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)

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number 5

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: It’s not often I get to do two introductions in two days, but today I’d like to make an introduction of a former resident of Port Coquitlam who’s well known in the Tri-Cities. He’s very involved in our community. He emcees and helps organize the Terry Fox Run in Port Coquitlam. Plus he’s been involved in numerous charities throughout the Tri-Cities.

He’s known as Dave.ca on CKNW, he’s very fond of a dog named Winston, and he’s also a big fan of two individuals named Bert and Ernie. Anyway, I’d like the House to please welcome Dave.ca, otherwise known as Dave Teixeira, to the House to observe the proceedings today.

[1335]

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in the House this afternoon to introduce three people.

Firstly, my friend Nasima Nastoh is here for Pink Shirt Day. She has travelled here after having tragically lost her son Hamed to bullying. Travelling with her today is her friend Deborah Chisholm, a chartered professional accountant, who is looking forward to moving to the Island soon so that she can teach in her profession.

Also with us this afternoon, as the hon. member for Port Coquitlam mentioned, is my constituent — now living in Port Moody — Mr. Dave Teixeira. I can’t say enough about Dave, who’s been very involved in our Tri-Cities community, involved heavily in the Port Coquitlam Terry Fox Hometown Run. He’s represented Darcie Clarke and her family, and he’s worked incredibly hard for Pink Shirt Day. He’s also owner of Dave.ca Communications.

Would the House please make Nasima, Deborah and Dave very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have two introductions today, the first going along with the theme of Pink Shirt Day. I’m pleased to introduce Dave’s friend up there, Tad Milmine. He’s the founder of Bullying Ends Here. Tad is a former B.C. RCMP officer and now works for the Calgary police department. Since 2015, he’s spoken to 90,000 people across Canada to help promote Bullying Ends Here. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

My other guest is Kirsten Brazier. She was here earlier on today talking to some of the MLAs about careers in aviation for women and girls. She’s been a pilot for the last 24 years. She says only 6 percent of the pilot population in Canada are women, and only 2.8 percent are aircraft mechanics. She’s trying to change that and boost up the women in the aviation industry. Could the House please make her welcome.

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today. They’re members of the Leadership Victoria community action project team called Bench Strength, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that. I think it’ll be the first of many, many projects that these amazing women will be involved in.

I’d like the House to please welcome Kimberley Newton and Julia Keenan on their first trip to the gallery.

S. Sullivan: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House two wonderful citizens.

First of all, Leslie Van Duzer. I refer to her as my boss, or at least my other boss. She has been the director of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at UBC, where I teach. She’s an author of a number of books on architects and buildings. Also with her is Shanna Fromson, a landscape architect by profession and a weaver by passion. She’s worked for the iconic architect Ron Thom, as well, for Vancouver.

Will the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: Regardless of which side of the House we sit on in this chamber, I think all of our faces light up when we have youngsters visiting us in the chamber.

Today I have the pleasure of welcoming grade 4 and grade 5 students from the Westridge Elementary School. I think they’re just making their way in. It’s a big class of 35 and 38 students. One can only imagine how hard the teachers must be working to raise these leaders of tomorrow.

I would like to thank Mrs. Janet Pritchard, Ms. Amy Dodd, Ms. Melissa Sheard and Mme. Maija Fenger for leading their students to the Legislature today.

Their group is also accompanied by parents as well, and I would like to specially mention my constituent Stace Dayment. Stace and I are well acquainted since I first visited the Pacific Post-Partum Support Society, located in Burnaby-Lougheed, where she works. This program started in 1971 as a grassroots initiative when a small group of women began meeting at the Vancouver crisis line office to share their experiences and support each other around postpartum issues.

An estimated one out of six women and one out of ten men experience troubling depression or anxiety after the birth or adoption of a child. Over the last 40 years, the PPPSS has supported mothers and families and today assists over 3,500 people annually. So it is important work that Stace does with PPPSS for our community.

I ask all members to make her and the Westridge students and their teachers very welcome to the House today.

[1340]

J. Tegart: I’d like to welcome, on behalf of Madame Speaker, Karen Kokig, Mila Marsh and Kathy Paranimo.

J. Horgan: Although I wasn’t able to participate in Pink Shirt Day here at the Legislature, I did get invited to my old alma mater, Reynolds High School, where I was given a pink hat and a photograph of my high school graduation. And I have to say that I looked pretty good. There was a bunch of hair involved, and I know the Minister of Finance would have been green with envy, as the rest of Canada would have been, to see that picture.

But the exciting part about being at Reynolds…. Those of my colleagues who were on the front steps will have met Holly Simonson, Dave Underhill and Ross, who presented their poetry from Reynolds High School. Brad Cunningham is the teacher there. Poetry is slamming at Reynolds High School, and it was here today for the Legislature to see and participate in.

Reynolds is a spectacular school. I was proud to attend there, and I was very proud to participate in Anti-Bullying Day today with a great bunch of kids, a great bunch of faculty. Would the House please make those poetry slammers very, very welcome.

G. Kyllo: I have three guests joining us in the House today. We have James Leland. He is the business manager with the Ironworkers local 97. We also have Derek Dinsi and a good friend of mine — Doug Parton. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Robinson: Today we have in the precinct representatives from the Alzheimer Society of B.C. The member for New Westminster and I are going to be meeting with them later today, so if anyone in the House should bump into the folks from the Alzheimer Society of B.C., please make them feel welcome. We have Rebecca Morris, Barbara Lindsay, Jennifer Stewart and Maria Przydatek joining us.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PINK SHIRT DAY AND
PREVENTION OF BULLYING

L. Reimer: I’m thrilled to see so many members in the House participating in Pink Shirt Day. By wearing pink today, we are taking a stand against bullying, which has no place in our schools, our homes, our workplaces or on line.

We have seen the tragic consequences that bullying can have on youth right here in B.C. Fourteen-year-old Hamed was driven to end his own life on March 11, 2000, after enduring constant name-calling, slurs and attacks on his sexuality by bullies. Hamed’s last wish was to put an end to bullying. His mother, Nasima, has since founded Hamed Nastoh’s Anti-bullying Coalition to educate youth about the severe consequences of bullying.

Our government is also working to fulfil Hamed’s wish. In 2012, we announced the ERASE Bullying strategy, which is the most comprehensive anti-bullying strategy in Canada. Social media guidelines were developed as part of this strategy to provide direction for students, parents and educators on how to use social media ethically and responsibly.

Although government is aiding in the fight against bullying, it is important to remember the impact that can be made on an individual level. Before his death, Hamed was upset that no one stood up for him. The Pink Shirt Day campaign reminds us that even the smallest acts of caring or kindness can make a huge difference.

The campaign started in a Nova Scotian high school when a group of students decided to wear pink in support of their classmate who was being bullied because he had worn a shirt of that colour to school. Today I’ve taken a pinky promise to stop bullying in its tracks, to stand up for people like Hamed. I hope you will join me.

FRIENDSHIP FOR CHILDREN AND
BOOSTER BENCH INITIATIVE

C. James: Research shows that children with strong friendships are better able to learn, have higher self-esteem, are less likely to suffer from stress and depression, and are more likely to have a bright, healthy future.

But building those friendships can be hard. To help, a new concept has come to Victoria. The city’s first booster bench was officially opened today, Pink Shirt Day, at South Park Family School. By sitting on the bench, children communicate to others: “I want to connect. Could you come over and talk?”

The booster bench will create friendship opportunities for all children but particularly those who are new to school, who want to make new friends, whose friends are absent from school, who want to play something different than their other friends are playing, who are having a problem with their friends and can’t solve it right now or just want to take a break, or who want to be a friend to someone else.

[1345]

Booster bench is a project of the amazing Leadership Victoria community action project team. The five-member team calls themselves Bench Strength. It’s just another example of the inspired community work done by Leadership Victoria.

Financial assistance for this project was provided by Coast Capital Savings and the Beatrice Stevens Memorial Foundation. The ceremony this morning was marked with children, parents and other members of the community invited to support making this bench, the first of many, a place to encourage friendship and empathy. The Minister of Education, myself and others gathered. We took a pledge to do the same and to do our part as well.

I hope all members will join me in saying congratula-
[ Page 10659 ]
tions to all those who have worked so hard to help this happen and to give our kids a little boost when they need it most.

WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION
IN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

J. Thornthwaite: In March, we will observe International Women’s Day. What better way to celebrate that than to encourage more young women to consider education and employment in industries in which we continue to be under-represented.

The number of women in technical and executive roles in sectors like aviation, aerospace, marine and defence is at an all-time low. Out of more than 24,000 professional pilots working in Canada, just 1,300 are women. The misrepresentation that aerospace is an industry for men is a common view that is reinforced by media, advertising and social media. But this is slowly changing, thanks to initiatives like The Sky’s No Limit — Girls Fly Too.

Now in its fifth year, Girls Fly Too will take place from March 12 to 13 at the Abbotsford International Airport. It will offer girls and women free introductory flights for first-time flyers, as well as opportunities to explore civilian and non-civilian aircraft, see tactical and ground displays and meet flight crews and operators. This annual event aims to address gender and cultural diversity while encouraging women who have had little to no experience in aerospace, aviation, marine and defence to take part in a weekend of activities that actively involve them in some of the largest and fastest-growing industries.

The Sky’s No Limit — Girls Fly Too is a great way to engage youth and inspire our future female leaders. I want to encourage everyone who’s in the area on March 12 and 13 to head to Abbotsford, sign up for a free flight and help more young women discover the amazing opportunities these industries have to offer.

DEMENTIA

S. Robinson: My grandmother, my bubbe Molly, was an amazing woman who could put a meal on a table like no other Jewish grandmother. Whether it was her chicken soup, her brisket or her holishkes, which are commonly known as cabbage rolls, her food was outstanding. But as she aged, we noticed her cooking skills deteriorate.

I recall a day when she was serving me soup and bread for lunch, and I noticed mould had developed on the bread. When I showed it to her, she insisted that she had bought it fresh. In her mind, she had just bought the bread the day before our lunch date. It was, however, the bread that she had bought the previous week. She hadn’t been shopping that entire week.

I went with her story that the store was at fault for selling her mouldy bread, and we had a lovely soup with no bread. But my family knew that my lovely bubbe Molly was showing signs of dementia and would eventually need to move to residential care as her ability to function independently became compromised.

The Alzheimer Society of British Columbia is committed to ensuring that all people affected by dementia are able to live a full life. It’s with this in mind that the Alzheimer Society reminds us all that people with dementia deserve to be known foremost as a person with a rich, complex story that is understood and valued. They recognize and work hard to ensure that family members and caregivers receive the information, support and training that remind us all that beneath this disease is a person — a person with skills and talents, a person with stories and a history, a person whose life has meaning and purpose.

My bubbe Molly was a fabulous cook who loved her family more than anything. Her purpose, even with Alzheimer’s, was to love us and to feed us.

FRASER RIVER

S. Gibson: Often referred to as the heart of British Columbia, the mighty Fraser River is a defining geographical feature in our province. Named after well-known explorer Simon Fraser, the river basin drains one-third of the area of our province and is home to over 60 percent of British Columbia’s population.

[1350]

The Fraser River bisects my riding of beautiful Abbotsford-Mission, flows from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean and embodies the rich natural, social and economic diversity of our province.

The ecological significance of the river is exemplified by the wetlands, which have a huge number of waterfowl and migrating shorebirds in the province. The system also produces more salmon than any other in the world, providing an ideal habitat for all species to flourish — also, significant populations of sturgeon and trout.

For thousands of years, First Nations communities have lived along the Fraser, relying on it as a source of food and transportation. Today the river continues to be central to our life in the province — for some, a source of income and, for others, healthy living and recreation.

We as government are committed to ensuring that the Fraser River remains one of the world’s great river destinations. Protecting the viability of the river is a collaborative effort with government to work with industry, First Nations, non-profits and communities along the river to ensure future generations of British Columbians can enjoy the numerous benefits provided by the mighty Fraser River.

BULLYING AND POLITICS

S. Chandra Herbert: Today is Pink Shirt Day — a day to stand together and say “no more” to bullies and to
[ Page 10660 ]
stand with those who have been victimized. I really, really want to believe all the commitments we’ve made on all sides, because we need to act. Simply put, the leadership demonstrated in this place on all sides is sometimes close to, and sometimes actually, bullying.

We tell young people not to call each other names, but when the cameras have stopped, I know that members of this House call other members, and other people they disagree with, names — sometimes horrible names. In fact, some use the name-calling and insults as laugh lines in speeches to supporters. It doesn’t sound so different from what we tell people in schools not to do.

In fact, if you talk to students or teachers, they can’t understand what goes on in this place. They ask me why we say we are against bullying when sometimes too many of us take a “you’re with me, or you’re against me” point of view. You’re a friend, or you’re an enemy.

In Canada, we’re free to believe what we want. But with that expectation, I also believe we have an obligation to respect, or at least accept, that there are people with other points of view. In this chamber and outside this chamber, it means for me that if I disagree with the Premier, with my leader, with ministers, with other members, that I still respect them as a person. I don’t call them names. I don’t attack them personally. I focus on the issues and the actions.

If we’re truly to wear pink shirts and say we are against bullying, if bullying really stops here, then we actually have to stop it here. This is the people’s House. Let’s for once show the people we can actually do what we say.

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S RESPONSE TO
LELU ISLAND DECLARATION

J. Horgan: I’m pleased and proud to rise following the comments by the member for Vancouver–West End. It is Anti-Bullying Day and, I think, an appropriate time and the first opportunity I’ve had to raise this issue with the Premier. She has been taking, over the past number of months, to have an “if you’re not with me, you must be against me” attitude towards British Columbians, most recently with respect to individuals, First Nations leaders, in the north coast area who are concerned about the siting of an LNG facility on Lelu Island.

They gathered together to express their concerns. They signed a declaration, and the response from the Premier was that they were kind of “a ragtag group” of people.

Let’s ponder that for a moment, shall we? Keep in mind the words of the member for Vancouver–West End and all of the things that we have been doing as legislators, whether it’s been on the front steps or in schools, as I and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill have. Words are powerful. Words are harmful. For the Premier of British Columbia to speak disrespectfully about a large group of people who have a different point of view, characterizing them as kind of a ragtag group of people, I think diminishes us all.

My question to the Premier is this. Does she believe that true reconciliation with First Nations begins with name-calling?

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is taking an interest in reconciliation. It has been a central part of what we’ve been trying to do, working toward, in this government for many, many years now, and we are making very real progress with First Nations all across the province.

Our goal has been to recognize that if First Nations have the economic means, then they can create their own vision, their own economy, in their own communities — not a vision that’s created by a government outside their community, not a vision that comes from Ottawa or Victoria but a vision that they drive.

Ultimately, that is what First Nations have been looking for, for over 150 years. Our government has been working tirelessly and in good faith with First Nations all across British Columbia to try and make sure that we support them in finding the means, in creating the means, for economic wealth, because First Nations children and First Nations communities have been left out of the economic mainstream for far, far too long.

We have a generational chance in this House to change that trajectory for First Nations, and shame on us if we miss that opportunity. First Nations have been waiting far, far too long.

I am committed, members on this side of the House are committed, to making sure that First Nations get a crack at the economic mainstream, at a chance to be successful, at an opportunity for their children to live in the kind of wealthy, healthy society we all expect for our children. We aren’t going to stop until we get there.

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

J. Horgan: I suppose that I can take some comfort in the Premier’s comments. But when I look back at the track record of her and the B.C. Liberals, when the Nisga’a treaty was ratified in this Legislature, the B.C. Liberals voted against it.

When they came to government, they not only tried to go to the Supreme Court and have the Nisga’a treaty overturned; they then held, when the Premier was the Deputy Premier, a racist referendum on treaty rights. They put that question to the public — minority rights put to the majority. Again, not necessarily the path to reconciliation.

And then to call a group of individuals ragtag…. They’re obstacles to the Premier’s vision. I heard what the Premier said, and I don’t recall the Lax Kw’alaams in
[ Page 10661 ]
their almost unanimous votes against this project saying: “You know, if only we had this paternalistic vision from the Premier of British Columbia about liquefied natural gas it, would set us free.” Quite the contrary. The entire community said no.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yes, they did.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

J. Horgan: The Premier went on beyond the comments about ragtag, and I think she sort of echoed those same comments today. She said in that media interview: “Post-contact, those First Nations are going to have the first chance to create the kind of community that they want.”

Now, that may well be the Premier’s vision, but I think the best way to find out what those communities want is to ask them. And if you asked the Lax Kw’alaams, if you asked the leadership that was at Lelu Island, you’d get a decidedly different answer than the one the Premier wants to hear.

So, again, I pose the question through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier: You blew up the treaty process in British Columbia, where we had had 25 years of hard work, and now you’re calling those who disagree with you ragtag. Will the Premier confirm today that if you’re not with her, you must be against her? Or is she going to rise above that and be the leader for all British Columbians, whether they agree with her or not?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member forgets, in his recitation of history, that it has been this government that has signed all of the treaties that have come out of the treaty process, all of which have been a tremendous success for First Nations. We have signed hundreds of reconciliation and other kinds of agreements, economic agreements, with First Nations over just the last few years, and every single one of those is a building block toward reconciliation.

[1400]

Most recently we signed a landmark agreement with the Tsilhqot’in, which people said we could never achieve. We signed that agreement and, for the first time, heard sung a song that hasn’t been heard and has been lost to that community for over 75 years, in a moment that was moving for all of us.

If the member wants to stand up and misconstrue history, he’s certainly allowed to do that in this Legislature. But the truth of it is that our government stands with First Nations. Our government stands up to make sure that First Nations get every opportunity, every generational opportunity, that is being presented right now by saying yes to economic development projects, by saying yes to ensuring that First Nations are a part of those projects.

While that member will stand up and say no to those projects, when he does, he should remember he is also saying no to the futures of First Nations people who have a chance at something they haven’t had since contact with European people, and that’s the chance to make their own future in an economic mainstream that they have been shut out of by European settlers for far, far too long.

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

J. Horgan: I’m trying to get my head around the Premier’s comments about Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: ragtag. Chief Murray Smith, Chief Stan Dennis Sr. and Coun. Stan Dennis Jr. from Lax Kw’alaams: ragtag. Chief John Ridsdale from the Wet’suwet’en: ragtag. Yvonne Lattie from the Gitxsan: ragtag.

I’m wondering. Although the Premier likes to say that everybody agrees with her when she stands in this place, surely she knows that that’s not the case. Surely she has enough understanding of the complexities of British Columbia that she understands that there is a diversity of opinion on a whole range of issues.

I’m prepared to accept that the Premier and I will rarely agree on anything. But I do not call her ragtag. I don’t call her inappropriate. I allow her to have that opinion, and I express a counter point of view.

Will the Premier today take the opportunity to say to those individuals who she characterized as ragtag…? Will she respect their right to have a different point of view and maybe, maybe, try and convince them, through the powers of her considerable persuasion, that maybe she can bring them onside rather than dismiss them as obstacles to her agenda, not theirs?

Hon. C. Clark: I am pretty sure that the Leader of the Opposition has called me worse than ragtag in the past. However, let’s stick to the line of questioning that the member has talked about.

Thirty-six First Nations have endorsed the project across British Columbia. We have Chief Harold Leighton from the Metlakatla; Chief Clifford White from the Gitxaala; Chief Don Roberts from the Kitsumkalum; Chief Joe Bevan from the Kitselas; Coun. Chris Sankey, on behalf of John Helin of the Lax Kw’alaams: Chief Arnold Clifton from the Gitga’at First Nation.

Those First Nations in the region have written a letter to his members asking them to stand down their opposition to this project, asking them to step aside, get out of the way and let the First Nations in these communities decide their own future without the politics of no, without the politics of the NDP in the opposition.

They want a chance to be able to make these decisions for themselves. They wrote that letter asking these mem-
[ Page 10662 ]
bers to step down and take a step back and allow them to make these decisions, and those members from the New Democrats refused.

I wish there had been First Nations in the gallery today. We know that there are pipefitters and members of other unions who are with us in the precincts today. Those are the people in British Columbia that we stand with when we work to get to yes on economic development projects. Those are the people who will benefit when those projects go ahead.

Everyone in this province has the right to freedom of speech. There won’t be a single project where we agree. But the thing that fundamentally differentiates the government from the NDP opposition is this. While they look for every way to try and say no to growth, when they look for every way to say no to jobs, on this side of the House, we stand on the side of trying to find every way that we can to build consensus so that we can get to yes.

[1405]

SCHOOL ANTI-BULLYING POLICIES
FOR LGBT STUDENTS

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m hoping the Premier will finally get to yes on this question. As I have been saying for years and years, gay, transgender, bi and lesbian students are targeted for harassment, violence and bullying at much, much higher rates than most other students in B.C. schools. They’ve been pleading with us to act to make their schools safer.

The Standing Committee on Children and Youth, made up of members of the Liberals and the New Democrats, made specific recommendations to the Minister of Education to address this violence. They called on the minister to require “stand-alone sexual identity and gender identity policies in schools and support for gay-straight alliances.”

Does the minister support this recommendation?

Hon. M. Bernier: British Columbia is a world leader when it comes to working to create safe schools. We are the envy of almost every province in this country, to make sure that we are constantly working to create a safe environment for all of our students in the schools, regardless of what the issues are — whatever their gender, their race, their religion, their gender identity.

Those are things that we find in the schools every day, and those are things, obviously, that we are going to make sure that we have processes in place. We work with our school districts to make sure that we have policies in place to make sure that no student is ever bullied or discriminated against.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, targeted violence actually requires a targeted response. Saying we’re against bullying, and wearing pink shirts, and saying we’re number one do nothing for the student who has been attacked because they’re gay. It does nothing for the student who’s been attacked because they’re transgender. Specific policies are required.

Liberal members get it. New Democrat members get it. I don’t know why the cabinet doesn’t get it. Those students are pleading for us to act. Alberta has acted. Ontario has acted. Provinces across Canada have acted, but this government refuses to.

Will the minister, just for once, in this case, actually listen to the voices of students, actually listen to the voices of educators, actually listen to this call and bring in stand-alone policies that would specifically target the horrific levels of violence that too often face our lesbian, bisexual, transgender and gay students in British Columbia schools?

Hon. M. Bernier: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite brought this issue forward, and I appreciate the fact that he referenced the work that has taken place in other provinces. In fact, when those provinces were looking at putting policies and guidelines in place, they looked at British Columbia, because we’ve been leaders in this far before other provinces actually were doing this.

In fact, we have what’s called — and the members opposite know this — our ERASE Bullying strategy, which came in years ago. Through that strategy, we have dedicated safe schools coordinators in every school district in the province of British Columbia.

We have that in place, where we’ve trained over 12,000 teachers and educators in the province of British Columbia to not only recognize but to look at the signs that are in place when it comes to bullying, to make sure they’re constantly working with the students.

It’s something we don’t condone and the teachers and educators don’t condone. That’s why the school districts are encouraged and have policies in place to make sure this doesn’t happen.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES
AND BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Well, we all know that government is about making choices and that people want their government to make choices that make their lives easier. So the Premier has decided that clawing back bus passes from people on disability was a wise choice. We now know that she also decided to spend more than $100,000 to hold a photo op of yoga on the Burrard Street Bridge. She only backed down because the public cried out and asked her to stop doing that.

[1410]

So my question to the Premier is this. Does she really think that her PR needs are more important than providing a $45 annual bus pass to people with disabilities?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member is simply wrong. She was wrong last week, she was wrong yesterday, and she’s wrong again today. But for some reason, she continues to misinform the public about the changes that have been made in my ministry.

Nobody is being denied the bus pass program. The subsidized bus pass program is still available to people with disabilities. The changes we’ve made are a $170 million investment to help increase the rates for people with disabilities.

We are taking from the strength of our economy in order to build on the investments we can make in ministries across this government, whether it be $1.5 billion in health care over the next three years or $1.2 billion in the social development ministries of Ministry of Children and Families, myself and Housing. These are investments we’re making in the future to help those who need it most.

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

M. Mungall: Nobody’s buying this truly Orwellian spin that the government is putting out about the bus passes, but best of luck continuing with that line.

My question was to the Premier. It’s because we recently got freedom-of-information documents that showed that she planned to spend more than $100,000 on her photo op. Now, she had her aides scope out the costs of Om the Bridge, and boy, did they cost — over $12,000 alone just to set up speakers. Keep in mind that $12,000 is more than what people with disabilities are getting each year.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Can she tell us who is in greater need of public support? Is it people with disabilities, or is it her PR team?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What I can tell this House, and what I can inform the opposition, is that we continue to grow our economy so we can make investments in the welfare of people of our province who need it most.

Since 2001, there has been almost $5 billion in subsidized housing provided for individuals across this province who need assistance. There are child care subsidies that are provided, free dental and optical, free MSP payments, discounted bus passes, medical equipment and supplies — multiple ways that we wrap supports around people in this province that need it the most. We will continue to invest, and we will continue to support.

M. Karagianis: The freedom-of-information documents had some more interesting information in them — money that seemed to be no object for the Premier to spend on her failed Om the Bridge project. There was money for custom stages, money for a giant graphic wrap — and here’s my favourite — money for two super silent generators because, of course, you can’t do Om on the Bridge if the generators are making any noise.

