2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 33, Number 6

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1005]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: I’m delighted today to have someone visit us in the precinct that was actually born in Prince George. Her family arrived there in 1948. She left high school and took on a job as an administrative assistant many years ago with the Prince George Construction Association and spent nearly 50 years working with that organization, completing her time there as their CEO. She also served on the Provincial Apprenticeship Board and on the board of the College of New Caledonia.

Roz is an example of a woman who excelled in a non-traditional career. Roz Thorn is active in our community. She is a great friend. She works very hard to make sure that women have the kinds of roles that they should have, even in the non-traditional trades. I’m really delighted to have her here. She’s a great friend, and I would ask my colleagues in the House to make Roz Thorn most welcome today.

Hon. P. Fassbender: Salute, Madame Speaker.

As British Columbians, we have many communities with a rich cultural heritage, not the least of which is the Italian heritage that we think of in this province. There are names like Lenarduzzi and Gaglardi that come mind who have contributed to this province in many ways. I know their enterprise, energy and initiative have resulted in significant contributions to this province.

Joining us today in the members’ gallery, from Ottawa, is the ambassador of Italy, His Excellency Gian Lorenzo Cornado. He is accompanied by the new Consul General of Italy, Mr. Massimiliano Iacchini.

I know they’re going to be meeting with myself and the Premier, and they’re going to be joining you for lunch today. I would ask all of the members of the House to make them feel very welcome.

L. Krog: I am very pleased today to introduce an old friend of mine in the gallery, Nelson Allen. He’s a longtime teacher and investment counsellor in the city of Nanaimo. He’s actually a constituent of my friend and colleague the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

Nelson, in retirement, has carried on good community work as a former city councillor and school trustee. He’s now director of international service for the Nanaimo Daybreak Rotary Club. He works with 21 other Rotary clubs on Vancouver Island. They support international and regional projects for communities that need support in literacy, housing, interprovincial and entrepreneurial supports.

Now, the reason he gets a fulsome introduction is not just because he’s my friend, but with boundary changes coming, he’ll be a voter in Nanaimo district. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a very special guest in the gallery today. I’ve got Catherine King. She’s a constituent of mine, but more importantly, she’s also one of the many responsible breeders we have in British Columbia. She owns Splendent Poodles — spectacular standard black poodles, beautiful dogs that she takes care of very well and looks after very well. She’s an example of the type of responsible breeder that we want to support in this province. I’d like everybody to make her welcome into the Legislature today.

S. Chandra Herbert: Benvenuto to our guests from Italy. We’re glad to have a new consul general. I hope, from the New Democrat opposition side, to get to meet with you and work with you as well.

I would like to, as well, welcome Rosie Simms from the Polis water project. It’s an incredible project which has so much to teach us as legislators about how we can do better in protecting our water, our incredible water resource we have in this province. I’d like to thank them for helping educate me. If members haven’t given their materials, their lectures and their webinars a look, I’d really encourage it because we can’t take our water for granted.

Thank you to Rosie, and welcome to the Legislature.

[1010]

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure this morning to welcome three additions to our team in government caucus research. Mikayla Roberts, Alex Dauncey-Elwood and Heather Clifford are part of the Legislative Assembly intern program.

As everyone in the House knows, these young, aspiring adults have the opportunity to learn the inner workings of government. They just spent a month in a ministry of their choice. Now they get to spend three months with caucus, followed by a week in the constituency and then a trip to Ottawa.

I do have a special place in my heart for caucus researchers. After all, that’s where I started out 25 years ago, if you can believe it. I know what’s going through their minds in caucus research there, and they’re very excited. From what I’ve learned, these three young women are doing an exceptionally good job in only two weeks on the job.

Ladies, I wish you all of the best. Welcome to the team.

I would ask everyone in the House to please make these three interns very welcome.
[ Page 10708 ]

G. Heyman: Joining us any moment in the precinct, along with Rosie Simms from the Polis Project, will be Oliver Brandes, someone I’ve worked with in past careers that I’ve had. I’m looking forward to meeting and talking with both of them.

