in child poverty rates, what happened in the 1990s when the NDP were in power? The rates went up. Child poverty rates went up by 42 percent.

Those numbers are verifiable. Any stats will show it. And yet, since we’ve been in power, child poverty rates have dropped greater than any other jurisdiction, any other government in British Columbia’s history, to levels not seen since the 1980s. That’s a remarkable improvement that we’re proud of. We are making significant improvement on those issues.

I do want to get an opportunity to talk a little bit about the things that are in the budget and, of course, why I oppose this amendment and support the budget. Doing a budget, going through this process, is about making hard choices. It’s about finding balance, and it’s about taking all things into consideration.

Now, I know that the members opposite would just love to raise taxes or, perhaps, just put a massive deficit on the future children that somebody else would have to pay for. I get that. That’s why we have reduced our operating debt to the point now where, within a few short years, we’ll actually have eliminated our operating debt.

That’s the debt on groceries that has accumulated since the 1970s. Today we are now at a point where that has been reduced down to the point, once again, back to the early 1980s. But what this also does — the fiscal responsibility in being able to do this — is it allows us to be able to invest. It allows us to be able to do the kinds of things that the people in British Columbia would like us to see happen.

And whether that is the type of changes that we have been able to do to MSP, whether it’s the $3 billion we’re adding to health care, whether it’s the other $1.5 billion we’re adding to government spending, which includes about $670 million through support in MCFD or in other…. I can’t remember the number. Was it two-hundred-and-some-odd million dollars, I believe, for social development, in terms of the work? All of this is because we have had fiscal discipline, and we’ve been able to do those kinds of investments.

The member opposite talked about bus passes. The increase that we have to the rates for people with disabilities is the most significant increase we’ve seen in quite some time. The members opposite, in their own budget plan, in their own platform, ran on a platform that, over two years, they’d add ten bucks a year. More than that will go to every single person with disabilities — plus flexibility to be able to make choices around transportation.

[1410]

One of the other pieces in the budget that I’m quite proud about is the $75 million that is there now for a rural dividend that will go to communities under 25,000 in the province. Rural communities drive a lot of economic development and a lot of what we want to see in terms of prosperity in this province. This is a way to be able to return a dividend of some of that activity back to those communities for the types of activities, the types of investments, that they want to see within their community.

In addition, the other things that I think are great. The farmers food donation tax credit. It’s a great initiative. I’ve got people in my riding and people in Burns Lake that want to be able to donate some of the vegetables that they grow to the food bank and get a credit for it. What a great idea. It’s a way to be able to help people and, at the same time, be able to help our agriculture industry.

Investing, of course, in transit. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for the strategic investment, earlier this year, along Highway 16. That’ll help my communities. It’s a great investment and great dollars. That comes from fiscal discipline, from being able to do the right thing so that we can make those kinds of investments.

The $85 million to help establish the enhancement on forestry that we need to do. On top of that, the additional $10 million for strategic future wildfire prevention.
[ Page 10623 ]
Enhancement for property tax relief for tourism accommodation. The rural B.C. connectivity initiative. As well, the $19 million we’re putting in to help improve the way we do permitting and, hopefully, reduce some of those burdens that are on that. All of these, once again, are all about making choices and being able to do investments.

Support for the mining sector, which we announced earlier this year, is in this budget, as well, of course, as the prosperity fund. All of these things they’re going to vote against, and they’re going to vote against strictly on ideology. Not because we’re doing the right thing, or they say we’re doing the wrong thing, but because it’s ideology. They actually don’t want to see us making these kinds of investments, and that’s sad.

I want to tell you that under our government and our work with the federal government, there’s been a number of things that have been happening in and around my riding, things that I’m proud of that we’re able to invest in.

For example, in our partnership with the federal government, we’re investing $1.28 million into basic trades-training programs. In addition to that, through work we’re doing with First Nations, there’s significantly more investment in training that is going in through the area.

The village of Granisle, for the first time, will actually be able to have high-speed Internet and cell coverage. That’s an initiative that has came in for that community. Of course, we are partnering with various governments on things like lighting improvements for the Nechako Valley Sporting Association’s ski trails.

All of these things are about seeing improvements within the communities and making those investments that come from prudent fiscal management.

On the capital side, we’ve got new passing lanes going in on Highway 16. We’ve seen resurfacing, safety improvements, lighting, other types of things along the highway. All of these things, as well as on the side roads, are about making sure that the important transportation corridors help to develop our economy and help to make sure our economy stays as strong as can be. More importantly, they make it safe for people that are travelling those roads. They’re critical for what we need to see from my riding.

Overall, though, the budget, in making choices, also helps us to be able to do the types of things that I’m doing within my ministry. Under the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, we do see a small uplift in the budget that’ll give us that opportunity to be able to do continued and further engagement with First Nations.

What we’re doing, and all the types of agreements and things that we’ve entered into — we’ve now entered into over 400 economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations — have helped to drive entrepreneurialism. We’re now at a place where there are more than 1,200 private companies founded by aboriginal entrepreneurs that are making a difference for their families and their communities. These companies are helping to build that prosperity and drive the economy — the things that we are all here and want to see happen that can bring about real change.

The agreements that we have completed, in terms of government to government, have been based on fairness, trust and respect. They create the certainty that we do want to see. More importantly, though, they work in partnership. As we go forward and do these things, we don’t do them in isolation. We work with the nations. We’re invited in, and we do this kind of work.

I want to point out in a short bit here where there’s a stark difference for the opposition in their approach with our aboriginal people.

Like I say, we’ve increased the budget. We’ve got improvement, more money coming in, in terms of the First Nations clean energy business fund. We expect to see that.

[1415]

There are additional resources that are going out to First Nations through these agreements, through the revenue-sharing side. All of this, once again, is changing lives.

I’ve had First Nations chiefs that we’ve signed agreements with, with tears in their eyes because they know the difference being able to do this and build these partnerships will make for those First Nations.

Along those lines, one of the things we’re very proud about is the work we’re doing with liquefied natural gas. We have been out engaging with nations right across the north. We’ve been out talking about the things that they want to see happening, the way that they want to see priorities come forward for their people and how to do these types of projects respectfully and in partnership with nations.

We now have, across the north, at least one pipeline agreement with virtually every nation. More than 62 pipeline benefits agreements have been signed with First Nations, all of this around making sure that as activity happens on the land base, they are receiving revenues from that activity and benefiting from the activities on their traditional territories.

In addition to that, we’ve got agreements in terms of site locations. We’ve got additional agreements upstream in terms of where the gas is being extracted. We’ve layered on an environmental stewardship initiative, which drives positive environmental legacies by First Nations for First Nations and for all of us here in British Columbia.

On the training side, we’ve got agreements in place where we’ve seen the first batch of students that came in. There are more than 1,000 now, but in the first program that came in under this, 115 students went in, and every last one of them is working. The average salary is, I think, around $19.50 an hour. About $3.5 million in wages have been paid over the last year to those individuals. That is life-changing for those people, for their families and what that will do for their communities. We’re proud of this kind of work, being able to reach out and build this.
[ Page 10624 ]

I have to tell you. As we build this and we talk about this, there is a stark contrast in the actions we’re seeing from the opposition versus what we’re doing in reaching out. In particular, I want to point out the members from Stikine and Skeena and Prince Rupert. I know their passion and their opposition to seeing things happen. What I find most interesting is….

If, on the government side, we were to go out and have a group of people go out and go onto somebody’s territory, oppose a project or create some sort of statement, what do you think the reaction would be from the opposition? Do you think they would be somewhat indignant if they weren’t invited? Do you think they might be in the halls or in the House asking questions?

Yet this is exactly what we’ve seen the opposition do. They have a double standard in this. When they go forward in opposition to projects in the northwest, they really should take into account and do so in a respectful manner, respecting the First Nations, respecting rights and title, respecting the governance of those nations.

I want to read you a statement that was made from the Tsimshian leaders concerning the proposed project at Lelu Island. This was from November 9, 2015, and it reads:

“In Prince Rupert, there are five Tsimshian nations who assert their aboriginal rights and title over this area. It is those Tsimshian nations who the Crown and the proponent have the obligation to consult and resolve any adverse environmental and economic impacts of their major developments. It is the Tsimshian nations that will determine what is in the best interest, while respecting the interests of our neighbours.

“We are equally concerned about the potential impacts of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project on the Skeena River fishery. The Tsimshian Environmental Stewardship Authority is protecting Tsimshian interests in the federal environmental process. We ensured that the environmental process was put on hold in order to better understand the research and impacts on Flora Bank. Additional scientific work is near completion, and TESA” — the Tsimshian Environmental Stewardship Authority — “is conducting its own independent review of the work. When we have all the evidence and answers to our questions, only then will we decide.

“We are perplexed that those opposing the project are coming to conclusions before key evidence is heard and finalized.

[1420]

“We expect respectful consultation and engagement, not media pressure tactics. We are very disappointed the outside interests that have signed a joint letter opposing the project have not consulted with our nations nor waited for all the evidence.”

That, from November 9, was signed by a number of the chiefs of the Tsimshian nation as a letter in regards to actions that the members opposite actually took, disrespectfully, on their traditional territory.

Today, now that we have the environmental assessment work that has been completed…. And the member for Skeena earlier in his speech said the federal scientists back in 1972 said the project shouldn’t go forward. He respected the work of the federal scientists back then. Yet what did the federal scientists say today that he ignores? They say today that there is no significant impact on the Skeena from this project.

I want to provide some additional quotes with regards to the CEA findings. This is from Don Roberts, the Chief of Kitsumkalum First Nation — once again, from February 15, 2016. “As we review CEA’s findings, and we have the assurances that the project will not impact the Skeena fishery, it enables us to consider social and economic benefits for our members like training of our younger generation.”

From Chief Joe Bevan, the chief councillor of Kitselas — also from February 15, 2016. He says: “All of our leaders and people have been weighing the benefits against the potential impacts through multiple public meetings. We are encouraged that the proponent has undertaken significant additional work to address concerns and that the independent scientists at CEA have validated this work.”

It’s one thing to stand up against a project. I understand the role of opposition to oppose, but it’s another thing to do things disrespectfully, and it is certainly another thing to deny opportunities that First Nations are thirsty for which build communities and support families right throughout the north and especially in the northwest, where it is most needed.

I think the members opposite should really think twice when they are trying to address these types of things and really consider what they are actually standing and opposing. It’s not about politics; it’s about people. It’s about the environment, and it’s about building positive futures.

Here’s another quote from the Terrace Standard on January 26, 2016. “The chiefs are extremely disappointed that the local Member of Parliament, Skeena NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who attended the summit, and provincial NDP MLAs would choose to sign and comment on a project without any prior consultation and involvement in Tsimshian communities.” Is this the policy of the NDP in their approach with First Nations? I wonder.

When I think about what LNG will be and the differences it will make, this is why we set up things like a prosperity fund. There’s approximately $20 billion that has been invested in British Columbia today by companies that are pursuing liquefied natural gas. We have decided to take a small portion to set the prosperity fund up, to get it in place and put the rules around how we will manage dollars that come in to that prosperity fund and our ability to be able to build it over time as liquefied natural gas develops here in British Columbia.

It’s an important part about how we build our future. It’s an important part about how we leave a legacy for generations to come. It’s something I think everyone in this province should be proud of — that we’ve set this up and we’re actually looking at trying to find a way to save dollars, to pay down debt and to make that difference for future generations. Unlike the members opposite that seem to…. All they want to do is borrow from the future or tax the people today beyond their ability to be able to pay.
[ Page 10625 ]

As we go forward, within my ministry, we will continue this good work that we’re doing with nations: the work that we’re doing with the Tsilhqot’in in respecting the Supreme Court decision, working through title issues; the work that we’re doing with nations right across the province and the agreements we’re entering; whether it’s skills training, whether it’s the clean energy funding and the types of projects that we want to do through clean energy; whether it is the myriad of other types of agreements, the work we’re doing on treaty and working with our partners on that, finding ways to reach long-term reconciliation.

[1425]

More importantly for the people in my riding, it’s how we find ways to be able to build a future that people can be optimistic about. One of the key things that this budget talks about and that we have continued to talk about for years is the fact we have a triple-A credit rating. The people in my riding are proud of this. They are happy that we have this kind of a rating.

What it shows, ultimately, is the report card on the way British Columbia operates — not downgrades that we saw in the ’90s under the NDP, but triple-A and stable at a time when no other jurisdiction in Canada can say that — balancing the budget, moving forward and having surpluses, building those opportunities for the future, and making sure that we aren’t paying excessive amounts of interest and that we are able to afford making the type of capital and strategic investments we need within British Columbia.

Throughout our time — what this budget talks about, which, quite frankly, is in direct opposition to what the amendment talks about — we have found a balance. We’ve been able to make strategic investments. We’ve been able to make operational investments. We’ve been able to reach relationships with First Nations and develop the kinds of things that we want to see in this province.

We’ve been able to do all these things because of fiscal management, because of a budget that is in place that sets a proper road, sets a good road that allows us, as British Columbia, to be able to dream, to be able to help develop things like liquefied natural gas, to be able to provide supports for mining, to be able to support our forest industry and the rest of our resource industries, find support for rural B.C., communities like mine that I represent. Most importantly, it shows how we can be respectful to taxpayers while at the same time providing the supports that they want to see.

Over this next year, we will continue to engage in our agreements with nations. We’ll continue to work with communities like mine in how we try to develop the economy.

I very much look forward to the work that is coming over the course of this next year, particularly on liquefied natural gas. I know what it can mean for so many people. I know what it will do for this economy and its future. Projects like Site C — where we had, in Prince George, 1,000 people come out for a jobs fair. Up in the Peace country, 3,000 people came out for it — not people in protest but people looking to build their futures.

As a government, it’s incumbent upon us to find those opportunities so that the people of this province can build their positive futures, can seek the type of work and opportunities they want, support their families and, ultimately, so that British Columbia will continue to lead all of Canada.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the motion put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston and seconded by the member for Port Coquitlam: “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.’”

I rise in support of this for numerous reasons. The first, of course, is that this government is proud of its triple-A credit rating and its balanced budget. I am proud of the balanced budget. However, the choices this government has made are such that it is those who can least afford it who are the ones paying the costs of balancing the budget.

It’s a biased budget, one that puts the poor, those with disabilities, those who can barely make ends meet and families second. It puts vested interests, the development industry, first and foremost.

This government touts the fact, through self-congratulatory rhetoric, that it is fiscally responsible. Let me be very clear: this government is fiscally reckless.

Take Site C, for example — the biggest item by far in the budget that is not being addressed in detail, an item with an $8.7 billion price tag that will almost certainly come around $12 billion to $13 billion when all is said and done. It’s a project that received virtually no attention in this budget and only had one line item to it. That’s Site C, as mentioned previously, by the minister before me.

[1430]

The Premier recently stated that she wanted to move this project “past the point of no return.” But in her haste to get to yes, she is throwing fiscal caution to the wind. The government is pushing forward with a massive pet project that was created for a yet-to-materialize LNG industry — a project that has seen numerous cost overruns already, and yet it has barely started.

This government is plowing forward with a substantial risk that is borne on the backs of B.C. taxpayers — those who are not only paying the price through increases in MSP premiums, through increases in hydro rates, through increases in ICBC premiums, but who are also being burdened with debt for years to come for a yet-to-materialize LNG industry, a project that has seen, as I mentioned, numerous cost overruns.
[ Page 10626 ]

The government wants to appear to be fiscally responsible, but it’s gambling with our tax dollars. Why are we pushing ahead with a project that is riddled with legal challenges and massive environmental consequences? Why is the government not taking a step back and putting the interests of regular working people first and foremost — the British Columbians who actually vote the MLAs in here? Why are they not putting their interests first?

Why is this government not taking that step back? British Columbians want this government to wait for the report from the Auditor General, who is currently examining the Site C project, and learn whether this project is actually fiscally sound. Frankly, to push ahead is simply reckless.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

With Site C, it’s easy to see we’re going into a big debt for a project we don’t need, and in doing so, we are flooding our energy market with taxpayer dollars that are actually driving investment out of our province. And again, to make ends meet, we increase MSP rates, we increase hydro rates and on and on and on.

Just two weeks ago the Canadian Wind Energy Association announced that it was closing its office and leaving B.C. because the government and B.C. Hydro are just not interested. Last year we saw the same thing with EDP Renewables — no interest from the government for a roughly $1 billion wind power investment off southern Vancouver Island. That company has walked as well.

Despite the potential in this province, clean energy investment is leaving British Columbia in droves. The B.C. Liberals’ dream — they continue to dream — of LNG has not materialized, but they’re still using billions of taxpayer money to gamble on projects designed to support it. They’re pushing risky projects past the point of no return and, in so doing, clean tech investment out of our province.

Let’s take a look at these LNG figures that the Minister of Environment has presented in the budget, figures that were supposed to help fuel a prosperity fund instead of it being fuelled through MSP premium increases and so forth, which this amendment is attempting to address.

I love talking about LNG. I love talking about it, just like I loved talking about the tooth fairy when I was a little child. Those of us outside the government’s self-congratulatory circle of hyperbola know that they had….