Can the Premier tell the House why she was prepared to dedicate taxpayers’ dollars to her massive photo op and yet not provide bus passes to people with disabilities?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The $170 million that is being invested into people with disabilities is new money to help support increased rates.

[1415]

It is part of our continued progressive policy changes that we make in social development, and we have made in the last several years, to help make the lives of people with disabilities more independent, to help those people who rely on us each and every day — whether it be us increasing the asset limits, taking away the exemptions for gifting without it affecting their income assistance rates, whether it’s their ability to earn almost $10,000 in earning exemptions before it is being counted toward their income assistance, if it’s the single-parent employment initiative. These are all changes that we are doing to wrap supports around people to make their lives better.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Despite the minister’s comments here, she needs to get on top of that file, because the people in the disabilities community know exactly what happened with their bus pass.

It’s an interesting and sharp contrast with the kind of money the Premier was prepared to spend to om the bridge. She had planned…. You’ll have to just bear with me. Because there was no guarantee people would watch the Premier doing her yoga on the bridge, she also planned to spend nearly $25,000 of taxpayers’ money for a mobile TV and transmission facilities so that, of course, she could broadcast this great photo op to the world.

How can the Premier honestly tell this House that her photo op was more deserving of taxpayers’ dollars than the people in the disabilities community — for a bus pass so they can get around their communities every single day?

Hon. C. Clark: When they look up “scraping the bottom of the barrel,” they’re going to find this question period in the dictionary. There’s no question about it.

That member is talking about money that wasn’t spent and comparing it to one of the biggest lifts in rates for people on disabilities that’s happened in years in British Columbia — a rate increase that will benefit everyone, including people who will continue to use a bus pass and people who never had a bus pass. All of those individuals are going to benefit from this. Despite the fact
[ Page 10664 ]
that the member keeps saying that that won’t happen, it doesn’t make it true.

The truth is that this change in the budget, which we’ve been able to make because of a growing economy…. Because we make a priority of looking after vulnerable people in British Columbia, this change is going to make life a little bit better for all of the people who live with disabilities around the province.

When you add that to the long list of changes that the minister has already talked about, changes we’ve been making to ensure that we’re wrapping services around people who need it the most…. When you add those together, it means that every year since I’ve become Premier life has gotten a little bit easier for people who are living with disabilities in British Columbia.

COMPENSATION FOR FOREST WORKERS
IN MAA-NULTH TREATY AREA

S. Fraser: Life hasn’t gotten easier for the steelworkers and their families in Port Alberni.

The mayor of Port Alberni, the regional district directors and the United Steelworkers all support treaty and the Maa-nulth treaty, in particular. Part of the treaty provided 105,000 cubic metres of annual allowable cut from the tree farm licence for the Maa-nulth Nations. Those lands previously were held by Western Forest Products. They were providing employment for forestry workers in Port Alberni, and these workers have lost 25 percent of their cut.

Now, the government has a formula for this, and a precedent has been in place for years now to provide compensation to those forestry workers for the decisions made to support the treaty, which we all support. The minister assured workers in Port Alberni that their needs would be met. That was two years ago, when we met.

To the Minister of Forests: why are those workers and their families still waiting?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m a little surprised, I think, to receive the question. The member opposite knows we’ve been engaged on this file, knows we’ve had recent meetings and have met with the union as recently as February 11, just ten days ago or so. We continue to work on the file.

I know the member opposite would just like us to write a cheque. That’s not the way we can do things. We have to do our fiduciary responsibility. We have to look through and determine whether or not there is actual compensation due and negative impacts that are a result of the treaty.

[1420]

We’re working through those processes. We’ve asked the union for additional information. They’ve agreed to provide that information. We’re working on the file, and we continue to work on it. So I’m a little surprised to receive the question.

The member opposite brought that issue forward to us. We’ve been working on it, and we continue to engage both with the union…. I met recently with the mayor as well. So we are continuing to work on it.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister might want to take a walk out onto the steps out front and talk to the steelworkers who have not got that meeting. They’ve been waiting two years.

The steelworkers are not fighting alone on this. They have the support of the Port Alberni mayor, of course. Western Forest Products have stood up for them. Huu-ay-aht Councillor John Jacks, who is the recipient, the Huu-ay-aht, of the 105,000 hectares…. They don’t want to do it on the backs of those workers.

Treaties are an important part of a long-term reconciliation in this province between First Nations communities and non–First Nations communities. For that to happen, treaties must be done in a way that unites people, not divides them. That’s why the government needs to provide a just transition for the forestry workers in Port Alberni. Those workers support the treaty, but they also need to support their families.

Will the minister help unite communities in reconciliation by ensuring that these families receive the settlements that they deserve? Meet with them.

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s great to see the member opposite acknowledge a treaty that we signed. The Leader of the Opposition did not recognize that we have signed the treaties. Those treaties are very, very important steps, and we agree that we need to continue to build that reconciliation.

With respect to this particular case, as I’ve said, we continue to engage. We met with the union as recently as ten days ago on the file and have asked for further information. It’s my responsibility to do the fiduciary duty, the due diligence, to assess all of the impacts and what number of….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite talk about the time. If you want me to go into requests for information, how long it took for that information to be provided and the process….

We continue to engage, and we’re continuing to do our due diligence and our fiduciary responsibility. I know the member opposite would just like us to write a cheque, but that’s not the way we can do things. We have to make sure that the impacts on the workers are known, the numbers are known. We’re working on that, and we continue to meet — as I said, as recently as ten days ago.
[ Page 10665 ]

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO REPORT ON YOUTH DEATH CASE

C. James: When she was asked about the timing of the response to the Paige report last fall, the Premier said: “The report was ready to be released…. The children’s advocate supported that release, so that’s when it went out.”

We now know that simply wasn’t true. An assistant deputy minister in government communications said in an email that according to the Premier’s office, Monday, October 19, election day, was very much desired. Then he went out and told staff to do whatever it takes to get it out the door that day. What’s clear from these emails is that the Premier was calling the shots, and the Premier wanted to play politics with this report.

My question is to the Premier. Why?

Hon. C. Clark: First, if I can go back to…. The member did ask if we could go and meet with steelworkers. I challenge the members of the opposition to go out and meet with any union leaders around the province, all of the people to whom they want to deny jobs through their regular opposition to economic development in British Columbia. Whether it’s the steelworkers, whether it’s the pipefitters, whether it’s a range of people from unions all across the province, they stand united in favour of jobs, and they stand united in getting to yes. I ask the member to go out and meet with the steelworkers and unions across the province and say: “Guess what. I’ve changed my mind. I suddenly believe in yes.” That would be a nice change.

[1425]

The issue that the member has raised is vitally important, and I’m going to say this. What the member talks about specifically is when the report was released. She talks about the next day, when the minister made herself available to the media. Never once has this member gotten up and talked about the important contents of that report. Surely, that is the most important…. The outcome of that report is surely the most important thing to vulnerable youth in British Columbia.

Yes, we have responded with immediate steps based on the outcome of that report. The rep called for a review of all the files for ministry-involved children and youth in the Downtown Eastside. The minister put together a rapid response team. The rep called for accountability around agencies reporting harm and abuse. We have clarified the duty to report amongst those agencies. The rep called for making sure that the service delivery in the Downtown Eastside was reviewed. Over a five-month span, the ministry has been working and sitting down with social services agencies all around the Downtown Eastside to make sure we clarify those issues.

I know the member hasn’t asked about whether or not this report has been followed up. She hasn’t asked about whether or not the ministry is doing all that it can to respect the lessons that are learned from the tragic loss of Paige from this world. But I’m happy to inform the House and that member that this minister and this government are acting as quickly and responsibly as we can to fulfil the demands of this report, because those children depend on us.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Shin: I would love to resume my remarks from where I left off yesterday. With that said, it’s a brand-new day. Today is the anti-bullying Pink Shirt Day, so this is one of those favourite days that I get to celebrate, getting my pinkest wardrobe out. Of course, all across the chamber it’s lovely to see all the other MLAs coming out with their pink spirit.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On that note, though, I really must echo the sentiments that were so beautifully articulated by my colleague the member for Vancouver–West End, in that while we continue, in the spirit of anti-bullying, to raise awareness annually, there are still marginalized groups that are not recognized by the Legislature. I fully support him as well as all the other British Columbians. On that note, I came out and sported my rainbow shirt. It is a special day today, and I hope that the House will consider the advocacy that has been done for our LGBTQ-plus community.

In my previous remarks on the budget debate, I touched on the important issues for my constituents on housing, children and youth, continued child poverty as well as education — the underfunding of adult education, post-secondary education — and, of course, health care issues — more specifically, Burnaby Hospital, which is in Burnaby. I also touched on senior care.

What I would like to do with my remaining time is speak on the small business file. I had the honour of being appointed by our leader to work on this particular file and meet with our small business owners of British Columbia.

My New Democrat colleagues and I see the importance of a very robust small business sector in our province and, of course, are working hard to ensure that small businesses are not only treated fairly and supported and have access to the resources that they need to grow and succeed but that they’re also fairly represented. What I mean by that is that the small business category, as we
[ Page 10666 ]
have it in British Columbia, is a fairly big umbrella term. In that term, we have anywhere from owner-operated businesses, where it’s just a one-man shop, all the way to a medium-sized enterprise with 50 or less employees or up to $5 million in revenue. That’s a lot of different types of businesses that fall under the small business category.

[1430]

Last year, when I was appointed to that file, I toured around the province, and I visited hundreds of entrepreneurs and their employees right at their doorsteps. The reason that I did that is the small business community…. My parents were small business owners once.

A lot of the people who need to really voice their concerns to the House don’t exactly have the luxury of the time or the expertise or the resources available to voice their opinions. What that means is, regardless of the ongoing efforts by a number of small business advocacy bodies, there is a huge group of people whose voices are just not heard.

A lot of these entrepreneurs who are working around the clock cannot exactly come out and abandon their posts to participate in public hearings or to petition or to meet with their MLAs and MPs to express what concerns them, even in the ways that we try to engage with small business owners, whether it’s the Small Business Roundtable or Small Business B.C., which does a fantastic job of hosting a number of events and conferences. With that, again, it’s making that time to be able to participate. Time is just such a rare commodity that not a lot of our entrepreneurs have.

Even on the surveys that go out to the small business owners, language can be a barrier. Again, it’s time committed to get to know the issues and respond to surveys. It’s again something that not everybody is able to participate in doing. What that all means is that in that process, we have a lot of voices that are unheard and continue to be unheard.

On the point of surveys, it’s one thing to engage entrepreneurs and pose questions, but it’s another entirely to make it open-ended for people to be able to express themselves quite freely and to make sure that the prompts that are in those surveys are not predetermined, so to speak. If you only give them four choices of their top concerns and those four choices are spelled out, by that process you are sort of excluding all the others — the X, Y, Zs of other concerns — that could have come out but weren’t a part of that particular survey, so to speak.

That’s why it made sense to me to really just get in my car and start visiting the shops, right at their workplaces, instead of calling for a town hall or organizing a round-table meeting or sending out surveys. That’s exactly what I did last year and earlier this year. It turns out — my staff tallied this up — that I visited 54 communities across British Columbia. I don’t know how many kilometres I ended up putting on my car, but I’ve got dents and scratches to prove it.

With that said, it was wonderful to be able to connect with small business owners as they pour coffee for their clients, as they count up the inventory, and to be able to just have very frank conversations.

They shared with me a lot of the stories that probably wouldn’t have come out in the form of a survey or at the Small Business Roundtable or in conferences or public hearings. One of the things that I was surprised, but really not all that surprised, to hear about was that, yes there are other concerns, such as the red tape, which is a huge priority for this government. Red tape is a fine idea, and I’ll comment on that a little bit later.

But one of the things that we rarely seem to talk about in the House is what it means for small business owners, microbusiness owners that have employees, less than five of them, or even the owner-operated businesses.

Bank charges are a huge thing, for example. Is it right that we have a machine set up at our shops and that for every transaction that comes through — it’s like having a toll booth right there on your cashier’s desk — 3 percent is dinged right off every bit of your revenue that comes in. It goes straight to the bank, and when there’s a refund, there’s a hefty refund charge, $50 sometimes, in these very complex blueprints of fine clauses that a lot of entrepreneurs don’t get around to reading and fully understanding.

All these hidden costs, fair or unfair, that the banks and the vendors impose — and how well regulated or fully transparent those charges are — are something that small business owners are concerned about, as well as the cost of operation. There seems to be a big force of no out there that somehow a minimum-wage increase is going to be the collapse of free enterprise or everything small-business, but that’s to the contrary.

[1435]

For example, if you were to raise the minimum wage by $1 for an employee, given that most full-time workers are putting in about 2,080 hours per year, the overall cost of carrying that particular wage increase that adds value to someone who is working at my shop is going to be less than $150 or $180 per month. That’s really all it is, and $150 or $180 is not what kills businesses.

On the other hand, for a small-sized business that does about $1 million worth of revenue per year, it’s not a huge amount. There are a number of small businesses that easily pull in that kind of gross revenue. So $1 million of revenue, and you’re talking about $30,000 in the bank surcharge that goes straight to the credit card companies. What does $30,000 mean? That means you could have given a wage increase of a $1 to at least 15 of your employees.

It’s one thing to place emphasis on cost increases and what they mean for small business operations. As much as there’s this whole fixation around what minimum wage might imply, I would argue that one needs to look at the broader terms of what the cost of operations would
[ Page 10667 ]
mean as far as the MSP increases, the hydro increases, the ICBC, the tolls that are imposed, the cost of shipping that’s going up significantly.

Of course, as far as our Commercial Tenancy Act is concerned, that’s another area where we have a number of protective measures for residential residency, but for commercial tenancy, it’s too often that I hear stories, just heartbreaking stories, where a successful business that just managed to establish itself in one location has to close their door because of a sudden increase in their rent.

These are the opinions and the concerns expressed to me at the businesses by the entrepreneurs, that, time and time again, every time I have the opportunity to rise in the House, I share with the members opposite, bring to the minister’s attention.

Those are some of the measures that I would love to see in the budget for our small businesses and especially those that are marginalized as owner-operators or microbusinesses — as much as even just 1/10 of the celebratory emphasis that the government places on the whole notion of red tape, to the point that there’s now a day proclaimed for it.

On small business, it’s something that I look forward to — continuing to work for our constituents as well as many of the small business owners. This is definitely not going to be the last time I will be arguing the same point to the ministry and calling for the attention of the House.

On the budget, there are a number of things a province can do, a government can do, to make a difference for British Columbians that come with a price tag. As much as from our side we have a number of differences, as far as the priorities are concerned, with the government’s agenda, there are also a handful of items that the government can engage with in order to make real practical differences in British Columbia that don’t necessarily come with huge price tags.

I must re-emphasize the work that the opposition has been doing and a number of great bills that came out as private member’s bills. I’ve had the privilege of introducing a couple myself.

I just want to put into the record again that it would be wonderful to see the government consider modernizing our democratic participation by allowing electronically submitted petitions. It’s a bill that I’ve brought to the House a number of times.

As well, bills like the remittance, which goes back to supporting small businesses, immigrant communities and so on and so forth. And, of course, the anti-SLAPP bill, which is a way for us to really protect those people that may be bullied — on an Anti-Bullying Day. It’s one of the ways that I think the government can practically engage in those matters to improve the lives of British Columbians.

Now, on that note, I think I covered off the major, big issues for my constituents that I’ve heard over and over again.

[1440]

With that, I would like to spend some time listing off, actually, a fantastic list. It just goes on. I probably can’t share all of them. This is just about budget and priorities.

I believe that there is no member here in the chamber that would argue or say no to some of the relief that the government has in the budget, but I think we really have to put it in perspective.

This is a story that I share. One of my former patients was complaining to me, saying: “Jane, can you believe it? This bottle of water has ten milligrams of sodium in it. Why would anybody put salt in water? That’s too much salt.” She was saying this as she was munching on a bag of chips that easily had grams upon grams upon grams of salt, right? So it’s about perspective.

The reason that I share this is because it’s one thing for the government to say: “We invested $170 million of new investment into social development programs.” That’s great. The $170 million sounds big, but let’s put that in perspective here.

Let’s see, for example, the Vancouver Convention Centre. This project was supposed to cost us $341 million, but it cost us…. This government ran over budget. We’re not talking about 5 percent, 10 percent over budget. They had the audacity of going over budget by $500 million. The project that was supposed to cost $341 million became a project that cost $836 million. That’s $500 million that are paid out by the taxpayers.

When we look at numbers in that perspective, then that $170 million measure that the government is putting out there…. We know that it could have been a lot bigger piece of the pie that was given to the people who need it the most in this province.

It doesn’t stop there. We have, of course, the Port Mann/Highway 1. The cost estimates escalated from $1.5 billion to $3.3 billion, and the tolls are still nowhere what was predicted. So we are talking $1.8 billion of over-budget spending by this government — $1.8 billion. Can you imagine what we could have done with that money?

Burnaby Hospital. In order for us to complete the master plan…. The cost prediction is about $633 million. And $633 million — I mean, it could have come from that right there.

The B.C. Place roof. The original….

Interjections.

J. Shin: Oh, the minister has the ferry thing. I’ve got at least ten more pages of where this government went over budget, so I will go ahead.

The B.C. Place roof — $365 million in 2009. They made it a $514 million project. Another utter failure. The B.C. Hydro transmission line — $522 million over budget. It gets so ridiculous that you think we are just…. I mean, these numbers are staggering. We are talking about millions of dollars, not just $1 million or $2 million. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
[ Page 10668 ]

The highway — $1.8 billion over budget. That’s the kind of money that we are talking about here. That’s the misspending over budget from this government over and over again.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. The minister has reminded me that the money doesn’t grow on trees. So, of course, how are we going to make up for it? How we are going to make up for it is by jacking up MSP, Hydro, ICBC, park fees, bridge tolls, B.C. Ferries.

I’m sorry that I ran out of time. I look forward to continuing to seek the stories at the doorsteps of our constituents.

D. Bing: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of Budget 2016. On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to speak about how this budget benefits the communities I represent and all British Columbians.

[1445]

This is our fourth consecutive balanced budget. This is a significant achievement. We have maintained our triple-A credit rating with a stable outlook, the highest rating possible. We are the only provincial jurisdiction in Canada that has this rating. This means we are able to borrow for building infrastructure projects at lower interest rates. We borrow to build, and we spend within our means.

This budget has $1.6 billion in new spending over three years. This is on top of the annual increase of 3 percent for health care.

We are working on paying down our operating debt. Since 2013-14, we have reduced our direct operating debt by $2.2 billion, which means we have a lower interest rate. With our increased spending, nearly $500 million is funded by lower interest costs. By the end of the current fiscal plan, our direct operating debt is projected to be at its lowest point in more than 30 years. We have the possibility of being debt-free by 2020 for the first time since 1975.

B.C. has a track record of successive balanced budgets and steady economic growth. Budget 2016 is our fourth consecutive balanced budget, and B.C. remains in a fiscal position envied by many jurisdictions across the country and around the world. Our plan is working. B.C. has a strong, diverse and growing economy, thanks to all the hard work of this government and all British Columbians.

Budget 2016 works to improve housing affordability and helps families with the cost of living. We are increasing the property transfer tax for newly built homes up to $750,000. This will save buyers up to $13,000 on the purchase of a new home. For residents of my riding or people looking to move to Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows, this is something they can take advantage of and something that’ll save them money.

We are making a $355 million investment in affordable housing, over five years, that will support more than 2,000 new units. We will also continue our partnerships with municipalities and community groups to create more affordable housing in B.C.

We are also expanding the home-renovation tax credit to include persons with disabilities. This tax credit provides up to $1,000 annually to help with the costs of certain home renovations to improve accessibility. This helps seniors and persons with disabilities to be more functional or mobile at home.

We have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada when all taxes are considered. This includes income tax, consumption tax, health care premiums and payroll tax. This means we leave more money in the pockets of British Columbians.

We also made changes to MSP premiums to help families with the cost of living. All children will be exempt from MSP premiums as of January 1, 2017. This will directly benefit over 70,000 single-parent families. As well, we are expanding premium assistance, so more people will either pay a reduced rate or no MSP at all. With these changes, an additional 335,000 people will see their premiums reduced, and an additional 45,000 people will no longer pay MSP premiums at all. These changes will help seniors, families and individuals with the cost of living.

Another investment that will help families all across our province is the expansion of the B.C. training and education savings grant. Through this program, we give $1,200 for children born in 2006 or later for their RESP, to begin saving for their post-secondary education. Families can apply to over 300 credit union branches across the province or any of the 100 BMO branches in B.C. It is easy to do and a great way to begin saving for future education from the age of six. You can provide this grant to children, and it can act as a boost for families to begin saving for their children’s post-secondary education from an early age.

Agriculture is a key economic driver in our province. Sales of B.C. food products have been increasing, as have our exports. B.C. is known around the world for agricultural products, and 2015 was a great year for agricultural exports. In fact, it was a record year for exports. Some $3.8 billion worth of B.C. agrifood and seafood products were shipped around the world.

[1450]

We also saw a record $12.3 billion in sales of B.C. food and beverage products in 2014. This was the highest ever. This positive trend will help B.C. meet its goal of seeing revenues in agrifoods and seafood reach $15 billion a year by 2020. There are 55,000 British Columbians who are directly employed in the provincial agrifood sector.

I am pleased to see that in Budget 2016, we have introduced a new tax credit for farmers. The farmers food donation tax credit is worth 25 percent of the fair market value of the qualifying agricultural products donated to a registered charity that provides food for people in need or to help a school meal program.
[ Page 10669 ]

We have some the best agricultural products in the world, and I’m happy that we are able to provide some help for farmers with this tax credit while also providing food to those in need. We will also be continuing the agriculture in the classroom funding for fruits, vegetables and dairy.

We are also providing an additional $2 million to the Buy Local program. We all visit our local farmers market and enjoy the fruits and vegetables that have been grown in our communities. Through the Buy Local program, we are able to support B.C. companies.

For example, in Maple Ridge, the Buy Local program supported Hardbite chips. Buy Local funding helped Naturally Home Grown Foods promote their chips through advertising, demos and on-line channels. They make their potato chips with locally grown potatoes. Simply helping a company expand the reach of their product and explore the potential of their product can make the difference.

Budget 2016 provides increased funding for our most vulnerable people. We are providing $673 million in additional support for those in need. This includes $217 million for the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support vulnerable youth and their families, and $465 million for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to support those in need.

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

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

Budget 2016 includes the annual 3 percent increase to the health care budget. Health care takes up almost half the total budget.

Just last month we announced that we are working in partnership with the B.C. Nurses Union to create over 1,600 additional regular nursing positions. Nurses are the front line of care for patients, and I’m pleased to see that we are providing better support for our nurses.

Another initiative I want to highlight in health is the MRI strategy. MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging. It does not use ionizing radiation, so in some cases, it makes it preferable to CT scans or X-rays.

Demand for medical imaging in B.C. has never been greater, so we have announced a four-year strategy for MRI services to help health authorities increase patient access to MRI scans. This strategy aims to increase the number of scans by adding up to 65,000 more annually by the end of four years. This will help reduce wait times and also help address the increasing demand we are seeing.

When it comes to our communities, we are working to keep people safe. We are providing $55 million in emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives. This includes initiatives such as upgrades to dikes and flood protection. For my constituents who live close to the Fraser River, this is an important investment.

We are also providing $10 million for B.C. search and rescue organizations. This will help bolster training, administrative support and equipment renewals for our volunteer search and rescue organizations. These volunteers venture out in some of the toughest working conditions to save lives, and I’m pleased to see that we are providing them with an extra boost in funding.

As Canada’s pacific gateway, B.C. is well positioned to benefit from trade with Asia. We launched our updated trade strategy, raising our game in Asia to continue to strengthen and diversify our trade there.

We are focusing on strengthening our ties with India. We are targeting $5 million over the fiscal plan to promote a stronger B.C. wood brand in India.

[1455]

This funding will help B.C. companies establish themselves as the world’s leading supplier of sustainably harvested wood products. As one of the fastest-growing emerging markets, B.C. companies have huge potential for their businesses. We have seen success in promoting our wood products in China, and I’m sure we’ll have success in India as well.

It has been a pleasure to take some time to highlight some of the aspects of Budget 2016. B.C. has worked hard at maintaining our fiscal prudence, and our fourth consecutive balanced budget is proof of that. We have worked hard to create a climate where businesses thrive and create jobs. We have a strong, diverse and growing economy.

I’m pleased to speak in support of Budget 2016.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to Budget 2016. I think that it’s not really going to be very surprising that I’m not going to be quite as fulsome as the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in my enthusiasm for the budget.

Before I start, however, I would like to just say a couple of things. I’m always extraordinarily proud and honoured to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the people of the north Island, people who, otherwise, don’t have a voice here, who look sometimes cynically at what we do here but who realize the import that the decisions that are made here will have on their lives. I think that there is something that is very humbling to realize that you are the person speaking on behalf of so many diverse people. I would like to acknowledge that.

I’d also like to thank my extraordinary staff, who go too often without being thanked, I have to say. I’ve been off on medical leave for a little while, and they rallied forward in a way that I knew that they would. Lynne Stone,
[ Page 10670 ]
my full-time constituency assistant in Campbell River; Mary Carstairs, my part-time constituency assistant in Campbell River; and Fred Robertson, my part-time constituency assistant in Port Hardy all do the most extraordinary job on behalf of the people of North Island every day that they go in. They are real advocates, themselves, for people. I would like to thank them very much for their continued hard work, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances sometimes.