The Polis Project on Ecological Governance has recently published a book called Awash with Opportunity: Ensuring the Sustainability of British Columbia’s New Water Law. The Polis Project is unique. It’s housed at the University of Victoria, and it’s unique in that it combines academic research with community action. It has made a tremendous difference, as my colleague from Vancouver–West End has said, in raising awareness and also demonstrating how ecological values are not a separate overlay but fundamental to social health and economic well-being.

Will the House please join me in welcoming Oliver Brandes.

D. McRae: I would like to recognize and introduce two of my constituents joining us in this chamber today. Their names are Sylvia Watkins and Brendon Dawson, and they hail from Courtenay in the beautiful riding of Comox Valley.

Sylvia is a graduate of Mark Isfeld Secondary School and is currently pursuing a bachelor of sport and fitness leadership at Camosun College here in Victoria. She has long dedicated herself to sport, is a lifetime member of the Strathcona Nordic cross-country ski club on Mount Washington and has a highly decorated race record performance. She has represented her team and her community at both provincial and national level competitions and continues to be an advocate for sport and physical fitness for our children and youth.

Brendon is my ALA and has just returned from a semester in Shanghai, China, where he studied economics. He’s excited to be working here in the Legislature and is off to Germany soon.

If the fellow members of the House could extend a sincere and warm welcome to both my guests, I would be most grateful.

D. Barnett: I’d like to introduce a young lady who works very hard for the B.C. government caucus in our reception in the east annex, Elishia Butler. Would the House please make her welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 8 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. B. Bennett presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mines Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. B. Bennett: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Bennett: I’m pleased to introduce to the House today Bill 8. It introduces amendments to the Mines Act to strengthen government’s regulatory oversight of the mining industry by providing the ministry with additional compliance and enforcement tools.

The Mount Polley tailings breach focused attention on mining in British Columbia and damaged confidence in the industry and government’s regulation of the mining sector. This legislation is part of government’s ongoing implementation of the 26 recommendations of the independent panel and the chief inspector of mines, following their respective investigations into the Mount Polley tailings storage facility failure.

Specifically, the legislation amends the Mines Act to enable the imposition of administrative monetary penalties and increase the severity of penalties available for an offence prosecution.

[1015]

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

Bill 8, Mines Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 17 — LOCAL ELECTIONS CAMPAIGN
FINANCING (ELECTION EXPENSES)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. P. Fassbender presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I move that the bill be read for the first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I’m pleased to present the Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016. As the members of this House know, in 2014 British Columbia updated the local election campaign finance rules to bring greater transparency and accountability to local elections.

The focus has now moved to enhancing accessibility and fairness in local elections by implementing expense limits. In October 2014, the Legislative Assembly convened a Special Committee on Local Elections Expense
[ Page 10709 ]
Limits. In June 2015, the special committee made recommendations on expense limit amounts. I want to commend the committee and all of the people who’ve contributed through UBCM for their important work in bringing us to this place today.

In November of 2015, based on the recommendations of the special committee, Bill 43 was introduced in the House as an exposure bill. By introducing Bill 43 as an exposure bill, the government created a final opportunity for review of the specifics of expense limits by British Columbia’s local governments, election participants and citizens.

Based on consultation and further work that has occurred, we will amend the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act to enable the establishment of expense limits for candidates for mayor, council, regional district area directors, school board and certain special-purposes bodies. Expense limits will apply to independent candidates and to candidates endorsed by elector organizations. Expense limits will also apply to third-party advertisers. Bill 17 sets the framework for expense limits, and the actual limits will be set by regulation.

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

Bill 17, Local Elections Campaign Financing (Election Expenses) Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M204 — PROFITS OF CRIMINAL
NOTORIETY ACT

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act.

A. Weaver: I move introduction of the Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, 2016.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act. I’m sure many members in this chamber are aware of the recent revelation of Canada’s most prolific serial killer, Robert Pickton, publishing a book called Pickton: In His Own Words.

This has outraged many people in this province, and it has brought to light a glaring omission in our legal system. We have nothing in our legal system to prevent convicted criminals from making money through the recounting of their crimes. Other provinces in Canada have laws to prevent this type of activity, and British Columbia must follow suit.

This bill I am introducing today draws heavily on the Nova Scotia legislation and would provide a means to prevent criminals from potentially profiting financially from the recounting of their crimes.