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Hyperbole. “Hyperbola” is a mathematics term.

A. Weaver: Hyperbole. Thank you to the Minister of Advanced Education for pointing out that hyperbola is a mathematical term.

Those of us outside of government’s self-congratulatory circle of hyperbole already know that they have no hope of tapping into an LNG market in the short term, no hope whatsoever. No amount of tax cuts, no amount of subsidies to the industry, no amount of praying to the LNG god…. We just know it’s not going to happen. They’ve tried and failed.

This year’s budget shifted the LNG story to a future supply-demand gap slotted to emerge ten years from now. Uh-oh. Never mind the “unforeseen global conditions.” So how are we going to make ends meet? We’re going to tax those who are least able to afford it through increases in MSPs, increases in hydro rates and so forth, which is exactly what this amendment is trying to quantify and recognize.

[1435]

Now we’re talking about LNG in, say, the mid-2020s, something that I’ve been saying for quite some time. Yet the government’s track record of repeatedly failing to predict the LNG future even months in advance does not instil me, let alone British Columbians, with any confidence as to what their projected supply and demand will be like in 2030.

On the demand side, there are challenges as well. While the increasing competitiveness of the renewables, as recently highlighted by Brattle economists, it seems unlikely that demand projections, illustrated by the curious unlabelled graph in the 2016 budget document, will be accurate either. Simply making up numbers. This government is chasing a falling market, in which it was a late player, and throwing good money after bad.

Let’s take a look at this prosperity fund in a little more detail. This is a fund that the government promised to implement through vast amounts of moneys coming from LNG revenues. Instead, we see increases to the MSP premium, hydro rates and so on, in order to fund the prosperity fund on the backs of individual taxpayers.

I’ve always advocated that it’s our responsibility as legislators to not think merely of today’s British Columbians but also those of future generations who will follow us — though in a more responsible, realistic manner than the government’s “LNG for our grandchildren” rhetoric mantra.

Indeed, this is the main reason I chose to run for office in first place. But the fact is that if this government were serious about reducing the debt of this province, they would not grow the debt of this province each year. They would not create a loophole allowing them the ability to not pay down the debt with surplus revenues but in fact use taxpayer money for political posturing, which is what the prosperity fund is all about.

It gets worse. My fears were confirmed when I looked into the specifics of the prosperity fund being funded through taxes on those who can least afford it — the subject of the amendment before us. Let’s break it down. We have $100 million going into this prosperity fund this year and, according to this year’s budget, no further investments in our province’s savings account in any sub-
[ Page 10627 ]
sequent year. That’s hardly prudent fiscal planning. And curious, it’s in a year leading up to the election.

Of that $100 million, this government is putting a full half of it towards debt retirement. Hang on. That’s not $100 million. It’s $50 million in the prosperity fund. But then they actually say that only 25 percent of the $100 million will be saved, while the last 25 percent will go towards “government priorities.” Clearly, MSP premiums are not a government priority.

What is a government priority? Probably boutique handouts as we move into the election year in May of next year. In fact, when we tone down the self-congratulatory rhetoric that this government is issuing and tune into the actual numbers, we find that this government’s $100 million prosperity fund is actually a one-time investment of $25 million. This is a blatant misrepresentation of how tax dollars are being spent.

Also, the government can try to mislead the voters of B.C. that their empty promises are not actually empty. They’re doing this to create a potential political play to try and tempt the opposition to vote against prosperity. That’s shameful — nothing more than political posturing in the hope that they can turn around and say that the opposition votes against prosperity.

This opposition votes for prosperity. But prosperity is more than just the bottom line in the so-called prosperity fund. It’s prosperity in social prosperity. It’s environmental prosperity. It’s fiscal prosperity. It’s triple-bottom-line prosperity. For this government, prosperity simply means prosperity for those who happen to give them large donations to ensure that they remain in power. It is not a prosperity for all British Columbians. It is a very limited prosperity.

With that in mind, and in light of the fact that the motion to amend the statement “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” is before us, I will, at this time, introduce notice to subamend that motion with the idea of adding the following.

[1440]

I move the following subamendment:

[Be it resolved that the motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” be amended by adding the following:

“That the government recognize the cumulative effect of increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates and ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families,”

And in order to ease the burden facing these families, support rolling the currently regressive and unfair MSP premiums into the income tax system in a revenue neutral manner to create a progressive health care levy.]

Deputy Speaker: So, Member, are you going to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

A. Weaver: Correct.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Carry on.

On the subamendment.

A. Weaver: On the subamendment, I have but one statement. I am going to quote Tom Fletcher from Black Press, president of the legislative press gallery. The quote is this: “Green leader…has it right.”

Hon. T. Wat: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of balanced budget 2016. But first of all….

Point of Order

A. Weaver: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a point of order.

A. Weaver: On a point of order, the subamendment is before the House, and I’m wondering if the minister is speaking to the subamendment or not.

Hon. T. Wat: I would like to speak against the member’s amendment and to speak in support of balanced budget 2016.

Deputy Speaker: But the minister is speaking on the amendment to the amendment.

Carry on.

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, I would like to take this special moment to recognize some of the people whose help and support are very important to me.

First, to my parents, who are in their 90s: Mom and Dad, thank you for always supporting me throughout the years.

To my daughter, Tin: I take so much pride in calling you my daughter.

I would also like to give special thanks to my colleagues, all my hard-working and very capable and dedicated staff. My chief of staff, Jay Denney; administrative coordinator, Angela Jones; executive assistant, Jessica Faddegon; administrative assistant, Heather Doerksen; and my constituency assistants, Regina Tsui, Stephanie Fraser and Trix Chan. The team sacrifices their time because they believe in me and they believe in this government.

Each year I look forward to this opportunity to talk about my portfolio and the excellent work the Ministry of International Trade is doing to grow and diversify B.C.’s economy to create well-paying jobs for British Columbians and help B.C. businesses reach new priority markets overseas.

This is the fourth balanced budget we have delivered. It hasn’t been easy. We have had to make tough decisions and choices along the way, but we have always stayed
[ Page 10628 ]
focused on living within our means, growing our economy and investing in the shared priorities of all British Columbians.

It is because of this disciplined approach that we find ourselves on solid financial footing, and this is what enables us to invest in key economic sectors and the important public services B.C. families depend on.

I came to this province some 26 years ago with my husband and my daughter. We chose British Columbia because of its diversity, its natural beauty, and the opportunities to succeed. Like other British Columbian families, we understood the importance of hard work, determination and living within our means. Those are universal values.

Balanced budget 2016 encompasses and protects these values for British Columbians, making life a little bit easier for families and providing B.C. businesses with the support to grow and flourish.

It is clear that diversifying B.C.’s economy and supporting B.C. businesses are key priorities of this budget. I am proud that my ministry’s efforts will play an important role in supporting these priorities, including strengthening ties and promoting a strong B.C. brand in India, investing in small businesses through an increase to the small business venture capital tax credit and supporting B.C.’s shipping industry through efforts to attract international companies to the province.

[1445]

I will have more to say about these areas in a few moments, but let me first explain how this budget fits with the important work underway at the Ministry of International Trade.

My ministry has two primary focuses: to promote trade and attract investment, and to champion the benefits of diversity and foster participation of all British Columbians in our multicultural society. On a daily basis, I’m inspired by the work of the dedicated public servants whose efforts are making a real difference.

To put it into perspective, the total value of investments influenced by my ministry programs was $3.6 billion last year, well exceeding our original target of $800 million. During that time, 271 international business agreements were reached, valued at $312 million. These investments and business agreements are what allow B.C. companies to grow and, in turn, create new jobs and support strong local communities.

Despite an uncertain global economy, the strong global demand for B.C. products and services diversifies our export market and has played a major role in this. Ten years ago 65 percent of all B.C. exports went to the United States, whereas last year exports to the States made up less than 52 percent of total exports while nearly 38 percent of our exports went to Pacific Rim markets. B.C.’s top exports are currently pulp, lumber and copper, and we are seeing positive trends in seafood, agrifood and machinery exports.

One of the ways to attract investment to B.C. is for us to meet face to face with stakeholders in key markets. That is why we are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets through overseas trade missions, growing our trade and investment network and working on new partnerships and MOUs.

Since we launched the B.C. jobs plan in 2011, my ministry has supported over 560 inbound and outbound trade missions, including six missions by the Premier to major Asian markets. Trade missions attract investment in British Columbia’s priority markets and are a cost-effective way for companies to get a foothold in targeted export markets.

At the same time, we have more than doubled the number of international trade representatives abroad. We now have over 60 representatives based in priority markets across Asia, Europe and the United States. We are expanding our reach into key Asian markets this year with a new trade office in the Philippines.

Innovation and entrepreneurship create jobs, diversify economic activity and help keep British Columbia globally competitive. One of the ways we know we can foster this economic activity is through the provincial venture capital. One sector that particularly benefits from venture capital is the technology industry. This sector is the fastest-growing in B.C., employing more than 86,000 British Columbians.

We want to ensure that these high-potential companies, especially those in the critical development stages, have access to the capital they need to grow. That’s why we have announced the creation of a $100 million B.C. tech fund. The B.C. tech fund is a key component of our technology strategy, a comprehensive plan that will support this promising sector throughout B.C.

This budget also provides an additional $5 million for the venture capital tax credit, which is administered by my ministry. The tax credit helps small businesses access early-stage venture capital to help commercialize ideas, attract and retain employees, expand operations and bring the ideas to global markets.

It provides a 30 percent tax credit to B.C. resident investors who invest directly into companies or in managed funds. It is unique in Canada, because it also allows individuals and corporations to invest capital directly into eligible small business and offers strategic expertise to accelerate company growth.

For the second year in a row, balanced budget 2016 provides $1 million to the Vancouver International Maritime Centre. This funding will help attract more international shipping companies to British Columbia.

[1450]

In 2015, B.C. welcomed the first shipping company, Singapore-based AAL, to open a new office in Vancouver. By establishing a new office, it sends a message to the international shipping community that Vancouver is the place to be.
[ Page 10629 ]

Forestry is a key industry for British Columbia. For the thousands of men and women whose families depend on it, we are committed to making B.C. more globally competitive and resilient to market shifts by diversifying our economy. As part of the B.C. jobs plan, we have increased our efforts and funding in priority markets.

India is among the international markets we view as critical to B.C.’s future economic goals and prosperity. As such, $5 million over three years is being provided to Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. to support B.C.’s wood-first initiative and trade with India. This funding will help advance B.C.’s strong Canadian wood brand and clean-technology sector in India.

British Columbia was an active participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, negotiations last year. This month, B.C.’s efforts were rewarded when Canada signed the agreement in New Zealand along with the original signatories. Although signing does not guarantee ratification, it is a welcome first step.

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, B.C. stands to benefit from better access to key Pacific Rim markets like Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

As the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, one of my roles is to create an environment in B.C. where an inclusive and diverse population supports our shared communities. Cultural diversity and increased participation by all cultures is vitally important to the creation of a strong social and economic future for B.C.

This year, about $1.7 million will be spent on programs that promote multiculturalism, address racism and build inclusive community in British Columbia.

The B.C. Multicultural Awards hosted by my ministry celebrate those working for B.C. to promote multiculturalism and the Chinese legacy project of delivering on government’s promise to the Chinese-Canadian community and all British Columbians to leave a lasting legacy of the historic contribution of early Chinese settlers.

As British Columbians, we can all be proud of the role we play in honouring the diversity in B.C. today and the historical contribution of immigrants from all over the world to the foundation of our province.

Talking about multiculturalism, I’m privileged to represent the constituents of Richmond Centre, the most diverse riding in North America. The city of Richmond is a vibrant, diverse community, projecting a population growth to over 260,000 by 2036, with more than half of the growth accounted for in Richmond Centre.

Richmond is a great city to live and work in, and it was an exciting year for Richmond residents for the last year. Industry chooses Richmond as its base. We are home to five of the ten biggest software companies in British Columbia.

On the retail front, the SmartCentres along Garden City Road and Alderbridge has already started construction in Richmond. Many megastores, such as Walmart, will continue to strengthen their expansion into British Columbia.

B.C.’s first luxury outlet mall, the McArthurGlen Designer Outlet, was opened at a 30-acre site on Sea Island near the Vancouver International Airport last year. It currently has 46 retailers, over 240,000 square feet. A phase 2 plan to open in 2017 will expand the mall to 400,000 square feet and up to 150 retailers. This mall has created 600 jobs in phase 1 and another 400 jobs in phase 2.

Near the outlet, the British Columbia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace Technology campus offers programs to more than 1,000 students each year. Students can choose training programs for all areas of aircraft maintenance, engineering and flight training. Richmond’s aerospace and aviation sector is made up of small, family-run businesses to global, publically traded corporations.

[1455]

New in Richmond Centre is the City Centre Community Centre. This is Richmond’s first urban community centre, and it’s located in the heart of the ever-growing city. It provides a range of recreation programs and services tailored to residents of all ages. In fact, on Sunday, I’m proud to hold my Chinese New Year celebration at this beautiful urban community centre.

The City Centre area is being developed to maximize use of the Canada Line and to be bike- and pedestrian-friendly. And in City Centre, one should visit the new campus of Trinity Western University. This modern space is the new home for students that are engaged in bachelor’s degree and master’s degree programs.

Also new in my beautiful riding of Richmond Centre is the Kiwanis Towers, a two-tower affordable housing development for seniors funded by our government. The 294-unit development replaces an old 122-unit complex. Many seniors have already moved into the first tower.

A major new capital building program in the Minoru civic precinct was also launched last year to address current and future recreation, sports, cultural, social and community wellness needs. The program includes a new aquatic centre, new older adult centre and also space for other recreation and community needs.

We should be proud of Richmond Hospital, which is a vital part of our community. It is a large community hospital serving the needs of residents in Richmond, Delta, as well as travellers using the Vancouver International Airport and B.C. Ferries. Fifty years of service, and it celebrates its anniversary this Friday.

I would like to conclude by saying that, as we continue to grow the economy, we should remember that it took many hands to build this province, the most ethnically diverse province in Canada. It is B.C.’s multicultural society that gives us a competitive advantage and an important bridge across the Pacific.

Today British Columbia and Canada are proof that people from different cultures and traditions can build vibrant, thriving communities, sustain our economy in times of economic upheaval and support B.C.’s efforts to
[ Page 10630 ]
diversify trade and trade investment through business and family relationships overseas.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of balanced budget 2016.

[1500-1505]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Subamendment negatived on the following division.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the amendment (continued).

H. Bains: It is a pleasure. It’s my honour to speak in favour of the amendment that was put in place to say: “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.’”

I think it’s a very good amendment, and I think it’s worth spending some time speaking about this. We have talked about — when we were speaking about the budget speeches, in response to the budget — how ordinary families are being burdened with tax over tax over tax by this government and, in the meantime, how the people of the top 2 percent continue to get tax breaks from this government.

I think it’s a good amendment, and I think the government should consider this, government members should consider this. The effect it is leaving, the cumulative effect, is devastating, not only just on individuals and families but also on institutions that depend on government taxes and the funding that comes from the government.

[1510]

I’ll talk about a meeting we had with the district parent advisory council in Surrey and a meeting with the Surrey school board officials. They’ll tell you the effect these taxes, whether they’re MSP, B.C. Hydro, leave on their operating capacity to run those schools — the largest school district in the province, with over 71,000 students and more coming every year.

It’s not that this news was brought to this government out of the blue and no one knew that Surrey and the south of the Fraser was expanding and that they were growing faster than any other community in B.C., perhaps in Canada. In Surrey alone, 1,000 new citizens are moving in every month, and that has been the trend for the last ten, 15, 20 years. What you’re looking at is 12,000 new citizens moving in. That’s like an equivalent to a small town in British Columbia every year that is being added.

When you look at Metro Vancouver forecasting what kind of population growth there will be in the Lower Mainland, one million new citizens will be moving into the Lower Mainland by 2040. Most of them will be establishing themselves south of the Fraser and Tri-Cities area. So you’re looking at almost another Surrey moving into south of the Fraser.

We don’t have services thanks to this government’s downloading of all these taxes that I mentioned in the amendment — downloading onto the local governments, school boards. So they have to take that money out of their operation fund. The operation fund is the one they need to run the schools to provide the in-class education to the students, provide support to the teachers and pay the bills on those buildings.

When you download…. It’s easy for them to stand here and make an order-in-council and make the announcement that the ICBC rate will go up. Now the school board or the city or other institutions who depend on government funding have to pay higher taxes, whether it’s ICBC for the vehicles that they utilize or MSP premiums they pay on behalf of their employees. So now, that money has to come from somewhere.

Then B.C. Hydro, in order to warm and cool those buildings where the students go and get their education…. There’s a whole slew of other buildings and other institutions and infrastructure they have. Every increase
[ Page 10631 ]
in these areas that will be downloaded onto them, they have to find that money somewhere else because the government does not fund that.

Teachers. You will hear the minister stand up here: “We negotiated the teachers contract.” If you really look at it, yes, they negotiated a collective agreement. But all the costs that were attached to signing that agreement…. Local governments weren’t funded for that. Then they had to scrounge around and find some money so that they could keep the students in the classroom and provide them in-class education. That is not the way to run the government.