My thoughts on this budget, the 2016 budget. I was just doing a quick count, when the budget was going through, of how many budgets I’ve actually listened to since I was first elected in 2005. There have actually been 14 budgets, although it’s only 2016, because after every election — the elections are in a very strange part of the budget cycle — we get a real budget. Pre-election, we obviously get the election budget. And after the election, we’ve had a real budget.

We saw this with a telling truth when we had the budget in 2009. Immediately after the election, we had the introduction of the HST with no indication of that in the budget, but there it was in reality afterwards. So you sometimes get a few serious question marks about how the system is being worked.

This, obviously, is not an election year, but there are indications that next year will be. Next year there will be the two budgets again. There are some indications that it’s coming up towards an election. I have to say, it’s very interesting. I believe that at last, the B.C. Liberals have been honest with people about the way they are governing and about the way they handle the province’s finances.

It really is…. It’s a fantasy. While that might dismay some people who watch this place and hope that they are going to get honesty — get some real understanding — I think that in this budget, the Finance Minister finally admitted that the emperor has no clothes. Everything that his government has been doing for the last 14 or 15 years is shrouded in smoke and mirrors or maybe is as secure as some sort of sidewalk shell game, the shifting of pots of money around.

I question: am I being harsh? But I don’t think so. You just have to reflect on the budget and the last few years of this government.

In 2013 — I think everyone remembers 2013. That was the last pre-election budget. We had the 2009 one, and in 2013, the Premier, who is still the Premier, said that the problems of B.C. would be washed away, effectively, by the power of the liquefied natural gas industry.

We’re not only going to create hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. We’ll not only become — as the Premier’s campaign bus slogan falsely promised — debt-free. But by golly, we’d have a prosperity fund filled with billions of surplus dollars.

[1500]

It’s B.C.’s rainy-day fund, we were told. It’s like a provincial retirement savings plan. Cynical people might have thought it was going to be a slush fund, but there you have it. That’s what we were going to have. That was just a bare three years ago.

We have an election coming up next year, and I think most people are aware that the LNG pipedream is evaporating pretty rapidly. The main foreign investor, the main proponent at the moment, is a state-owned Malaysian operation. I think people are aware there have been some questions about the standards of its business operations. They’ve still not committed, in spite of the B.C. Liberals effectively bribing them with public money through various tax incentives — giving away the resource. They’re still not here.

The fact that the B.C. Liberals did promise…. The Premier stood up here and promised that this would all be up and running by last year. They failed on that. They also said that it would be the cleanest in the world. But we also know now that the plants alone — to talk nothing about the upstream problems — will increase B.C.’s carbon emissions by 8 percent.

Despite all of this, the government still thinks that they can pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia — my constituents, constituents of all the members in this chamber — and that we can convince them this is all fine and everything will be wonderful and we’re going to have this. The result is the establishment, in Budget 2016, of this prosperity fund, even though there’s no LNG to fund it.

Where is the prosperity coming from in this fantasy fund? Well, it does look, very simply, looking at the figures that we have been given — $100 million to the prosperity fund and $100 million in the increase in medical services premiums…. Effectively, it’s the people of B.C. who are paying, through a flat tax, for a fantasy prosperity fund, just simply to try and make the government look good as it goes towards another election.

I do think that the government is being a little unfair to the people of B.C. that they expect they’re going to fall for this. Those I’ve talked to have seen straight through it. It’s very strange, but the government still is trying to, effectively, as I say…. I described it earlier as a shell game, which con artists use. I think that the government is still trying to con people that they are sound financial managers, so they’re using a regressive flat tax to start this fantasy fund.

I think that it can only really be described as a desperate attempt to reflect that campaign promise and hope that the people of B.C. don’t see that the reflection is coming through a house of mirrors. It is a fantasy fund which is the core of a fantasy budget.

The concept of fantasy…. I know in B.C.’s history it goes all the way back. We did have Fantasy Gardens at some time. A former Premier was involved in Fantasy Gardens. I know this government doesn’t particularly like that former Premier, but there is a fantasy element toward the neoconservative approach that this government has.
[ Page 10671 ]

On fantasy and why I describe it as a fantasy fund. Let’s look at MSP, which is going to be funding this, the MSP increases. Despite the statements by the Premier earlier, the B.C. Liberals do seem to be committed to what is effectively an antiquated and an unfair system for paying for health care. It’s a flat tax. It’s a fee which has been escalating year on year on year.

Other provinces don’t have separate flat fees for health care. Some have experimented with them and withdrawn them, because they were too cumbersome or too expensive. Most have their health care paid for. It’s not all paid for by the user, as it is in MSP. We all realize that. MSP doesn’t pay for our health care bill, but it’s rolled into a progressive tax system, into a progressive income tax system. For some reason, this government remains completely tied to MSP.

I think the only reason you can do is that they have so failed on our industry that now MSP brings in more to the provincial coffers than our forestry industry, our once proud forestry industry; than our mining industry; and than our gas industry — our resources industries. MSP that we are paying brings more to the public purse than those combined.

I’ve got to say that maybe it’s no wonder that the government, then — the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, along with all his colleagues who’ve stood and spoken about the budget in this place — have talked about the changes to MSP, the slight fiddling with the edges of MSP — which, in effect, are going to leave British Columbian families paying more for the health care than they were in the past.

[1505]

Yes, children are now being eliminated from the MSP bill, but you’ve also lost the couples rate, which means that you’re paying individually. So a number of people are going to end up paying more.

This is at a time when we should be investing. We should be investing in people; we should be investing in our resource industries.

I mention the fact that MSP brings in more than the mining or forestry sectors. Well, forestry is obviously huge still in the north Island. It’s a very important industry. There are no mills left, thanks to this government’s policies, but we still are logging and still employing a number of people in logging. Unfortunately, the government that was so committed to mining has failed miserably on that for the north Island. We have two mines. Both have shut down under this government’s watch, both in this last year — shut down, losing hundreds of well-paid jobs.

The government promotes how fabulously it’s doing there and yet failing completely — again, working through some strange fantasy that everything is great until you look down at the reality and find that it isn’t so. But don’t worry. I guess it’s all going to be paid for through MSP.

The other fantasy that has been playing out — it’s been playing out in question period; it’s been playing out in the media; it’s been playing out very extensively — is the fantasy that this government is actually doing anything for our most vulnerable people.

To the Premier, I don’t mean the pets of this province — you know, we love our pets — but our most vulnerable people: the disabled. The very, very cynical giving with one hand, taking back with the other; the increase of just a little more than $70 in disability payments, an increase that hasn’t happened for nine years, but then the loss of the transit pass, the loss of the bus pass.

I’m not the only MLA, I know, who has had their email box filled with concerns from constituents, phone calls from constituents wanting to know what’s happening. How can a government that has been starving them for funds for so long that people are so desperate take away the very minor increase they’ve had? People are literally desperate. They are in tears. They are beyond angry. They are upset. It is such a cynical, cynical move.

One of my constituents says his subsidized bus pass is going from $45 a year to $52 a month. So basically, his $77 increase is eaten up immediately. Then he’s still got to pay for housing, pay for food. This is a person who lives in the north Island. Housing is a bit cheaper. Food is not necessarily any cheaper than down on the Lower Mainland, but housing is a bit cheaper. How are people supposed to exist? And these are the lucky ones. Those on income assistance have had no increase in assistance rates for years. I mean, how does government expect people to survive?

Seriously, how does this government expect people to survive in this, the most expensive province in the country? Maybe they’re expecting them to dip into the fantasy fund — just put your hand in there. Except they don’t have control of the purse strings. It would be very different if they did.

Likewise, no indication of an increase to the minimum wage. My colleague from Burnaby was very eloquent about how it is very cost-effective to increase minimum wage, how you’re actually reinvesting in the economy. But people on low incomes are still going to be having to work two, three jobs just to keep their heads above water, because of the government’s absolutely shortsighted approach — as will seniors.

I’d like to quote an email from a senior in my constituency. She wrote: “How are we to keep up with all the increases plus having the cost of food increase beyond belief? On top of all of that, if you don’t receive relief on MSP, it appears we’ll pay more, since the levels have changed for payment. So the choice is no longer meat or meds but meat, veggies, housing or meds or all of the above. I did think about becoming a vegan until I saw the cost of veggies at our local IGA.”

The government is ignoring the disabled, seniors, people who aren’t working, the lower paid, the unemployed. Yet
[ Page 10672 ]
it still has the audacity to make a $1 billion tax cut for the richest 2 percent. We talked about this last year. It came into effect this January. The top income bracket of over $150,000 was eliminated from taxation. It brought in $230 million last year. This is going to be a $1 billion loss over four years. It is fine if you are well-off, if you’re wealthy, but not if you are one of the people who is really struggling, whether you’re disabled, you’re unemployed, you’re on a low wage. You are going to, effectively, be ignored.

[1510]

It’s very interesting, the government’s priorities. On the north Island, we are getting two new hospitals — one in Comox Valley, one in Campbell River. We are very pleased that this is happening. I know the member for Comox Valley is also very pleased that his constituency is getting a new hospital. But there is going to be an anomaly.

We are getting a hospital, which was reannounced in the budget under the capital plan. It’s almost finished, and I want to tell the Minister of Health: “It’s great, coming along. It’s going to be open in 2017 when you are most likely opposition Health critic.” Hopefully, we will be there opening this as a government project.

We are getting a new hospital. It opens in 2017. It’s going to be a bit of an anomaly in the community because Campbell River — we’re very fortunate — is a community where you don’t pay for parking. There are maybe two places — the airport, which is outside town…. There is one pay-for-parking area right downtown — small area. Never pay for parking, except at the new hospital. It’s going to be paid-for parking there.

It’s been a concerted campaign. I’ve written to the minister. I’ve written to the health authority. Other elected officials have written to the ministry and health authority asking for this to be halted to ensure that people can have free parking at the hospital. It’s not much of the health care budget to ensure that we can continue to have free parking. We’ve got free parking at the moment. Continue to have this. Not much of the health budget to do this. These very concerted pleas are being ignored.

The catchment area for this hospital is large. It’s rural. People are going to be driving, often from a great distance and at a cost to get there. They really don’t need the extra burden of parking meters once they arrive. Going to the hospital is stressful enough. Making people pay to park when they haven’t paid to park before, when you’re in a community where there is no paid parking, when you’re talking about a community of people who don’t have a lot of money is, I think, again, a cynical fantasy. I would have hoped that the government could have put in a small budget line that would ensure that that was covered. Unfortunately not.

Nor did the budget provide relief for those overstretched school districts. No increase in funding for education. We on this side of the House often talk about how important that high-quality public education is. It should be at the heart of any civilized society. It’s the equalizer. It allows every child, no matter what their background, to have an equality of opportunity. There’s no question about that. Unfortunately, the government has shortchanged school districts for years, undermining the very start that children should have.

It’s bad enough that you leave people in poverty. Your children are coming to school either hungry or often cold, so they’re not able to put their energies into learning. Then we see — this is the reality for kids — the school districts and schools having to make up that shortfall. Then we see that the school districts are being starved of funds for education, for what their real job is.

It’s not just providing the hot meals, sometimes, for kids or the clothes in the closet that kids may need because there’s nothing in the thrift store. There is no funding for education. They’re being cut to the bone. Last year they were told to go for the low-hanging fruit, to cut administration costs, to cover the MSP increases and salary increases with almost no increase in funding — and told to still be innovative and give our kids the best possible education.

School district 72 has long been regarded provincewide as an innovative and smart district. It covers Campbell River, south to the Oyster River, north up to Sayward, east to Cortes Island, including Quadra and Reid Islands.

I would like to read part of a letter that the school district wrote to the Minister of Education recently, just before the budget. It explains some of their concerns about the government’s approach to education and the government’s funding for education.

“The locally elected board of education for school district 72 is increasingly concerned with government actions, which are having an impact on our ability to deliver educational programming, provide adequate learning resources to our students, adequately keep our classrooms in good condition for learning and maintain our schools in order to prevent larger costs for repairs in the future.

“Earlier funding reductions outside of those that resulted from enrolment decline have, in the past, resulted in reduced education programming, fewer learning supplies in our classrooms, reduced janitorial services in our classrooms and deferred maintenance of our district infrastructure. The board is provided with an increasingly limited number of dollars that must be spread over a wide variety of needs in our district, and some needs, of necessity, must take a lower priority than others.

[1515]

“On behalf of the board of education, I am writing to express our concern with the constant downloading of education costs to our district. In the last provincial budget” — 2015 — “our board was stripped of more than $295,000 in ‘administrative savings.’ Last month school district 72 was burdened with the $155,000 cost of buying the technology required to access the provincially mandated new generation network.

“Additionally, the provincial ‘holdback’ has been allocated to other districts as a consequence of increased school enrolment and the influx of Syrian refugee children. Consequently, an additional $178,000 that had been assigned to pay for the district’s connection to the new generation network has been lost to school district 72.
[ Page 10673 ]

“Finally, your government’s recognition of the need to begin to compensate our administrators fairly in view of the provincially imposed 6½-year wage ‘freeze’ but its failure to fund this increase has resulted in an unanticipated $139,570 in additional costs to school district 72. When these amounts are added to the approximately $254,000 in ‘administrative savings’ for the 2016-17 school year, our district is facing unplanned cuts of $1,021,570. With a structural deficit of approximately $600,000 to $900,000, school district 72 is once again being forced to make hard choices about which services we will have to curtail in order to submit a balanced budget.

“This course is unsustainable and that your government continues to download ever-increasing costs to school districts, without providing the funding that would allow them to address these increased costs, is causing serious damage to the public education system in this province.

“In order to reduce our costs, the board and senior management of school district 72 have recently initiated the school closure process for two of our smaller elementary schools. Should the decision be made to close these schools, the savings anticipated to result from these closures will be largely eaten up by the increased costs that have been downloaded to our district over the past year and will not, as the board had planned, address our ongoing structural deficit.

“We will again need to use a large portion of our small unrestricted surplus to balance the budget this year, leaving the district with a minimal reserve for next year. This manner of dealing with chronic underfunding is unsustainable and must result in a reduction of services that directly impact our classrooms in the very near future.

“The board of education for school district 72 is requesting that the Ministry of Education fully fund the additional costs that have been incurred as a result of decisions that have been made at the provincial level. We further call on the government to act in this year’s provincial budget,” which we’ve just received, “to fully implement the recommendations to address the shortfall in government funding for public education that were made in the report on the Budget 2016 consultations. It is time for our government to make public education the priority it must be if our province is to have a vibrant and sustainable economy in the future.”

I think that says everything about what is needed for our education system. There has — perhaps sadly, perhaps not surprisingly — been no response. As the letter says, the school district is in the process of examining possible school closures, which is the last resort for any school and, as the letter indicates, won’t free up money that it really needs to meet the cost to provide a high-quality education to the children and the teenagers in the north Island, in the Campbell River area.

I’d like to turn my attention now to my shadow responsibility and look at some of the government’s budgets and plans for transportation. I think it’s little surprise that there’s not much pleasure there either.

The number one priority for this government is the replacement of the Massey Tunnel. We’ve heard the minister talk about this quite a lot. This is despite asking many questions about the rationale for this. It seems to be one of those classic…. Again, I think it’s a possible fantasy — very political.

A little bit of background here for those who aren’t aware. The election promise of 2013 — again, a bit like the fantasy prosperity fund and the fantasy LNG industry…. Big boards were around the Lower Mainland, on the highway, for all those people driving, saying: “Don’t worry. We’re going to replace the Massey Tunnel in 2017.” Just ahead of the 2013 election, big boards went up saying: “The Massey Tunnel will be replaced” — by something — “in 2017.” Just really bookended by two elections.

There wasn’t any business plan when those boards went up. Now the minister says that, oh, they have a business plan. It’s been put together. Look on the website. Despite vocal concerns from elected representatives in the Lower Mainland and despite the cost….

[1520]

At the moment, we’re hearing it’s going to be about $3.6 billion. I think this is very worrying, if that’s the cost that the government is saying right now.

Just look a little bit downriver, and look at what’s been happening with the Port Mann Bridge, which is built — a huge bridge, now has fewer vehicles using it than used the original bridge and is more than $1 billion over-spent.

The deficit on it is growing and growing. It’s going to be many years before we pay it off. I think we’re supposed to pay it off in the next couple of years. It’s many years down the road until it’s paid off, and as I say, fewer people are using the Port Mann Bridge now than used the old bridge. No way are we seeing the numbers go up. Now they’re talking about offering incentives to get people across the bridge. I mean, it’s a bridge.

Yet we’re seeing exactly the same process happening for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel. It’s unbelievable. You see one huge mistake. What does the government want to do? It wants to repeat it, and this is the number one priority for the Transportation Minister. It seems to be a pure political vanity project.

The next one on the cards, which we haven’t actually seen the billboards for but I know has been talked about, is the second crossing for Lake Okanagan. We’ve had one bridge just go up there not so long ago, and there is already talk of another one. But we have this without any real plan on how we’re going to pay for it, which is, I’ve got to say, terrifying.

What we’re going to see is the people of B.C. stuck with another billion-dollar white elephant, which is going to cause further chaos in the already chaotic traffic and transit system in the Lower Mainland. It’s an area that’s starved of funds for transit, yet we’re going to be spending billions of dollars on a ten-lane bridge. You just have to look at it. The question is: how is it going to work? The question is: how is it going to get paid for?

There are so many big questions there, and yet the government is rapidly working on this election fantasy time frame. Advertise it in one election. Do it in time for the next election.

One really loses faith in how the B.C. Liberals still try and convince people — again, it’s another fantasy — that they are sound managers of the purse strings here and that they are economic managers. They really know
[ Page 10674 ]
what they’re doing. I think you’ve just got to look. I mean, we’ve now had — what? — 15 years to look back at what this government has done and see that they are not the sound managers of the purse strings.

You just have to look at…. One that I’m sure will start raising the heckles, which we’ve been avoiding so far, thank goodness, is the way that they’ve been handling B.C. Ferries. It’s pretty interesting. Today we heard the announcement that we won’t actually be paying more to use the ferries just at the moment, although we’re supposed to be, because their fuel rebate is going to be covering what would be the increased ferry costs in 2016. The government comes out and says that this is thanks to their fiscal prudence.

Well, it’s actually got nothing to do with fiscal prudence. It’s got everything to do with the collapsing economy and the fact that oil prices are at rock-bottom levels. It’s got nothing to do with what this government is doing, and yet they slap themselves on the back and say how wonderful they are.

That may explain something about their mindset when they’re looking at ferries. I mean, we’re still trying to find out why the Queen of Chilliwack, the ferry, was sold at a bargain basement rate despite $15 million of public money…. That’s our money, the money that we pay our MSP for, that we pay our taxes for, and we should feel very proud that we do pay it so we do get some services. But $15 million of public money was spent on the Queen of Chilliwack, and it was sold for $2 million. We still haven’t had from the Minister of Transportation any answer about this.

It’s extraordinary, the government’s approach to the ferry system and to our marine highway. It is a shortsighted, political, blinkered attitude to what is essentially the link to keep our economies going and our communities going, up and down the coast. There is absolutely zero new money for the marine highway, zero new money for B.C. Ferries in this budget.

[1525]

The money in the budget in transportation is going to pavement. It’s pavement politics. We’re coming up to an election. “Let’s just put the tarmac on and try and win people over that way” — even for the people of Powell River. “Let’s try and build a highway from Powell River over to the mainland instead of relying on ferries, instead of investing in that.” Pure political action. It’s coming up to an election. Pavement politics is the traditional tactic for governments to use to try to win votes, and that’s what this government is doing.

Meanwhile, life has become unaffordable for most people in the last 15 years of the B.C. Liberal government. Fees have gone up. Hydro has gone up. MSP has gone up. Ferry fares have gone up, despite what the minister says. My constituents see absolutely no relief in this budget. They see nothing for their communities, for their industries or for their lives.

I’m going to be very proud to stand up and oppose this budget when it comes to a vote.

S. Hamilton: I’m very proud to stand in this House again and once again speak in favour of this year’s provincial budget. There are many, many good things contained in this budget, and it’s difficult to know where to start.

I will start, first of all, by acknowledging my constituency of Delta North and all the hard-working people that live there, as well as my staff in my constituency office and, of course, my lovely wife, Kristen, and my children, Paige and Lauren. I would never be doing this without their support.

As Chair of the Finance Committee, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that Budget 2016 came about after a great deal of planning and consultation. As you know, members on both sides of this House participate in a prebudget tour to hear from ordinary British Columbians in all parts of this province.

The Finance Committee heard a broad range of options and opinions. There were all sorts of perspectives expressed from different regions of the province, and while not everyone could agree on how to use precious tax dollars to our best advantage, I did note an underlying theme that shone through almost every consultation. That was the support for a balanced budget.

Certainly, people understand that government’s top priority is to eliminate deficit spending. Most everyone understands that you can’t simply pile up more and more debt just to cover the day-to-day operations of government. It’s just not fair to spend like there’s no tomorrow and then pass that debt along to our children and our grandchildren. This budget just happens to be the fourth consecutive balanced budget in a row, and that cannot be underscored enough.

While we were on the road with the Finance Committee, I couldn’t help but think about what my counterparts in other provinces are experiencing. It would be a tough exercise in the province of Alberta, as we know, with collapsing oil prices, rising unemployment and the floor falling out of the government revenues.

We’re all talking about a government that’s planning to run a massive deficit for the foreseeable future just to meet the daily needs of its citizens. Once proud to be a debt-free Alberta, it’s swimming now in a sea of red ink and probably won’t even realize a surplus within the next five years of that government’s mandate.

I’m quite content to be the Chair of the Finance Committee right here in British Columbia. British Columbians are depending on us to keep the books balanced and to secure a debt-free future. No other province in Canada is even close to having our financial track record. British Columbia is the only province in Confederation that enjoys a triple-A, stable credit rating. That means we can afford to put substantial investment into infrastructure by paying the lowest rate to service our capital budget.
[ Page 10675 ]

For example, Budget 2016 proposes $1.6 billion of new spending over the next three years plus increases of health care spending of 3 percent annually. However, with that, the members opposite define that and characterize that as tinkering around the edges. I can’t see where that type of investment equates to tinkering around the edges.

Just about $500 million of this new spending is made possible by reduced interest payments. By way of comparison, if we had that province’s credit rating, instead of saving $500 million, we’d be spending an additional $2.45 billion in interest payments. That’s $2.45 billion of interest that British Columbia doesn’t have to pay because of a triple-A, stable credit rating. Clearly, the balanced budget approach works best for British Columbians, and it’s one of the reasons why we are the strongest provincial economy in Canada.

What does a balanced budget mean to the average British Columbian? Well, to start with, it means we can start returning the dividends of a balanced budget back to families in this province.

[1530]

We all know that the population of the Lower Mainland continues to expand at a rapid rate. This places a great deal of pressure on local housing markets. While there are many factors that determine the cost of housing, we do know that more and more people are chasing after a limited number of homes. And we know that the expense of those homes is going up rapidly.

To make housing more affordable for young people looking to start a family, effective immediately, the government is exempting the purchase of newly built homes valued at up to $750,000 from the property transfer tax. That’s for new housing. This represents a saving of up to $13,000 for the purchaser of a new home.

This measure benefits consumers, but it also supports the construction of new housing and increases the housing supply. That means more jobs in the construction industry, and people of all ages can benefit. Young people can find a place to start a family, and older people who want to downsize, maybe like me, will benefit too.

A balanced budget also means a balanced approach to our priorities as a government. To ensure that no one gets left behind, this government announced a historic $355 million investment in affordable housing. This means individuals with low-to-moderate income will have access to affordable housing options throughout the province.

According to the chief of the Affordable Housing Societies, Bob Nicklin, “This significant funding commitment by the province will create a lot of opportunities for the non-profit housing sector and open doors for new partnerships with the B.C. government to create more long-term stable housing solutions for those most in need.”

That’s what makes our budget balanced. We’re applying a fairly modest surplus to help those most in need in this province. I’m not sure why the opposition plans on voting against these measures. Budget 2016 is aimed at helping families in many ways, including exempting every single child in the province from MSP premiums. For parents, especially single parents, this represents a huge amount of economic relief. Under these changes, a household with one parent and two children will save a minimum of $864 a year and up to $1,224 a year, depending on their financial circumstance.

We’re also investing an additional $70 million to enhance premium assistance. This will help more lower-income families, seniors and individuals qualify for reduced rates. By making children free and expanding premium assistance, an additional 355,000 — I’ll say it again: 355,000 — British Columbians will see their premiums reduced, including 70,000 single-parent families. Overall, nearly two million British Columbians, or 40 percent of the population in this province, won’t pay MSP premiums at all. Again, I’m not sure why the opposition will not sign on to helping single-parent families or support affordable housing.

There’s another way Budget 2016 is helping families in the province. Parents will also appreciate the fact that we’re expanding the eligibility of the B.C. training and education savings program. Children born on January 1, 2006, or later are eligible for a one-time grant of $1,200 towards a registered education savings plan, and parents are not even required to contribute to the plan. But they can use this as an affordable opportunity to plan ahead for their children’s future. This is a great way for families in Delta and, indeed, across British Columbia to give their children a head start on their future careers.