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

Bill M204, Profits of Criminal Notoriety Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PECHAKUCHA IN NEW WESTMINSTER

J. Darcy: This Saturday night, the tenth edition of PechaKucha New West is taking place at the River Market. “Pecha kucha?” you may ask. “What’s a pecha kucha?” Well, in Japanese it apparently means chit-chat, and it’s a fast-paced, multispeaker format in which 20 slides are shown for 20 seconds each, and then the program moves on. The concept began in Tokyo about 13 years ago, and today PechaKucha nights take place in 700 cities around the world, including New Westminster.

Our local PechaKucha was launched three years ago by wonderful New West residents Neal and Melinda Michael as a way for people to learn and be inspired by stories and successes in their own community.

[1020]

Past presenters have been local businesses like Brick and Mortar and a favourite of mine, Cloud 9, a gluten-free bakery, which has found a niche market and ran with it; artists like Susan Greig, who created 100 Braid Street, a remarkable home for local artists; now Mayor Jonathan Coté about what makes great cities; teacher Colin Dodds about why he created YouTube videos to teach his students accounting and math.

The most moving story of all — it brought tears to our eyes — was told by Pamela Findling. She received a cochlear implant and described what it was like to hear the sound of rain falling for the very first time and the sound of her son calling to her in the pool.

This Saturday night will be an all-star version featuring previous presenters, from our mayor to the New Media Gallery, from Urban Digs Farm to poet Renée Sarojini Saklikar, and author JJ Lee. The fun starts at 6:30 with music from DJ Jordan Whittaker. Presentations start at 7:30, and Longtail Kitchen Reup BBQ will be offering food and drinks from Steel and Oak and Pacific Breeze Winery, both local as well. So a shout-out to Neal and Melinda Michael and PechaKucha New West from the Legislature of British Columbia.
[ Page 10710 ]

FILM PRODUCTION IN RICHMOND

J. Yap: Some very interesting people have recently made Richmond-Steveston home, at least temporarily. One is an anti-hero with accelerated healing powers and a twisted sense of humour. Others hail from various fairy tales transported to the real-world town of Storybrooke and robbed of their real memories by a powerful curse.

They’re just some of the characters featured in major film and TV productions like Deadpool, which was partially shot in Richmond, and TV series like ABC’s Once Upon a Time, which shoots in Steveston village. They are contributing to a record-setting year for film days and revenue in Richmond. Once Upon a Time just completed filming of episode 100, which will air next week.

Other local productions of note include War for the Planet of the Apes; I, Zombie; The Man in the High Castle; Supernatural; and Lucifer. According to the Richmond Film Office, the city of Richmond took in $457,000 in service and location charges in 2015, breaking the record set in 2013 by $180,000. And 2015 also saw 180 shoot days versus 147 in 2013, and 380 prep, wrap and hold days in comparison to just 52 in 2013.

The city of Richmond estimates this work resulted in $24 million in locally earned wages, and the outlook for 2016 also looks bright. Our community is proud to play host to these productions and to be part of this successful sector in British Columbia.

B.C. saw $1.45 billion in production spending by film and television producers in fiscal 2013-14. What’s more, the motion picture industry generates about 20,000 direct and indirect jobs each year. These productions are not only contributing to our economy. They’re also putting the spotlight on great communities like Richmond-Steveston.

SURREY SEARCH AND RESCUE SOCIETY

H. Bains: I had the distinct honour to meet with the directors of the Surrey Search and Rescue Society — Trevor Bowkett, the search manager, and Larry Kost, the vice president — and tour their facility site.

The Surrey Search and Rescue Society, established in 1973, is a registered non-profit society charity. They play a vital role in Surrey, Delta, Ladner, White Rock and Richmond in search and rescue calls. The society is operated 100 percent by volunteers, on call 24-7, 365 days a year. They have 55 active members and eight members in training, and 100 percent of the money raised is invested in equipment for the team — a team that logged over 4,400 hours last year, with 2,300 hours of actual searching.

They rely on funding from B.C. Gaming. Their largest funding contributors are their own members. They provide service for missing persons, ground search and rescue, inland water rescue, swift-water rescue and assistance to local RCMP and coroner’s departments. They provide outdoor safety and emergency preparedness through presentations.