When you talk to the Surrey school board, they are, I would say, the most efficient school board in B.C. There’s no more low-hanging fruit left out there, and the government continues to ask them to find more efficiencies. They’re saying they’ve done everything “You come and tell us where to find more money.” They’ve got nothing to go to.

So where will the money come from now? The money will come from in-class education of the students. Whether it’s in portables…. The portables cost about $4.5 million a year, money that comes out of the in-class education of our students. No other school board has to do that.

That is the extra burden placed on the Surrey school board. That money comes out of in-class classrooms, which means that the students aren’t getting the support and the resources that they need and the teachers aren’t getting the support to the tune of $4.5 million. That is equivalent to about 40 new teachers that they can hire every year. So the money is just thrown away.

[1515]

If the government, as requested by the ad hoc committee that was placed by the locals…. The Surrey school board was made aware of that. We had teachers. We had the Surrey Board of Trade, the city council, the parents, the students. They were all on that ad hoc committee, and they all worked so hard — consulting, talking to many people and talking to the government, trying to bring it to their attention. Minister after minister after minister they met, and they got nowhere.

Finally, thanks to their efforts, some money was released for the first time since 2006,when George Abbott was Minister of Education and announced that there would be some money towards capital improvement in Surrey. But when you really look at it, it’s about one-third of what they need, and the student education continues to grow. That’s the issue here. The government doesn’t get it.

They tell me that they have talked to their local MLAs. They all got letters. I’ve got those letters. The Liberal MLAs got the letters from Surrey. The minister got those letters from those parents, and they have made it clear how they’re nickeled and dimed when their children go to school, when it comes to providing them resources. The very basic needs of the students they have to fundraise for. The teachers have to pay money out of their own pockets.

This government brags about balancing the budget. It means on the backs of those students and those parents. That’s what they’re doing. That’s not called efficiency and an efficient way of running the government. Anybody can do it if that’s the way they want to balance the budget.

If you just take a look…. In population, K to 12 continues to go up. K to 7 continues to go up. Portables projected by the ad hoc committee and the Surrey school board by 2015 — 300. By 2022, they’ll go to 360. You know what? When the minister — who’s from Surrey, who’s the minister for TransLink now…. When we had that debate here, when he was the Minister of Education, his response was: “What’s wrong with those portables?” That was his response.

With that kind of attitude, no wonder nothing gets done. No wonder no one is championing the cause on the Liberal side, on behalf of the Liberal MLAs there, on behalf of the parents there. That’s the attitude that they have. “What’s wrong with the portables?” they say. Well, $4.5 million, to begin with, that comes out of their in-class education — that’s what’s wrong with it. That money isn’t anywhere to be seen because the money will continue to go away. It’s gone. Forty new teachers they could hire — 40 new teachers with that every year. So that’s one thing.

There are 148 of those portables at 40 elementary schools, 121 at 16 secondary schools and 16 at the learning centres. The cost for each one of them is $85,000 to $125,000. In addition to that, the installation cost is $25,000 to $75,000. The annual operating cost is about $15,000 for each one of them. So the total annual cost is over $4 million.

That’s money that’s gone down the drain. That’s basically what it is. There will be nothing to show for it when a government will come in who will decide to put children first, their education first, and start to build some real classrooms for those students. Then these portables will be no use to anybody. They’re basically wasted money.

So 2006 was the last time that they came and approved some capital funding. From 2006, when George Abbott made the announcement, to, I believe, 2012, for six years not a single penny in capital improvement was approved for the Surrey school board. That’s not the way to run the province.

[1520]

What they’re looking for, for the 2013-2017 capital plan — their top-ten projects will require about $111 million. In 2013, when they put that plan together, the total that they needed was $273 million. But that’s what we need today. It takes, for a new secondary school to be built, about four years. If you want to just add an addition to it, it’s still 31 months — an addition to an elementary school, 31 months. A new elementary school will take 43 months — 3½ years.
[ Page 10632 ]

As a result of that, the member for Surrey–White Rock and I were together on a picket line when the students at Earl Marriott walked out. Lord Tweedsmuir — they walked out. This is the first in a long time, which I can think of, that the high school students had to walk out of their classrooms to make a point and bring a point to this government. “We really need schools” — that’s what the students were saying. They should be in their classrooms, not walking out of their classrooms and trying to make a point to this government. That’s how bad the situation is.

You would think that anybody — from Surrey, at least — would stand up here and say: “Yes, my community has some of those issues.” Go to the cabinet table and say: “Yes, our community needs additional capital funding to build new schools.” I have seen no evidence of that so far — none. It’s such a serious issue. I hope that one day they will open up their ears and eyes and say: “Yes, we do have a responsibility to our youngsters, to our youth, to our students.” Their education should be the number one priority. Once that time is gone in their lifetime, it’s gone — never to come back. This is their opportunity.

I think that’s a very, very serious issue. I want to, perhaps, bring to your attention a letter that was written by Nicole Kaler. She’s on the district parent advisory committee. This is what she had to say, and I hope the ministers from Surrey are paying attention.

“On behalf of all the parents in Surrey, the Surrey DPAC would like to thank you for all joining us last night at our general meeting. We have been struggling with a crisis of space in Surrey for years, and your presence was important. As parents, we need to know that we have support in the Legislature and that our children and their struggles matter.”

No one from the Liberal Party showed up there — no one at that meeting. It just shows how out of touch they are. They simply don’t want to hear the truth from the real people, the parents and the students who have these concerns. This is what…. She finally had to write a letter to draw it to their attention.

“The education funding issues in our province are real for every school district. These are concerns that we want to address as well, but we cannot even begin those conversations.”

Pretty serious.

“Hopefully, it was clear to you last night that without dignified and appropriate space for our children to sit and be with their educators, it is difficult for us to even begin to address actual education issues — i.e., learning. Essentially, we are unable to focus on what is happening in our classrooms because we are so focused on actually having a classroom for all our kids.

“If a family with three kids moved to Surrey today and lived right across the street from an elementary school, it is probable that none of their children could attend that school due to lack of space. Furthermore, it is likely that all three kids would need to attend separate schools. I had a friend in this situation eight years ago, and considering that no new schools have been built in our area since that time, I’m sure that it would happen again today.

“With another election looming, we want to bring as much attention as we can to our unique and persistent challenges. I hope to participate in an on-air panel with the Global morning news on February 8. Once that is confirmed, I will let you know.

[1525]

“In addition, we hope to keep actively engaged with you all. It felt like an impossible challenge to make any meaningful changes in Surrey. Your presence really did create a sense of hope that we can be heard and that our situation matters. DPAC plans, using the momentum that you have helped us create last night, to make a real difference for our children.

“Again, our most sincere thanks. Nicole Kaler, Surrey DPAC VP.”

That’s how bad it is. It’s not coming from just the opposition or some politicians. It is coming from those people who are dealing with this issue day in and day out. That’s how bad this situation is. I hope that the minister from Surrey will pay attention to this.

Let’s talk about post-secondary education a bit. If it wasn’t so bad for…. Well, before I do that, I want to touch on a couple other areas in our K to 12 still.

Since the 1990s, we have had an introduction of Choice programs, the language programs, in Surrey. In ’94, the government at that time introduced legislation so that people can actually learn the language of their parents in their regular classrooms. There are about three elementary schools in Surrey right now that offer Punjabi classes. Most of them are located in the Newton area.

There’s a demand in many other areas for Punjabi classes. PLEA’s — the Punjabi Language Educators — Balwant Sanghera and others have been working hard with the Surrey school board, Mr. Tinney and with the colleges and universities to bring to their attention that there is a demand and a need for parents and their children to have those classes in place.

But when you talk to these school boards and others, what the real issue is behind that is, again, lack of resources. There’s no space. We can’t put our children in regular classrooms, as today they have 300 portables there. Where are we going to find additional classrooms for Punjabi classes or other classes that parents may want?

French immersion is another issue. So I just want to touch on many of those areas. It is really, really hard for parents to have their children get the education and the language of their ancestors and of their parents. They deserve to have that language, because that’s what the law says. It’s been in the books since 1994.

I want to thank — there are many people who are working in that area — Mr. Gurginder Sekhon, Harpal Kang, Aman Sekhon, Navneet Kahlon, Kewel Taggar, Balwant Sanghera and Sadhu Binning. They all visited us and other MLAs, trying to make a case for Punjabi classes in Surrey schools. Again, it’s like hitting a brick wall. The school board, I know, wants to accommodate that, but they cannot because they have no resources.

Like I said, this is one opportunity for those students, those children, have to learn that language. But once that opportunity is gone, it’s gone. What they are told now is that if you live in the Fleetwood area, you have to drive all the way over to the Newton-Delta side. I mean, parents don’t those kinds of resources. Not all of them do.

There’s a serious issue in that, and I hope that the minister will pay attention to this and bring resources — not
[ Page 10633 ]
only capital improvement for our schools to build more schools but also to provide those resources that are needed for our students to deliver those Choice programs and education in their classrooms.

[1530]

Let’s talk about post-secondary education a bit. We had the opportunity….

Interjection.

H. Bains: I know that the minister will pay attention. I have seen the minister, seen that he does understand. At least, he does understand that when you look at the post-secondary education spaces in Surrey, south of the Fraser, we’re short. If you look at the numbers provided to us by Simon Fraser University, you are looking at about 12 seats, 12.5 spaces, compared to about 30 in the rest of B.C., for that reason.

Interjection.

H. Bains: I thought he understood, but I’m having my doubts now, because he’s starting to clack around now.

I think the issue here is to acknowledge that there is a problem. That’s the biggest problem that we have with this government — that they don’t acknowledge that there is a serious problem. I’m going to read…. This is from Simon Fraser University. “If you look at what the demographics are for post-secondary education, nearly half of the new undergraduates come from Surrey” — half of them, of all the graduates that come out of SFU. Over two-thirds come from south of the Fraser communities. The chart clearly shows 48.3 from Surrey and 66.2 from south of the Fraser. Clearly, there is a demand.

When you look at the spaces available to them, south of the Fraser is B.C.’s fastest-growing region. By 2036, the population is projected to surpass Vancouver’s. Surrey is home to B.C.’s future labour force. One of three Surrey residents is under 19, the largest of any municipality. And by 2016, the South Fraser will account for one-third of all B.C. high school graduates.

Surrey school district 36 is the largest in B.C., with 32 percent of the grade 12 enrolment. Vancouver has 19 percent. It has the largest population of aboriginal students in the Lower Mainland.

Here are the numbers that the minister, I hope, will pay attention to. Only 16 percent of Surrey residents hold a university degree. So 16 percent — less than half of the Vancouver average of 33 percent.

There’s a reason behind that. The reason is…. I’m going to just read the next. “Simon Fraser University Surrey and Kwantlen Polytechnic University offer only 12.7 post-secondary spaces for every hundred 18- to 24-year-olds in the region” — about one-third the average level of access for the rest of B.C.

Clearly, there’s a need. On top of that, when you look at what was promised…. Some 5,000 spaces were promised. What do we have in Surrey right now? The minister should know.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The minister should know. We have just around 3,000. What happened to that promise? Just like any other promise that they made in the last 15 years — promised everything before the election, and they do quite the opposite after the election.

Here’s another one. The Minister of Advanced Education, here is your opportunity, sir. Here’s your opportunity. There’s a way to leave a legacy behind. This is the highest population of 19-year-olds in the Lower Mainland. There is a future workforce. If all of them…. The government knows this. All future jobs, 80 percent of the future jobs, will require some sort of university degree or diploma. The minister knows that.

If you’re looking and you really have some vision for this province that five, ten, 20, 30 years down the road, somebody will be looking back…. “Who was the Minister of Advanced Education? What did he actually do?” Nothing.

Here’s an opportunity for the minister to leave that legacy, to say that despite what the government record was and despite what the rest of the government record was, he actually showed some leadership. He actually understood those issues, and he’s leaving a real, rich legacy behind of a highly skilled population who would be able to compete with the rest of the world. That’s the challenge.

Interjection.

[1535]

H. Bains: The Minister of Technology…. You know what? The Minister of Advanced Education made a lot more sense when he was clucking than what your thoughts are. So that’s where you fit in.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

H. Bains: If you really look at it, 5,000 were promised. We can use them now. They need space. They need resources. The need is there because the population continues to grow.

There is the case for the need and the case for the resources for post-secondary education spaces south of the Fraser. Like many other areas….

Interjection.

H. Bains: It is something that the minister must look at, and we will continue to talk about this. We were hoping that the Minister of Technology and the Minister
[ Page 10634 ]
for TransLink would make those cases. Obviously, they are not. We will continue to do that.

I just want to touch on something else — all the other cumulative effects that these MSP premiums and others are leaving here. The forest industry? Neglected again. So 31,000 fewer workers are working today than when this government took power — 31,000 — and 150 fewer sawmills. More sawmills are being built and purchased by the B.C. companies south of the border than here. Here, what does that mean? That the forest companies of British Columbia are fleeing B.C. under the leadership of this government. That clearly is the indication.

Then what they are doing? Nothing. Nothing comes out of these other than just yapping away and making all the political decisions rather than real policy decisions. That’s what government is all about — making real policy decisions so that people of today, tomorrow and the future can benefit from those. Those will be the legacies people of the future will be looking at when they are looking at this government. That’s the problem with this government.

I want to talk about crime again a little bit again. Yesterday the Solicitor General said that we should be supporting our RCMP. We certainly support our RCMP. Inspector Bhayani, Sergeant Prihar and all the front-line RCMP officers are doing a tremendous, an excellent job, trying to protect and do their job. But it's not the support that they're getting from this government. It's not the support that they need and deserve and that our people need and deserve from this government.

That’s where it’s falling short. It’s not the RCMP. It’s the government here who doesn’t come to the table from the province. B.C. Liberals — more photo ops, but not real delivery of all those goods.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: All right. Members. Members, one speech is over. We are starting the next one. Take your seats.

J. Yap: I am honoured and it’s my privilege to rise and join in this debate on behalf of the good people of the great riding of Richmond-Steveston and to speak against the amendment brought forward by the member for Nelson-Creston and in favour of the budget which the Minister of Finance tabled last week.

This is B.C.’s fourth consecutive balanced budget, a tremendous accomplishment for the people of this province. This puts us in a truly unique position, envied by others across the country and jurisdictions around the world. Here in British Columbia, we have accomplished a balanced budget and a strong economy which leads Canada and is projected to be the number one provincial economy this coming year.

This comes after a period of tough decision-making and fiscal financial prudence; controlling spending instead of spending beyond our means, something which I know is near and dear to the hearts of members opposite; and a continued sharp focus on building a diverse economy and creating jobs right here in British Columbia.

In 2015, more than 50,000 new jobs were created. This is a tremendous accomplishment at a time when the world economy and the Canadian economy have become fragile. We’re on track to eliminate the operating debt in just about four years and move towards a debt-free British Columbia.

[1540]

Our triple-A credit rating is another great source of pride, something all British Columbians should take pride in. This really means that our debt-servicing costs are among the lowest in Canada.

These savings can be invested in useful and important ways. It has been said before, but it’s so important that I’m going to talk about the comparison that would face British Columbia if we had a much higher debt-to-GDP level. Not to pick on a particular province, but if B.C. had the same level of debt in relation to size of economy as the province of Ontario, we would be, here in British Columbia, experiencing debt-servicing costs that would be about $2.5 billion higher compared to what we are paying because of our triple-A credit rating.

This credit rating serves as a signal of confidence to investors that our province is a great place to do business, a safe haven. Indeed, our economy is growing and is poised to grow further. That’s not only thanks to the focus of our government but a testament to the hard work, the innovation, the creativity of British Columbians, who are contributing so much to it.

We look, for example, to agrifoods. I know my good friend the Minister of Agriculture, with laser-like focus, is helping to grow the agrifood sector. This sector saw its highest-ever sales of B.C. food and beverage products, $12.3 billion.

More than 200 primary agriculture products and about 100 species of fish, shellfish and marine plants are produced in our province. I’m proud to say that one of the most delicious and visible of these, the cranberry, is proudly produced in my community, in Richmond. The autumn harvest of cranberries is a sight to behold.

We thank our local farm families and producers for the hard work they put into meeting the demand both here at home and abroad. Successes like these are some of the impressive numbers around total exports from B.C., total exports that are pegged at more than $35 billion per year. That’s an increase of 41 percent since 2009.

We also look at the booming film and television digital sector, which saw $1.45 billion in production spending by film and TV and creative product producers in fiscal 2014. This represents the shooting or completion of 248 projects in B.C. The motion picture industry spends approximately $1.16 billion per year on production activity
[ Page 10635 ]
in British Columbia. That’s responsible for about 20,000 direct and indirect jobs each year.

We see evidence of this in my community, in the village of Steveston, which has been transformed into the small town of Storybrooke, Maine, in the ABC hit TV series Once Upon a Time. Since 2011, film crews have been descending on our quaint fishing village. Since then, so, too, have many enthusiastic fans from around the country, who come to see where Storybrooke is.