Families in Delta and the Lower Mainland will also appreciate the fact that a balanced budget means that we can afford to make long-term investments in transportation infrastructure. This includes a new $3.5 billion, ten-lane, three-kilometre bridge crossing over the Fraser River on Highway 99.

I heard the member opposite speak about this in her dissertation a little earlier. I would just invite her to come to that intersection at Highway 17 and Highway 99 at eight o’clock, any given morning from Monday to Friday, just to see how important that investment in that infrastructure is. Once completed, it’ll be the largest bridge ever built in British Columbia, and it will address the worst traffic bottleneck in the province. It’s going to be safer, with more lanes to merge. It’ll meet modern seismic standards and include a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians. Perhaps most important of all, it will take into account the addition of future rapid transit.

These are precisely the types of investments that we need. Before I conclude, as Chair of the Finance Committee, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Minister of Finance. He’s achieved what no other Finance Minister in this country has achieved in recent memory: he’s managed to balance the budget four years in a row without raising income taxes.

[1535]

This is a remarkable feat when you consider the fact that our province is not immune to what’s essentially a fragile global economy. There are risks. There are risks all over the world, and I’ll quote from a backgrounder regarding Budget 2016: “Downside risks to B.C.’s economic outlook include the potential for a slowdown in North American economic activity; ongoing fragility in Europe; slower than anticipated Asian demand, particularly in China; uncertainty in the outlook for the Canadian dollar; and weak inflation.” We are not immune to the forces from all over the world. Those forces can contribute to an economic catastrophe if we do not manage our fiscal house.

On that, I’d just like to bring up what’s been talked about in this House a little bit in recent days, and that’s the prosperity fund. Now, I don’t know how the members opposite want to define the prosperity fund, but in my house, I call it a savings account. I call it a savings account because my income is not going to be the same throughout the rest of my life, and there are going to be rainy days. I have to rely on that for my future, and other people do exactly the same thing.

We have made the first instalment into our provincial savings account, going forward. It’s going to be there for all British Columbians in the future, including everyone’s children and grandchildren in this House.

Many governments in the past have attempted to balance the budget by drastically increasing taxes. We certainly saw that the last time the opposition was in government in the 1990s. We saw tax increases of $1.5 billion in just two provincial budgets, on everything from personal taxes to job-killing taxes on small business. From that experience, we learned that the opposition never met a tax they didn’t like. It was their solution for everything.

Fortunately, now we have a government in charge that’s kept income taxes to the lowest levels in Canada, and we have a balanced budget — in fact, a modest surplus, obviously, which we have invested in areas like children and families, SDSI. We have made investments in areas where the opposition has been crying for us to make more investments for ages. We’ve done it, but somehow they managed to characterize that as fraught with clawbacks. I don’t understand it.

We have invested in these areas, and I think this government has done a very, very good job of helping the most vulnerable people in our society. We’ll continue to do that, because it’s important. We’re a government that’s not afraid to make tough choices on behalf of British Columbia. It doesn’t mean following the temptation, doing the most popular thing, but it does mean doing the right thing for this province.

That’s why I plan to vote in favour of this budget. It’s a balanced budget with a balanced approach to shaping the future of our province.

M. Mark: Hon. Speaker, Simgigat, Sigidimhaanak, K'uba Wilksihlkw, distinguished guests, chiefs and matriarchs, it is indeed an honour for me to be here today representing the constituents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a culturally diverse and proud community with an unwavering history as advocates who have and will continue to stand up for economic, social and environmental rights and justice.

I am the descendant of a strong, proud, determined and resilient people. I am Nisga’a, Gitksan, Cree, Ojibwa, French and Scottish. Until 1960, people like me weren’t even allowed to vote and therefore participate in our parliamentary democracy — 56 years ago. That may sound like a long time, but think of it this way. I am one of the first generations of First Nations and indigenous people for whom voting has been a natural right since my birth.

On February 17, I became the first First Nations woman to be elected to serve in these chambers. I am proud to take my place alongside the extraordinary British Columbian trail-blazers, all New Democrats, who came before me.

[1540]

Frank Calder was elected in 1949 as the first person of aboriginal descent. Rosemary Brown was the first black woman. Emery Barnes was the first black man. Moe Sihota was the first Indo-Canadian. Jenny Kwan was the first Chinese person. Tim Stevenson was the first openly gay man. Carole James was the first aboriginal Métis woman. Mable Elmore was the first Filipino. Jane Shin was the first Korean woman.

I want to say a few words about my journey to this House. My late Nisga’a grandmother, from the village of Laxgalts’ap, Thelma Mark, attended St. Michael’s Residential School when she was ten. It was the darkest days of her life and, notably, the darkest chapter in our Canadian history, as Chief Justice Murray Sinclair illustrated in the truth and reconciliation report and 84 calls to action. My late Gitxsan grandfather, William Woods, was given up for customary adoption when he was three and raised by the Mark family in Gitsegukla, who had the fortitude to hide him from Indian agents when he was nine years old.

In fact, my maternal grandparents couldn’t vote until they were 30 and 32 years old. We have come a long way, given that indigenous communities were on the verge of extinction. Remarkably, aboriginal youth are the fastest-growing population in Canada.

When it comes time to have aboriginal rights and title enshrined in our Canadian constitution, it is because of the relentless determination and unwavering rights-based advocacy approach of the indigenous people across this province and across this country that we celebrate this progress.

Again, we have come a long way, given that in 1887 my ancestors, members of the Nisga’a Nation, made an epic journey from the Nass River to Victoria’s Inner Harbour, determined to settle the land question. They were met by a Premier who barred them from this Legislature.
[ Page 10677 ]

Even in this House we have come a long way towards reconciliation, considering that less than 20 years ago, the former leader of the then opposition B.C. Liberals and the current Finance Minister actually took the former NDP government to the Supreme Court of Canada to stop the Nisga’a final agreement. Undoubtedly, we have a tremendously long way to go to see reconciliation in action.

Before I continue, there is a universal saying that it takes a village to raise a child and a community to raise a leader. I want to take this time to acknowledge my mom for all of the gifts that she’s given me, my aunts Teresa Mark, Janice Mark, Lily Jorgensen and Gerry Busch, Jack Busch for their unwavering love and generosity.

To my daughters, Maya and Makayla: you are the sunshine in my life. Thank you for inspiring me each and every day to be a passionate, courageous advocate for change.

To my team. I want to acknowledge, like all of you in this House when you’re involved in a rigorous campaign, my campaign managers, Kate Van Meer-Mass and Nathan Allen, for their remarkable leadership and their generosity.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge some of the superstars on my team, who truly made February 2 historic: Michael Cheevers, Mia Edbrooke, Ashley Fehr, Gala Milne, Jessica Smith, Samantha Monckton, Stuart Neatby, Andy Healey, Abby Leung, Cass Elliott, Ian Mass, Lynne Van Meer, David Perry, Alda De Aza, Lester Obuyes, Leo Alejandria, Maryvon Delorme, Roberta Robertson, Colin Askey, Joshua Berson, Clay Suddaby, Cassidy Kannemeyer, Jessica Boon and Josh Niemi.

Thank you to Jenny Kwan for your 20 years of service on behalf of the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and to the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant constituency office for all of your support.

Thank you to the Lax Kxeen drummers and dance group for reminding us all that the drum is the heartbeat of the people. It is my hope that we hear more drums in this House.

So why am I here? Why was I elected? I’ve been fighting bullies my whole life, and I’d like to acknowledge that we are acknowledging Anti-Bullying Day today.

[1545]

I’ve been a human rights advocate for the past 20 years. I’ve travelled this beautiful province and across Canada as an advocate for some of the most vulnerable, voiceless and invisible people in our society. I’ve been a passionate child rights advocate for sexually exploited youth, youth in and from care. I worked alongside the Vancouver city police to review the horrific circumstances that left a vulnerable homeless aboriginal man, Mr. Frank Paul, in an alleyway of the Downtown Eastside — and who evidently died in police custody — in an effort to make sure that such injustices don’t ever happen again.

I spent the last eight years as an advocate at the Representative for Children and Youth office to ensure that children, youth and their families access the services that they so desperately deserve from the Ministry of Children and Family. I don’t have enough time to speak about all the recommendations that have come out of that office, calling in to support the rights and interests of children that need services from the Ministry of Children and Family.

While I waited almost six months for the by-election to be called and the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant went without an advocate, I took every opportunity to connect with the amazingly resilient constituents that live, work and play throughout Strathcona; Chinatown; across Commercial Drive, Broadway, Main Street and the Downtown Eastside; Gastown and Railtown.

I had the opportunity to hear from constituents about matters of the heart and the ongoing ultimatums they are faced with by this government. Time and time again, I heard concerns about the housing crisis and affordability concerns and issues, parents and teachers concerned about seismic upgrades and class composition, ongoing concerns about how we’re going to protect the best coast from irreversible damage and reduce our carbon footprint for our children and our children’s children.

I met with members of the vibrant arts community who feel like their contributions to the economy have been overlooked. I met with talented leaders in the tech sector who have a real chance to shine as the Silicon Valley in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I met with so many small business owners that are proud of their artistry but fear they won’t be able to keep the doors open and the lights on with increased taxes and hydro rates.

I met with people who are concerned about the steady influx of gentrification and the concern about displacement. I talked to people about the importance of celebrating our diversity, like the festivals of the lunar new year parade, and advocating for cultural retention and revitalization.

We talked about the plans and the concerns around those plans for the St. Paul’s Hospital that’s coming to the flats. We talked about the need for more housing. People brought their concerns to my attention — especially the students, who are concerned about securing viable employment to pay off their student debts.

I met with the craft brewers, who see their work as truly a work of art. I met with first responders impacted by post-traumatic stress disorder. I met with so many parents functioning like ships in the night because they can’t secure affordable and safe child care.

I met with human rights advocates saying yes to justice for persons on income assistance who are forced to live on $21 a week. I met with the survivors, families and advocates who will not relent until justice is served for the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

The reality is I don’t have enough time to list all of the reasons why this budget is not balanced and how it has failed the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. For a
[ Page 10678 ]
minute, I was mildly optimistic that this government would deliver on something new. I almost bought the spin that the government would demonstrate leadership and pay it forward to restore public confidence, especially for the 98 percent of income earners that don’t make $150,000 per year.

Instead, this budget underscores the reason I put my name forward for nomination. When it comes time for report cards, the B.C. Liberals have failed the hardest-working and most vulnerable citizens once again in this province. I can’t comprehend why this government is so hell-bent on fighting First Nations in the courts, wasting the public’s money instead of working with First Nations.

[1550]

I can’t believe this government is picking fights with the Representative for Children and Youth and standing behind the Plecas report instead of cooperating with the independent office whose mandate it is to advocate for the best interests and rights of children and families throughout this province.

This government seems to have an allergic reaction when it comes to accountability. Once again, our province stands alone in Canada as the only jurisdiction without a poverty reduction or housing strategy. I can’t believe the Finance Minister and the Premier have the audacity to say that the housing affordability crisis only affects a few neighbourhoods. Not only has this government said no to increasing the rates for those on income assistance, they have cynically cut supports for persons with disabilities while claiming they’ve increased them.

It boggles my mind why this government relies on balancing this budget — at the cost of increased MSP and ICBC premiums, increased tuition and camping fees — on the backs of average British Columbians without asking the rich to make a few little sacrifices along the way to ensure that at least some of the benefits of the provincial economy go to those who need them most.

We have $100 million set aside for a fantasy — sorry, prosperity — fund funded by MSP tax. That’s not good government or a good business practice. It’s just more spin. Moving forward, the days of cowboys and Indians are over. The gold rush is a thing of the past, and LNG remains to be nothing more than a fantasy.

So when I look forward, I look to a time when people won’t have to fight so hard in the courts to have their most basic human rights met, to have a roof over their head, to access public education and health care, to be safe and protected from violence and harm.

I look forward to working with the members opposite to revitalize a human rights framework, as we collectively carry out the business of the day on behalf of all British Columbians that are so desperately waiting for someone to stand up, to balance the playing field.

I look forward to seeing meaningful reconciliation in action and not just photo ops like the yoga event that was scheduled on National Aboriginal Day. I look forward to seeing some balance in our society, not just hearing about a balanced budget that’s only balanced because of rampant real estate speculation in the Lower Mainland.

I look forward to less talk about putting all of our economic eggs in the LNG basket and more talk and action towards a more diversified economy that serves the needs and interests of those living in urban ridings, like Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as well as those who live and work in rural British Columbia.

I know that government’s job is not to make life easier, but surely, even in this House, we can agree that government’s job is not to make life more difficult.

I also know that people are not just files to be managed or deleted. I have been fighting against discrimination my whole life. We need social, economic and environmental certainty in this province. We need to have a vision built on a strong foundation of reconciliation with the indigenous people of British Columbia. This is not solely for the interests of indigenous people but to benefit us all and all of our shared and common goals.

This has been the most incredible journey in my life. The canoe that got me here was one that was filled with people that volunteered with so much generosity, that come from so many different backgrounds. We paddled together with a shared sense of optimism and hope that things are going to get better.

So, as I conclude, I’m privileged to be the descendant of a strong people. I am privileged that I have the honour to be the voice on behalf of those who have been cast to the sidelines for far too long. I am privileged to bring a new voice of power to this arena on behalf of the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and throughout British Columbia.

[1555]

R. Sultan: Let me congratulate the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for the clarity, passion, vigour and attention-grabbing — particularly on the other side of the aisle, I noticed — quality she brought to a very strong statement of where she stands and where, I’m sure, she will help lead the NDP party in the next election.

It was a strong statement by the first aboriginal woman in this Legislature, and I think the applause that greeted your maiden speech was equally heartfelt on this side of the House as on yours. In a word: wow. We’ve got a new star on the horizon here.

I would also mention that I grew up in the riding you now represent, so I will probably take exception to your explanations and interpretations of everything because it is where I was born, where I spent my childhood, where I was educated — in Florence Nightingale public school — and where our family of eight kids and two adults grew up in a three-bedroom house on the 800 block of East 13th. I think I know that territory. I stayed there until I graduated from UBC and went east to seek my fortune.

It is a fascinating, very diverse riding, as you well know, and as I have been reminded as I campaigned there to
[ Page 10679 ]
try to defeat you, unsuccessfully, on behalf of Gavin Dew. Again, your victory was well-earned and decisive, that’s for sure.

Turning to the budget, I’m delighted to have a few moments to talk about our 2015-16 budget. It’s a budget very consistent with the goals and values of the constituents I represent now in North Vancouver and West Vancouver. It’s a significant financial document, but also a forward-looking plan that touches on many aspects of our life. But I will focus today on the numbers.

It’s very revealing to compare the fiscal performance of British Columbia with that of the other provinces in Canada, as well as with the numbers put forth by the federal government in Ottawa. My number source is the economic research department of a well-known, large Canadian bank, which every year, for many years, has analyzed and published such interprovincial comparisons. I have some affinity for this report since I personally initiated it in the previous century.

Let’s start with the big-picture economic numbers. The Royal Bank of Canada report dated December 2015, a few months out of date now, references the five years beginning 2009 through 2014 and gives us some perspective on where we have been.

In the five years prior to the oil price crash, Canada had two different personalities, defined by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border. The seven provinces to the east of that border, in that five-year period, showed sluggish growth. The three provinces to the west, including British Columbia, had higher real growth as measured by GDP per capita in real terms — higher by a factor, in some cases, of two or three. It’s an extraordinary gap in performance between east and west.

Since the collapse of oil prices, of course, Alberta and Saskatchewan have done less well, but British Columbia has sailed on. So one might say the personality divide still exists, but it’s shifted now to the B.C.-Alberta border, setting us apart from the rest of the country.

What makes British Columbia so special today? We can credit our smart workforce, solid entrepreneurship, good government, a robust and diversified free enterprise culture and, despite problems in Asia, continued export growth. An appetite for B.C. real estate and our reputation as a secure place to invest money has helped B.C. as well, although it has, of course, introduced many other serious problems concurrently.

[1600]

Critics across the aisle will say our superb economic record was accomplished on the backs of the impoverished, the disabled and ordinary working people penalized by low wages and the high cost of living, and that’s the way it’s been for years and years. That’s the refrain, and we’ve heard it again today. Given that lower-income accusation, it’s interesting to compare five-year average personal disposable incomes per capita across the land.

The boundary at the Manitoba border was sustained. Per-capita disposable incomes were higher in the west, lower in the east, assisted in part by the extraordinary incomes earned by the petro states during the oil boom, until recently, but also by the good relative performance of B.C., which did not have that advantage. Incomes in the west surged ahead of the pack and have been maintained insofar as B.C. is concerned, even though Alberta and Saskatchewan have dropped back.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Why in the immediate past did the east perform so poorly and the west perform so well? Well, among the many probable and frequently obvious explanatory variables, we might mention the strength of the dollar, which was a killer for the manufacturing sector back east, and the global commodity cycle, which certainly worked to our advantage. But could fiscal performance also be a contributing factor? I think so.

The fiscal climate — the topic of the budget today that we are debating — which has been created here has assured world capital, mobile as never before, that this is a good place to put down roots, to grow and prosper. The psychological climate has been positive in this province. Thus, I argue that fiscal performance is an important psychological factor as well as an economic factor in shaping our overall performance, particularly as we compare British Columbia with the other provinces today as revealed in their recent budgets this month.

Now we switch from looking back five years to looking forward to the budgets and plans they have all enunciated. I revert again to the Royal Bank of Canada economic tables, this time conveniently and fortuitously dated February 16, 2016, only about a week ago. These numbers are hard to pull together. I know personally how hard it has been to come up with consistent definitions, etc., but I think they’re about as good as it gets.

Based on all their hard work, one can readily identify startling differences among the provinces today, with British Columbia invariably looking pretty good and with most of the others looking, well, less good, to be polite. Reading these tables is much like reading a set of report cards for an entire class in school, from the bright overachievers to the laggards who never seem to learn their lesson.

Ian Russell and his investment community colleagues confirmed this impression at their annual feedback dinner held in Victoria on budget day, just a few days ago, and I was honoured to be one of the guests in attendance. He’s the head of the Investment Industry Association of Canada, based in Toronto. He also happens to be chair of the International Council of Securities Associations, which tries to coordinate the regulatory response to areas of conflict and duplication in the world capital markets. You might say that Ian rides herd on the folks around the globe who decide to finance you when you’re good
[ Page 10680 ]
or not finance you, at least on reasonable terms, when you are not.

Ian sat through the Finance Minister’s budget along with the media and others. His subsequent assessment of our most recent budget and fiscal plan, as he presented at our little dinner get-together — with its fourth year of balanced budgets, spending discipline, detailed substance supporting our triple-A credit rating — was laudatory. It was effusive. Well, it was so one-sided that it wasn’t really an analysis as it was a paean of praise. I thanked him at the end of the dinner for travelling all that way simply to praise our virtue, because that’s what he did.

[1605]

Let’s look more closely at the Royal Bank economists’ report card and how we rank in particular. Start with their table comparing provincial operating budget balances. Here we see, as has been repeated over and over again in this House, that British Columbia is the only province in the land that plans on running an operating surplus in the coming year — $377 million.

Well, turning to the bank report, our positive $377 million compares with a negative $6.1 billion for the folks next door in Alberta; a negative quarter-billion for Saskatchewan; a negative half a billion or so for Manitoba; a negative $7½ billion for the big spenders in Ontario, who have managed to rack up a cumulative deficit of well over $80 billion over the preceding seven years; and combining the rest of the Atlantic provinces all together, almost a negative $6 billion on the combined basis. Wow.

Then there’s Quebec, which is interesting. I’ll give you the operating numbers for Quebec for the six years immediately passed, and this will be followed by a quiz to determine your probable skills as an economic forecaster. Okay, here’s a numerical sequence: minus 3.1, minus 3.1, minus 2.6., minus 1.6, minus 2.8, minus 1.1. Question: will the next three numbers be positive or negative? We won’t force you to actually make a quantitative assessment. Just get the sign right.

Answer: neither. They will all be exactly zero, according to their budget. That’s right. Quebec says that it’s going to balance the books this fiscal year and the next and the next, after six consecutive years of rather large deficits. Now, I don’t mean to be skeptical, but we should — or they, at least should — keep their fingers crossed, based on the record.

We must not overlook the federal government. Our federal minister, in his briefing on Monday, seemed to be suggesting that Canada’s operating deficit will surely be more than $10 billion, as originally promised. Some cynics are suggesting a figure closer to $30 billion. The Royal Bank’s economics department, to be kind — their numbers were prepared over Christmas some time, I guess — have projected the next fiscal year federal deficit of only $3 billion, as of February 16. But things can deteriorate rather quickly, as all Finance Ministers quickly learn.

So to sum up, across this sea of red ink from coast to coast, provincially and federally, British Columbia stands out as probably the only jurisdiction with its fiscal affairs in balance.

To return to a key concern raised by our critics, it’s suggested that British Columbia’s exemplary fiscal record has been accomplished as a result of a scorched earth, Tea Party–type, anti-government-spending zealotry and that the devil can take the hindmost in a free enterprise economy, the harsh marketplace. Such a government would slash education budgets, refuse to fund much-needed health care and ignore its social responsibilities.

To be fair, it is a possible fiscal strategy to consider. Downsize government drastically, and try to balance the books on the spending side alone. To assess whether British Columbia has earned, or deserves, such a draconian — and, I believe, self-defeating — profile, return again to the Royal Bank of Canada economics department tables, which show total expenses — i.e., a proxy for the size of government — in comparison to GDP, province-by-province. In other words, is B.C. a big government place or a tiny government place? Have we achieved fiscal balance by shrinking government?

Well, it turns out that we’re really not a big, big government place, at least as measured by government’s share of the economy. That applies with a vengeance to the four Atlantic provinces, where government accounts for between 23 percent — Newfoundland and Labrador — and almost 27 percent — P.E.I. — of the economy.

[1610]

Nor should we say we are small government. The small government end of the scale would be Alberta, where government, again using the Royal Bank figures, will account for a little more than 14 percent, almost half of the Atlantic province figures this coming fiscal year.

The other provinces are in between, and so is British Columbia. It may surprise you to learn that B.C., at 19½ percent — not P.E.I.’s 27 percent, not Alberta’s 14 percent…. We have that plate of porridge that is just right — 19½ percent. We’re right up there with social democratic–leaning Quebec at 19.7 percent. Wow, who would have believed it? — Quebec.

Big-deficit Ontario is almost a full two percentage points behind British Columbia, lower in terms of the government-spending share of the economy. How the government of Ontario can spend rather skimpily by our standards — B.C. standards — while piling up what appear to my eye, at least, to be staggering deficits, we shall leave as a question for you to work out as a homework assignment.

But aha, the sharp-eyed might exclaim: “You’re talking total spending, not program spending.” The difference can be explained by such non-program costs as interest paid on the provincial debt. But here, as one might expect, given the Himalayan scale of their mountain of debt, Ontario looks even worse. Program spending in Ontario
[ Page 10681 ]
relative to GDP is only 16.3 percent this coming year and, as reported by the Royal Bank economists, is falling three years out to only 15 percent, getting down there more or less in the same territory as Alberta.

The approximate 3 percentage point gap between program spending in Ontario and program spending in B.C. must surely reveal itself to some degree in less well-funded schools, less well-funded hospitals and less well-maintained infrastructure in that other province. Thus, the frequent assertions of our friends across the aisle — who are always on the lookout for greener grass on the other side of the river, who always complain of miserly spending on socially vital areas — do not square with the spending data that one finds elsewhere across Canada.

Let me wind up this analysis of comparative provincial finance by bowing to the big kahuna, the total debt, which we can so cheerfully and recklessly load on to the bent and staggering backbones of future generations, including our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren. Just like that — it’s so easy to do.

Well, at $40 billion, B.C.’s debt is certainly significant. Many members opposite like to point that out, and they’re right. But it is rather small change compared with Ontario’s almost $300 billion. Ontario’s debt is, in fact, almost half the size of the total debt of the government of Canada. Well, it seems, who cares?

Does debt really matter? When our neighbours and usual friends in the U.S.A. can somehow pile on $60 trillion of government obligations while the world simply asks to hold more when it comes to public debt, perhaps Canadians are once again revealed as timid, small-scale thinkers.

The explanation of America’s casual approach to its finances and the fact that they get away with it so easily lies in the fact, however, that the U.S. dollar is a reflection of America’s strength as a large, resilient, dynamic and highly competitive giant economy. It has persuaded the world — because it really doesn’t have any alternative — that the U.S. dollar is their most reliable choice as the modern gold standard, or what we would call in economics a global numeraire, which gives them latitude to run up the Visa card. Whether it’s paid up some day or not, let the next President worry about that.

But as far as the Canadian dollar is concerned, I see no evidence that we’re about to replace the U.S. dollar. So this reckless strategy, fortunately or unfortunately, really doesn’t apply to us and is foreclosed. Thus, for Ontario, to pick the most egregious example, to pile on close to a third of $1 trillion of debt is a worrisome big deal. British Columbia has wisely chosen not to go there.