Their biggest hurdle currently is to have shelter for their emergency vehicles during the winter months, when motors are cold and windows are frosted up. Although they are very appreciative to the city of Surrey for providing office space and outside parking at this time, and thankful to Mr. Calvin Dunn of Safetech and Atlas Scaffolding for donating the frame that was shrink-wrapped this past winter to house some vehicles, it is imperative — I emphasize, it is imperative — that they get permanent shelter for their equipment so they are ready to roll when a call comes in.

[1025]

Please join me in acknowledging and thanking the volunteers of the Surrey Search and Rescue Society for their endless dedication to rescuing people in need.

DELTA POLICE DEPARTMENT

S. Hamilton: It is truly an honour to rise in this House and speak about the men and women of the Delta police department. They work very hard to provide the highest level of service to my community. Our officers work tirelessly to ensure that Delta remains a safe and welcoming place for all to live.

The Delta police department continues to attract and retain high-calibre individuals who are committed to serving their force, their community and their province. This is why it comes as no surprise that three senior Delta police officers are being honoured: Deputy Chief Lyle Beaudoin, Insp. Lorne Pike and Insp. Harjinder Singh Sidhu. These officers will be receiving a Police Officer Commission, an award which recognizes the senior officers in B.C. for their rank, professionalism and dedication to policing. Upon reviewing the impressive service records of all three of these officers, it is clear that these awards are well deserved.

Deputy Chief Lyle Beaudoin joined the Delta police force in 1979. He was promoted to the rank of superintendent in 1999 and then rose to his current rank as deputy chief in 2004.

Harjinder Singh Sidhu has been a member of the department since 1993, a year after completing his bachelor of arts degree in economics at UBC. He has since been promoted to the rank of inspector in 2014.

Finally, Insp. Lorne Pike started at the department in 1986 and was promoted to the rank of inspector in 2007.

All three of these officers were specifically recommended for their commissions due to their exemplary service records. They’re a shining example of what good policing looks like in our province. I invite the House to join me in congratulating them on this fantastic achievement.
[ Page 10711 ]

DAVE MacKINNON

B. Ralston: Dave MacKinnon, born in Prince Edward Island, died on February 14, 2016. He leaves Susan, Gail, Craig and Nicole and his extended family here and in PEI.

At a lively celebration of life last Sunday, complete with Celtic music and the full City of New Westminster Pipe Band, Dave’s life as a Canadian working-class hero was told and retold. Working on a fish boat out of Canso, Nova Scotia, Dave was soon recruited to join the drive to organize Nova Scotia fishermen. After that epic struggle against foreign-owned fish companies and the Nova Scotia establishment, Dave went on to work for the Newfoundland Fishermen’s Union and was soon involved in a strike for the first industrywide collective agreement for fishermen and plant workers and a victory that improved the life of every coastal community in Newfoundland.

Active in progressive politics as well, Dave helped to elect Fonse Faour as the first NDP Member of Parliament for Newfoundland in 1978. He worked on the second Michelin tire organizing drive and on the historic Syncrude campaign in the tar sands of Alberta. He joined the BCGEU in Terrace in 1980 and ended his working life as an industrial relations officer with the B.C. Ministry of Labour. He was also very proud of his time as a special adviser to the Deputy Minister of Health in the 1990s. Along the way, he served as the treasurer and the national president of the NDP of Canada.

Dave was always up for a good story, a hilarious turn of phrase or a vigorous debate, all over a glass or two of beer. Dave bid farewell in the words of the song “Fiddler’s Green”: “Just tell me old shipmates I’m taking a trip, mates, and I’ll see you some day on fiddler’s green.”

Godspeed, my friend.

SEARCH AND RESCUE TEAMS IN
WEST VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA

J. Sturdy: Across West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, search and rescue professionals face storms, avalanche conditions, steep mountain terrain and ocean gales to perform their life-saving responsibilities. There are five separate land search and rescue groups in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky which operate from Pemberton, Whistler, Squamish, Lions Bay and the North Shore. Rescue missions can include specialized techniques appropriate for wilderness, mountain, canyon and avalanche situations. Teams use helicopters, specialized high-angle rescue equipment, working dogs and coordinated techniques to cover large and complex search areas.