It has become a wonderful tourism opportunity for our community, one that Tourism Richmond has recognized and embraced as part of the great work they do to promote our tourism offerings. Fans can pick up a free Once Upon a Time walking map at the Tourism Richmond Visitor Centre to take their self-guided tour of Steveston, a.k.a. Storybrooke. That, in turn, helps visitors discover the many other local gems that make Steveston and the greater Richmond area a great place to live, to work, to play and to raise a family.

We are proud to play a role in the 38 percent increase in tourism revenue we’ve seen provincially over the past decade, as reported in a recent study by B.C. Stats for Destination B.C. The findings prove that the tourism sector is a major economic driver for the province. Tourism contributed $7.1 billion to GDP in 2014, a 4.5 percent growth over the previous year.

With Richmond being home to Vancouver International Airport, YVR, we look forward to welcoming even more people to our great province to discover all that B.C. has to offer. From outstanding outdoor recreation opportunities and inspiring art offerings to world-class attractions, shopping, restaurants, accommodations — the list goes on.

[1545]

Speaking of hospitality, visitors and locals alike are enjoying modernized liquor regulations stemming from our government’s liquor policy review, which I was proud to lead in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform. Beyond the conveniences of picking up B.C. wine at the grocery store or the farmers and artisans market or enjoying happy hour or including children with families visiting pubs, the modernized rules have had positive economic impacts for the hospitality, tourism and manufacturing sectors.

Government has cut red tape around licensing, making it easier and more cost-effective for places like golf courses and ski hills to expand their liquor licensed areas. They can now apply for a single licence endorsement that covers up to 26 events in a calendar year rather than having to apply and pay separately for each extension.

What’s more, liquor primary establishments can now offer more all-ages events, such as concerts and dances. The licence amendment fees were eliminated, and the approval process has been streamlined for applicants, cutting additional red tape for small businesses.

These updated policies come straight from the tremendous feedback we received from industry and from British Columbians during the liquor policy review, which, I might add, was one of the most successful government public engagements ever undertaken. So, again, these improvements to our liquor laws are being enjoyed by industry and consumers, benefiting our economy. When customers are offered more options and more convenience, that’s good for business. When business is good and establishments and events are busier than ever, that’s good for local employment.

Looking ahead, there are no plans to sit on our laurels and simply enjoy the enviable position we’re in. As diligently as we worked to control government spending and achieve this fourth balanced budget, we maintain our strong focus on growing the economy even further — getting to yes on projects of significance for this province and creating even more good family-supporting jobs for British Columbians. As I’ve said, our economy stands out as the bright spot in all of Canada.

Let me just share a few direct quotes from business and corporate leaders and leaders in the community who have spoken about the budget that we’re debating today. For example, from Kevin Milligan, a professor at UBC’s Vancouver School of Economics: “Not only are both corporate income tax rates the lowest of any province, but the budget is also in surplus by $627 million, and accumulated debt, at 16 percent of GDP, is about one-third the size of Ontario or Quebec” — highlighting what I mentioned earlier regarding the prudent level of our debt and the fact that we will soon, in a few years, be in a position to eliminate the operating debt of the province.

Another quote, from Stan Vander Waal, B.C. Agriculture Council chair, from a B.C. Agriculture Council news release: “Investment in agriculture is a no-brainer.” We’re making those investments.

The strength of our economy and our balanced budget means we can start to make important investments that make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families. Currently, there’s about $12 billion in infrastructure investments in progress. In Richmond, one of the biggest projects we’re looking forward to is the replacement project for the aging George Massey Tunnel. Balanced Budget 2016 affirms our commitment to this significant and long-awaited project that will help move people and goods much faster. Pending various approvals, construction is expected to begin in 2017, with the new bridge completed by 2022. Local motorists, commercial drivers as well as visitors using our ferry system certainly look forward to this new bridge.

We also welcome the announcement of $55 million in new emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives, such as upgrades to dikes and flood protection — an issue which I know is of interest to my constituents, where flooding is a concern. We know that prevention is key.

[1550]

People in my community will also be pleased to see some MSP relief that is in this budget. Whether it’s the
[ Page 10636 ]
removal of MSP premiums for children, benefiting single-parent families, or the enhanced premium assistance, helping more low-income families, seniors and individuals find relief, these savings will certainly be welcomed by my constituents. Overall, with these changes, about 2 million British Columbians will not pay MSP premiums. We believe that is important.

Meantime, Richmond, like other communities, has struggled with the issue of affordable housing. I’m pleased to see that balanced budget 2016 contains some measures to help homeowners. We heard that newly built homes up to $750,000 will be fully exempt from property transfer tax when purchased by Canadian citizens or permanent residents. That is good news, especially for first-time homebuyers. This could mean savings of up to $13,000 per purchase.

We’ve also increased the homeowner grant threshold to $1.2 million from $1.1 million for the 2016 tax year. We’re investing $355 million over five years for the construction or renovation of more than 2,000 affordable housing units in communities across the province — a great achievement. I’m grateful to my colleague the Minister Responsible for Housing for this great news. This means that more people in our province will have a safe and secure place to call home.

There are also added supports in the budget for people with disabilities. The home-renovation tax credit is being expanded to include persons with disabilities, providing them with up to $1,000 annually to help with the cost of home renovations to improve accessibility. This tax credit will be beneficial, helping seniors and persons with disabilities to be more mobile at home.

On the post-secondary front, balanced budget 2016 includes funding for the $36 million Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design at Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Richmond campus, funded in three equal parts by government, by the university and by donors. This facility will help us train up-and-coming local talent in fields like fashion design, fashion marketing, graphic design and interior design — great opportunities for our youth.

These are just a few of the many initiatives in the budget that I am especially proud to share with my community in this House as I declare my support for the fourth consecutive balanced budget. Because of that balanced budget and the tough decisions that came before it, we can make investments that make life better for the people that live here and for the generations of British Columbians to come. That is why I disagree with the amendment and will be voting against it.

J. Darcy: I rise in support of this amendment, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to take my place in this debate. I think it’s critically important that we actually engage in a discussion in this House, both sides of the House, about the impact of rising fees, of the growing burden that exists for British Columbia families. That’s what this amendment attempts to do.

I’m certainly very disappointed that members on the other side of the House don’t see fit to support it, because it’s an absolutely critical discussion for us to have. Certainly, in my constituency, I hear about issues related to affordability of daily life every single day, many, many times a day. On the issue of MSP, in particular, I got 300 emails just yesterday, and I’ve received thousands in recent weeks. I know the Minister of Health and the Premier have as well.

My constituents — I’m sure they’re not different from people across this province — would very much like to know that those concerns are heard.

[1555]

I think the message that we’re getting from the government side is: “Things are just fine. Thinks are hunky-dory. We’re number one. We’re leading the pack. This conversation doesn’t even need to happen.”

I can’t help but think, when I listen to ministers and members opposite, when I hear them speak in this debate, it’s like a running infomercial about how wonderful everything is in life under the B.C. Liberal government. That says to me that the concerns of British Columbians, whether they’re residents in New Westminster or wherever they live across this province, are simply not being heard. The people I hear from….

We’re talking about some of the most vulnerable. We’re talking about low-income working people. We’re also talking about the middle class, because my constituency has people in all of those categories. They are all struggling. They’re all dealing with a crisis of affordability. They are all dealing with tremendous difficulty paying the fees and the rate hikes, costs that just keep going up and up.

Refusing to even have that conversation certainly sends an awful message. It either says that this government isn’t listening or that it just doesn’t care. Frankly, in my community, people are tired of hearing that same old B.C. Liberal infomercial that just keeps getting played over and over and over again. Part of that infomercial also is, if you disagree with this government in any way — if you disagree with their choices, with their priorities, with what they’ve decided matters most in the budget — then you’re simply a naysayer.

Effectively, what do we have? In the government’s mind, in B.C. Liberal minds, there are two types of British Columbians for this government. They’re their friends and supporters, and there’s everybody else. For their friends, for the wealthiest 2 percent of the province, we know what they got — a $230 million tax break. Add it up. Over four years, we’re talking almost a $1 billion tax break for people who need it the least. Talk about being there for your friends but not being there for people who need a break the most.

What do we have for everybody else? I will speak about some of these in more detail. We’ve got MSP hikes, where
[ Page 10637 ]
you give a break to some and then you take from a whole lot of other people. You have ferry fare hikes. You have Hydro hikes. You have parents having to pay more and more out of their own pocket for fees in their classrooms and in their kids’ schools.

With PharmaCare, we have a real crisis, and I am hearing from dozens of people in my community and across B.C. about their inability to pay for drugs.

The issue of tuition, the issue of access to post-secondary education, the cost of loans that people carry when they graduate from post-secondary education. ICBC premiums, 5.5 percent up this year and another hike next year. Child care costs haven’t entered this debate very much, but child care costs continue to go through the roof.

The list goes on. I hear about all of those issues on a regular basis, if not a weekly basis, in my community. I find it impossible to believe that the members opposite don’t hear those same concerns from their constituents in every corner of this province. Are they just not listening, or do they just not care?

If we are number one, as the Liberal infomercial likes to tell us, shouldn’t we also be striving to be number one in making life more affordable for families right across this province? Surely, if we’re number one, we should not be talking about some of the lowest levels of funding for K-to-12 education per student in the country. We ought to be number one in investing in our children and in our children’s future.

Let’s talk about class sizes.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Heckling, when we’re talking about our children’s education.

[1600]

I know in classrooms in New Westminster and in classrooms right across this province, we have special needs kids who aren’t getting the support they need in order to succeed.

In classrooms in New Westminster, we have growing numbers of students for whom English is a second language. The teachers and the special education assistants do their very, very best to cope in that difficult situation, but there’s a limit to what they can do to make up for underfunding for our classrooms.

These days, in addition to the challenges in the classroom and with learning, we see parents having more and more of the burden of things that, at some point, people didn’t have to fundraise for, now having to be something that they engage in fundraising campaigns for. In fact, they have to compete, one school against another, with some schools, some parents, having greater means to contribute than others.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

We’re not just talking about fundraising now or paying out of pocket for school trips. We’re not just talking about playgrounds, although surely play — in terms of physical activity and keeping our young people healthy and alert and therefore able to learn better — ought to be a priority. Aggressive fundraising is what parents have to engage in, in order to build playgrounds in schools, even for new schools.

One of the issues we’ve heard a lot about lately is parents actually having to fundraise or to contribute Xerox paper for photocopy machines in their schools.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Well, let me…. The Minister of Advanced Education seems to have a lot to say on the topic of paying for basic supplies like paper for photocopy machines. Well, you know, it’s not surprising that he’s not hearing — or if he’s hearing, he’s not listening — to parents or students right across British Columbia when it comes to the cost of post-secondary education.

The minister has been quoted recently as saying he talks to people when he visits colleges and universities and that the people he talks to don’t think rising tuition costs and the cost of loans is an issue. I don’t know who he’s talking to. More importantly, I do know who he’s not listening to, and who he’s not listening to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

J. Darcy: Obviously, he’s not listening to students at Douglas College or students at Simon Fraser University or UBC, who are carrying some of the biggest debt loads in the country when they graduate from colleges and from universities. Obviously, he’s not listening to students who have to pay some of the highest interest rates in the country when they graduate from college and university. He’s not talking to students who are having to set aside their post-secondary education because they simply can’t afford to shoulder any more debt.

While I’m on the topic of education, I just want to go back to K to 12 for a minute, because certainly, in this budget, I was hoping and the parents and the school district in New Westminster were hoping beyond hope that we might finally, after 20 years of pressing for it, have a new Westminster secondary school in our city. We have only one high school. It is 65 years old. The Education Minister toured it recently. He has agreed that this is his number one priority. We need to see it, and we need to see it soon.

The Minister of Education has seen for himself the state of sorry disrepair that that school is in. The infrastructure is literally crumbling. The minister saw for himself the rat droppings that existed inside some of the holes created by the crumbling infrastructure. I certain-
[ Page 10638 ]
ly hope that, even though it wasn’t in the budget, we do hear about it in the capital projects in the weeks to come.

[1605]

On the issue of post-secondary education, and I spoke about this at length in my response to the throne speech: English as a second language for adult learners, especially the academic English programs. I have met with one constituent after another in my community who has said that it does creates a real burden for them — the fees that have now been imposed for those language programs.

These are people that we welcome to our community, that we welcome to our province, and we should. They are forced to make choices. Because they’re not able to work…. I am speaking now about the English for academic purposes program that I’ve heard about very recently from a number of people in my community.

These are people who’ve come to our country that have a high degree of professional training. They want more than anything to be able to work in their chosen professions. They understand that they need to know English extremely well in order to practise in their professions. And frankly, the door is being slammed shut on them. They are trying to cope with the additional fees for those programs while, at the same time, often working at minimum-wage jobs in order to support themselves and their families.

Again, I don’t know who this government is talking to when they don’t decide to take action in this budget to support more of those students so that they can learn the language and be fully proficient and be able to contribute the skills and the professions to our society and our economy that they absolutely want to and need to do. At the same time — I reiterate — a tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent, and yet costs and fees go up for just about everybody else.

A regional transportation plan. I was truly hoping to hear in this budget about a true regional transportation plan, not one-off projects — some of the Premier’s pet photo op projects. Everybody who listens to the traffic reports every single day in the Lower Mainland knows the urgency of replacing the Pattullo Bridge. Not a word in this budget about a regional transportation plan, much less a specific commitment for the Pattullo Bridge. I sincerely hope that we start hearing this government say yes to projects like the Pattullo Bridge and yes to a regional transportation plan.

Let’s hear this government saying yes to giving a break to students who are doing their best to learn skills and professions in colleges and universities so they can contribute what they want to contribute to the economy. Let’s say yes to that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. One speaker at a time. Thank you.

J. Darcy: When I encourage people on the government side to say yes, they shout me down with noes.

Let’s say yes to giving opportunities to every single child in our classrooms. Children learn differently. Children have different language skills, and they all need to have that opportunity. Let’s say yes to equal opportunity to quality education for every single child in our classrooms.

The crisis in housing, an affordability crisis. Speaking to the amendment…. I spoke on this at great length in my comments on the throne speech. I hear about that issue every single day.

Just to reiterate some of the comments from a young couple, two business owners who met with me a few months ago, who have written to me recently saying they have a combined income of $100,000. They work very hard, as all small business operators do — extended hours. A tough, tough slog to put food on the table and to keep their business going. And they can’t possibly qualify…. They can only qualify for a mortgage of $500,000.

[1610]

With the price of housing, it’s not just Vancouver. It’s spreading throughout greater Vancouver and into the Fraser region. But in New Westminster, there are an awful lot of single-family homes — modest single-family homes — going for $1 million these days.

Housing is indeed out of reach for hard-working people who live in my constituency, as it is across the province. Home ownership is a pipedream for most of them.

As far as rents…. I’m very proud that our city council and our mayor have taken some of the best initiatives of any municipal government in order to ensure that we have a greater stock of affordable housing and family housing and rental housing in our community. I salute mayor Jonathan Coté and our council for the initiatives that they are taking in that direction. But the fact of the matter is that despite their best efforts, housing is out of control for too many families.

For tenants, who come to me regularly…. About 40 percent of our population are renters, one of the highest percentage of renters in the province. When they have an issue with the residential tenancy branch, they now have to pay even higher fees for that.

Much has been said in the last few days about the bus pass clawback. My colleague the member for Nelson-Creston has spoken extensively and eloquently on this issue. I don’t think there is anything that expresses the values of this B.C. Liberal government more than that B.C. bus pass clawback.

On the one hand — and I repeat myself, but it bears repeating — is a $1 billion tax break over four years for the wealthiest 2 percent of the population. At the same time, a bus pass that has been in place at $45 a year for people with disabilities gets clawed back. For a whole lot of people on disability assistance, they get a range of $22
[ Page 10639 ]
to $25 more a month. After the great fanfare this government made of raising disability rates by $77, the fact of the matter is: most people are going to get something like $20, $21, $22, $25.

Let me share just some of the stories that my constituents have shared with me in the last few days. This is not in response to me having asked for them to correspond with me on it. These stories are coming in to me because they’re listening to what’s happened in this House. They watched closely what was in that budget, hoping for a break, and found, in fact, that this government is looking like they’re giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

One person writes to me:

“I’m a young adult with a disability that lives in New Westminster. I’m currently enrolled in classes at Douglas College. I want to voice my concern in regard to the bus pass changes for people with disabilities. By changing the B.C. bus pass program from an annual fee to a monthly, and much greater, fee, it will actively inhibit my ability to take part….”

Interjections.

J. Darcy: The Minister of Health and the Minister of Advanced Education are actually heckling a person with a disability who has written to me. I am sharing his thoughts with this House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

J. Darcy: Surely he deserves the respect that people listen to what he had to say. People right across this province are saying exactly the same thing, and it’s time this government started listening instead of, over and over again, showing that they really just don’t care.

What this constituent of mine wrote, and I continue:

“By changing the B.C. bus pass program from an annual fee to a monthly, and much greater, fee, it will actively inhibit my ability to take part in my community and in society in general. The simple act of having to top up every month is just one more thing to deal with when you’re dealing with a disability. Sometimes that little extra task is the difference between crushed by the weight of life.”