[1615]

As has been pointed out in several speeches already, including my colleague here from Delta North, if we had Ontario’s credit rating and Ontario’s debt-to-GDP ratio, B.C. would be paying $4 billion, almost 10 percent of our total budget, just to service our Ontario-sized debt. To balance the books while paying those Ontario-sized interest payments could, for example, require eliminating the budgets of both our Ministry of Children and Families and our Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, which is, of course, an impossible proposition to contemplate. So in short, debt matters. It can matter a lot.

To sum up, this Premier, this Finance Minister, this government and this caucus, with the support of British Columbians, irrespective of region or situation, deserve a great deal of credit for accomplishing what in today’s world is almost extinct: a balanced government budget, accompanied by the maintenance of excellent services and a relatively low burden of taxes, leaving the future largely unencumbered for our children.

S. Robinson: I guess I’m indebted to the member from West Vancouver for his remarks. They’re most interesting.

It’s always an honour to rise in this chamber, and I am pleased to share my thoughts on Budget 2016. As the elected representative for the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville, I believe it is my responsibility to review the government’s budget and to identify ways that this budget will affect the people who live in my constituency before I vote on it.

Let me first share a few thoughts about those who live in my community. Coquitlam-Maillardville could be characterized as true suburbia, developed mostly from the 1950s through the 1970s. The southern part of Coquitlam is mostly single-family houses. It’s a place for people who dreamed, and have realized that dream, of having the house, the white picket fence and the neighbourhood school. That’s where these people have lived.

Over the years, there have been a few transformations in our neighbourhoods, mostly because the cost of housing has meant that many of these single-family houses now have to have basement suites. Partly, these basement suites provide some affordable rental in the community, but they also provide homeowners with some mortgage relief as the cost of housing climbs higher and higher.

Coquitlam-Maillardville is a community that is evolving, and I represent constituents originating from countries all over the world. They now have chosen Coquitlam to be their home. As a result, we have many new immigrants who are looking to make a better life for their families. Now, not only are they challenged with the high cost of housing, but they’re also having difficulty finding affordable English classes while ensuring that their children can also participate in things like organized sports. They’re forced to make these very difficult choices.

While this government has been talking about the fantasy of LNG, families in Coquitlam-Maillardville have been talking about reality — the reality that they live, the reality of how much harder life has become under this B.C. Liberal government. They have noticed that while
[ Page 10682 ]
costs are going up, wages are just not keeping pace, and their perception is matched by real numbers.

Wage growth is an important indicator of economic strength, and British Columbia is ninth in Canada when it comes to wage growth. Our employment rate is still 2.4 percentage points below what it was in 2008, before the recession. And let’s take a look at private sector job growth, another critical indicator of the strength of an economy. B.C. is sixth in the country.

That’s not all. Consumer debt in this province is $10,000 higher than the national average, and it keeps going up as people struggle to pay their bills. Stagnant wages, incremental job growth in the private sector and families struggling, families that have to choose between fixing the roof or getting important dental work done for their children.

This is a very different picture than the rosy picture that this government continues to try to portray, so I want to talk about a number of things that this B.C. Liberal government didn’t present in their budget.

[1620]

Housing prices in Coquitlam-Maillardville have become out of reach for most people working middle-class jobs in the Lower Mainland. In fact, newly constructed single-family homes are well above the $750,000 threshold, so my constituents will not really benefit much from the Budget 2016 property transfer tax exemption. There are very few new builds planned for apartments or townhouses in Coquitlam-Maillardville, so that really doesn’t change a whole lot for the people that I represent.

Not everyone in Coquitlam can afford to own their own home. Saving for a down payment on a $900,000 starter home is just out of reach for many — so many that a lot of my constituents actually rent their homes. Now, the CMHC Rental Market Report released in the fall of 2015 has some very interesting Tri-Cities numbers for us to consider.

Overall, the rental apartment availability rates in the Tri-Cities went from 3.2 percent in October 2014 to a mere 1.7 percent availability. And the average rent went from $908 a month in 2014 to $951 a month in 2015. The supply of rentals increased by just 106 units over that same period. What does that really mean for my constituents? It means that the cost of renting a place to live is increasing and that the supply of rental housing is not keeping up with that demand.

There are various reasons for this, and I do believe that all three levels of government do have a role to play here. But we didn’t see anything in this budget — we didn’t see anything — that would help renters in British Columbia. In fact, there’s not much here that will make life more affordable for most of the people that I represent.

Now, we just had a by-election in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and it really was a wonderful opportunity to hear from residents about what they expect from their government and about what really matters to them. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain is the community right next door to my constituency, and so there’s certainly a similarity between the two parts of Coquitlam. I think it’s fair game to say that what I heard in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain I can imagine I would have heard in Coquitlam-Maillardville.

I heard a lot about affordability in ways that I’ve never heard before. The rising cost of home ownership, increased hidden taxes like MSP and ICBC, and hiking hydro rates are all having an impact on affordability in the region.

Yes, the B.C. Liberals have made some minor changes to the MSP so that there is a little bit of relief for those making the least in our province and for single parents. But overall, MSP premiums continue to rise, and hard-working families — many of whom operate small businesses in my community — at the end of the day, will have less in their pockets. Not just at the end of the day but at the end of the week, at the end of the month and, certainly, at the end of the year.

That MSP increase is about $100 million this year, and we can expect an increase to the MSP tax again next year. What’s fascinating is that the Premier’s photo-op fund is also being injected with $100 million. So essentially, this government is taking money from hard-working families, families that are forced to make decisions about whether or not they can afford to take a holiday, pay for a private tutor for their children or trade in the family vehicle that constantly needs repairs — this money that the B.C. Liberal government is taking under the guise of MSP and using to create their prosperity fund.

What prosperity are they referring to with this? I have no idea, because I know that it’s not from the prosperity of the families that I serve. It’s not their prosperity. It’s their hard-earned money. And it is going into a photo-op fantasy fund.

Why does the Minister of Finance think it’s important to maintain this regressive MSP tax? Almost all the provinces have shifted to a more progressive model where those who earn more pay more and those who earn less pay less. It’s actually the foundation of our entire tax system. The Minister of Finance explains that he thinks it’s important to keep this regressive tax because British Columbians need a reminder that health care is not free.

I can’t think of a more disrespectful and insulting comment to British Columbians. They know that health care isn’t free. They know that education isn’t free. And they know that our highways aren’t free. They know that the services and resources provided by government are paid for with their taxes. So on top of making life more unaffordable for British Columbians, this minister insults them and penalizes them at the same time.

Now, those are just some of my comments on the budget, but I’d also like to provide a few comments of what I’m hearing from constituents about this budget, because it’s their voices that we all represent here in the
[ Page 10683 ]
House. I’ve certainly heard from people about education. They’re talking about the lack of any real funding for public education in this budget. Budget 2016 includes just a 1 percent increase for public school funding.

[1625]

Now, let’s remember that a government’s budget decisions speak to what the government values. This 1 percent increase in the public education budget will not even cover the cost of inflation, let alone the increase in student enrolment that is expected to occur over the coming year. This budget also forces school districts to make further cuts to school district administrative funding, forcing the elimination of school buses, and school closures in some areas of the province. This suggests to me that this government doesn’t actually value the role that public education plays in our society.

According to the Ministry of Education’s latest data on class size and composition, learning conditions in B.C. schools continue to deteriorate. The number of classes in B.C. with four or more children with special needs has gone up to 16,516, which is the highest it has ever been. Despite this huge increase in students with special needs, the number of classes in B.C. with an assigned educational assistant went down by 432.

Class sizes have also increased significantly, with the number of classes with 30 or more students increasing by 25 percent this year alone. Ultimately, this means that there was less personalized support for students in the classroom. We know that when we do nothing to address class size — and the composition, the kinds of learners that we have in the class — we will have fewer and fewer supports for children with special needs, and we know that teachers will be stretched even more to assist all learners. Our public school system is to assist and help develop all learners.

What does this mean for school district 43? We know that we have diverse learners in our school system, and school district 43 sees this as a growing trend. For grades 4 to 12, there are 229 classes with more than seven students — seven — that have an independent educational plan, and we have more than 462 classes with more than seven English language learners.

So who are we talking about? Is this just a bunch of numbers, and we’re good at throwing numbers around? We’re talking about the child with autism who struggles socially with his peers and with stress. We’re talking about the child who has a hearing impairment and needs some of the lesson plan adapted to their needs. We are talking about the child born with cerebral palsy and who, as a result, has poor motor functioning. We’re talking about the child struggling with mental health issues and the child with cognitive impairments.

We are talking about the Syrian refugee children who have been lucky enough to make it to our shores. We are talking about the new immigrant children that we rely on to make up our workforce eventually, given that those of us born here simply aren’t producing enough children to sustain our economy.

Surely, these children deserve supports to be the best they can be. As a society, we have agreed that all of these children, along with the typical learners, are worthy of a public education. This budget suggests otherwise. We know that all of our children suffer when there is just not enough resource to invest in their learning — learning that can have the greatest impact later in life.

I have sort of a personal story that I think speaks to the choices we make when we have a limited resource. When my husband, Dan, and I first had children, we were both graduate students and our finances were incredibly tight. There was absolutely nothing in our budget for extras. There were no haircuts. There were no dinners out. There was really no entertainment budget. It just was about feeding ourselves and paying rent.

It was a time, though, when we were still getting a family allowance. Some members of the House might remember the family allowance. I think when my children were born, it was about $33 per child per month, and we got it from the federal government. I, like a good parent saving for the future, started to put that money away for my children’s university education. I figured, you know, they were just a few years old and that I needed to start saving. We saw that the costs for education were going to go up, and I thought it would be a very good investment for them.

But I also wanted them to go to preschool, because I thought a good start in learning, in appreciating school, would be a good thing for them. I remember talking with my mother-in-law one day — a very wise woman, Sandra Robinson — and telling her that I was putting this money away, but really feeling anxious. My children were getting to be the age where they were preschool-ready, and I really wanted to send them to preschool, but I didn’t think we had enough money.

[1630]

She reminded me that while, at the moment, things were financially tough, I might not need that money in 18 years, when my children were ready to go away to school, and that my financial picture was likely to change. It was a real possibility, because I was, right now, investing in my own education. I was going to university, doing a graduate degree.

She said: “While that’s a good plan, you might need to invest in your children’s education now, rather than wait 18 years. Investing in children now can pay the dividends later. You might not need that money later, but you definitely know you need it now.”

So I took that $33 a month per child, and I enrolled them in the most fabulous Montessori preschool. I have to tell you how proud I am at how that early investment has paid off for my children. They became excellent learners whose early school experiences set a tone for a lifetime. That is about investing in children today.
[ Page 10684 ]

What does this government do? Well, first we need to remember that the Premier gave a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent last year, a gift that keeps on giving. Over four years, that would have been $1 billion that could have been invested in our children.

The Premier also decided to put $100 million into her fantasy photo-op fund, money that could be better spent on children today. The Premier would rather give a tax break to the wealthiest British Columbians and put a bit of money aside to help her look good in a campaign than make sure that our children, every single one of our children, have the best opportunity to become the best they can be.

While the operation of our schools has been ignored in this budget, the capital budget for schools has been reduced by 4 percent, or $21 million. This means that fewer schools will be built, which I find absolutely amazing, given what we heard in the by-election on Burke Mountain.

The families in this new community are beside themselves with frustration. Yes, there was a very recent announcement of a school that will have 430 children in it, hopefully, if it’s open by the year 2018. But there are school-age children living there now who will never go to school in their neighbourhood. This government somehow thinks that an announcement just before a by-election to build an elementary school is good enough for this community.

I was on Coquitlam council from 2008 to 2013. Over those years, we were begging the ministry to work with the school board to start building schools in the community. The latest government’s announcement should have been the third announcement, not the first. The reduction in capital spending doesn’t look good for another announcement anytime soon.

The minister used a report card analogy to assess his budget. I think he gets an F for failing to ensure that we invest in our children today so that they have the very best chance of succeeding in the future.

The other thing that I heard from my constituents about this budget was about transportation. Coquitlam is a growing community. We need schools, and we need an investment in public transportation. The failure of the recent transit referendum cannot be used as an excuse to walk away from investments in moving people and goods throughout the region.

The Premier likes to build big infrastructure — a dam where she refuses to have the BCUC assess its merits, and bridges that are not high on the agenda for anyone but her. She refuses to acknowledge the need of a well-funded and -designed public transportation system that moves people through the region and unclogs our existing roadways so that our goods movement isn’t at a standstill because of commuter traffic.

Furthermore, a well-funded public transportation system is a key component to affordable living in the region. As it stands now, life in the suburbs requires a motor vehicle, because we don’t have sufficient public transportation services to move around the region easily.

I’m well aware that the Evergreen line is finally making its way to the eastern suburbs. It’s a project that was announced years ago. It’s also known locally as the Nevergreen line. It’s finally coming in 2017, just in time for the next provincial election. That’s rather convenient. I’m still thrilled that it’s coming.

I’d like to remind government that while they are walking around beating their chests at just how fabulous they are at investing in public transportation and that the Evergreen line is good evidence of that, they have no plan for the future. Governments need to always be planning for the future. There was no mention of any investment in transit in the throne speech, and there was nothing in this budget that demonstrates that there was any desire to invest in transit in the Lower Mainland, a key factor to growing our economy.

There was nothing in Budget 2016 for B.C. municipalities. Most of them are facing significant infrastructure deficits. We have a new federal government committed…. They say they’re committed to investing in infrastructure across this country. There was nothing in this budget to support a long-term investment plan to support B.C. communities.

This is a missed opportunity and further evidence that the B.C. Liberals are completely out of touch with what British Columbians need.

[1635]

I want to mention a little bit about what I’ve been hearing — calls that have been coming in to my office and emails that I have been receiving. I want to take a few moments to talk about the impact this budget has had on some of our more vulnerable members of society. And I’m not referring to cats and dogs, who the Premier called the most vulnerable in our communities. While I love pets, I believe that our seniors and those living with disabilities are truly our most vulnerable citizens.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting some of our Special Olympic athletes who will be representing British Columbia in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, at the Canadian speed skating championships next month. I watched them warm up at our local ice rink, and I chatted with the coaches. It was just a friendly chat. It was just, really, talking about the athletes.

It was the coaches who came to me and said: “What is going on with this bus pass deal? Why are our children, why are these athletes, going to have to now pay for bus passes that they didn’t used to have to pay for?” These coaches were extremely disappointed that the Minister of Social Development talks about transportation choice and equity for all people on disability. The coaches talked about the lifeline that these bus passes have for their athletes.

On the one hand, the B.C. Liberals were increasing disability rates by $77 a month and then saying that the bus
[ Page 10685 ]
pass program, which, historically, had a $45 annual processing fee, would now cost $52 a month plus the $45-a-year annual processing fee.

They expressed their disappointment and amazement that the minister talked about choice. They were shaking their heads, trying to figure out what she really meant by choice. Choice to stay home? Choice to give up the sport they love? Choice to stay isolated? There are no choices. And equity. What equity? Those on disability living in the Lower Mainland have ridiculous housing costs, and somehow this government thinks that there should be transportation equity across the province? What about housing equity? Where’s the money for the housing equity that these people have to pay for?

All across this province, disability advocates are shaking their heads, trying to figure out how this government actually thinks that increasing disability rates but then taking away free transportation in the name of choice and equity is somehow a good thing for those on disability.

What about our seniors — seniors who are living in poverty? There was nothing in this budget to help those who built our province.

Last week we all heard the story — and we were all heartbroken by the story — of Fran Flann, an 82-year-old woman who had to work in order to pay her rent because her pensions just haven’t been keeping up as her rent has climbed year after year after year. A senior who, after getting a mastectomy, couldn’t go home to recuperate because the apartment she rented was uninhabitable, as the owners had decided to address an ongoing bedbug issue. Fran wound up in a homeless shelter for 11 days before the community stepped up and came to her rescue.

Now, the seniors advocate noted in a recent report that, in with the mix of federal payments that seniors can access, the B.C. seniors supplement of $49.30 a month is the same as it was in 1987. That’s 1987. It hasn’t changed in 29 years. It’s the same supplement. Rents have been going up, the cost of living has been going up, hydro has been going up, and the B.C. seniors supplement has not changed in 29 years.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance recommended that this supplement be increased to reflect the rising costs of living. This bipartisan committee made up of people from both sides of the House recognize that, but this budget did not recognize this at all. The Premier didn’t recognize it, and neither did the Finance Minister.

How is it that this government chooses to give our wealthiest British Columbians a $230 million-a-year tax break but leaves the Frans of the world, those who built our province and who raised our children, in a homeless shelter?

Here we are, just over a year away from the 2017 election. We can already see that ensuring re-election actually is a priority for this B.C. Liberal government. This Budget 2016 leaves plenty to be desired. In my cynicism — yes, in three short years, I have developed cynicism — I expect that in Budget 2017 we are going to see tons of goodies.

Rather than take care of British Columbians now, British Columbians today, British Columbians who are going to school, British Columbians with disabilities, British Columbian seniors living in inadequate housing, this government would rather hold back these funds and wait until they can personally benefit in a re-election campaign. This isn’t governance; this is marketing.

[1640]

All governments make choices, and I think it’s important to reflect on the choices that this government has made. I talked about the government’s decisions on education, on transit, on those with disabilities and on seniors. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention some of the other choices this government has made. This government has chosen, once again, to sustain a tax break for the wealthiest in our province, while neglecting hard-working British Columbians working hard to make ends meet.

They decided to take the $100 million that they are going to actually collect in increased MSP payments and put it into what the Premier calls the prosperity fund. But British Columbians recognize it for what it is: the Premier’s photo op fantasy fund. The Premier and the B.C. Liberals, just three years ago, were talking about this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have this enormous, ginormous, gargantuan LNG industry — a thriving, bustling industry that would employ 100,000 billion bajillion gazillion people and generate an obscene amount of wealth for the province.

She promised millions and millions and bajillions and gazillions of dollars that would flow into this province, that would wipe out all of the province’s debt and would fill this prosperity fund brimming with cash. I can even remember the promise that they would even do away with the provincial sales tax.

Well, none of that has come to pass, and British Columbians sit with a whole bunch of other broken promises that litter the entire province. We had debt-free B.C. We had violence-free B.C. I remember that one very clearly from last year. We had families first. And we had A GP for Me. This government continues down the road of catchy phrases and marketing schemes. But marketing schemes are not the same thing as good governance. And there isn’t enough in this budget that will address what I believe are the very real issues for the very real people of Coquitlam-Maillardville.

J. Thornthwaite: On behalf of my constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour, it’s with great pleasure that I rise today to support balanced budget 2016. We were elected by British Columbians based on the premise of securing a strong, diversified economy and balancing the provincial budget. With the tabling of Budget 2016, we have done that four consecutive times. That is a very significant achievement, particularly with the global economy still in recovery.
[ Page 10686 ]

With this budget, we’ve cemented our place as the nation’s top economic performer. Our economy has increased by 8 percent in the last five years. Our economic growth now leads the country, and last year, we were first in job creation with 50,000 new jobs.

One of the best indicators for economic performance is the credit rating, and we are the only province in the country rated triple-A — stable — by both Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s. These rating agencies credit our strong financial management, exceptional liquidity and robust, wealthy economy as contributors to our stability. Thanks to this stability and sound fiscal management, we’re also on track to be able to eliminate our operating debt in 2020 for the first time in more than 40 years.

One of the benefits of our triple-A credit rating is a lower debt-servicing cost. B.C. now spends $1.6 billion annually on debt repayments. But if we had Ontario’s credit rating and debt-to-GDP ratio, we’d be paying $4 billion towards our debt. That’s almost 10 percent of our total budget. That little bit of information is for my friend Dan Meadowcroft from Mississauga and, also, our Minister of Energy, whose relatives were here from Ontario the other day. Thanks to our fiscal discipline, our ability to weather the global economic slowdown better than most and our diversified economy, we have $2.4 billion more to invest in programs and services that British Columbians depend on.

One of the stars of our diversified economy is our high-tech sector, which is the fastest-growing key sector in the British Columbia jobs plan. Our province has become a hub for ambitious start-ups that are pushing the limits of innovation, digital marketing and cloud computing and are putting B.C. at the cutting edge of e-commerce.

[1645]

Companies like Hootsuite, Indochino, BuildDirect and Cognilab are not only attracting B.C. talent; they’re keeping our home-grown talent here in British Columbia. Last week, I had a meeting in my office with DigiBC, and they said that because of the high-paying jobs in their industry, which are apparently double the median in British Columbia, each job contributes more than $250,000 to the province’s GDP.

Our film and digital media sector helped pave the way for the new generation of tech start-ups, and I’m very happy to say that this year we are definitely living up to our nickname of Hollywood North. The film, television and digital media industries support thousands and thousands of jobs, either direct or indirect, for British Columbians.

And for them, business is booming; 2015 was a record year for the industry, with the number of productions increasing by as much as 40 percent in some regions. Capping off last year’s success was the opening of the locally shot Deadpool, starring Vancouver’s own Ryan Reynolds.

Not only did this production employ more than 2,000 local cast and crew; it pumped $40 million into the local economy, including $19 million in wages alone. The movie features shots of many iconic Vancouver landmarks, including the Telus World of Science, and the industry celebrated its success in early February, when Deadpool went on to break box office records to garner the largest February opening, the largest opening at all for an R-rated movie and the largest winter season opening in box office history. It has now made nearly half a billion dollars worldwide in only two weeks.

Another significant industry event happened last week. The cast and crew of Once Upon A Time celebrated the completion of the show’s 100th episode with a party in Vancouver. The show has been shooting locally since 2011 and, in that time, has supported more than 5,500 full-time jobs and contributed more than $275 million in direct expenditures in British Columbia.

In fact, another production, Tomorrowland…. There was a notice last spring that said…. This analysis by an accounting firm that assessed the economic impact of the filming of Tomorrowland in British Columbia finds that the film supported over 1,800 full-time-equivalent jobs and was responsible for $91.9 million in direct production expenditure in the province.

Between August 2013 and January 2014 alone, the production engaged over 1,100 vendors in 67 different communities across B.C., and this is from a news release from the Canadian Motion Picture Association.

Film is very important to the North Shore, and many of my constituents rely on its success for their livelihood. The year 2015 was a great year, with a total of 88 productions shot in North Vancouver and around the community. This included such high-profile series as Once Upon a Time, The Man in the High Castle, Arrow and the return of The X-Files that provided more than $78 million in wages to cast and crew in the city and the district of North Van.

I’d also like to offer my congratulations to the local film technicians and artists who are nominated for an Academy Award this year. The Revenant, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is nominated for 12 Oscars, and three of those nominations have gone to Lower Mainland residents. Hamish Purdy is nominated in the production design category for his work on the film. Cameron Waldbauer is nominated for best visual effects, and Chris Duesterdiek is nominated for sound mixing. In addition, Robert Pandini was nominated for makeup and hairstyling.

Technicians from my community have also received special Oscar recognition for their innovation in film making. David McIntosh, Steve Marshall Smith, Mike Branham and Michael Kirilenko of North Vancouver’s Aircover Inflatables will receive a technical achievement award for the engineering and development of the Airwall, an inflatable wall that is used for visual FX backdrops and green screen shots.

The winners will be announced this Sunday at the Academy Awards, and I want to congratulate all our local film talent and wish them the best of luck Sunday night.

[1650]

Mr. Speaker, 2016 is already looking like another record year for B.C. film, and I want to wish my friends in the Motion Picture Production Industry Association all the best for this year as well.

But film isn’t the only sector helping to diversify our economy. Many local companies are playing an integral role in supporting our efforts to capture new markets overseas. One such company is located in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour.

SPF Precut Lumber exports more than 200 million board feet of lumber each year to 20 countries worldwide. The company is truly an ambassador for British Columbian softwood lumber and has introduced stud-grade lumber to markets in India, Pakistan, Thailand and Israel. It made history in 2013 when it hosted the first-ever softwood lumber grading seminar in Dubai.

This family-run company has received a B.C. Export Award and has been recognized numerous times for its contribution to the forest sector. SPF is now responsible for more than 55 percent of all the Canadian lumber destined for the Middle East. This is a staggering number for just one company, and I’d like to recognize its owner, Muhammad Amir, his son Mo and his family for everything they’ve done to promote B.C. wood products overseas and to help us introduce one of our most important resources to new markets.

There are many priorities for the North Shore, and I’m very pleased to see that Budget 2016 will address many of my community’s concerns. One of the biggest hurdles in our region is traffic congestion — particularly along Highway 1 at the north end of Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, which is one of the busiest bottlenecks in the Lower Mainland.

As part of B.C. on the Move, the government’s ten-year transportation plan will feature the $150 million lower Lynn corridor improvement, which will include the construction of three new interchanges at Mountain Highway, Fern Street and Dollarton, including a new pedestrian, cyclist and emergency vehicle structure at the Crown Street overpass and a new rail overpass at Phillips Road. This is a great example of what can happen when all levels of government work together, and I’m very grateful for the work of the district of North Vancouver and the city of North Vancouver on this project, in addition to our federal counterparts.

This project is part of our government’s commitment to work alongside communities to invest in infrastructure, enhance the movement of goods and bring some relief to the daily commute for thousands of British Columbians. It has been in the works for a long time, and I’m very happy to see it moving forward.

Another priority for our community is affordable housing. Last month our government announced an increase to the homeowner’s grant threshold. The threshold for 2016 is now $1.2 million and an increase of $100,000 over last year. This program is designed to help alleviate some of the financial pressure of home ownership, particularly for low-income British Columbians, families, seniors, people with disabilities and first-time buyers.