In addition to the land-based crews, there are two Royal Canadian Marine Search and Rescue groups that operate from two stations: station No. 1 in West Vancouver, which is the busiest in British Columbia, and station No. 4 in Squamish. Crews use specially designed ocean rescue vessels to respond to call-outs from Lions Gate Bridge to the head of Howe Sound and out into the Salish Sea.

[1030]

The rescue groups of today originated in 1965, when the Mountain Rescue Group was disbanded. This group was established as a heavy urban search and rescue unit to assist in civil defense activities and would occasionally head out to search for a lost hiker. Over time, it became apparent that there was a real need for a wilderness search and rescue team.

Today the teams on the North Shore and across the Sea to Sky provide a backup for B.C. residents and visitors while they enjoy the back country and the wilderness. That said, the public must realize and accept that when we head into the back country, we must be prepared, and that includes planning for self-rescue.

I’d like to recognize the hundreds of members of search and rescue volunteering across West Vancouver–Sea to Sky and right across the province of British Columbia for the commitment they make to respond in all conditions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year — all in service to others.

Oral Questions

PORT MANN BRIDGE DEBT AND FINANCES

C. Trevena: The Port Mann Bridge is bleeding red ink. This year the Transportation Investment Corporation, which runs the bridge, lost $86 million. Next year it’s going to lose $102 million. It was $1.8 billion overspent, and its total debt has ballooned to $3.6 billion.

My question for the Minister of Transportation is…. Something has got to give. With the transportation investment corporation so far in deficit, what’s he going to do? Is he going to gouge commuters and raise tolls on the Port Mann to make up for the mismanagement, or is he going to gouge taxpayers by bailing it out through the public purse?

Hon. T. Stone: It certainly is no surprise to this side of the House and, I think, most British Columbians that the members opposite, the New Democrat opposition, simply do not understand the concept of amortization. When you purchase a house, when you purchase a car….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members, the Chair will hear the answer.

Hon. T. Stone: It’s a well-known fact that when you engage in the purchase of major infrastructure — whether, on a personal basis, that’s a home or a car or whether that is a major piece of infrastructure, like a bridge — you
[ Page 10712 ]
incur the costs up front and you pay those costs back over a period of time.

When the Port Mann Bridge was first talked about, after it was opened and even today, we have said consistently that the entire debt relating to the Port Mann Bridge would be paid within the 2050 time frame. What I think is….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: The volumes continue to increase on the Port Mann Bridge. They’re up 5 percent month over month again, 6 percent year to date. This project created 8,000 jobs.

Most importantly, I would find very interesting the conversation that the members opposite, particularly those that represent Surrey, would have with residents south of the Fraser who prior to the construction of this bridge were sitting in congested traffic day after day after day. Congestion is gone; emissions are down; it created jobs. The Port Mann Bridge is a terrific project.

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

C. Trevena: The Minister of Transportation wants us to think that everything is fine, that there’s a plan in place. Port Mann traffic levels and toll revenue are 40 percent lower than his government’s forecast in the original business plan for the bridge. Traffic levels are even lower than they were before the new bridge was built.

Now the government does seem to be heading in the same direction with the Massey Tunnel replacement. It has less traffic using it than the Port Mann Bridge ever did, and the Premier made a final decision on the replacement before a business case was even made. So why should the public have any confidence that the minister’s plan for the Massey replacement is any better than his plan for the Port Mann?

[1035]

Hon. T. Stone: The nitpicking naysayers across the way yet again are underscoring the fact that they opposed every single major infrastructure project that we have built in British Columbia. They were against the South Fraser Perimeter Road.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Take your seat, Minister.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: The members opposite were against the construction of the South Fraser Perimeter Road. They were against the construction of the Sea to Sky Highway. They have been against construction of four-laning on the Trans-Canada Highway. They are opposed to the McKenzie interchange project that we are building here in Victoria. They opposed the improvements we made to the Malahat highway. The list goes on and on and on.