[1615]

He urges me, as his MLA, and members of the opposition to vehemently oppose these changes. He goes on to say — and this is not just a matter of perception….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please address your comments to the Chair.

J. Darcy: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I think it’s important that members opposite actually listen to what people with disabilities are saying on this issue. It’s not just individuals living with disabilities and on disability assistance. It’s Inclusion B.C. It’s all the major disability advocates across the province.

This person goes on:

“Having a monthly bus pass is just another step to the ever-growing list that you need to do as a person with a disability. It can be overwhelming when you have a disability. You don’t necessarily have the energy or the time.”

He finds it extremely frustrating.

“It doesn’t help anyone, and $22 isn’t anything. It doesn’t get you anywhere. Why is any of this a policy in the time place…?”

Another constituent from New Westminster wrote to me. He’s a tenant at William Rudd House, which is attached to the Queen’s Park Care Centre in New Westminster. Almost all of Jason’s disability cheque, because he lives in a facility attached to residential care, goes straight to his cost of living. Outside of that, he’s responsible for his transportation costs.

He considers himself a socially independent young adult, and surely we wish that for him. He says he enjoys the freedom of travelling around Metro Vancouver. With the new changes to the bus pass program, Jason will not be able to afford the monthly bus pass which he uses to attend doctor appointments and to regularly visit family within Metro Vancouver.

Jason cannot understand the ministry’s rationale for increasing the price from $45 a year in his case to now $624 a year in his case. This price increase negatively affects people with disabilities both in their ability to make ends meet and in maintaining relationships with family and friends.

Heckling and hurling comments from the other side does not minimize the shameful — yes, it is shameful — effect of this policy on residents like this, on people with disabilities who already are shouldering incredible pressures, incredible financial burdens, struggling to make ends meet.

I’d like to turn to the issue of medical services premiums, an unfair tax if there ever was one — an unfair health tax. As I mentioned at the outset, I have heard from thousands of people, from one corner of this province to the other, about this tax, about how unfair it is — as I mentioned, 300 just yesterday alone.

If I’m hearing from them, so is the Minister of Health; so is the Premier, no doubt; so is the Minister of Finance. Under the B.C. Liberal government’s watch, we have seen MSP premiums more than double. Each of the increases, the 4 percent increases, costs taxpayers another $100 million a year.

In 2001, MSP per year for a family was $864. By 2011, MSP was $1,452 per year for a family. And in 2016, $1,800 per year for a family. That’s over 100 percent increase. It’s more than doubled since the Liberals came to power.

Yes, it is a good thing to exempt children from MSP, but at the same time, what’s the government done? They’ve increased the rate for two-adult families.

[1620]

If some of the rates were unfair, why not change them now? The unfairness, some of it, a little bit of it, will be remedied next January — surprise, surprise — on the eve of a provincial election.

If it’s unfair, which it is — this health tax is the most unfair tax that we have; other provinces have seen fit to replace it — why isn’t that the conversation that we’re having, instead of continuing the unfairness year after year after year?

But again, we’re expecting families, taxpayers in British Columbia, to pay $100 million more for MSP, not surprisingly, perhaps coincidentally, the same amount that goes into the B.C. Liberal photo op fantasy fund of $100 million. It was supposed to be funded by revenues from liquefied natural gas, and where is it funded from instead? Well, from the pockets of hard-working British Columbians.

Let me speak briefly about seniors care. We have some huge deficits in the area of seniors care in this province, and there’s no indication in this budget that that glaring deficit in seniors care is not going to continue. These are issues that the seniors advocate has highlighted. Not just the official opposition — the seniors advocate has highlighted some of these.

The seniors advocate, in her first yearly report, listed a number of problems facing seniors care which, if they were addressed, would also need to be funded in this budget. And yet, we didn’t hear…. We heard that we have an aging population, and that’s, frankly, where the narrative began and ended in this budget when it comes to seniors care.

When it comes to home support, we hear the best rhetoric in the world. We see some of the wonderful position papers, discussion papers, from the Ministry of Health. You can find them on the Minister of Health’s website. They talk about investing in home and community. They talk about our seniors deserving to be able to stay in their homes and be independent as long as they possibly can be.

And yet, on the B.C. Liberal government’s watch, according to the seniors advocate, home support hours decreased in three of the five health authorities, while the number of clients increased in four of the five. Home support in three health authorities went down, while our population — and we all know about this — continues to age. Significant numbers of more seniors over 75. Considerably higher numbers over 85.

And yet, do we see corresponding increases in investment in home support? Haven’t heard a word about that. Did not see that in this budget. Residential care beds, the same thing: the numbers of seniors going up. We need to be investing in more residential care beds.

It will not come as any a surprise that I support this amendment, because I absolutely believe that we need to have that discussion and debate about making life more affordable for people in my community and across British Columbia.

Hon. S. Anton: It is a great pleasure to be able to rise and speak about our government’s fourth consecutive balanced budget. A little later this year, when the financial statements come out, the books are wrapped up for the year, we will see the third consecutive surplus, and there is no province in Canada that can talk about that.

British Columbia is leading Canada in fiscal management and in economic growth, and I am proud to be a member of the government that has managed that and has put us in that position. These are remarkable achievements, and it would not have been possible without the leadership of the Premier and without the hard work of British Columbians.

[1625]

Today I’ll start with some budget highlights, then turn to what Budget 2016 means for justice in British Columbia and how the Ministry of Justice has supported a balanced budget through innovation and collaboration.

First of all, on the economy. Last year — and this is where it matters so much — there were nearly 50,000 jobs created in British Columbia, meeting our jobs plan. That means 50,000 people who have a paycheque to take home and look after themselves, look after their families. And that is what is most important of all in British Columbia.

Our economic growth leads the country. The growth in GDP is second in Canada, and it meets our jobs plan target. Congratulations to the Minister of Jobs for her hard work on that file.

We are the one and only province in the country with a triple-A credit rating, the highest-possible rating, by both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s, which referenced our very strong financial management, exceptional liquidity and very strong and wealthy economy. Having a triple-A credit rating like that, of course, leads to many good things, including, one of them, that we pay far less in interest. That helps all of us, because that money can be deployed to much better uses, uses that help families and help prosperity in B.C.

We are on track to being able to eliminate the operating debt, in 2020, for the first time since 1975. We are keeping up the momentum.

I came into politics because I was interested in capital investments. I’m still interested in capital investments and am pleased to be able to say that over the next three years, capital investment spending in British Columbia will be about $20 billion. That’s a massive amount of capital investment. That includes $2.9 billion in health infrastructure, including the Children’s and Women’s Hospital redevelopment project. Like many people in Vancouver, my children were born in the Children’s Hospital. Actually, they were born in Grace Hospital, a predecessor hospital — but at that same complex, which continues to be developed and improved over the years, including with this $2.9 billion.

There will be $1.7 billion in K-to-12 education infrastructure, including a recent announcement, in my rid-
[ Page 10641 ]
ing, at Kingsford-Smith Elementary School, and $2.5 billion in post-secondary education infrastructure, including the life sciences lab at UBC.

It’s $3.4 billion in transportation infrastructure, and that’s not even including the George Massey Tunnel, which is proposed for the next few years. And $355 million is added into the very significant expenditures on supportive and affordable housing, which has been, since 2001, about $4½ billion that has been spent on supportive and affordable housing. That is a massive investment. Speaking as an MLA from the city of Vancouver, it certainly has been extremely appreciated in Vancouver, as indeed I know it is around the rest of the province.

We have the lowest personal provincial income taxes for anyone earning up to $122,000. We do like to keep taxes as low as we can, because people, citizens, can do more with that money than government can, and people prove that every single day.

With our prosperity fund, I am proud to say that we have included the first deposit into our prosperity fund of $100 million for eliminating debt, leaving an endowment for future generations. It’s a fund that will grow with the surpluses that we expect to see and plan to see over the next number of years in British Columbia.

We have a strong economy in British Columbia. We will have up to one million job openings in the next decade. About 80 percent of those jobs will require post-secondary or trades training, which is why we invest over $7½ billion every year in education and training. That’s why we have set 19 targets for the eight key sectors of the B.C. jobs plan and have met 15 of them.

Because we want a diverse economy in British Columbia, we established a $100 million tech fund to further boost our fastest-growing sector. We set up a $15 million grant to revitalize British Columbia’s music industry, and perhaps we will indeed become Nashville north.

We’re increasing our exports around the world. I was pleased recently to be able to announce a trade office in the Philippines, and we are particularly concentrating on our exports to India. Of course, we have had had, over the last number of years, very strong exports to China and the other Asian economies.

[1630]

A strong economy needs people to grow. We have a unique opportunity to make investments in our future without going into debt for our children. I know there’s an amendment on the floor. The numbers speak for themselves. The cumulative benefits of this budget benefit all British Columbians. For that reason, I will not be supporting the NDP amendment on the budget, and I express my full support for Budget 2016.

Turning now to justice, let me talk for a bit about what we are doing in the Ministry of Justice. Our key words are innovation and collaboration. There’s unprecedented innovation in Justice and unprecedented collaboration between our justice partners. It’s because of our strong fiscal management and also because of the constraint that we need to be smarter in what we do that we are fostering creativity and innovation in the justice system.

More British Columbians are receiving access to more services than they were a decade ago. Thanks to the leadership of this government, balanced budget 2016 allows us to continue on our path towards future justice innovation in B.C. By streamlining the process, we welcome greater efficiency and accessibility.

Things that we have done: tribunal reform to allow more efficient citizen-focused services; improvement of timeliness and information flow for court administration through the court administration transformation suite; improvement of interjurisdictional support orders, so that people can have their orders enforced no matter where they are made or where they are living in the country; innovations in legal aid; access to justice reformation through, as I said a moment ago, unprecedented collaboration between justice stakeholders; and justice summits between system leaders to identify priority reform.

Effective innovation requires that we challenge the status quo and assumptions. We have to be persistent, interested, innovative and collaborative to make the changes effective and durable. On tribunal transformation, the civil resolution tribunal and the tribunal transformation initiative, we are building an on-line dispute resolution platform that will provide 24-7 access to justice services for people with a smartphone or on a computer anywhere in British Columbia.

The rollout plan will start with small claims and strata disputes and then apply the new business processes and technology platform across B.C.’s administrative and civil justice systems. The civil resolution tribunal will begin testing strata dispute intake this summer and small claims intake in the spring of 2017. I think pretty much everybody in British Columbia is familiar with stratas and how sometimes minor disputes are tough to resolve, and they have not had a forum for resolution. The civil resolution tribunal will provide that forum.

These transformations, these changes, will enable British Columbians to shift these types of cases away from the court-based process into the hands of specialized dispute resolution experts, including case managers, mediators and tribunal adjudicators. These changes are being watched across the country and, indeed, around the world because of the innovation and the new format for resolving these, as I said, more minor disputes.

In our courts themselves, we have an administration transformation suite. This initiative looks to decrease non-productive court time, increase real-time information access and optimize efficiencies through integrated business processes. Through this system integration, we’re eliminating duplicate and redundant data efforts and creating a justice sector that follows the file from the start, when someone enters the justice system.
[ Page 10642 ]

It will enable the more efficient and effective use of courtrooms and other resources, helping the judiciary, Crown, defence, public and court services resources, and will include significant improvements to scheduling. The expected benefits are faster citizen service, better connected business processes and document flow and a measurable decrease in court appearances.

On the issue of interjurisdictional support orders, parents living in different provinces have in the past…. It’s been a very frustrating process to make sure that the money flows from the supporting parent to the parent who may be in a different province.

[1635]

We are working in British Columbia to improve that. Now parents living in different provinces can apply to a court in the other province to establish or vary child or spousal support through our respective Interjurisdictional Support Orders Acts.

This process has historically been difficult and lengthy and has been criticized by the judiciary. B.C. has worked with the Provincial Court, under the leadership of the chief judge, to make improvements. Applications are vetted for completeness of applicant information by a caseworker. Our caseworkers will then engage with the B.C. respondent to ensure that they understand what the process requires of them.

We seek agreement between the parties if there’s opportunity, but if the matter goes to a hearing, a government-appointed lawyer will be offered as an amicus to highlight the facts of the case and issues of law. This is demonstrating very promising results. Decision time has moved from 22 months to seven months. A single hearing is typical, and our cases in Provincial Court are successfully resolved. Twenty-two months to seven months. You can imagine, for a parent who needs support from the other spouse, what a difference that makes.

Innovations in legal aid. We have increased the legal aid budget $2 million a year over three years, but for innovation — to implement and evaluate five legal aid projects to help low-income British Columbians resolve legal problems more quickly and efficiently.

These are the five pilot projects. We have an expanded duty counsel in Port Coquitlam, supporting continuing client service, early resolution and enhanced court efficiency. We have an expanded family duty counsel here in Victoria, providing brief family law advice services for eligible clients. The pilot provides greater continuity of advice and coaching of self-represented litigants.

We have an expanded Family LawLINE to enable contract lawyers to provide qualifying clients with continuity of support on the same legal matter, help in document preparation and coaching and guidance of self-represented litigants. In other words, if you qualify for this, you have a lawyer on the phone. That lawyer might be anywhere in British Columbia, and you may have six hours of that lawyer’s time for advice and for continuity of advice.

The Parents Legal Centre is extremely promising. It assists eligible clients with early collaborative resolution of child protection issues. In other words, if your child may be being brought into protection, the Parents Legal Centre will help you, and it will help the families, and it will try and resolve these cases. It’s focused on consensual, out-of-court resolution and on alternative ways to address child protection issues before they escalate.

The fifth of five is the family mediation referral, which refers eligible clients to mediation services to assist in resolving issues concerning property, debt and support in conjunction with family matters. The ministry provides mediation to assist clients in resolving issues concerning guardianship and parenting arrangements.

These five legal aid projects are innovative. They’re creative. They’re being evaluated, and if they turn out well — some of them are extremely successful — the goal is to expand them as we can around British Columbia.

In terms of access to justice, I mentioned collaboration. The direction and the interest in access to justice starts right from the top, right from direction and interest from the Supreme Court of Canada. The national Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters completed its original mandate in October 2013 with the publication of the report Access to Civil and Family Justice: A Roadmap for Change.

To advance this work at a provincial level, the access to justice B.C. committee was formed in 2015 and is chaired by Chief Justice Robert Bauman. The members of the committee include all three levels of court and a variety of justice and other organizations with an interest in the issue.

The access to justice B.C. committee aims to be the instrument for approaching justice system change differently in British Columbia, using a strategy based on collaboration, innovation, engagement of a highly diverse range of stakeholders, and a commitment to working from the perspective of the users of the justice system.

The B.C. committee has determined that its initial focus and priority is on improving access to justice in the family law area and has recently canvassed a range of options for alternative projects that it can support to advance access to justice in family matters. This will matter greatly to, and help greatly, our citizens of British Columbia who are engaged in family law issues.

[1640]

At the same time, we have our British Columbia justice summits. The British Columbia Justice Summit process was established in 2013 according to the provisions of the Justice Reform and Transparency Act brought in by my predecessor. The act requires that a summit of senior justice and public safety leaders be convened by ministerial invitation at least annually to promote innovation and collaboration across our sector.

To date, five summits have been held. They’re held in camera, with no media present. They’re conducted
[ Page 10643 ]
at arm’s length from government. The process has seen increasingly substantive discussions with each meeting, now geared to the development of action plans related to the theme.

Feedback from our provincial stakeholders and their continued support after three years continues to suggest the summits are seen as an inclusive, legitimate and effective dialogue between senior sector participants. We’ve experienced strong support from the non-governmental sector and from the aboriginal community.

Recent summits have seen a specific focus on family justice, domestic and sexual violence, information-sharing across multiple proceedings and the development of a provincewide curriculum for the justice system on trauma-informed practice. These summits have created not just an opportunity but the regular expectation of candid dialogue between justice system leaders, who are all in the room for the summits. There’s a fascinating dialogue and a very strong interest in both innovation and collaboration.

In the Ministry of Justice, we work towards justice for British Columbians every day through the courts, through our criminal justice branch, through our justice innovation, through all the services that come through Justice.

Today I have spoken on the innovation which is underway. In the meantime, the sector is a very significant sector because justice matters in British Columbia. It matters that people have access to justice. It matters that people are treated fairly and properly by the system. It matters that we work so that people can have access to justice, so that they can see the collaboration of the system, so that they can see the innovation of the system, so that the system will work for citizens of British Columbia.

Fiscal discipline and accountability encourage innovation. Innovation leads to results. We believe that the best way to ensure a better life for British Columbians is a bigger economy, not a bigger government — a diversified economy, one which focuses on innovation and invests in its people, infrastructure and resources. We believe in reaching out and growing trade, not closing our doors.

The results are good so far, but we can’t lose our focus. We have a unique opportunity to lead the country, to share our story with the rest of Canada. We will be keeping up the momentum. It’s an exciting and promising time for British Columbians. As I said earlier, I am, of course, extremely supportive of the good news for British Columbians which is contained in Budget 2016.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to rise and speak to the amendment moved by my colleague from Nelson-Creston: “Be it resolved that the…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.’”