We also announced $355 million over five years to build more than 2,000 new affordable housing units across the province — the largest affordable housing investment in our province’s history. This is in addition to the nearly 25,000 affordable housing units we’ve created since 2001.

Budget 2016 also introduces changes to the property transfer tax. As of February 17, new housing up to $750,000 is exempt from the tax. This means a family could save up to $13,000 on the purchase of a new home, a condo or a townhouse in North Vancouver.

Many residents on the North Shore have been affected by this dramatic rise in house prices, and that’s why I was pleased to see that an investigation will look into the allegations of fraud and insider trading by some real estate agents in Metro Van.

On Monday the Real Estate Council of B.C. announced the names of the seven individuals who have been appointed to the independent advisory group that will look into these allegations. They will be led by chairwoman Carolyn Rogers, who is a superintendent of real estate, and they will develop recommendations to increase council’s enforcement and oversight. I look forward to seeing what the result of the investigation will bring.

I have also received some great feedback on these changes from realtors on the North Shore. The Botto real estate team is made up of husband and wife duo Grant and Jasmine Botto, and they are North Vancouver–based realtors with a combined experience of more than 45 years. They have great things to say about Budget 2016 and are very supportive of changes to the PTT, the homeowner grant threshold and the investment in affordable housing, which will have a positive effect on affordability and availability on the North Shore.

[1655]

Budget 2016 also includes a $39 million investment to extend the B.C. training and education savings grant to eligible children born in 2006 or later. The grant was previously available for children born in 2007 or later, and with this change, it means the families of 40,000 additional eligible children will be able to apply for the grant later this year.

This program helps parents plan and save for their children’s post-secondary education. Because 80 percent of the job openings in the next decade will require a post-secondary education, this is a great way for parents to help their children plan for the future so that they can take advantage of our strong growing economy. I know that many of those youngsters in North Vancouver will be going to Capilano University, my local university.

Outdoor safety is also a big concern for the community, particularly with our proximity and ease of access to local mountains. Over the last few decades, the need
[ Page 10688 ]
for rescue services has increased dramatically due to the rise in popularity of extreme sports and other outdoor activities that have become synonymous with the North Shore lifestyle. North Shore Rescue is one of the province’s most well-known rescue teams and is made up of 40 highly skilled volunteers who respond to about 90 calls each year in mountain, canyon and urban settings. Yet again, there was another rescue of some people last weekend who were ill-prepared and went out of bounds. This seems to be almost a weekly — sometimes a daily — experience.

This winter was particularly busy for North Shore Rescue because many hikers were not prepared for the cold, inclement conditions, and a large number of visitors became disorientated or lost. By November, the team had already responded to more than 125 calls, an unprecedented number that taxed the team’s resources and volunteers.

On January 27, along with the MLA for West Vancouver–Capilano, our Minister for Emergency Preparedness announced that the provincial government will provide $10 million in one-time funding to help the 80 search and rescue teams across British Columbia, including North Shore Rescue. This is to help pay for additional training, replace and update safety equipment and provide administrative support. This was fantastic news for the community. North Shore Rescue is an invaluable asset to our community, and residents recognize, we all recognize, the vital role they play in keeping people safe.

Speaking of North Shore Rescue, I just wanted to put out a shout-out to my friend Connie deBoer and her boyfriend — now fiancé — Pat, who just announced the announcement. Connie is a diligent volunteer with North Shore Rescue, and I want to congratulate them on their great future together.

Budget 2016 includes billions in new capital investments as well as initiatives that will make a real difference in the lives of British Columbians. This includes an additional $3.2 billion in funding over three years for the Ministry of Health, an increase of 3 percent so that British Columbians can continue to rely on world-leading care that provides some of the best outcomes in the country, such as the longest life expectancy and the highest survival rates for many different types of cancers.

We’ve also made some changes to MSP premiums. This is to help B.C. families with the cost of living. Starting next year parents will no longer have to pay MSP premiums for their children. The rate a household pays will now be based solely on the number of adults living there.

With the changes made to the Medical Services Plan, two million people — or 40 percent of the province — will no longer pay premiums at all. More than 330,000 British Columbians will receive a reduction, thanks to more people qualifying for premium assistance. This includes seniors and low-income families. These changes mean a single parent with two kids can save up to $1,224 per year, while a single senior living on a fixed income can save up to $324 per year.

One of the big health investments that our government has made in my community in recent years is the HOpe Centre, also known as the Greta and Robert Ho Centre for Psychiatry and Education. It’s in North Vancouver. The province provided more than $38 million towards the construction of this facility, which opened in late 2014, and now helps patients suffering from mental illness and substance use challenges. The centre is an integrated service hub that brings together programs, clinicians and health care professionals from across the North Shore into one central location.

[1700]

The 158,000-square-foot facility is located on the grounds of the Lions Gate Hospital and represents the commitment of our government and of the North Shore community to ensure that those requiring assistance get the care they need. Now, Lions Gate Hospital is working on the youth in-patient unit in the HOpe Centre, and the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation has now launched a campaign as a fundraising campaign. That big gala is going to be occurring on May 6, which I will be attending.

Supporting youth and families at risk is vitally important. That’s why I’m happy to see that Budget 2016 also includes $673 million in funding for additional support for children, families and individuals in need over the next three years. This investment includes $456 million for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to support those in need and increase monthly disability assistance rates as well as $217 million for the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support vulnerable youth and their families.

This funding boost to the Ministry of Children and Family Development will provide $152 million for children in care, $51 million for children and youth in care with special needs, $11 million for child care centres and $3 million to support the adoption of children in care. Part of this funding will also be used to hire 130 new staff, including 100 front-line social workers, which is in addition to the commitment made in November 2014 to hire 200 more social workers, which has already been met. I’m very happy to see additional resources going to the ministry, because there are some amazing things happening right now, like the B.C. Friends program.

The B.C. Friends program is an anxiety prevention and resilience initiative which provides programming for kindergarten to grade 7 with lessons ranging from healthy eating and sleeping habits to empathy-building and mindfulness exercises. This is an extremely important program, as anxiety is affecting youth in increasing numbers. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, more than three million Canadians between the ages of 12 and 19 are at risk for anxiety, and many of them will experience its crippling symptoms on a daily
[ Page 10689 ]
basis. Anxiety often goes hand in hand with depression. Like other forms of mental illness, it can affect academic achievement, a student’s relationships with friends and family, and it can even increase the likelihood that students will become victims of crime.

The B.C. Friends program offers training for teachers, counsellors and parents on ways to help children build confidence and self-esteem and is offered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, at no cost, to schools throughout the province. It has already shown great results in helping youth develop tools to strengthen resiliency, reduce the risk of anxiety and improve their ability to cope, not just with school but with the many obstacles that life can offer.

I believe that supporting schools and educators through programs like the B.C. Friends is one of the best things we can do. Schools and teachers are regularly the first point of contact with youth facing discrimination or living with mental illness, and school staff are often the ones to provide the front-line support to students.

I’m very proud of the work we are doing, and I’m very excited for the additional resources and support offered by Budget 2016. These resources will enhance what we are already doing so that we can continue to improve the well-being and mental health of all students across British Columbia.

With that, I’d like to offer my support for Budget 2016.

B. Ralston: I rise to take my place in the budget debate.

Budgets are about values and about choices, and nothing reveals the government’s choices more, both in the short term and the long term, than its budget for this year and its budgets for previous years. The budget is indeed, in our system inherited from the British parliamentary system, the major event in the session. It’s the document setting out the government’s priorities, deciding where money will be raised from and deciding where money will be spent. The budget is, naturally, the focus of much of the activity in the legislative chamber and in the legislative process.

[1705]

Given that the budget is an expression of values, it’s important, I think, to look at some of the expressions of values that we’ve seen recently from the government. Given our system, the Premier is, naturally, the head of the government — although in our system, the Lieutenant-Governor, I suppose, technically is the person who we all report to, and the parliament exists at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor. But the Premier is the person who sets the tone, sets the priorities and directs the cabinet, and that includes the budget.

So I want to look at a couple of instances where some of the decisions that have been made by the Premier and some of the things that the Premier has said are, I think, very illustrative of her values, her choices, and they are reflected in the budget document.

When the Premier was recently up in the northwest, there was a gathering of people there who expressed a view about the location of an LNG plant on Lelu Island — a big gathering, a couple of hundred people, and a distinguished group of British Columbians in many respects.

There was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, someone who is a prominent public figure in our province and in our country, a recognized leader who has regularly advocated on behalf of indigenous people, not only here in British Columbia but in Canada and around the world; Chief Murray Smith, Chief Stan Dennis Sr. and Stan Dennis Jr. of the Lax Kw’alaams, an important aboriginal First Nation in the northwest; Chief John Ridsdale of the Wet’suwet’en; Chief Yvonne Lattie of the Gitxsan First Nation; and Coun. Derek MacDonald of the council of the Lake Babine Nation.

These are people who are important people in their community and respected, whether one agrees with their views or not. There were a number of other people. There were people who advocate on behalf of the environment, sometimes called environmentalists, and a number of other people were there.

It was certainly an important public discussion. In a democracy, that’s what we do. We debate issues. Development projects are not as they are in some other countries, simply decided by executive fiat and banged through no matter what the local population thinks, no matter what the environmental consequences. There’s a debate.

So when the Premier decided to call this and referred to this group as a “ragtag group,” I think it’s worth looking at some dictionary definitions of what a “ragtag group” means. It’s a term of opprobrium. In other words, you’re not saying something nice about people when you call them a ragtag group. One dictionary definition describes it as a “disreputable or disorganized group of people.” To call Chief Stewart Phillip…. I’m sure he’s been called worse on certain occasions, but for the Premier — the leader of the government, the representative of the Crown, the person who leads Her Majesty’s government here in this province — to refer to those people as a “ragtag group” is disgraceful. It’s utterly disgraceful, objectionable, and speaks a lot to her values.

The world is divided into those who oppose her and those who support her. In order to — I suppose, as some kind of political calculation — enhance the support or the perceived support for her point of view, she feels it necessary, apparently on this occasion and on many others, to attack another group of citizens in the province in a nasty way. Let’s be blunt. A nasty way. A term of opprobrium, a term of disrespect.

That speaks to the values that she brings to the job. Those are the values that she brings to the public discourse of British Columbia. Those are the values that are
[ Page 10690 ]
reflected in the budget, in some respects, because that’s the influence that she has upon the process.

[1710]

It’s interesting, as well, that there are some other recent decisions by the Premier and her office, some hiring decisions, where it’s apparent that the defeat of the Harper government in the recent federal election is something that is mourned by most of the MLAs on the other side. They’re really probably the last Harperites in the country.

I think the Harper legacy was decisively rejected in the last federal election. But there’s black crepe over some of the offices. I think of the Minister of Natural Gas or the Minister of Mines or the Minister Responsible for TransLink. Those are federal Tories. They supported Stephen Harper. They supported his approach to politics. It’s not surprising that a group of staffers who are largely federal Tories — either from Alberta and working for federal MPs in Alberta, or working for federal Tories in Ottawa — have been hired.

The Premier’s approach to politics — of demonizing her opponents, of attacking them, of vilifying them, of heaping scorn upon them — was exactly the approach that Stephen Harper took. That’s the approach that she seems to favour. It’s no surprise that as Harper Tory staffers find themselves unemployed, they’re being taken on here, in Victoria, to further that kind of ethic, that kind of approach to public discourse where opponents will be attacked, will be vilified, will be called a ragtag group — a disreputable or disorganized group of people, according to the dictionary definition.

That’s her purpose. That’s the reason. She wants more reinforcements to bring about that kind of politics. That kind of politics was decisively rejected in the last federal election. Like it or not, it was decisively rejected. Indeed, the present federal government is in the process of dismantling that legacy.

Who can forget the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, mysteriously — under political direction, one assumes — auditing environmental groups that dared to speak up against some major development projects? That kind of use and abuse of government power towards perceived opponents was very characteristic of the Harper government.

They’re flooding in. I guess that’s what the Premier meant when she said that people are moving from Alberta to British Columbia. The government is hiring former Harper staffers here to walk the halls and devise attacks upon the New Democrat opposition and anyone who dares to oppose her in public debate — however legitimate the debate, however rational the point of view.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: The Minister of Health is once again channeling his inner Kevin Krueger — the much-missed and beloved other member from Kamloops, really a rational debater if there ever was one.

That’s what we’ve seen. When we look at the budget, those kinds of attitudes permeate the budget. The structure of the budget is clear.

Over the long run, what’s happened to the budget is that, increasingly, the share of the budget that’s paid for by personal income taxes has declined. Natural resource taxes have declined. That revenue has been replaced by a couple of sources that are more in the nature of individual user fees or taxes upon use, such as medical services premiums, tuition fees, the property transfer tax and, not to forget, the federal contributions, and fuel and carbon taxes.

Corporate income tax has declined, although, given some fluctuations in the last, most-recent year, it’s somewhat up. That is a result of the delay in the reporting by Canada Revenue Agency.

[1715]

That structure of lower personal income taxes and higher MSP premiums, for example, is exemplified in this budget. In the last budget, the premium, the surtax, on incomes above $150,000…. That’s reported taxable income. It’s somewhat less than real income, obviously, because the taxable income permits you to take some deductions. That surtax came off. That category is the top category of personal income tax filers in the province.

That surtax, which went on in 2011, came off in 2013. It was open to the government to continue that in 2013. It was open to the government to continue in 2014. It was open to the government to keep that in the budget, if they so chose.

There’s a plea by the Minister of Finance that somehow his hands are tied. He’s the prisoner of dark and personal forces. He couldn’t possibly do this. It’s simply a decision that’s made at the cabinet table, by him and the Premier and the rest of the ministers, to impose that tax category and keep it there.

That tax break for those top 2 percent of earners gives the kinds of breaks that are calculated at $230 million a year in provincial revenue. Roll that up, as the Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance in its budget documents do. Over three years, three-quarters of a billion dollars; four years, $1 billion. That’s a choice. That is a choice that is made by the members opposite and by the Premier and by the cabinet to give that kind of a tax break to the top 2 percent in these times and yet to increase medical service premiums.

Even the Minister of Finance was obliged to agree with a sharp-eyed reporter when he asked a question about the gap between the increases in the MSP and some of the changes. The gap is actually $77 million. In other words, when the January 1, 2017, increases to medical service premiums come in, the total MSP increases will exceed this year’s relief by $77 million.

So $77 million more from MSP, and it’s up at about $2.7 billion of revenue for the government, and yet on the other hand, a tax break for the top 2 percent of personal
[ Page 10691 ]
tax filers. That is a choice. That is a choice that shows that those people who are closer to the Premier politically — those who aren’t part of a ragtag group, presumably — get a tax break. And those people — perhaps the broad mass of the population — that perhaps the Premier doesn’t feel as warm towards will wind up paying a total, collectively, of $77 million more.

That long-term trend in the budget exemplifies the wish of the government to lower personal income tax, particularly at the top end — the top 2 percent — and increase fees on the rest of the population. Of course, my colleagues have enumerated, in many speeches, the impact of this on ordinary people.

I represent a riding, Surrey-Whalley, where the median income is below average. Lots of hard-working great people. But there are not too many tax filers who are filing in the top 2 percent. There are not too many there in my riding who are among the $150,000 net income category.

I don’t have specific figures about that. But B.C. Stats does give a median income figure for the riding. Within Surrey, the boundaries of my riding, the median income is the lowest of any riding within Surrey at this point. Now, it’s changing, but that’s where it is right now. Those are the people that I represent.

[1720]

I’m pretty acutely aware, as most MLAs are, of the interests and wishes of my own constituents. Certainly, I’m not hearing from people that they’re feeling very flush, that they’re feeling very expansive. They’re grinding it out. They’re feeling pinched. Some of the fee increases that I am about to enumerate do impact all family incomes in my riding.

Another household expense, whether you’re a homeowner or a condo owner, is hydro rates. They’ve increased 28 percent since the Premier began her time in office and will go up again on April 1 by 4 percent and will collect about another $150 million more in revenue.

ICBC premiums. Given the challenges of public transit, the dearth of public transit, there seems to be money, which is accomplished without a referendum, for new bridges, but in terms of expansion of the Lower Mainland transit system, that was required to go through a referendum. Despite the valiant effort of the mayors of the region and many business people…. Iain Black of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce was part of the coalition to advocate on behalf of the yes side in the transit referendum.

Lots of those people were interested in advocating for voting yes on the referendum. Iain Black is probably one of the prominent business people, well known to members on the other side because he was a Liberal MLA in this place and a cabinet minister for some period of time. On behalf of his members — tens of thousands of businesses, not only in Vancouver but in the region — his board made the decision that that was an important issue to take forward and it was important to support that.

Given the transit, particularly south of the Fraser in my riding — and it extends to Langley, Abbotsford, up the valley, where there’s a lot of growth, given housing prices — people need their cars. They need to drive to get to work or to get around. And ICBC premiums continue to increase.

The other issue is a subject of some recent debate and some budget documents that have been tabled. There are options when one travels. One of them is to take the Port Mann Bridge, much touted and lauded by the members opposite, but the traffic projections have not been matched by the reality.

Fewer people seem to be willing to pay the tolls that are required to use that on a daily basis. If one were to use it on a daily basis to go to and from work, the accumulated cost of the tolls would be about the equivalent, for many people, of their annual automobile insurance. So it’s an additional tax.

The other side likes to laud the convenience of the process, but family budgets are such that many people seek to avoid that. They travel over the Pattullo Bridge, which is jammed to capacity, and avoid it. Therefore, the decline in revenue is a vivid example of people voting with their feet, voting to protect their own family budgets as opposed to paying more in tolls.

Other fees — B.C. Ferries. This is something that the opposition has repeatedly raised here in this House. I think there’s finally some acknowledgment by B.C. Ferry administration and leadership that there’s a limit to the traffic that one can attract when you keep on increasing the fares. They’ve begun to somewhat slightly reconsider their position and lower the fares in some cases — certainly at some less-than-peak times — in order to, oddly enough, encourage ridership. If people pay less, sometimes they make the financial decision that they’re prepared to use the service rather than face the exorbitant fees that been very much in evidence.

[1725]

Those values are reflected in where the government seeks to raise money and how it seeks to raise money. There’s nothing, I suppose, more indicative or illustrative of the government’s general approach in this budget than the prosperity fund.

We’ve had the debate in this House about the LNG industry. We debated it last in a special session last summer. There were a number of debates about the projected industry. One thing was always very clear. The so-called prosperity fund would be funded by actual LNG projects.

It was never discussed, never intended, that money would come from general revenue to kick-start the fund, as it were. The Finance Minister was always, I thought, in his usual way, fairly clear on that point — that the prosperity fund would only begin when there was revenue from the LNG industry to put in the fund. But nonetheless — clearly a political decision again reflecting the Premier’s values — this fund was created.
[ Page 10692 ]

It’s a mysterious, odd, hybrid creation that is described in the budget document on page 43. They have what they call a topic box — that is, an explanatory note about the B.C. prosperity fund. Although it’s $100 million that’s taken from general revenue and put into the fund, it is genuinely a shell game. It’s laughable.

“Government will allocate a minimum of 50 percent of cash….” I’m reading from the budget document. I don’t want to be accused of misquoting any members opposite or the government. That seems to be a standard response. I am quoting from the Budget and Fiscal Plan, page 43, so members can look up and follow along if they want. It’s right there.

“Government will allocate a minimum of 50 percent of cash flowing into the fund to debt retirement, and a minimum of 25 percent will be saved to accumulate earnings. The remainder will be available for core government priorities in the future.”

In other words, put in $100 million, and we’re going to take $50 million right back out and use that to pay down debt. Now, if that isn’t a shell game, I don’t know what is. Then another $25 million will be used for what they call “core government priorities” — in other words, things that the government wants to do. Maybe a yoga day on Burrard Street Bridge. Clearly, the Premier has some priorities for which she needs a little rainy-day money. Some people might call it a slush fund. I think that would be a bit harsh but maybe accurate nonetheless.

So $75 million of that money that’s going into the prosperity fund is coming right back out — one, for debt reduction, and the other for government priorities. Only $25 million is actually going to stay in the fund.

One wonders why the fund was created, given what the Finance Minister had said repeatedly — that the prosperity fund would be funded from real LNG revenue. I don’t know what happened. Some of the members in executive council…. I’m sure there was a passionate discussion inside the cabinet there about why they should do this, what the benefit was to the Premier’s perception of her political opportunities in the immediate future. Certainly, $25 million for her personal priorities, her photo-op fund, was probably pretty attractive to her.

Since cabinet discussions are confidential except under very rare circumstances, I don’t suppose we’ll find out how that discussion went — if there was one. It may have been simply that the Premier put her foot down and said: “This is what I want, and I don’t care what the rest of you think. This is what we’re going to do.” I don’t know, because those discussions are confidential.

Some members of executive council may want to enlighten me or give me hand signals, thumbs up, some thumbs down. So far I haven’t seen much reaction in terms of confirming what I’m saying, but I’m pretty sure that it was the Premier’s decision.

[1730]

She’s the Premier, head of the cabinet. She wanted this in the budget. It was put in. The Finance Minister was overruled, notwithstanding the sound and rational reasons he’d given in the past, because there was a political advantage to the Premier, or a perceived political advantage, by creating this particular fund.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That’s what I think is the clear political direction in this budget, whether it’s on MSP premiums, whether it’s on the continuing tax break for the top 2 percent of tax filers or whether it’s on this prosperity fund. Those reflect the Premier’s values. Those reflect the Premier’s choices. Those are the choices that she makes on behalf of the members opposite, whether it’s the cabinet members or the backbenchers of the government side. Those are the decisions that were made, and they are obliged to defend that, whether they like it or not.

Not many have talked about the prosperity fund. A few have but not many, and I can understand their reluctance. It’s very hard to defend, given the inconsistency with the past position of the Finance Minister and given the description on page 43 of what it actually does.

It’s something that I think the Premier wants to be able to point to and say the prosperity fund is already starting, and the benefits are already flowing. I can hear the speech now — a little bit misleading, perhaps. But that seems to be characteristic of the approach in these matters.

The budget also gives rise to, in my riding, a couple of local issues which I want to talk about a little bit. It’s important, I think, that in the budgetary process there are many sources of input. One of those sources of input is the parliamentary budget and government services committee. It goes around the province and collects input.

They decided and they voted unanimously to recommend that the government meet its commitment to expand the number of full-time-equivalent students on the Surrey campus of Simon Fraser University by 2,500 — in other words, double. They signed that memorandum of understanding back in 2006. I’ve asked here, repeatedly, successive Ministers of Advanced Education. There’s a variety of explanations and sometimes just a straight…. The most recent time I asked, the minister just gave me the backhand and didn’t want to answer at all, unfortunately.

This is a growing region. The participation in post-secondary education south of the Fraser is below the mean. Studies show that when post-secondary education opportunities are close to home, people take part in those, so I’m mystified by a government who claims to be committed to the future, to building the labour force, to drawing young people into useful and productive trades.

SFU is a great university. It’s been voted the best comprehensive university in the country a number of times in the Maclean’s magazine survey, which is an objective survey. It does a great job. It’s got lots of students. The
[ Page 10693 ]
grade point average to get in there has gone up so that most people can’t get in. It’s very, very high. It’s over 90 percent. So there are lots of qualified people being turned away because those spaces aren’t available.

Hon. S. Cadieux: It’s my pleasure to address the House today in support of Budget 2016. There’s a lot to talk about, so we’ll get right into it. But first off, there’s a lot of things that make me proud to do this job. Some days I feel more blessed than others to be an MLA and a minister of the Crown.

[1735]

One day that made me feel especially proud was to be invited last December to be present when a constituent of my riding, Canadian army medic Emerson Barden, who is now 92 years old, was awarded the French Legion of Honour for helping free that country during the Second World War. He was presented with the medal, France’s highest decoration, which is similar to our Order of Canada, by French Consul General Jean-Christophe Fleury at a ceremony at the Cloverdale legion.

The reason that makes me proud is that it was brave men and women like him who have, over many years and many conflicts, protected our way of life, our freedom and our opportunity, including the opportunity that has led me here to this role.

This role is a challenging one. It’s a challenging one many days, it’s a challenging role intellectually, it’s a challenging role emotionally, and it’s a challenging role in that you’re away from your family a lot. And your family is impacted by the commentary in this House and outside it, directed towards members, regardless that it was not their decision to enter politics. So I think that I need to say thank you to my husband and to my family, who are there, who may be watching now, as my father often does in the afternoon — hi, Dad — and who support me in countless ways to do this job.

Of course, constituency assistants, who are often mentioned by members in their speeches — mine are Sharon Crowson and Annie Christiaens, who has just been with me over a year now — really do a phenomenal job of representing all of us in our ridings and being there to be that front face to constituents when we’re here doing the work of government, to answer their questions and to lead them in the right direction and to get them answers.

And to the members, of course, of my riding association and constituents who are there to support me, to toil away to ensure that we’re prepared at all times and to help, most importantly, to reflect the issues that are most important in our community, the priorities that matter most to our community, priorities that ring true — things like not spending more than we have, not raising taxes, spending on infrastructure that matters to them and supporting those in need.

Fiscal discipline and solid management of public finances have produced a modest surplus that we are applying to partially pay down debt, but the rest is focused on people most in need.