The Port Mann Bridge was a project which created 8,000 jobs for the province of British Columbia. It is a project which is dramatically reducing commute times for the thousands of people who use that bridge every day. It is a project that is resulting in reduced emissions, which is good for the environment.

It’s good for goods movement. We hear the members opposite talk often about how much they feel for truckers. Well, hon. Member, this bridge has freed up that congestion so that truckers can actually get across and do their jobs and deliver product, and so forth.

The members opposite are going to…. We wait with keen anticipation for that first infrastructure project that the members opposite decide to support, because they have supported none of them up to this point.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT AND PRIORITIES
IN LOWER MAINLAND

B. Ralston: Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada made it clear during the federal election campaign that their priority for infrastructure investment was urban transit projects, not highways. Greater Vancouver mayors have also said that the Massey Tunnel replacement is not their priority. Their priority is urban transit projects.

British Columbia will have limited infrastructure dollars allocated to it under the federal government’s new Building Canada fund.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Why is the government risking this one-time opportunity to make real progress on regional transit priorities in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, let’s scroll back in history. The Canada Line, a project which this government built, was opposed by the members opposite. The Evergreen project — which, when completed, will result in British Columbia having the largest rapid transit network in the country — was opposed by all of the members opposite.

The Port Mann Bridge, which we were just talking about a moment ago, made rapid transit possible for the first time in 25 years across the Fraser at that location, and 50,000 people are using that rapid bus every single month. They all opposed it on that side of the floor.

We are engaged with the federal government. We welcome their heightened commitment to infrastructure, because if there’s one thing that we are doing exceptionally well in this province, it is building critical infrastruc-
[ Page 10713 ]
ture, which the people of this province need and are going to continue to see from this government.

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

B. Ralston: The Port Mann Bridge, notwithstanding what the minister says, is bleeding red ink. When the project was first planned, regional mayors and the opposition warned it would fail unless it was part of a comprehensive transportation plan for the Lower Mainland that put transit first.

Sadly, time has proved us correct. Now we have the opportunity to work with the federal government, who are bringing real dollars to the table to address transit priorities across the Lower Mainland.

Will the minister do the right thing and talk to the local mayors about their transportation priorities and get the federal funding that this province deserves?

Hon. T. Stone: First off, let me be very clear again. For several years now, we have been very consistent on this side of the House in our support for rapid transit expansion in Surrey and our support for the Broadway line in Vancouver.

[1040]

We have said consistently that we will make available a third of the capital for the major rapid transit projects in Surrey and Vancouver, as well as, potentially, the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge. We have said that for several years.

In terms of the member’s specific question relating to the George Massey Tunnel, which is a key infrastructure priority for our province, the largest single bottleneck in the province of British Columbia…. I’m not sure what the members have got against folks south of the Fraser freeing up more of their day to spend with loved ones and friends, but we’re moving forward with that project.

There has been a tremendous amount of consultation up to this point, three rounds of public consultation. There is now an environmental assessment process which is underway. There will be two public comment periods as part of that. And I’m not sure that the Metro Vancouver mayors are aware, but they have staff representation from Metro Vancouver which is formally part of that working group on George Massey Tunnel.

AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES

J. Darcy: Nine minutes is the benchmark set for ambulance response times for the most urgent calls to 911. Yet a recent study by B.C. emergency health services of Metro Vancouver, greater Victoria and the Fraser Valley shows that ambulances are failing to reach patients within that nine minutes, half the time.

Can the Premier explain why her government is making half of the most urgent patients wait longer than they should for an ambulance to arrive?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’ll take the question on notice for the Health Minister.

AMBULANCE SERVICE PLAN

J. Darcy: A new question to the Premier. This Premier always waits until there’s a crisis before her government acts. That’s the case with the latest so-called plan released by the government last week. I encourage the Premier to take a good look at that plan, because even with this new plan, ambulances will fail to reach one in four of the most urgent patients within the accepted benchmark, and even that modest goal won’t be met until the year 2020, four years from now. Is that what passes for being number one in this Premier’s eyes?

Last week the Heart and Stroke Foundation told members from both sides of this House that after waiting 12 minutes for defibrillation, the survival rate for stroke patients is less than 5 percent.

Again to the Premier, why has she failed to ensure that patients have the ambulance services that they need when their health and their lives could be at risk?