I’m going to talk specifically about that amendment, and I would just like to comment on some of the remarks heard from a colleague from across the way, the Minister of Justice. I was surprised to listen to her opening remarks, basically bragging, I think, about the creation of the prosperity fund, which I think British Columbians have come to associate with, or it’s otherwise known as, the fantasy fund. While the initial plans for the prosperity fund….

[1645]

It was promised that it would be revenue from the liquefied natural gas industry that would make up the prosperity fund. This was at the time that we heard wild promises that indeed we would see a debt-free B.C., that we would see 100,000 jobs, that we would see $100 billion in the prosperity fund and an end to the sales tax and that this would be in place by last year.

We see that, in reality, there’s not one dollar that is originating from the industry into the prosperity fund. This is why I think it’s more accurate to call that a fantasy fund — a fantasy fund because it is funded from fees and hidden taxes that are borne by British Columbians and hard-working families across our province. It is from these increased fees that we see the amount of $100 million in this fantasy fund.

So I was surprised to hear that claim from the minister and, in addition, that we can expect a million jobs and, also accompanying that, over 80 percent of jobs of the future require post-secondary trades training. In particular, the reality is that individuals will have to upgrade their skills in either post-secondary or trades or other certificate post-secondary education. That is indeed a reality, but we do not see the support for that in this budget.

We see a lack of responsibility and, really, closing those doors of opportunity to British Columbians to have the opportunity to access those jobs. We see that through the lack of adequate funding in the Ministry of Education with the shortfall and the downloading of costs and the pressure being put on school boards and the need for school boards across our province, despite increasing enrolment and despite downloaded costs….

We see the challenge of school boards, in particular the Vancouver school board, with which the minister is familiar because she represents Vancouver-Fraserview. The Vancouver school board is facing millions of dollars in shortfall and the reality of having to be faced with needing to cut services to students and programs to meet that budget shortfall.

We see a lack of support in this budget to ensure British Columbians have the opportunity to access the skills training that will be needed to upgrade their skills — a shortfall in funding for the Ministry of Education. We see a shortfall in funding for post-secondary education.

In the budget, we see that the amount allocated to post-secondary education institutions across our province does not even meet the cost of inflation this year and, in fact, does not make up for many years where budgets
[ Page 10644 ]
were flatlined. And so we see increasing pressure being put on post-secondary education.

That is coupled with the high tuition fees and also crushing student debt. Students wanting to upgrade their skills enter these programs, enter post-secondary education or trades-training schools to get the training they need, but are faced and saddled with a very high and crippling debt. On top of that, it’s compounded by the lack of opportunity and the cuts, as well, to adult basic education. It provides a foundation to allow individuals….

We know that the graduation rate of students in British Columbia currently is approximately 80 percent. These are young people who are coming out of our school system; 80 percent come out with a grade 12, graduate as a grade 12 equivalency.

[1650]

So we have 20 percent every year of young people coming through our high school system who need to upgrade their skills and to continue their education. The lack of support for adult basic education to allow these young people the opportunity to be successful in life is another shortfall, a very shortsighted cut and a real closing of the doors of opportunity for these students.

We see compounded, as well, the cuts and the shortfall of funding for English language learners and English as a second language. This is cutting off opportunities for individuals — immigrants who come from across the world into our province. Many of them have a high degree of education and come in and have some sort of post-secondary education in their home countries but need to upgrade and familiarize themselves with the terminology in their areas of expertise.

Often that’s what’s needed to meet the competencies. To have their credentials recognized in various industries, they have to meet that expectation and be able to become familiar with the specific language here in British Columbia, in Canada, that’s specific to their industry. Those opportunities are also closed to new immigrants.

We’re seeing that the claim that this budget supports opportunities for British Columbians…. That is what I would characterize as empty rhetoric, when we look at the reality on the ground.

The lack of foundation and closing of doors of opportunity to young British Columbians and to British Columbians who are looking to upgrade their skills, either to complete adult basic education courses, or who are looking to complete their grade 12 equivalency and who are also looking to upgrade their skills at post-secondary institutions or trade or certificate courses….

We see that, right along that continuum of the foundational aspect of access to education in our province, this government has failed to provide that support. That’s just to start.

I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the remarks I heard just recently from the Minister of Justice, who claimed that the steps and commitments in the budget met the expectations that British Columbians hold for the Ministry of Justice, the principles that British Columbians expect — that we should ensure that there is adequate access to justice and that community safety is upheld. We know that that is not the case.

That’s not the reality for many British Columbians across the province. We know and I’ve heard stories…. It’s been in the media. With this budget, we see that court services have been flatlined, which indicates there will be no resolution to the shortage of deputy sheriffs. It has been highlighted that that puts trials at risk of delay and, really, results in a backlog of cases coming through in our justice system.

We see that a violence-free B.C.… Again, even though it was announced to great fanfare, it seems to be another popular slogan that we hear from this government, that we hear in the budget speech, that we hear from the Premier. It’s not backed up by stable or significant funding.

[1655]

As well, disappointing that funding for victims and crime prevention is also frozen. That’s on the one hand. We see that the crime prevention budget has been flatlined. What compounds that and where we hear from police forces on the ground, from the RCMP…. I know I hear it from the Vancouver police department — that the majority of their calls…. When they are called out for calls coming in over 911, the majority of calls that they answer — over 50 percent — have to do with individuals who are in some state of mental instability or mentally ill or mentally distressed.

By virtue of a lack of a plan and adequate funding to address medical health across the province, police officers are becoming the front-line social workers in our communities to deal with individuals who are struggling and dealing with mental health issues. It was this government’s own blue-ribbon panel, which was led by a Liberal MLA, that recommended the government invest money in mental health and addictions and crime prevention as a means to save money in corrections over the long term. Certainly, this is a perspective that is echoed and supported by police forces across British Columbia and across the country.

We heard from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, I believe, talking about the support for police services. Certainly, that perspective would be supported by him. The reality that police forces across our province face in terms of dealing with the challenge of mental health and addictions — a shortfall in that.

That’s what I hear, even from local businesses in Vancouver-Kensington. I had a conversation with members of the South Hill Business Association on concerns around inadequate funding to address mental health concerns and addictions, homelessness. These were issues that were of concern not just to citizens and folks in the community but that also have an interface with local businesses.
[ Page 10645 ]

This is where we’re really seeing these issues come into the forefront, and it exposes the lack of adequate funding for services and programs to support these individuals who have challenges around mental health and who need improved support and services to deal with not only mental health but often the dual diagnosis of mental health and addiction. This falls under the responsibility of many ministries, but certainly, it’s a reality under the Ministry of Justice.

I also want to mention the lack of adequate access to justice that is a real…. We could even characterize it as a crime of this government. It’s a rate of 60 percent of applications, for family law, that are rejected by legal aid. This was according to the service plan in 2015-16.

This is an area where there has been a very marked shortfall in terms of the need for legal aid and, over a number of years, cuts to legal aid. This is one glaring area that requires support and immediate action. It’s putting, in particular, women who are at risk, often leaving relationships and in the position of facing violence…. Not having adequate support and being able to negotiate and navigate through the justice system creates and really perpetuates the victimization, in particular, of these women who are seeking to resolve issues of family law.

[1700]

I’ve heard many cases of women not being able to access legal aid, not being able to get representation, going into our court system and not being familiar with the proceedings and really being put into positions where they are being faced with their relationships and exposed to harassment and ongoing discrimination and hardship in our court systems.

It remains an area that is sorely lacking, and there’s a need for support for women, in particular, under family law cases going forward. Those were some remarks I wanted to make that were raised by the Minister of Justice, who was just speaking.

I want to talk and get back to the amendment: “That the Government recognize the cumulative effect of increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes” on British Columbians. This really is at the heart of the failure of the Liberal government budget that was tabled. Far from making life more affordable, we see that this budget has increased government fees and taxes. We’ve seen these fees and taxes increase this year, and that’s been a steady pattern over a number of years of this government.

We see increases to the medical services premiums, hydro, ICBC. Those three alone have cost the average family over $900 per year. On top of that, we have increasing ferry fares, bridge tolls, park fees, tuition fees really piling on to those fees and hidden taxes that this budget continues. After more than doubling the MSP tax, we see small changes, but they are quite limited. We still see overall increases to British Columbians this year, next year and with no end in sight, it appears.

We should be looking at…. The expectation would be that this government would get rid of the medical services tax and not just play a shell game, which they seem to be thinking is adequate and that British Columbians will believe. That’s on the increases that families are seeing and that are putting a burden on British Columbians.

On affordability, we’ve seen that these rates have increased every year by an average of 25 to 30 percent — and, in addition, not only an increase to these basic fees but to camping fees and the rest of the fees. These add up to a great burden on British Columbians and families.

That’s where we’re seeing this government, the Liberal government, extract revenue, on the one hand, from families through increasing these fees and taxes…. That’s where we’ve seen how this government has funded the prosperity fund, which I mentioned is more aptly characterized as a fantasy fund. The fantasy fund was initially promised to be wholly funded, not just for $100 million but for a $100 billion, from revenues of our LNG industry. We’re still waiting to receive one dollar from that industry, but we have learned that it reaches $100 million, not from the industry but from the pockets of hard-working British Columbians.

[1705]

The seeding of this fantasy fund, of the $100 million, came from the hikes to the MSP premiums. While we don’t have one dollar coming forward from the industry for the fantasy fund…. We haven’t seen the 100,000 jobs created. We heard the wild promises that B.C.’s debt would be eliminated and the sales tax would be scrapped. We haven’t seen anything delivered on that. In fact, the fantasy fund has been funded…. The revenue has come from the pockets of British Columbians. That seems to be a hallmark of this government.

On top of that, we see that this government has consistently increased MSP, hydro, ICBC and a host of other fees and taxes over the years. It’s basically crushing British Columbian families, and the revenue is coming forward to create a fantasy prosperity fund.

On top of that, we see that not only are British Columbian families basically enduring a flat tax, increasing these fees and taxes, but we see this government prioritizing a tax cut not for those individuals who are living below the poverty line — of which British Columbia leads in terms of children living in poverty in our country….

We are seeing a tax cut go not to people with disabilities, who are the most marginalized. We see, in fact, the tax cut for the top 2 percent of income earners in our province. This is the priority that the government has seen fit to grant, a tax cut of 2 percent which will amount to $1 billion over those four years.

On the one hand, we see that it’s British Columbian families having to pay more in increased fees and hidden taxes, these flat taxes, and that the Liberal government, through this budget, continues to grant an unasked for,
[ Page 10646 ]
unsolicited, tax cut to the wealthiest 2 percent which will accrue to $1 billion over four years. But on top of it, the fantasy fund is being funded through these fee increases.

It really shows how out of touch this government is and who this budget serves. It does not serve individuals who are marginalized. It does not serve people who are in poverty. It does not serve middle-class British Columbians who are working hard to support their families. It does not meet the needs of young British Columbians looking to upgrade their skills, to access post-secondary education and to find a good-paying job in our province.

It prioritizes the top 2 percent, with a $1 billion tax cut. We can’t afford to fund bus passes for people with disabilities, but we can afford a tax cut for our wealthiest 2 percent in British Columbia. We can’t afford to fund adult basic education to ensure that students wanting to…. For the 20 percent of students every year who do not graduate high school, we cannot afford the $6.9 million in adult basic education that was cut and not restored. We cannot afford those programs to ensure that students have those opportunities.

Interjection.

M. Elmore: I hear from the minister across the way that that’s a good deal, that British Columbians are better off. That’s a great line — you know, the line that people with disabilities are better off not having a bus pass. It’s better for them that they don’t have access to transportation. It’s actually an improvement. It’s an improvement for….

Interjection.

[1710]

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

M. Elmore: That’s really how out of touch the government is, to think that they can claw back the transit pass for people with disabilities and claim that that’s an improvement. We’ve heard story after story after organizations share their perspectives that the clawing back of the transit pass is a regressive move that limits people with disabilities, who are most marginalized. It limits their opportunities to move around their communities, to have a measure of independence, to be able to utilize a transit system independently.

This really characterizes the cold-heartedness of this government, the cruelty of this budget. It’s really inexcusable. We see that the government and the members on that side think that it’s defensible to claw back the bus pass for people with disabilities on the one hand and on the other hand to grant a tax cut for the wealthiest top 2 percent of British Columbians equalling the equivalent of $1 billion over four years.

How does that add up? It doesn’t add up for people with disabilities who have been accustomed to having a transit pass. It doesn’t add up for them in terms of their ability to have some measure of independence through going about their daily lives, visiting family and friends, taking courses and going to either appointments or to work. We see that this is a real slap in the face to people with disabilities and a very regressive move.

We see clearly whose interest this budget is in. It is not in the interests, certainly, of people with disabilities. It is not in the interests of hard-working British Columbian families who are looking to make ends meet. But it happens to be in the interests….

If you’re in the top 2 percent in British Columbia, you’re going to continue to get your 2 percent tax break. And if you happen to be a personal friend of the Premier, of the government, you may find yourself on the receiving end of the fantasy fund which is being funded by MSP premium increases, by increases in ICBC, B.C. Hydro.

This is part of the problem of this budget — how out of touch this government is and how cold-hearted this government is. The amendment that the government recognize the cumulative effect of “MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes on British Columbia families….” That’s the reality that families across the province are facing, and if this government can’t recognize that, we’ll ensure that we continue to bring their voices forward so that they can be heard.

Hon. A. Virk: It’s indeed my pleasure to rise and speak to the amendment that’s on the table. I’ve thought about it long and hard, and I don’t support it. But I do have some words to say about the budget as a whole. There’s a lot contained in the budget document. I’m going to do my best to cover all of it in the allotted time period.

Of course, everybody on the opposite side of the House knows the strength of B.C.’s economy is our diversity, and part of that diversity of the economy is our tech sector. It’s a big news story, but more on that later.

[1715]

First of all, if I may indulge you about my own riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Surrey, for me, is a special place. Surrey is named after a historic county in the southeast of England, but it’s got its own character, its very own and unique character, and is soon to be the largest city in British Columbia.

As I listen to the members opposite, I wonder if they’ve ever picked up a book on business or a book on economics or anything. If they had, they might have learned that last year, the New York–based economic and social development think tank identified Surrey as one of the top seven intelligent communities in the world. The quotation from that organization: “Surrey is a city in transition from a suburban past to a sustainable urban future.”

The organization made special mention of innovation boulevard, and it was quoted that our cities, universities
[ Page 10647 ]
and business “are building clusters in health technology, clean tech and advanced manufacturing.” That is also the Surrey that I live in. And that’s not all.

Surrey was also named the best city in 2014 to invest in, by the Real Estate Investment Network. And last month, Coast Capital Savings credit union picked Surrey as their headquarter location for British Columbia and western Canada. It’s a $100 million investment, 185,000 square feet, with 700 employees. They had a choice, and they chose Surrey.

Surrey has recorded a number of records in building in the last number of years. There was $1.4 billion in 2015. It almost matched the record set in 2007. That’s commercial, industrial, residential. It continues to grow.

Between 800 and 1,000 people are moving to Surrey every month, and there’s a reason for that. Where are these individuals coming from? They’re coming from all over the world, and they’re coming from across Canada. Why are they coming to B.C.? Why are they coming to Surrey? It’s one of the fastest-growing cities — we already know that — in British Columbia and one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. It presents opportunities for new families. It presents affordable housing.

People are coming to Canada because they find it’s the best country in the world to live in, and they’re coming to B.C. because the future lives in B.C. The growth in British Columbia is considerably higher than in any other province, and by all forecasts from independent organizations, it continues to be one of the fastest-growing across Canada.

As I said, Surrey is also a young community. A third of the population is under 19. It’s a place where people come to raise a family. I heard the member from New West rail on about a family that makes $100,000 that couldn’t put food on the table or couldn’t find a place. I did a quick google, about three seconds of a google: between $257,000 and $359,000, a two-bedroom apartment within eyeball distance of the SkyTrain.

In my previous career, I heard a lot of embellishment and a lot of stories, but none have surmounted the stories and the embellishment that I continue to hear from that side of the House — the embellishment of the facts. I’m astounded each time.

We continue to make British Columbia more affordable for families. The members opposite certainly would have realized that the $750,000 threshold for a complete exemption on the property transfer tax is about young families able to afford a home. If the members across have any issue with that, I can certainly lead them right to that home, right in my community, right in City Centre, walking distance from public transit. If you’re a young family in Surrey, that $750,000 exemption is going to save you $13,000. It’s going to stimulate new construction, create more jobs.

We’re making it more affordable for young families, as well, exempting children from MSP. A single family with two children is going to save about $1,200 a year, depending on their level of income.

[1720]

The extension and the improvement on the registered education savings plan is $1,200 as well. There’s no money that a family has to put out of their own pocket. They just have to register. That’s $1,200 they can secure towards their children’s education.

Before I move on to talk more about the economy, I want to thank the people of Surrey-Tynehead and of Surrey for their faith in coming to that city, for their faith that the future does indeed grow there.