The balance of a budget is not an easy task. I’d like to acknowledge the work of the Finance Minister and his team to steer British Columbia through unsettled times and to make tough choices in balancing those books.

We have the strongest economy in Canada, and the rest of the country is counting on us to lead them. But we’re not immune to global influences, and we need to remain vigilant. But as the Finance Minister noted, the purpose of balancing the budget isn’t to please the bond-rating agencies, which of course, do matter in our management. But the goal of balancing is to be able to focus our resources on helping people and charting our own course, away from racking up more debt and expecting children or grandchildren and future generations to pay it off someday. While other jurisdictions are saddled with that high cost of debt and of servicing that debt, British Columbia can now concentrate on how best to apply our financial resources on people instead.

The people of Surrey-Cloverdale certainly know that business is booming in British Columbia. Business is thriving. In 2014, 26 percent of new businesses in Surrey opened in Cloverdale and South Surrey, which comprise the area I represent. That’s over 724 new businesses. I’m sure that the 2015 statistics, when they’re available, will be similar. I’ve seen it in my own neighbourhood close to where I have my office. This year alone the Rustic Rooster, Cloverdale Coffee, Envision Financial, Glenn’s No Frills, Carpe Diem Fine Florals and countless others have all opened just blocks from my office alone.

Surrey is recognized as one of the fastest-growing cities. We hear that often in this House, and we did just moments ago from the member opposite who also represents an area of Surrey. With so many families wanting to make Surrey their home, the city recorded record-high building permits worth over $1.4 billion in residential and commercial construction last year. That’s important. It’s important in a city, and this budget also knows that it’s important.

[1740]

This budget will exempt the purchase of a new home of up to $750,000 from the property transfer tax. That will make a real difference of up to $13,000 for families who are moving into Cloverdale.

Surrey’s also distinguished, of course, by the fact that we are so young, and I don’t mean as a city but as a population, with almost a third of the population under the age of 19. That translates to young families making Surrey their home — young families that will want to be aware that, as a result of this budget, their children born after January 1, 2006, are eligible for a $1,200 grant to save for their education. That’s going to benefit another 40,000 children, and there is no better time than today to start saving for tomorrow.

And this budget continues our commitment to sport — tens of millions in sports program funding that builds
[ Page 10694 ]
on the hundreds of millions of dollars in new sport infrastructure that has been constructed since 2005 in British Columbia.

It seems fitting, of course, on the eve of the B.C. Winter Games that will open up in Penticton that we talk about that. It matters to my constituents. It matters to people like Tyler Tardi, Jordan Tardi and Paul Tardi, who represented B.C. at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships in Ontario and took away the bronze. And I’ll note that Tyler just skipped the Canadian team at the Youth Olympics in Lillehammer last week and brought home the gold. So congratulations to Tyler.

These things matter, as well, to volunteers, the people that are the heart of our communities, like Greg Timm, who’s chair of the Women’s World Softball Championship that will take place in Surrey and Cloverdale this July, the largest women’s softball international fast-pitch event, where athletes from over 30 countries will compete.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Cadieux: The Minister of Sport likes that.

You know, as I mentioned earlier, the purpose of balancing a budget isn’t an end to itself. It means that we can focus more resources on people in need. I touched on the budget broadly earlier, but it bears repeating that this is our fourth consecutive balanced budget, and that’s no small achievement, given the turbulent economic climate.

In the face of a depressed Canadian dollar and uncertainty in markets both home and abroad, we continue to steer the same stable course that has earned us top marks from the international credit-rating agencies. It’s a course that’s based in the sound fiscal management principles my father has imparted to me and on the principle of saying yes to economic development. We have to understand that we have to create economic opportunities and we have to do that while living within our means.

It’s an approach that’s about more than just fiscal responsibility but social responsibility. The whole reason we do that is because we are a caring people, a caring society. We know that when we balance books, it’s the first step in balancing the priorities of British Columbians.

So it’s a long-term approach. It’s a difficult road to follow when one is standing alone in that commitment. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t immediate benefits to that. So while we stay balanced in our operations, we free up money to invest in community. It’s discipline and commitment to economic growth that put us in the position and will continue to help us lead the country.

It’s also what will enable us, and it’s enabling us now, to help ease the cost on families here in British Columbia. It means new units of affordable housing and property tax changes that will make it easier for families to buy a new home. It means continued investments — in infrastructure, major health care projects like Children’s and Women’s Hospital, which benefit all British Columbians; in construction, the expansion and upgrades of highways and bridges, which benefit all British Columbians; and on seismic upgrades and new K-to-12 school space.

No one knows the need for school space better than the people of Surrey-Cloverdale and me. Our schools are bursting at the seams with all of the growth and economic development in Surrey, and we just can’t build those schools fast enough for Cloverdale. The Minister of Education knows that well.

It also means MSP exemptions for kids and changes to premiums that will help reduce costs for families that are struggling. I know that the medical services premiums remain a hot topic of debate. We also do have to remember, though, that those premiums help offset health care costs that will continue to go up as our population grows, as our population ages and places a greater demand on the system.

[1745]

We are recognized as a leader in health and wellness in Canada and abroad. It’s because we all want and deserve access to high-quality health care that we can address some of those pressures head-on — by investing another $3.2 billion over the next three years into the Ministry of Health.

Their ministry is not the only ministry receiving a boost. Some $456 million will go to the Ministry of Social Development to support those who need it most and $217 million, over the next three years, to my ministry. That’s a much-needed investment. This year alone my ministry will see an investment of $72 million. Some of it will go to wage increases that have been negotiated for unionized workers. Some of it, over $65 million, will help us with some of the existing challenges and pressures and allow us to move forward on addressing items in phase 1 of the Plecas report.

Mr. Plecas called theirs the most difficult job in government. It’s certainly true that cases have become more complex over the years and increasingly require a front-line response. To address those pressures, in November 2014, I promised 200 new social workers throughout British Columbia. We’re delivering on that promise, and Budget 2016 it takes it a step further. This year we’ll add another 130 staff to priority programs, including 100 new social workers.

I know members opposite have been questioning whether or not these are new positions, and I will assure them that they are. They’ve questioned whether or not we’ve hired the 200 we promised, and I assure them that we have. I’m pleased that the front line is seeing this investment. I know how hard those people work. I know how hard the decisions they make are. I want to see that they are supported in the best way possible to do that very challenging work in the best way that they can.

While I think that that investment in those people matters, I also think it’s important that we build on the level of quality assurance, above and beyond the oversight
[ Page 10695 ]
work that is well performed by the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth. Doing so can only increase public confidence in the ministry and strengthen the work that we do. So we’re adding new dedicated staff for quality assurance, and we’re investing in additional training, technology and administrative support for those front-line staff.

We’re taking immediate steps to address the areas Mr. Plecas focused on in his report, but he also stressed the importance of developing a longer plan with milestones, which we can consider in due course. We’ll be building that plan this year, supported by a transition team and an advisory body, as recommended, that makes sure that the right people are driving that change. This work will be covered within the budget allocation, and we expect to be in a position to announce a multi-year plan by the end of the year.

I see this new funding that the ministry is seeing this year and the work it allows us to pursue as a start. It’s a good start. But the fact that we are one of the few ministries of government to see such a significant budget lift speaks to the government’s priority of better supporting vulnerable children and families, delivering the crucial front-line services they need and delivering on a commitment that when we had our fiscal house in order and were able to make the investments, we would.

All of us who work with children and families would like to be in a position to still add more. The challenge is always to strike a balance with the mandate we’ve been given to grow our economy and remain fiscally responsible.

With the high-profile cases that have dominated the headlines this past year and the intense scrutiny the ministry has been under, questions will inevitably be asked. Is it enough? Why didn’t you do it sooner? Why not more? Any time an individual or family is involved with our ministry and there’s tragedy, we hear these calls, as though the tragedy could have been prevented with just the right injection of money at just the right time.

I don’t think the solution is ever quite that simple. High-conflict custody cases, parental neglect, alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness and domestic violence — anyone who has dealt with any of these issues in their own family or circle of friends knows that money is not the only answer.

[1750]

These are complex challenges, complex problems, and the bigger question is: why are these issues cropping up in our society with such greater complexity? And why have we divested the responsibility of dealing with these issues to government and government alone?

While we try to support the front lines of defence in these situations with the addition of more support for our social workers on the front lines, families, communities and social agencies, we also recognize that, in many situations, government is the service or, in some contexts, the payer, of last resort. Regardless of that — that we are, in most cases and necessarily, the last resort — we take the responsibility incredibly seriously. We will continue to meet the need where it’s most urgent, and Budget 2016 puts us in a much stronger position to do so.

But no amount of funding could ever address the pain and struggles that some of the families that we work with face. It isn’t enough for us to simply pick up the pieces once a family is broken. The key is to support them to stay healthy in the first place. That’s why the prevention-focused programs — the programs in MCFD that never grab any headlines — are so important.

It’s why we’re giving parents one-stop access to early learning and health services through 47 new early-years centres. It’s why we’re investing in 13,000 new quality child care spaces by 2020. It’s why we’re focusing on supporting the education of childhood educators, why we’re focused on giving children and teens the love and care and stability they deserve through adoption.

It’s why we champion programs like FRIENDS, to teach kids to deal with stress and anxiety before it becomes a problem. And it’s why we tell former kids in care that if they want to access career training and post-secondary education, we’re there to support them too.

The budget is about balancing priorities and about social responsibility. We all want strong child and family systems in place that can support our most vulnerable and give them the tools to take on and overcome life’s many challenges. Are we there yet? No, we’re not. And will this budget and future budgets increase MCFD’s bank account to get us there? Probably not. And why do I say this, sitting here as one of the very few cabinet ministers — and I must admit, a very grateful one — who saw a lift this year?

I say it because I know and because those in the system know and those who study and practice social work know that long-lasting success will never be found at the bottom of a balance sheet.

There’s a professor and practitioner of social work out of Brisbane, Australia. His name is Bob Lonne. He talks about how it takes a village to raise a child — that concept, something we’ve all heard, describing it as social care. And he talks then about the groups that have, throughout the ages, provided social care — extended family, churches, sporting clubs, communities.

What’s missing from that list? Government. In fact, government only became a part of the list in the not-so-distant past. In 1942, in Britain, Sir William Beveridge introduced the concept of the welfare state. And guess what. He left out the people and the communities in the model, replacing it with institutions, with publicly funded programs and tracking systems to see if it was all working.

In doing so, he replaced the shared collective social responsibility. He replaced the people with institutions and with loneliness. And a PhD out of Britain, Hilary Cottam, has studied the phenomenon of relationships and loneliness as it relates to social programs. She tracked a family
[ Page 10696 ]
involved with the system in Britain, talked to them, spent time with them and counted the number of social welfare officials that served that family.

The number of agencies and the costs were staggering. Seventy agencies, a quarter of a million pounds annually — that’s nearly half a million dollars a year — and the family continued to struggle. So she took some of that money, a sliver, and gave it to the mother and let her spend it in ways the mother thought would benefit her family. And equally importantly, maybe more so, she allowed the mother to pick which of the professionals her family had been involved with that she would continue to work with. Together they were empowered to change the way they interacted, to change their relationship.

Relationships — not a discussion anyone in this House is ever going to be able to pick out of a three-year fiscal plan. As Cottam defines relationships, they are the simple bonds that exist between us — bonds that make us happy, bonds that support us to be brave, bonds that support us to try something different.

[1755]

They are much more than a topic box in the budget or a press release on programs and spending, and much more important in the work that my ministry does than is ever discussed or argued about or shouted about in question period. Relationships are never found at the bottom of a balance sheet. They are found and formed in our hearts.

In doing so, in closing, I’ll say again that Budget 2016 is a start. It is by no means an end to the work that needs to get done by MCFD and in this House. I look forward to a legislative session where we put aside some of the culture of blame that has permeated some of our past discussions about MCFD to one where we work together, to one where we form respectful and inclusive relationships in the service of some of the most vulnerable citizens in our society — where we don’t simply call for more money, but instead, we call for stronger and better relationships.

When we care well for others, when we build a social care system that is based on relationships, it is not only good for those who receive our efforts; it’s good for us. It’s good for the givers. It’s good for every member of this House. We will all feel better about the work that we do if we come together to build better relationships, better relationships for the people that we serve. That’s good for British Columbia, and that’s why I am very supportive of Budget 2016.

A. Dix: It is always an honour to rise in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia to represent the people of Vancouver-Kingsway. I think that the people of Vancouver-Kingsway — and I’m sure MLAs representing all of British Columbia feel the same way — represent some of the qualities that the previous speaker, the Minister of Children and Families, underlined.

I just think of a dear friend of mine and a dear friend of community, Jagat Ram, who came from Fiji to Canada. He had been in the police forces in the military in Fiji, and he was the parade marshal in South Vancouver for the Remembrance Day ceremony in most years. He was involved in the veterans committee. Everybody who knew him, from the small businesses that he frequented, the Bamboo Cafe and the Panderia Bakery, to the people who knew him and were inspired by him to his family…. He lived in our area. He did not have much, but what he contributed was enormous.

I think of Barry Landry, who is a volunteer at Collingwood Neighbourhood House. He is on disability, federal disability. He suffered a number of years ago — members of the government should know this — because disability rates in British Columbia have been frozen for a long time. Of course, income assistance rates continue to be frozen in British Columbia.

Barry’s income would go up by the rate of inflation. It would be a small amount, 1 percent or 2 percent, and suddenly he went past the threshold where he could get an inexpensive bus pass. We as a community, including myself and many others in the community, ultimately got together.

He was in the strange position of losing ground to inflation, effectively, and then the moment he crossed that threshold, losing something that was worth, on his very meagre income, an enormous amount of money to him — in fact, members will know, about $600 a year. Can you imagine? You’re getting by week to week, day to day on what you live on. Then suddenly, because your pension goes up by 2 percent while other people of disability get nothing year after year after year, that 2 percent costs you.

Barry is not — and people who know him would tell you this — a person who engages in rancour. That’s why he’s so beloved in the community. He volunteers and helps serve community meals, our community breakfast program every Saturday morning where people largely come from outside the riding and are served breakfast at Collingwood Neighbourhood House. Barry is the chef, and he does an extraordinary job.

[1800]

The fact of the matter is that for all he contributes…. There is nothing that you could say, if you knew Barry Landry, that would suggest to him that he was undeserving or not a contributor, had not worked a long time in his life and then was unable to work. But he continues to volunteer with all his heart and soul and lost a $600 benefit a few years ago.

The idea that people in those circumstances, not people who receive a massive tax cut at a high-income level…. They’re not asked to pay for their tax cut. They’re not asked to do that. But when members, on disability….

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health should know better. He should know better.
[ Page 10697 ]

The government is about choices, and the government, in that case, made a choice. That choice was to give a tax cut to the richest British Columbians, even though we live in the most unequal province in Canada in terms of income and in terms of wealth — even though we live in such a province — instead of using that money to support people like Barry. People like Barry, in his circumstance, have to pay for their benefit increase. You get, and then you claw back. That’s the idea for them. That’s not the way it is for the top 2 percent, in this budget and from this government.

With respect to hydro rates and 28 percent increases, which have been used to create the charade of a balanced budget, year after year…. Deferral accounts and rate increases are hidden taxes because they are intended to increase revenue to the government, which would otherwise have been in deficit.

Right now, in this budget year, the Minister of Energy and the government are proposing…. It makes sense, because they have so mismanaged the energy portfolio of the province that we have a surplus right now. They forced B.C. Hydro to buy expensive power.

They are giving, this year, a deferral of payments by mining companies. They’re offering that — not, I might add, to people such as Barry, who might also need a deferral. They find, on a limited income, a 28 percent increase…. When you are on a fixed income in this province, in Metro Vancouver, with housing being what it is, whether you are renting or owning, and in the rest of the province, where incomes are under a challenge….

There was not anything in this budget — not a centime, not a lira, not a nickel — for the miners who were laid off. Some 2,000 of them laid off in the past year, since the government announced that we were the province of mining, in a previous throne speech — not a centime for them. Scraps off the table. And yet, this is the way we do business in British Columbia. So I think it is inconsistent.

I think of our neighbourhood house in our community, which I think does admirable things. In our whole community, we welcomed something called the Kingsway Continental. It used to be the Continental downtown. People who know Vancouver will know it. It’s where people who have nothing…. It’s operated by the city of Vancouver. It was a pilot of the city of Vancouver. We moved some of the most vulnerable housing directly in the middle of my constituency at what used to be the Ramada. The place was upgraded, and it’s used for that.

The community — none of this “not in my backyard” stuff. None of this, even though people are obviously heavily invested. Anyone who has tried to buy a home in Vancouver, including in Vancouver-Kingsway, knows the challenges. None of that stuff. They welcomed when people came into our community in those circumstances. It’s partly, I think, because of the generosity of the community. Partly because of the generosity of some of the church community and of the neighbourhood community, they were welcomed. Welcome gifts were brought — not protests, but welcome gifts. That’s how you act when your neighbours are in need and need support and need to be welcomed in the community.

I’m so proud of the work people in my community are doing with respect to the welcome of Syrian refugees. As many people know, if they drive up Kingsway, in Vancouver, there’s actually a city-owned motel. It used to be, when we arrived…. Our family arrived in British Columbia in 1969. We drove up Kingsway. We stayed in a motel on Kingsway, like everyone else.

[1805]

It’s kind of the heritage of Kingsway, I dare say. That’s a controversial question, that motels might be deemed as heritage, but that’s what Kingsway used to be. The 2400, which people will know is in the heart of Vancouver-Kingsway, the heart of Kingsway, is where today several dozen refugees from Syria are starting their new life in Canada. They are welcomed by the community and supported by the community — supported not just by people who have but by people who have very little but are offering what they have. I think that speaks to who British Columbia is and what British Columbia is.

I have to say that this is one of the most disappointing, unprepossessing, politically self-absorbed budgets that I have witnessed in British Columbia in the years I’ve been following B.C. politics, which is, sadly, probably too many years. It’s quite a few years.

This is a budget that starts, at its core, with not anything connected to what’s happening at the 2400 Motel or at the Kingsway Continental or with Barry Landry or the best of British Columbia but with an act of self-absorption, which is the creation of a fantasy fund around LNG, of $100 million, a fantasy fund which is a sop to the Premier’s illusions. We utterly failed, and instead of coming clean about that failing, we want to go to $100 million.

You know, maybe Gordon Wilson could have devised the website we would have needed to decide the government’s agenda with respect to LNG, the success of it. Interestingly, no matter what number you would have put in the input, $10 million — if it was the Premier, it would have been $100 billion and you would have had to leave a lot of space — times zero equals zero. That’s what’s actually in the fund. And then if you put another number in, maybe $800 billion — because the Premier’s new programs will probably be done over 800 years — $800 billion times zero, and the answer would still be zero.

This is at a time when there’s significant need, both in the interior of the province, where very important resource industries…. You don’t have to ask me. You just have to look at the budget to see its impact on government revenue. But what that hides is its impact on employment in the interior of the province in resource industries.

You don’t have to take it from me that there are struggles in resource communities around B.C. We know there are struggles. The numbers tell a very clear story of those
[ Page 10698 ]
struggles. Instead of responding to that in a practical way, we have a fantasy fund created out of self-aggrandizement and self-absorption by a Premier and a government that are completely out of touch with the reality of Metro Vancouver, the reality of Vancouver Island, the reality of the interior of the province — completely out of touch.

To use that as a signature piece of a budget, to pretend that a fund exists related to LNG that does not exist because you don’t want the Premier to look bad, I think speaks to the credibility of the budget and the credibility of the government.

Now, we also…. I spoke about this, the real struggles of a province — they belie, if you actually talk and meet with real people, the comments from the members on the government side of the floor — where it is increasingly difficult for people, not just low-income people but middle-income people, to succeed and to get ahead and for their children to aspire to what we would hope would be the case, which is a better life than our generation.

We have the highest levels of inequality, and anybody who looks seriously, whether they’re the Minister of Health or anyone else, at social determinants of health understands that high levels of inequality are bad for the economy, bad for society, bad for communities. We have the highest absolute levels of inequality in the country. Some of that — not all of it, because there are other factors pressing on wages and so on, although we have some of the worst wage growth in the country — means that as costs go up in British Columbia, incomes are not keeping pace and people are struggling.

[1810]

There seems to be no awareness from the Premier or the Minister of Finance that this is actually happening in the real world — not in the world of Victoria, not in the world where you’re trying to convince a small group of journalists that you’ve succeeded in something. But in the real world beyond that, of which journalists are very much a part, there’s a real struggle going on. Instead, they have doubled down on the inequality of the tax system. This has been going on, of course, for years, and it continues in this budget.

There’s a discussion of medical services premiums. Before the budget, the Premier said: “There’s something wrong here. We’re going to take action.” Ultimately, what happened was that medical services premiums, as a share of the provincial budget, went up again. In fact, if you take it over the Liberal time in office, as a share of the budget — this is a fair comparison — medical service premiums have increased by 85 percent.

You know what has increased more, hon. Chair? You’ll be aware of this because you have, in your community of Burnaby, outstanding post-secondary institutions. Tuition fees have gone up more. Tuition fees have gone up 200 percent. They’re starting to close in on all natural resource revenues. That’s how much we’re charging in tuition fees. They used to be, when this government took office, 1.5 percent of the budget. They’re now more than double that.

What that does, in a society where inequality is high, is it takes away the means of what we might call social mobility but which all of us understand is our children getting ahead, getting the education they need to get the jobs they need and to support their own families into the future — something that, surely, as a society we should be promoting.

Instead, we have a government that has increased flat taxes that hammer the middle class. They did it again in this budget — increased hydro rates, ICBC rates and MSP premiums that hammer the middle class. Then they deny the children of the middle class the right to the education they need to get higher incomes.

This is government policy in a province that has the highest inequality of any jurisdiction in the country. Surely that doesn’t make sense. Surely a government that saw this, and saw the shift onto the middle class of the tax burden that was taking place, would not have done what this government has done, and repeated in this budget — which was a tax cut for the rich. They would not have done that.

Yet in a province, again, where we’re talking about not just inequality of income but inequality of wealth — the highest levels of inequality in the country — we have a government that’s doubling down on this, that is engaging in tax measures that increase the level of that inequality. I mean, how can you imagine that that would make sense for this province?

Further, in terms of the photo-op element of the budget, exemplified by the government’s fantasy fund…. It does not exist in fact. It is a contrivance. It is an homage to the Premier’s ego. At a time with all this going on, all those struggles, can you imagine what people who’ve been laid off in Tumbler Ridge or in Vancouver might think of that at this time? Or what people who are finding it increasingly difficult to live in Metro Vancouver think of that?

Yet that is the priority of the government. MSP increases are a continuation of a 15-year Liberal policy that they make worse every single year. It’s going to be worse, according to the three-year plan, in 2017-18. It’s going to be worse again in 2018-19. And they did nothing to change it. Someone earning $50,000 pays the same as someone earning $250,000. They did nothing to change the fundamental basis of that — while at the same time, members on that side of the House cut taxes for the rich. Can you imagine it?

I am telling you, especially…. This is true in lots of regions of the country; the member for Chilliwack-Hope knows this. Those changes — whether you live in Vancouver, with high real estate values, or other communities, with lower real estate values — damage and hurt the middle class. That’s what they’ve done. They’ve particularly done it with respect to B.C. Hydro and with respect to ICBC.

[1815]

Now, it’s hard for people to imagine this because, you know, in the last five years there’s been a change to this. Until 2010, ICBC didn’t actually transfer cash to the province. That was a change brought in, an innovation brought in, by the Liberal government to deal with their fiscal situation at the time in the usual way that they’ve tried to deal with it, which is a mirage.

But at B.C. Hydro, what we’ve seen is a dramatic growth in deferral accounts that they have no plan to pay for — deferral accounts that helped them to pretend to have profit that did not exist, in fact, and that helped them pretend to balance the budget when they didn’t. And then rate increases that are paying for…. They are essentially false tax increases.

They are tax increases. B.C. Hydro and the BCUC were ordered to allow them to happen by the provincial cabinet. They were tax increases designed to protect the share of money for the provincial government. And they go out and make the…. I’ve heard a dozen of them say: “Oh, we’re not raising taxes.” They’re raising taxes. When you do that, that is raising taxes. And the Minister of Energy is doing it.

All of this is landing on the middle class. All of this is landing in the inability to fund programs of change. I find it fascinating, I guess. It’s interesting what has happened on the program side for people who fall below that margin, who sometimes require the support of government to get by, and what it means for them. We saw that on this issue of bus passes.

There’s no discussion on the government side — none — of proceeding with reforms to disability that wouldn’t claw back from people. And that just shows a government that’s out of touch. I don’t know if people understand. We’ve done studies.

I’ve had lots of casework, not just in my constituency but from around B.C., with people who are on federal disability, like Barry Landry, in Vernon and other communities, and who, because they had a 2 percent increase in their disability, lost their bus pass a couple of years ago. And the reason they lost their bus pass is that the province wasn’t increasing disability rates for everybody else.

Again, this government is out of touch with the reality of what people are dealing with in the province. They are pounding the middle class with these tax increases that they pretend are something else. They’re called premiums. They’re called Hydro rates. They’re called ICBC rates. They’re called tuition fees.