It’s a city of compassion as well. We’ve had successive waves of immigrants. Yet successive waves of refugees have also come to Surrey — from the Somalians; the Eritreans; and, the members opposite will recall, the Chaldean community that came from the north of Iraq, from a city called Mosul, that had come to make Surrey home; and the latest set of refugees, coming from Syria.

I participated in a forum recently, organized by the mayor and the city of Surrey. It’s incredible. I was impressed by the outpouring of support from the community — how people opened up their homes and their hearts and their wallets to help those less fortunate. That’s the Surrey that I come from.

I spoke earlier about the importance of innovation boulevard, and I’m going to tie that in, in terms of what’s happening not only in Surrey but in the tech space all across the province.

Just this last week, I had the pleasure of being a master of ceremonies at a groundbreaking of a health and technology building. It’s the second of eight buildings that’s constructed at City Centre 2 that’s on innovation boulevard, a health tech building amongst six others to be built. It’s built by the Lark Group.

The eight buildings are going to contribute about $1.1 billion to the annual GDP of the city — $600 million in construction, creating 5,000 direct jobs, 8,000 indirect jobs — to welcome all those new families that are coming to Surrey.

This is just one example of how technology is contributing to my own city. But it’s happening across the province. Tech does not reside in one community of a number of square blocks in the West End of the Lower Mainland. Tech lives everywhere. Tech lives on the Island — in Nanaimo, in Coombs. In Kelowna, in Kamloops, in Surrey, in Prince George. It’s $23 billion in annual revenue across the province, and 86,000 jobs — jobs, as you’ve heard a number of times before, that pay 60 percent higher than the average.

It is no accident that talent, that tech, is flourishing, because they’re coming for the availability of talent that is being put out by our excellent 25 post-secondary institutions, with outcomes amongst the best in the world. That’s something that’s very clearly lost to the members opposite — some of the best outcomes in the world, out
[ Page 10648 ]
of our 11 post-secondary universities, our 11 colleges and our institutions. Incredible talent.

It’s that talent, combined with low taxes…. In fact, in some way, those tech companies are coming here because the members are indeed on the opposite side of the aisle — that we have low taxes.

It’s by a lot of hard work that companies such as Amazon, Sony, Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Disney and Animal Logic have all opened up offices in B.C. and are employing thousands of local workers. Home-grown successes: Hootsuite, Global Relay, Slack, Westport, Stemcell Technologies. They’re competing at a global level from British Columbia. And they’re staying in British Columbia because there’s availability of talent and one of the lowest corporate tax rates in North America.

And I’ve said that it’s talent and it’s taxes. I can’t take credit for time zone, but the three Ts: talent, taxes and time zone. That’s why they have come to British Columbia. It has been a decade of building a tech sector that continues to grow.

It’s those employees that work for those tech companies that are paying the lowest personal income tax in Canada, for up to $122,000 of earnings. That’s what brings them here. It’s a 26 percent combined federal and provincial corporate tax, among the lowest in the G7, that’s bringing those tech companies to B.C. It’s a 2.5 percent small business tax that’s bringing those companies to B.C. And I have already talked about the $750,000 threshold for the tax exemption. That’s why they’re going to continue to come to B.C.

[1725]

Just a few short weeks ago, we did the first inaugural — and the first of many years to come — tech summit in Vancouver. It was an opportunity to accentuate the already strong tech sector in British Columbia, to show the world, to show Canada, that B.C. is home to a vibrant tech sector. It showed participants new insights.

I know there were members of the opposition that were trolling around, looking for negatives under rocks, and they weren’t finding any. Thirty-six hundred participants came to British Columbia from all over the world — from Canada, from British Columbia, from different states in the U.S. and from different countries across the world. They were left with an image of the tech sector, a strong and growing tech sector.

There were students that came to coding academy. There were CEOs that took CEO training. There were industry leaders that were bringing their experiments and their technology and showing them. There was academia showing the research that’s going on in the universities, and 150 venture capitalists from all over Canada, the U.S. and the world showed up to meet with local companies. We had more than 250 business-to-business meetings between B.C. companies and potential clients. We anticipate those relationships to evolve, to foster growth and even have more growth.

I talked about the students. After the summit finished, 555 students were counted, in total, that participated in a career showcase connecting over 500 British Columbia students from our excellent universities and colleges to potential employees all in one venue, all in one location. I have no doubt that this summit will pave, for many, more partnerships, many more successful tech ventures. It’s abundantly clear that the future of British Columbia is absolutely very exciting, and it took work to get there.

You would’ve also learnt at the tech summit the tech strategy. The tech strategy was preceded by the first announcement, made by the Premier, relating to the first principle, the first pillar, of the tech strategy. The tech strategy was not developed in isolation. It was a strategy that was developed in consultation with the industry, in consultation with the British Columbia Technology Industry Association, in consultation with the Premier’s Tech Council, in consultation with Acetech, in consultation with HR Tech and in consultation with literally dozens and dozens of British Columbia companies.

The industry identified areas that required improvement, and we’re in the process of continuing improvement. The first request was that we need to work on capital, on venture capital. The $100 million B.C. tech fund that was announced in December is a commitment to the tech industry in British Columbia. That has a potential of bringing up to half a billion dollars, by some accounts, for some venture capitalists, of much-needed capital into this tech space.

We want B.C. tech companies to stay in B.C., to grow big and stay in British Columbia. We want companies from outside of British Columbia that want to make this home to be able to come here, to grow big and stay in British Columbia. That B.C. tech fund that we announced builds on previous announcements.

It builds on the B.C. Renaissance Fund. It builds on the $33 million each year, under the small business venture capital tax, as well. It builds on other credits: the DAVE credit, the interactive digital media credit. It’s by years of hard work that we’ve grown the tech sector to where it is.

In the tech strategy, talent was also announced in an announcement that went viral — the announcement that coding was going to be available to each and every student in K to 12, to 600,000 students all across Canada.

The Leader of the Opposition seeks to poke fun at it, but the fact that coding is going to be available to 600,000….

Interjection.

Hon. A. Virk: I know he probably opposes it. He says no to everything. The member from Newton before said no to bridges, no to infrastructure.

Now you’re saying no to tech, no to coding.

Make a note of that: no to coding from the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, no to coding expected, abso-
[ Page 10649 ]
lutely expected — a very predictable no to the tech sector from the Leader of the Opposition as he walks out of here smirking. Totally expected.

[1730]

I withdraw that comment.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. A. Virk: Talent is very important to the tech sector as well, and while we’re looking at the long term and have enacted the availability of coding in K to 12, we also have to look at the university sector. The announcement at the tech conference, also, was the commitment to ensure, an ongoing commitment, that 25 percent of the entire budget for post-secondary will be geared toward those in-demand occupations, the in-demand occupations that are going to be geared towards the students and the skills we need.

New standards in math and sciences. New and redesigned applied design, skills and technology curriculum. The announcement that any new technology program approved in a post-secondary institution in British Columbia must have an experiential learning component, a co-op program assigned to it. If it does not have a co-op program, that is not going to be approved. That’s another announcement much applauded by the tech sector across the various verticals, whether it’s clean tech or ICT or wireless or the gaming sector or the life sciences sector. Every new graduate from post-secondary institutions will have co-op experience in a technical program.

We also heard from the tech sector. We also heard from the tech sector that they wanted additional support in accessing markets so that they’re not constrained by artificial boundaries, so they’re able to access all levels of government in terms of the selling of their technology.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Many of these initiatives that were also announced at the Tech Summit fall into a number of ministries — the Ministries of Education, Advanced Education, International Trade, Jobs and Skills Training, Health and Environment. We have a cross-government commitment to the tech strategy and the tech community.

If I may add more on the market pillar. In the market pillar, government is proactively providing information and resources to vendors on how they can sell better to government, what their availability is. There are a number of activities planned and underway designed to enhance the way the province acquires billions of dollars of goods and services annually. There are simple examples of that, relatively simple initiatives. It may seem simple, but taking the long-form request for proposal for anything under $250,000 from a 15-page to a two-page application makes it a lot easier for small businesses and small tech companies to do business with British Columbia.

We’re developing and working on a B.C. developers exchange. It’s a digital marketplace that enables innovation with government digital resources to help entrepreneurs grow their businesses and create easier, faster and streamlined ways for the public sector to acquire software from the tech community. It’s a completely new way of doing business. The developers exchange is being developed in partnership with industry as well. So far, 400 software developers have been consulted, are engaged in the process.

We’re also engaging with the industry on the open procurement hub, which is another procurement approach in collaboration with vendors. It’s making it easier for local tech companies to deal with government.

To continue to build a strong tech sector, we also have to work on connectivity across the province. Today about 94 percent of British Columbians have access to high-speed Internet, making B.C. one of the most-connected jurisdictions in the world. As we know, access to high-speed Internet provides rural and remote communities with better opportunity to learn, to do business, to find services and to stay connected. Local entrepreneurs in small communities can live and work in their communities because of our investment in expanded connectivity.

Our goal is quite simple. It’s a goal to aspire to. It’s a goal to have every single British Columbian have access to high-speed Internet by the year 2021. It’s a goal that we’re all going to work on very hard. It’s a commitment that we’ve made. It’s going to allow that further 6 percent of British Columbians access to vital services through connectivity.

[1735]

Our economy is indeed moving toward a knowledge-based economy. But as we move to a knowledge-based economy, it’s also a symbiotic relationship. It’s a symbiotic relationship between the natural resources and the tech industry. Every time members opposite say no to another natural resources project, every time they say no to a bridge, every time they say no to construction, every time they say no to Site C, they’re also saying no to technology.

Technology is embedded in each and every one of these projects. I know they want to say no, but they’re saying no to technology and the technology industry every time they do that.

Investing in a knowledge-based economy also means investing in research. It’s investing in organizations such as Genome B.C., which invests in large-scale genomics research in areas that include forestry, mining, agriculture and aquaculture. Genome B.C.’s research is developing better methods for forecasting timber, for working on pest management, such as the mountain beetle. But it’s investing in research at our post-secondary institutions that is making British Columbian’s lives wealthier and healthier.

I mentioned earlier that tech lives everywhere, and there are examples of that. Hy-Tech Drilling is in
[ Page 10650 ]
Smithers. Tech lives in Smithers. Their invention in their drilling is being used all across the world. Vancouver’s Saltworks Technologies takes dirty, industrial water and turns it into fresh water, using desaltification and electrochemical technologies. It’s happening right here. We have an opportunity in British Columbia to make the world greener, to make water cleaner, to make waste treatment cleaner as a result of technologies here.

Clean technology has a tremendous opportunity. The market across the world is in the trillions of dollars — from hydrogen fuel cells, from clean transportation, energy management, efficiency technologies.

In B.C., there are 6,400 jobs alone at 2,002 tech companies. Mr. Speaker, you’d be surprised to know that about 10 percent of them are in Newton, right in my own backyard. Some of them got their start at Foresight, one of our 13 accelerators that are supported by the government across the province.

I highlight this sector because it’s one that has tremendous opportunities to change the lives of billions across the world. I’ve only mentioned a number of B.C. tech companies to illustrate the innovation. It in no way undermines the work of the 9,734 tech companies at last count. It might have gone up by 50 by this week.

I’ve held this portfolio for over a year, and in that time, I had the exciting opportunity to visit literally dozens and dozens of companies from small to medium to large and attend a number of different events, whether that’s in Courtenay or Kelowna or Surrey or Abbotsford. There’s so much happening in this province. There’s so much opportunity. Technology is going to continue to transform how we talk to each other, how we deal with each other, how citizens interact with government, how citizens get services from government.

In my ministry, we’re also responsible for the service centres across British Columbia. We’re also responsible for innovation in terms of how we get our ID in British Columbia. We’ve issued over 3 million B.C. Services Cards with our partnership with the Ministry of Health. There are tremendous opportunities. At our service centres, we’ve had a 36 percent increase in transplants, in donors saying: “I’m ready to provide….”

Interjection.

Hon. A. Virk: Well, thank you.

A 36 percent increase. One of them was in Quesnel. We opened up one of our service centres in Quesnel, and we had a 36 percent increase in British Columbians saying: “I want to be an organ donor. If, God forbid, that day comes when, my loved ones, something happens to them, I want somebody else’s life to be easier.” That’s the kind of thing we’re also doing.

It’s only by way of growing an economy — about saying yes to development, saying yes to opportunities, saying yes to projects — that government can have the resources that can invest back in British Columbia. Balanced budget 4 reaffirms our commitment to responsible fiscal management, to responsible spending controls. That’s exactly what we’re doing with the tech strategy. We’re reinvesting those balanced budgets in the tech sector.

With that, I take my place.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Burnaby-Lougheed.

[1740]

J. Shin: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s good to see you in the chair. As always, it’s my great privilege to rise in the House on behalf of Burnaby-Lougheed for the motion on the budget calling on the government to recognize the cumulative effect of the increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums and other fees and hidden taxes on British Columbians.

Before I go on to comment on this amendment on the floor, I will take the opportunity to highlight the work my office has been doing for our constituents and communities at large.

This 2016 provincial budget that we’ve been debating in this chamber since last Tuesday is, indeed, about people, after all — how their hard-earned tax dollars are or are not put to use, for or not for them. These are all the things that we are deliberating on. It’s only pertinent that I take some time to respectfully report out on their return on investment into the operation in my office in Burnaby-Lougheed.

Everyone at my office, and I follow their example, thrives on SMART goals. Those are specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and with a timeline. We have a number of quantifiable performance indicators that we stick to in the office, like the number of constituent cases that we were successfully able to resolve and community activities we were able to support in various ways.

At the end of last year, as a part of our monthly communication to our constituents, my team reported out our numbers and stories from the first half of the term in office. I would like to share some of those.

It turns out that each day is so slow to pass in this job, but I think that the years do end up flying. I can’t believe this is the fourth budget that I get to participate in debating on. In that time, in the last two and a half years, we served over 2,800 constituent inquiries. I attended 579 meetings and 356 events. This is not just unique to me. This is probably common for all the members in this House — the hard work that we all do.

To the Legislature…. I had the privilege of welcoming nearly 900 British Columbians from all walks of life to visit their House, to see and participate in the politics of our province.

Over the last two years, we also had the privilege of assisting many wonderful individuals, organizations and businesses, and I will mention some, like Kyle Empringham with Starfish Canada. It’s a great non-profit
[ Page 10651 ]
environmental group — youth-led — which we were able to connect to other partners and collaborators.

I also want to mention Jacquoline Martin, who has several initiatives. Most recent was Project Valentine’s Day, which we were happy to sponsor as the group set out to help address one of the most fundamental challenges in our society, which is loneliness and social isolation.

Businesses like Spacekraft, in partnership with Bosa, whose community workspace and network lounge as well as seminars and conferences that they regularly host…. We were very happy to participate in promoting those, as well as the Lougheed Mall redevelopment by Shape Properties. We were able to encourage much more robust public participation for the public hearings.

Fruits of these discussions and activities are several, such as the inception of our first multicultural communities reception, as well as facilitating the attraction of $5 million in tourist revenues to Burnaby with the 2016 World Junior Taekwondo championships that’s now confirmed to come to B.C.

There’s the grand opening of a brand-new lounge space made complimentary by the New Vista Society for our veterans of the Korean and the Vietnam wars to call home and to enjoy for themselves. We also celebrated the proclamation of Taekwondo Day in the cities of Burnaby and North Vancouver.

As all members would agree, serving in office has its ups and downs and difficult moments. But we do have those times that make it all worthwhile. My team is privileged to be able to assist our constituents, and I would like to share a couple of the success stories with happy endings.

One of the constituents contacted us because she was having trouble getting approved for her B.C. bus pass through the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. She’s a senior, and she experiences memory loss. She was struggling to follow through the steps over the phone and the extended periods of time that she was put on hold over the phone where she would forget what she was on hold for.

[1745]

We contacted the ministry on her behalf to find out the status of her application and sent them the necessary paperwork on her behalf. Now she has her senior bus pass. When we spoke to her to get her permission to share her story, she asked us to add that: “So many people like me, seniors who used to be able to do everything, now just can’t, and you don’t know where to turn, especially if you don’t have a partner. It’s nice to know that there are MLAs you can turn to.”

That was something that definitely brightened our day — everyone in my office — in the midst of everything we were trying to do.

We also assisted another constituent whose MSP was cancelled due to missed payment, as he had been misinformed and wasn’t aware of the fact that there was a registration process that was required for his subsidy, which he was eligible for.

While he was able to pay out-of-pocket to see a doctor, the lab simply wouldn’t do any tests on him that he urgently needed without the MSP enrolment. Our staff, of course, helped him through his re-enrolment very quickly and also got him on the premium assistance.

He went in for his tests as soon as we notified him that his MSP account was reinstated. He had his pacemaker installed just shortly after. He called us when he was discharged from the hospital to thank our staff. In his words, he said: “Thank you for saving my life.” These are the moments that I think I’ll remember and won’t forget anytime soon, long after I leave this chamber.

Now, all of this, as we all know, would not be possible without the most dedicated, wonderful group of staff that all of us have as members at our constituency offices. I, too, have my share of just incredible people that I have the privilege of working with.

I would like to thank: my staff, Morag Keegan-Henry, Reamick Lo, Michael Chang, Nicholas Page and Sophie Jeon; as well as my relief staff, Joseph Lee, Yu Min Lee and Robin Yoo; our regular volunteers Patricia McLoughlin and Anika Lee; as well as Tara Shushtarian, Daniel Shim and Tiffany Kim.

I’d like to especially point out that Morag, who was our latest addition to the office, to take over from my former CA Krystal Smith…. I have to give her a special mention as the newest addition to the office.

She demonstrates excellence in every way — her ability to connect with the constituents and stakeholders, her efficiency in handling large volumes of work, meeting often very tight deadlines, her resourcefulness to leverage every available information and material that we can get our hands on to produce meaningful results, her articulacy in all of her communication. There is just not an inch of mediocrity or complacency in this girl.

While it’s a blessing for myself and Burnaby-Lougheed to have her in the office, I do look forward to and am curious to see what big opportunities may be ahead of her to put her skills and talents to use to touch more lives.

Of course, I’ll also be remiss if I don’t point out my LA here in Victoria, Susan Vasilev. With the House back in session, she is kept incredibly busy with all of the British Columbians I connect with and invite over to the Legislature to visit us. Our guests, every one of them, leave with a very special memory of this place. None of that would be possible without her hard work.

With all of that said, in how I highlighted the work of my office, I used the words “serving” and “assisting.” That’s very intentional. It is our job as MLAs to do just that. We are public servants, but none of us are serving for free. The taxpayers are paying us for it.

The MLA offices are also not a place of charity, where we lend or volunteer ourselves to come to aid for our constituents when and if we can, as some favour that we hand
[ Page 10652 ]
out on the side. Taxpayers pay for our operations to respond to and serve them, and that mandate is something that everyone in my office clearly understands.

That’s perhaps why it’s quite unsettling and sometimes condescending and outrageous when I see, time and time again, this government treating British Columbians like a debtor, a solicitor, a loanee, a borrower, as somebody who needs favours from their government.

I mean, it’s too unfortunate that when I tend to my constituents and their concerns, they often have to feel like they have to prove, justify and defend the services and the programs that they are rightfully entitled to and that they have paid for.

[1750]

Since getting elected in 2013, I’ve had the chance to observe, get to know and work with many members of this House, on all sides of the House. I’m critically aware of the fact that we are all someone’s apple of the eye. Everybody here is a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a daughter or son, a friend, a neighbour.

I try my best to honour that. Every one of us here are all people held in high esteem by many people around us. While I try my best to convey respect for all members in how I conduct myself in the House….

And we do see collegiality from time to time, especially before every question period, during introductions. I would say that’s arguably my favourite time in this chamber, where we get to see each other’s humanity really come out and shine. But then there is just that one hit of the bell, and we quickly assume positions that, I think, quite frankly, most of us are uncomfortable in, regardless of which side of the House we sit on.

I’m making these remarks in earnest, because I introspect a lot. I ask a lot of questions. I try to understand where everybody is coming from. But I have such difficulty trying to reconcile: how is it possible that the same intelligent, well-intentioned, hard-working members opposite that I respect and, quite frankly, like…? Their families and friends must think the world of them.

They can just turn right around and utter comments in the House and on committees, like “MSP tax reminds people that health care is not free.” I can’t understand how they can justify the LNG prosperity fund that was filled with zero dollars from LNG but $100 million from MSP, ICBC, Hydro, park camping fees, tax hikes.

I mean, I don’t know how one makes peace with the crumbs of relief that they’re offering for tens of thousands of families that they’re representing while giving out six-figure contracts to a few ex-Liberal MLAs and donors and $1 billion worth of tax cuts over the four years to the top 2 percent richest in the province.

How do they explain to their students and parents the shutting down of schools and cutting of programs and services to save a few million dollars? I’m all for saving. If the times are tough, we need to trim it down. But at the same breath, they turn around and commit $8.3 billion to a single project, Site C, for energy we don’t need.

In short, how can they support this budget that was balanced on the backs of the middle class and those who can least afford to pay? I’m all for the rationale, but it’s hard for me to figure that out.

On that note, I do want to switch over and take this opportunity to call on the government…. And I know that all the members hear from their constituents and their stakeholders alike. But I would like to highlight some of the main challenges that my community faces, which is a common challenge that, I would say, most British Columbians face.

We’ll start with housing. Housing, of course, is one of the most pressing concerns for our families, especially in greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley region. I do have an ongoing “Keep Burnaby Affordable” campaign with my team. I personally visited every co-op, all ten co-ops in Burnaby-Lougheed and door-knocked on every single door, whether they opened or not, as well as visiting the family and student housing up in SFU, in order to inform them, engage them and rally our local community to call on the province — not just the province; the federal counterpart — to come up with a proper housing strategy to address this issue.

It’s no easy feat. I have all the respect for how complex this issue is. But there are some practical steps that I believe we can take in the right direction. For that, it was disappointing to see the budget, where there was some small measure on housing, but that’s if your family can afford to buy a brand-new home.

What about the rest of the people who are renting, with the rents going up, who can’t afford to buy a home, let alone a new one? The balanced budget doesn’t, unfortunately, address the affordable housing deficit. We have alarming statistics at hand, with one in four Canadian families spending more than a third of their income on housing.

With housing and rental prices skyrocketing in Burnaby and across B.C., it is co-op housing that continues to prove itself as one of the affordable housing solutions against the kind of housing crisis that we face in Metro Vancouver today.

[1755]

I do want to highlight the work and the value of co-op housing while I have the opportunity here. Since the 1930s, co-op housing has successfully provided accessible means for its members to call home “safe and healthy living spaces.”

Today there are 264 non-profit housing co-ops comprised of 14,500 units in British Columbia. Burnaby-Lougheed is home to 943 households, spread across ten co-ops, made up of people from all walks of life who work together to co-manage this diverse and vibrant community forum with much care and much pride.

Thom Armstrong, who is the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of B.C., acknowledges
[ Page 10653 ]
the province’s plan to create 2,000 new affordable homes, which is great. But that gain will turn into a net loss unless the government also acts now to protect the 4,000 low-income co-op households at risk of homelessness as federal co-op agreements expire.

I’ll quote what he says in his press release.

“‘We are calling on the province to work closely with the federal government to protect these most vulnerable British Columbians. It doesn’t make any sense to create 2,000 new affordable homes only to lose nearly 4,000 in roughly the same period….’

“CHF B.C. is proposing a modest rent supplement program funded by the federal and provincial governments and administered by B.C. Housing to protect those low-income households, which include seniors, people with disabilities, single parents, new Canadians and others with low or fixed incomes.”

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Adequate housing is a fundamental human right under the United Nations definition and should be for each and every British Columbian. I really look to this House to continue working with the Co-op Housing Federation for practical solutions to fix the co-op housing crunch and keep B.C. families in their homes.

Now, I have to touch on another issue that I frequently hear from my constituents when I visit them at their doorsteps, which is the concern on our children and youth. I’ll start with sharing some of the facts and the stats. One in 11 families with children could not afford to have enough healthy food. In 2011, about 93,000 children under age 18 lived in low-income households in B.C. One in six of all youth and two in five aboriginal youth did not graduate from high school on time. One-third of youth who have had sex did not use condoms or other barriers. Twenty-one percent tried smoking; 45 percent tried alcohol; 26 percent used marijuana. And the youth want to learn more.

I’ll quote one of the comments: “They tell you to drink responsibly, but they don’t tell you how to drink responsibly.”

We have very well-known child poverty in the province, as well as staggering stats like this, which I’m sure weighs heavy on the hearts of everybody, all the members here.

With that, in the budget, I was looking forward to seeing some drastic commitments on that front for our K to 12, as well as advanced education, to start providing relief to some of what feels like an ever-growing issue. The government did boast about the past investments, and those are great investments to the class size and composition and hiring new teachers. But we have seen the number of teachers actually decrease by 3,500 since 2002, with almost half of those reductions being specialist teachers.

What it all adds up to is a net loss for us. This Budget 2016 includes only a 1 percent increase to public school funding. We’re not talking about the millions of dollars that we put into education in the budget. We are talking about: is it keeping up with the demands of today, our population and the skyrocketing costs of operation.

This 1 percent increase that we see in the budget, unfortunately, does not cover the cost of inflation, let alone the increase in student enrolment that is expected to take place over the next year. We all know that. The members all know that.

[1800]

It was daunting to see that we get a small piece of the big pie called the provincial budget. Where else is the higher priority? What else is so much more pressing than, say, education or housing or senior care? Where else is the money going? My research staff actually pulled up I think about 300 different items of where that money went instead, which I’ll share later.

With that said, though, again I can’t stress enough that all the schools in our province are calling out for real action as far as discontinuing the continued defunding of the school system in the province.

Now, the budget for Advanced Education does little to invest in post-secondary education as well. The funding for educational institutions and organizations fails to keep pace with inflation. We saw a very small increase of only 1.2 percent in the budget, arguably less than some of the increases that we saw in each ministry’s operating budget. It certainly does nothing to make up for the cuts that have been imposed over the years.

The budget offers nothing as far as alleviating student debt or the high cost of tuition for students. The tuition fees will still continue to increase to a cap of 2 percent, but that is 2 percent all too much.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Member, if you’d be so kind as to take your seat for about a moment.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45A, I will now put the question on the amendment moved by the member for Nelson-Creston.

[1805]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[1810]

On the main motion.

J. Shin: I will continue from where I left off, but in speaking to the motion this time. I’ll share a quote from one of my former colleagues, Karen Shortt, who is the president of the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association. I will quote:

“While the provincial government and Ottawa argue about who will pay for English language training for the newly arrived Syrian refugees, ESL classrooms at Vancouver Community College sit empty and faculty remain on layoff because of funding cuts….

“These refugees will join thousands of other newcomers that Canada has welcomed but who are not able to function at their full capacity. They will become more and more isolated and depressed, less likely to contribute and more likely to end up at the food bank.

“Right now these recent immigrants are excited about their new home. They bring university degrees, job skills, energy and a determination to succeed, and they bring their children. Waiting up to nine months to get into a LINC English course and up to 17 months for academic English will cost society more than any other English program will. The ultimate cost of procrastination by both levels of government will be borne by generations to come.”

Karen articulates it best. Investment into our education is something that should be on the top of the government’s agenda. It was disappointing, to say the least, to see only a 1 percent increase in the budget for K to 12 and 1.2 percent in advanced education. That doesn’t begin to address some of the operating costs, even just in MSP costs as well as the hydro amongst other costs that are to be borne by these institutions.

I do need to move on to the next issue, which is on health care. MSP is a concern. Recently our citizens have come out from wide and far to speak on MSP concerns. To recap on the numbers here that are imposed by this government, they are going to continue with the annual 4 percent rate increase. So each increase costs taxpayers another $100 million per year.

In 2001, MSP was $864 per year for a family. Just ten years after, MSP was $1,452 per year for a family. Five years later now, in 2016, MSP is $1,800 per year for a family. That’s a 108 percent increase and $864 more since 2001, and a 24 percent increase and an extra $348 since 2011.

The government is exempting children from MSP, which is great, but increasing the rate for two-adult families, starting January 1 of next year. The net effect is, bottom line, to give a break to single-parent families, which I’m happy to see. But we are going to end up still charging other couples without children more as well as other British Columbians.

[1815]

This discrete change will bring in, regardless, $46 million more of revenue per year. While this is going to benefit about 70,000 single parents, who will welcome the news, of course, it’s going to cost 530,000 couples more in MSP payments.

Shifting the MSP premiums aside — I think everybody recognizes the fact that it is a regressive tax and we do need to fix this particular problem — I must highlight the issue that is huge in my riding, which is Burnaby Hospital.

Burnaby Hospital was built in 1952. There was a rapid expansion seen throughout the ’50s and the ’70s. It has grown from its initial 125 beds to the 301 we see today, with 24-7 ER, which is great. Burnaby Hospital is a mid-tier non-trauma centre hospital which receives patients from smaller hospitals and frequently transfers out patients to higher levels of care that are available at VGH, RCH and Surrey Memorial.

There were some recent developments: the reopening of the closed operating room, which is good news; the new sterilization facilities; and of course, the implementation of supertrack. But, unfortunately, despite that, the capital investment in the facility does remain low compared to the demand that we desperately need in Burnaby, and that’s largely due to the regional priorities, which I understand.

Burnaby Hospital still continues to suffer from a number of deficits unrelated to the lack of funding, and that, I must stress, is the poor location, poor transportation connections, high energy costs and high site rehabilitation costs.

On the poor location, the ambulance transport times to BGH as compared to VGH and RCH from within Burnaby are similar. When factoring in the level of care considerations, crews often choose to avoid coming to Burnaby Hospital. Despite its supposedly close proximity to BCIT, the campus is about a 40-minute walk away in steep, inclining roads, and accessibility is still a major issue which would require large-scale infrastructure enhancements.

There’s also poor transportation, which I listed. The nearest major bus route to the hospital is a 40-minute walk away. The nearest SkyTrain is 30 minutes by bus. And there’s also high energy costs. Seventy percent of the energy for the hospital is derived from gas, and it is significantly more expensive than electricity.

And the high rehabilitation costs. The master plan project cost is pegged at $622 million, and even though it’s a scheme that’s quite similar to St. Paul’s, whereby an entirely new facility would be built and would be more cost-effective and prove to be much more beneficial to the community as a whole in the long term, unfortunately
[ Page 10655 ]
Burnaby’s master plan project isn’t considering that, as far as rebuilding or relocation of the hospital goes.

Further capital investment in Burnaby Hospital is what I would love to call on this government to commit to, and the health care in Burnaby in general then must reflect the specific needs of the people in Burnaby. It should be made in rebuilding the current facilities, relocating them to geographically more plausible and accessible areas. And, of course, there’s a need to greatly expand the ability to care for the non-emergent patients that always end up in the ER in the Burnaby Hospital. That ends up costing the system far more money than required.

Now, on the health care note, this is something that I’m passionate about. Both of my parents work in the seniors care home as a nurse’s aide, and they often come back from work and share their stories with me, and so these are the stories that I’ve heard growing up. We are, as a province, seeing more and more stories about problems with seniors care facilities, and there have been discussions around how to effectively provide home support, which the seniors advocate talked about in her report.

Three of the five health authorities reported a decrease in home support hours, even though four out of the five regions noted an increase in clients. So when we are talking about defunding or funding that’s simply not keeping up with the times, what does that translate to, as far as the lives of the clients, of our seniors, that are at home?

This isn’t one of those incidences where, if luck will play out in your favour in life, maybe you won’t have to face a debilitating disability. Maybe poverty is a problem or a challenge that some of us won’t ever have to face, perhaps. But if there’s one thing that I think every single one of us is guaranteed to face, it’s aging.

[1820]

There are no ifs and buts about it. All of us are going to get old — period. And so, I think it’s not just a…. When you’re talking about seniors care, I don’t think this is an isolated problem that only belongs to certain of us. I think it’s common to all of us.

My parents are seniors now. They’re both over 65. They come home, and they tell me: “Jane, keep me at home as long as you possibly can because things don’t look good down there.” Every day my parents, as well as other health care professionals, like the nursing aides and the nurses and so on and so forth….

The staffing shortage and the funding cuts are so pressing, to the point that they are actively nudged or even ordered to start waking up seniors as early as 4:30 a.m., 5 a.m., with a little cough that’s enough to signal that this person needs to be woken up. Why are they doing that?

Why are they waking up someone who’s comfortably and peacefully in sleep, dragging them out of the bed, getting them cleaned up, getting them changed, and propping them on the chair to wait four hours on the chair, nodding off until their breakfast time at 9 a.m.? Why would the staff ever do that — and be morally challenged, as they tell me they are?

It is because there’s not enough staff during the morning rush time. The morning staff cannot keep up with having a client load of 16 people that they have to get ready in a matter of a two-hour period. They ask their night staff to wake up people and start getting those people ready before their shifts start. So there is constant tension between colleagues.

It’s demoralizing for our ethically abiding staff that are in health care, trying to manage and deal with this particular issue. And that’s not all. Dinnertime — there’s another dinnertime rush and not enough staff so: “Let’s start feeding seniors dinner as early as 4 p.m.” You’re being woken up at 4 a.m., and you’re fed dinner at 4 p.m. — gosh.

This is the quality of life that’s become standard for our seniors, who are most deserving. Often the saddest part of the story is that nobody wants to be woken up and dragged out of bed at five in the morning, especially if they’re not an early bird, so they often target and go after those seniors with dementia who can’t complain or speak for themselves. They would also target those seniors without family members. Their complaints can be largely muted or controlled.

This is something I feel passionate about. I did see some flicker of light that the government is proposing modernizing the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. I eagerly anticipate what the changes will be. I hope it’ll be to write into our books something that lends protection for people, for their right to sleep as much as their right to anything else in this province, as a human with dignity.

On that note, I would love to take my place again at the next sitting after today, and I move adjournment of debate.

J. Shin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:24 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