But let’s make no mistake about it. The budget is clear on this point. They are tax increases on the middle class — tax increases designed to protect what the government has been doing, which is to reduce the share of taxation paid progressively. That is what they have consistently done. That is what they’ve done in this budget. In a time of rising inequality when people are struggling, it is shameful.

On critical issues to the public in British Columbia…. Whether it be incomes and employment in the Interior, where aside from a new slush fund, nothing substantive has been done, or in Metro Vancouver, where people are going through a housing crisis that is affecting everybody wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, the government has done nothing of substance. They are trying to dress around the edges. It is the photo-op budget in that sense.

Housing is not a perception problem for the Premier in Metro Vancouver. It is an actual problem requiring serious and comprehensive solutions. Instead, what we have is a government trying to pretend that they’re responding to those problems that they have failed to address, year after year after year, in a photo-op budget that will have almost no impact on real people who are struggling in this housing market. Not a dime, not a centime, for renters.

[1820]

In my community, I think the main means in this context where we have a government that appears to be at war with the middle class…. I mean, people talk about class-war politics. It’s the government that is engaging in class-war politics here. The means through which people progress or people rise is through our education system.

Interjection.

A. Dix: The Minister of Health can talk all he likes. He’ll have an opportunity to speak in this House, and I look forward to him doing it. He knows and I know that this kind of photo-op politics was fundamentally damaging for the Ministry of Health four years ago, where they were ordered to smear employees of the Ministry of Health, by the Premier’s office. He knows that. I’m sure that he feels, well, you know, that somebody else was responsible and that somebody else put RCMP in the press release. That was the smear they did then, and we’re still speaking about it now, and we’ll be speaking about it for some time.

The key means through which people in my community…. And they love our public schools in our community. I think one of the extraordinary things about teachers and students and parents and what they do in our public schools is that they can be seen every day.

They can be seen this week on the basketball court, where teams from Gladstone and Windermere are taking part in the triple-A Lower Mainland tournament and, I’m hopeful, will be provincial champions, one of them. It would be great if they played each other in the finals. Also, every day, there’s no school where the students at a secondary school volunteer more in elementary schools in the area than Windermere School, in my riding.

What people who work in schools in British Columbia know is that they are being pushed and pushed and their opportunities are less and less. And the government’s decision to claw back, again, more money from our public schools this year is going to hurt the quality of education
[ Page 10700 ]
at a time when people working in education are doing heroic and extraordinary things — students and parents and teachers and support workers. Instead of saying to those people, “We’re going to give you a little bit of help this year,” the government has pushed them down again. I think it’s irresponsible.

With respect to public schools in our community, public schools of which we’re very proud, or public schools in my neighbouring community…. My neighbouring MLA, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, is essentially advocating a Vancouver public school, having run for the nomination in Quilchena, representing Vancouver-Fraserview, arguing for the closure of schools that are vital in her community.

We should have a debate and a discussion about that and what schools mean in communities. I can tell you what they mean in our community, schools such as Carleton and Bruce. They may not mean anything to the Minister of Justice, but they mean something in our community, in Vancouver-Kingsway. That’s why we think they’re important.

Here is what they’re doing. Just to understand what the policy of the provincial government is. Norquay School is one of the biggest elementary schools in British Columbia, in terms of enrolment — 660 students in that school. In Norquay School, 660.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Because in Vancouver, historically, the east side schools were built way bigger than the west side schools — when the population was different — the capacity of the school is 800. Now, on their capacity judgments, they don’t allow for music rooms or anything else. What they’re arguing, what the Liberal government is arguing around Norquay School, is that 660 students isn’t enough. We have to add another 100 students. We have to get rid of the music rooms.

That’s what they’re suggesting, at a time when Norquay School is, itself, doing extraordinary things. Even with all of the difficulties that have occurred in education, all of the disputes, they’re doing remarkable things. And instead of helping them…. They’re dealing with government cuts forced on the school board by the government, and they’re dealing with threats to the very schools that support neighbourhoods in Vancouver-Kingsway and communities across the province.

All this talk about, “Oh, there are too many schools,” and everything else…. Schools of 600 generally aren’t slated for closures anywhere in the world. But they’re targets here. Local MLAs need to speak for them, and we are. They play a vital role in our community, in Vancouver-Kingsway. They got rid of our local community health centre, but our public schools are vital to our neighbourhoods, and we intend to fight, and support them.

In conclusion, we have a province that has always been a great place to live and continues to be a great place to live. But we have struggles, and we have challenges.

[1825]

One of those challenges is that we need to support communities and to support people so that they can achieve all they can achieve in life, and instead, we have a government that seems to believe that more inequality, not less, is the important thing and uses the instruments of government to deny that opportunity to so many in our province.

It’s why we need, and we will have soon enough, a change in government. But we also need a change of mindset — that the government, to members in the Liberal cabinet I fear has become the place they hang out with their deputy ministers and not the people’s House.

That’s how you can conspire about the release of a report about the death of a child. That’s how you can conspire to make health researchers look bad, for your political interests. That’s where you can do those things. That’s where you can create a fantasy fund where nothing existed before.

That is the approach that leads to the folly of this budget, a lost opportunity for the people of B.C. and why this province so desperately needs a change in direction and a change in the soul of its government.

S. Gibson: What a wonderful welcome to this House, hon. Speaker. I speak against the amendment, but I’m really thrilled to be here to speak in support of the Budget 2016. And may I say that it’s an honour to represent the Abbotsford-Mission riding.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present and be here today. When I think about the Abbotsford-Mission riding, it’s a beautiful place, and it’s an honour to represent such an amazing area. As you drive around, you can’t help but feel pride in the area. You know, when you travel — many of us have travelled around the country — it’s always a wonderful feeling to come home. I’ve travelled in Europe and Africa, in China, but it’s always great to come home. So good to be here and to represent constituents here in the Legislature today.

Other provinces are contemplating some pretty bleak economic prospects, but here in B.C., we’re facing some exciting opportunities, and it’s great to be a part of a government that has such optimism and ebullience as we look forward. This government remains committed to ensuring that future generations will be able to enjoy the same opportunities we’re so fortunate to have today.

With Budget 2016, we’ve seen the result of the pragmatic decision-making and fiscal discipline that British Columbians expect from our government. As we’ve heard many times in this House, it’s the fourth year in a row we’re delivering a balanced budget. Much is being done to minimize the debt burden so future generations like my grandchildren will be able to share in the great wealth of this province.
[ Page 10701 ]

A balanced budget affirms what the financial community already knows: B.C. remains in a strong fiscal position and continues to enjoy steady economic growth. Triple-A credit rating. It’s why creditors continue to have confidence in our ability to repay what we borrow. And make no mistake: it pays to be in a strong financial position.

Nearly $500 million in funding is possible thanks to lower interest rates — funding used to improve schools, hospitals and to build new roads and bridges and continue to offer excellent programs and services.

The savings we have achieved through responsible fiscal management will allow us to invest in our future. Opposition will claim that this budget does not do enough for those in need. Some will say it does not provide enough funding for existing programs. But despite what some have said, this is a budget that’s providing new and increased services for citizens, assisting individuals with the cost of living and taking steps to help families realize their dreams of home ownership.

Let’s start with a look at what this budget is doing for families. Significant changes to the MSP premiums to help single-parent families to save the money they need to give their children the opportunities they deserve. Children will no longer be included in premium payment calculations.

[1830]

This will give a significant break to single-parent families, who will pay up to $72 per month less than they currently do. That’s up to $864 per year back into the pockets of a single parent with two children, and $696 back into the pocket of a single parent with one child. MSP premiums for the elderly will be reduced so that our loved ones continue to live comfortably and securely. Budget 2016 includes a significant expansion of premium assistance that will reduce the payments of 335,000 people, and 45,000 low-income individuals will pay no premiums at all.

Finally, this year’s budget will see increased support for our most vulnerable — $673 million will be provided to the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to help our disabled citizens, vulnerable children and families that need our assistance.

We’re also helping families plan for the future for their children. I’m incredibly proud to see this government expand the grant offered through the B.C. training and education savings program. This program will provide a $1,200 grant for an RESP for children born on or after January 1, 2006. This is going to give our parents the ability to save for the education of 40,000 additional children.

While I’m proud to see our government putting money back into the hands of B.C. families, we also need to help ensure that one of the most basic needs is met: a place to call home at the end of the day.

B.C. is truly a spectacular place to live, and we are blessed with a bounty of natural resources and beautiful scenery. But an unfortunate consequence of our province’s high desirability — with higher home prices — is that more and more people from across the country and around the world come here to begin a new life.

That’s why this year’s budget includes a number of measures aimed to help B.C. residents adjust to higher real estate prices. We invested $355 million over five years to directly support more than 2,000 units of affordable housing that will help families with low to moderate incomes. On top of that, our provincial government will continue partnering with community groups and municipalities to provide financing to non-profits so that we can increase the stock of affordable housing in our communities.

Finally, newly built homes costing up to $750,000 will be fully exempted from property transfer taxes, which will save buyers up to $13,000 on the purchase of a new home. In my constituency of Abbotsford-Mission and across British Columbia, these measures are going to help families realize their dreams of owning a new home.

More importantly, I am incredibly proud to say that we’re able to provide all these expanded benefits and services while continuing to make significant investments in capital spending and planning for the future. The Budget 2016 three-year fiscal plan includes a capital spending total of $20.6 billion, $12 billion of which is taxpayer-supported.

This is going to ensure record levels of investments in health, education, skills training, transportation and community safety. So $3.2 billion alone is being invested in the Ministry of Health so we can effectively deal with an aging demographic that will put increasing pressures on our world-class health care system.

Right in my riding of Abbotsford-Mission, important investments are being made to keep our communities safe, and $55 million is being spent across the province to invest in our emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives. These are funds that, in part, are going to help upgrade the dikes and other flood protection infrastructure that my constituents depend on so their families and their livelihoods are safe in the event of a natural disaster. As we know, flooding is always a concern that we have in the valley.

On top of that, Budget 2016 continues to invest in rural and agricultural communities that many of my constituents proudly belong to. So $75 million is being put into the rural dividend program to help these communities reinvigorate and diversify their economies. There’s $7 million for B.C. Transit service in some of these areas. And recognizing the value of contributions that the agricultural sector makes to our communities, there will be a farmers food donation tax credit worth 25 percent of the fair market value of qualifying products that farmers donate to a registered charity helping those in need.

[1835]

It’s important to remember that this is not a budget that was achieved through chance or luck. This is a budget
[ Page 10702 ]
achieved through good economic stewardship, a watchful eye and a steady hand by this government. It was achieved by diversifying our provincial economy, so we’re able to withstand the challenges posed by global market forces that sometimes can be beyond our control. Instead of our economic situation tied to the fortunes of the United States, we have managed to significantly diversify in order to take advantage of opportunities across the globe.

One such success can be seen right in the area of Abbotsford, in my home area, where our homegrown aerospace industry is thriving. Now 160 aerospace companies and growing call British Columbia home, employing some 8,000 people directly across the province. B.C.-made and -maintained firefighting equipment is saving lives and property in the United States and Australia, aircraft tailored for the job, while cutting-edge flight simulation technology is training the next generation of pilots for a wide range of missions around the globe.

I could continue on with our stories of success around the province. We’ve been working hard to save our money and balance our budget year after year so it may continue to lead our nation in economic growth. I’m incredibly proud of the example we are setting for the rest of our country and for our future generations through continuous solid economic management. I’m confident that the hard work we are doing today will ensure that our dreams and aspirations will be realized tomorrow. That’s why I am honoured to speak today in support of Budget 2016.

L. Krog: Lucky in love. Lucky in love. That’s me, hon. Speaker. Now I’ve got their attention, haven’t I? Now, when it comes to timing, however, I’m not so lucky. You know, 25 to 7 on Wednesday. The press gallery, those hard-working folks, have already disappeared. Most British Columbians….

Interjection.

L. Krog: You know, the member over there is mistaken, but I’ll correct him later.

Those hard-working folks in the press gallery have all gone home. British Columbians are tuned into Global or whatever and listening to the evening news or following the shenanigans of Donald Trump. So I’m conscious of the fact that there’s a very small audience that’s going to listen to what I have to say.

That is often, sadly, the very futility of this place — that very few people listen to what anyone has to say. We engage in this interesting historical debate about who was the best or worst government and what are the most important things and what statistics are most accurate. A certain amount of hyperbole characterizes the debate in this chamber, so I trust that everyone will forgive me if I take a couple of steps backward.

Now, the reason I said I’m lucky in love was not just to get everyone’s attention. I’m conscious of the fact that there are books that nobody pays much attention to, except they all remember the opening lines. You know, like Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick: “Call me Ishmael.” Now, there’s an opening phrase that grasps your attention. But I’m more reminded, when I address the budget today, of Dickens, of course, and I’m sure that the members can anticipate what I’m going to say. A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times….”

If you are wealthy in British Columbia, it is indeed the best of times. And if you’re poor or vulnerable in British Columbia, it is indeed the worst of times. No question about that. And let me enlarge on that theme by speaking globally for a moment. According to the Oxfam study, the wealthiest 62 people on the planet own as much as half the planet’s population. The wealthiest 62 own as much as 3½ billion people. That’s a pretty remarkable statistic. Now, the more interesting one….

Interjection.

L. Krog: I’m sure the member from Cranbrook or Kicking Horse Pass or whatever will get his chance to speak later.

[1840]

But the most interesting statistic is this: the wealth of the 62 has risen 44 percent since 2010, while the wealth of the poorest 3½ billion has fallen by 41 percent.

Let me try and bring this back to British Columbia. It’s a tired old theme. The reason I mentioned futility in my opening remarks is because after 15 years of government, nearly, under the B.C. Liberals, and all the times I and many other members of the opposition have spoken to the throne speech or the budget speech, nothing really has changed, except that for those people for whom it is the worst of times, it is indeed getting worse.

The despicable — despicable is the only word I can think of — announcement by the government around the increase in funding to those receiving persons-with-disabilities status and then the clawback of the bus pass are indicative of what the member for Vancouver-Kingsway so eloquently talked about earlier this afternoon in terms of the reality of this government.

Honestly, I don’t want to mock the government or suggest the minister wouldn’t have a full grasp of her portfolio or that cabinet didn’t understand what they were doing when they approved this or the Minister of Finance somehow didn’t read his own budget. Did they really think they’d be able to giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other, and no one was going to notice?

Now, I understand that P.T. Barnum once said…. What is it? “There’s a fool born every minute,” or something like that. I can’t remember the exact quote. It isn’t important. I think the members are listening, and I’m sure they’re all riveted by what I have to say. It doesn’t really matter, but there is truth in that statement if you’re a
[ Page 10703 ]
B.C. Liberal. There must be. They must have believed that would be the case.

In fairness, I want to be kind about the B.C. Liberals. Sometimes this becomes a personal sort of thing. I believe that they are good men and women over there. Like every member of this Legislature, they have to do their job, and we have to do ours. They have to propose, and we have to oppose. Then they criticize us for opposing, of course. We’re just doing our job, but that doesn’t matter. They, of course, want to get the new line out there in time for the next provincial election, which is: they’re the party of yes, and we’re the party of no. Not that anyone’s noticed that that’s the new line in the B.C. Liberal Party, which we’ve heard from the mouths of every member.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that there is some huge propaganda machine behind this that’s created this. I’m not suggesting that, and I’m not suggesting they all drink the same bathwater or swim in the same swimming pool. But it does seem remarkably surprising to me that the consistency of the message — it is indeed a message — is so constantly delivered by the members opposite, except….

In fairness, I want to pay my respects to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano today. It is always a breath of fresh air for me to listen to him make what is almost consistently an intelligent argument in support of whatever it is the government’s doing. He did a very good job today. He also paid great respect to the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — a bit of a sentimental journey for the member, who was raised in that part of Vancouver.

He talked about a number of things. Even there, the history of things becomes lost, and history is important. In 1972, Dave Barrett gets elected. The right wing goes nuts. Within a few years, all of the right-wing parties in this province coalesce under the Social Credit banner. The courageous Liberals, except for Gordon Gibson, wander across the floor, take their cabinet posts, their 30 pieces of silver, and everything’s great and grand. Then it’s just fighting the NDP.

Now, the myth that has been portrayed throughout B.C. history is that this was a fiscally irresponsible government. The reason I raise the issue, in particular, today is because we’re now hearing the second line of Liberal propaganda in this budget and from all of the members. We’re now talking about the operating debt, which is suddenly very important. First is the capital debt. The reason I raise that is this. Under dear old Dave Barrett’s government, there were three budgets — two with significant surpluses and one with an operating deficit.

[1845]

The fact that those two surplus budgets more than covered the operating deficit in the third year is immaterial to the folksy history created by Social Credit — the great myth of NDP fiscal incompetence that they love to portray, which simply isn’t based on the facts.

It is much in that great tradition of the Socreds and then the B.C. Liberals that the history of this province works around. We have the great myth of Gordon Campbell’s day that we had a structural deficit. Now, what’s a structural deficit? Does that mean — I don’t know — the support beams in your house are weak and it’s going to collapse?

I’m not entirely sure, but Gordon Campbell pounded it home. B.C. had a structural deficit, and my god, if you didn’t elect the B.C. Liberals, the whole place was going to go to hell in a handbasket. Pardon me for saying “hell” in the chamber, hon. Speaker.

But now the facts are, much like the Barrett years — when the provincial assets, by the way, increased substantially, those assets owned directly by the Crown…. Again, that doesn’t really matter, because that’s part of B.C. history, but the myth is that this was a time of dark fiscal management.

It didn’t matter that the B.C. NDP finished a tough decade, with significant cuts by right-wing Liberal federal governments to transfer payments to the provinces, with two surpluses….

Interjections.

L. Krog: No, let me finish. Members, you will have your chance. Finished with two surplus budgets, but the myth is we have a structural deficit. Because this is, again, the great myth.

So what happens? Gordon Campbell, within a couple of years, brings in the two largest operating deficits in the history of British Columbia. The only one exceeded, the third one, was the Socred operating deficit they left us when we come into power in 1991.

So the reason I want to play a little history here is because no one’s really paying attention, and I just want to enjoy getting the facts out in this place for a change instead of listening to the propaganda from the other side. If you can’t have fun in this job, you shouldn’t be doing it.

Those are the basic facts, and the members opposite know it. Again, it’s the myth of this place, and the myth of the history of the parties is a magnificent thing. I heard the member for West Vancouver–Capilano repeat one today, and it’s surprising for me. He said the provincial debt is actually $40 billion.

Now, I think he’s actually right, in terms of the direct provincial debt, but again, it’s this kind of myth-making. While B.C. Hydro continues to accumulate debt, while Crown corporations are expected to pay over surpluses and profits that don’t exist to the government, everything carries on.

It takes me back to those wonderful days, which I don’t personally entirely remember, notwithstanding my grey hair, but I read about. I think I maybe have some vague recollection of the news story when W.A.C. Bennett put the barge out into Lake Okanagan and shot the flaming
[ Page 10704 ]
arrow onto the bonds that represented British Columbia’s debt and declared B.C. debt-free.

Now, why aren’t the members clapping? These are your political ancestors, Members. The problem was, of course, that there was not a direct provincial debt, but I’ve got to tell you, if you looked at the books of B.C. Hydro, for example, or some of the other Crown corporations…. Well, let’s just say there was more debt than you could shake a stick at. But the myth was that British Columbia was debt free.

The reason I bring that up, coming back to the storyline, the history, is this. Throughout the history of this province, even in the darkest days over the last roughly 60, 65 years, the reality is that British Columbia has always enjoyed pretty good fiscal status within Confederation, has enjoyed a relatively low debt load. That is the reality, whether that debt was capital debt, which the NDP incurred a fair bit of in the ’90s to build the very infrastructure that helped contribute to the prosperity of this province, whether it was under the Socreds or whoever.

I’m so sorry the press gallery isn’t here when I’m being nice to them and quoting them. I think it’s always important that they be here, but….

Interjection.

[1850]

L. Krog: The member says: “Send the Hansard.” I don’t have time to send them the Hansard.

I’m sure the member, with his enormous staff, can do that for me though, because we know that all the minions working in the Liberals’ propaganda ministry are downstairs waiting for me to say something dramatic that they can haul out during the next election campaign, as they try and paint us with horns over here.

Let’s just quote Vaughn Palmer. His article on Friday, February 19: “The projected debt-to-GDP ratio of about 26 percent in the current Liberal plan is similar to where things stood in the last year of the W.A.C. Bennett Social Credit government and lower than the 30 percent peak under the Bill Bennett Socreds or the high-water mark of 28 percent in the last year under the NDP.” So what we’re really talking about is a couple of percent, here or there.

Now, I’ve got to tell you. I suspect most of you have children. If little Johnny or Sally comes home from school and has 78 percent or 80 percent on the test, you know what? It’s really kind of inconsequential. Let’s be blunt about it. Now, if they come home with 50 percent versus 90 percent, then it’s of consequence. That’s my point in the preface to my real remarks about what I want to say about the budget.

The truth is that even in the worst of times, we in this province have had it pretty good. It didn’t matter whether the Socreds were in power, whether the B.C. Liberals were in power or whether the NDP was in power. But this will be the only time, unless some member over here says it on my side, that you’re going to hear that, because nobody wants to talk about the truth. We want to wage a political war in this chamber and in election campaigns that is based on propaganda, half-truths and, on occasion — not in reference to anyone here — on lies, because that’s the way that politics is waged in British Columbia. And it is to the detriment of voters and to the detriment of sensible debate that we do that, election after election, year after year, budget after budget.

The reason I am not going to support this budget, amongst many, is simply this. As one of my constituents pointed out in an email to me, they’re on social assistance, and they haven’t had an increase for ten years. Ten years. We are supposed to jump up with joy and support a budget that gives a break of up to $13,000 to British Columbians who can afford to buy a home which is way more, in total, than a person on persons-with-disabilities status receives in a whole year. We’re supposed to jump with joy so that British Columbians who actually have an opportunity to purchase a residence will get a bigger tax break than we pay a person on persons-with-disabilities status in a whole year. They haven’t seen an increase for ten years.

Now, this constituent of mine didn’t say that. The thrust of what they said was this. “I bet you the Premier has had a bigger increase than I have in the last ten years — and the MLAs.” And you know what? We all know that to be the truth. And the deputy ministers. When I was here in the 1990s, public service actually had an element of public service to it. Now the top-flight public servants in this province are paid enormous sums of money. The double benefit — and the real double whammy and the really offensive part of all of this — is that in the 15 years that this Liberal party has been in power, we have seen tax cuts that have particularly benefited the rich.

So now we have the double whammy, the worst of both worlds. Remember where I started — the best of times, the worst of times? There’s a theme here, I hope. I’m trying to be cogent, sensible. I realize the members opposite don’t believe that. We’ve increased the incomes of certain British Columbians exponentially. At the very same time, you have restructured the tax system so that they get to keep more of it at the very time that you’re taking more — indirectly taxation — from the bottom people, from the people on the lower incomes. That’s what you do with MSP premiums. That’s what you do when you put up camping fees.

That’s what you do when you increase ICBC rates. If you’re insuring a $20,000 automobile, if you’re a millionaire in the province, you pay the same rate as the person making $20,000 a year. Nothing wrong with that concept. If you have a house and you have to use $300 worth of hydro, you use $300 worth of hydro. But if your income is $200,000 a year, you pay the $300. And if you’re making $20,000 a year, you pay $300 a month.

[1855]

My point is this. It is one thing to balance a budget, but as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said so well earlier and repeatedly today, you are doing it in a way that places the burden on those in the middle and lower income bracket and giving a further break to the rich.

Now, I’ve got to give the B.C. Liberals credit for their honesty. Goodness, in the last budget, when they eliminated the surtax on high-income earners, they were at least straightforward about it. Well, $230 million — here you go. Thanks very much. Put it in your pocket.

Best of times, worst of times. My wife and I are going to go out on Friday night. I suggest to all members that they take their spouses out to dinner once in a while and re-establish the relationship because, as a divorce lawyer, I can tell you it’s a very expensive proposition to lose your relationship.

We’re going to go to Tigh-Na-Mara. Now, Tigh-Na-Mara is just down the beach a little ways from Rathtrevor Provincial Park. It used to be the constituency I represented. It’s lovely there — $35 a night, $6-plus for the reservation fee, because it’s a popular place.

Down there at Tigh-Na-Mara, you’ve got these lovely privately owned chalets and homes and cabins and whatnot where nice middle-class people — I can’t say my last name, can I, hon. Speaker? — like the member for Nanaimo and his spouse can go and have a lovely dinner because they can afford it.

An Hon. Member: What’s her name?

L. Krog: What’s her name? Sharon, I assure the member from Burnaby.

My point is this: there are two worlds. There are the ordinary folks who see any increase in camping fees for their family as a detriment, while a whole bunch of other folks at the other end who make a lot of money got a $230 million tax break.

I guess what I’m driving at before I move adjournment is simply this. Let us consider for a moment the proposition that we take a little bit from those folks who can afford to go to Tigh-Na-Mara — maybe they’ll have to drink a cheaper Côtes du Rhône with their dinner — so that the working British Columbia families who are subsisting on a minimum wage that is now the second-lowest in Canada, in a province that has some of the highest costs of living, can actually afford to take their children camping.

Noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my right to finish.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:58 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