Hon. C. Clark: The Finance Minister has taken the substance of that question on notice, on behalf of the Minister of Health, but I do want to speak to part of it. The member referenced what passes for number one in Canada, and I do have an answer for that. I’ll tell what passes for number one: creating 50,000 new jobs in the last year, which leads Canada bar none. Leading Canada in economic growth in the coming year and projected to do so in the years thereafter — that means we are number one.

Health care outcomes that have been demonstrated by outside agencies, in Canada and around the world, to lead the world as amongst the best anywhere and, by the way, amongst the lowest cost per capita — that also makes us number one.

Having our fourth consecutive balanced budget with over $1.6 billion in new spending for people who are vulnerable, with billions of dollars in capital spending to support the creation of jobs in our province….

[1045]

Most of all, it’s a tireless, purposeful focus on making sure that we get to yes on economic development so that we can protect and create jobs not just for British Columbians but for the thousands of Canadians who are coming across the Rockies, looking for work in a province that in Canada today is, absolutely, without question, number one.
[ Page 10714 ]

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BROADBAND
INTERNET SERVICE IN PRINCE GEORGE

A. Weaver: I wish to thank the members opposite for applauding my introduction of my question again.

It’s become perfectly clear to everyone in this House — and, frankly, everyone in British Columbia — that this government’s plans for LNG have been nothing short of a monumental failure. There is no backup plan, and the government is void of ideas and in desperate need of help.

As leader of the B.C. Green Party, a party that cares about social, economic and environmental prosperity for all British Columbians, I visited Prince George earlier this month. I was struck by the potential for this region.

Prince George is a home of a first-class research university, the hub for northern B.C.’s forestry and natural resource sectors and is on the rail line from Port of Prince Rupert to Chicago, one of the greatest distribution centres in North America. The cooler climate of Prince George, relative to other jurisdictions on the west coast, also offers its certain unique advantages.

My question to the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services is simple. Has this government considered providing broadband redundancy for the Prince George region?

Hon. A. Virk: I’d like to thank the member from Oak Bay for his leadership, first of all, and for the question, the fact that he has gone to Prince George and recognized the great universities and the great north of British Columbia. Perhaps those to his right could learn from that leadership and go realize that there’s more to this province than those four or eight or ten square blocks in downtown Vancouver.

But I digress. The question that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head poses…. I’ve had staff, in fact, look into that. There are actually multiple backbone fibre lines to Prince George — up 97, east on Highway 16 and south on Highway 5. So there are redundancy lines to Prince George.

We’re going to continue to work on connectivity all across the province. If the member so wishes, I can certainly have him have a briefing with our connectivity experts at his earliest availability.

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

A. Weaver: In fact, the broadband redundancy does not exist in Prince George as we speak.

Bringing the typically urban-based tech and the typically rural-based resource sector together, through partnership and innovation, will play a vital role in a 21st-century economy that builds on British Columbia’s strategic advantage.

Prince George is an obvious strategic location for such growth, but in order for this to happen, it’s critical that broadband redundancy exist in the region — high-speed broadband redundancy. The government launched a $5 million ad campaign promoting its actions this past November. But instead of promoting the slogan “Our opportunity is here,” the government could actually create that opportunity in investing in needed infrastructure to benefit B.C.’s northern communities.

At $20,000 to $25,000 per kilometre, a 300-kilometre distance from Prince George to Chetwynd would cost a mere $6 million to $7.5 million to lay. Tech investors, data distribution centres and other innovators will not invest substantively in Prince George until broadband redundancy exists. The best part about this opportunity is that the cost to government is small and the potential benefits are unbounded.

To the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, my question is simple. Will the government commit to invest the $6 million to $7.5 million, today, required to ensure high-speed broadband redundancy for Prince George and real, sustainable and diversified economic prosperity to the north, and if not, why not?

[1050]

Hon. A. Virk: I know the members from Prince George and members of the rural caucus certainly applaud the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Hon. A. Virk: …in terms of his continued interest in rural British Columbia and continued interest in the north.

As I said, there are multiple backbone fibre lines to Prince George, but let’s look beyond that. The member will certainly recall the additional $10 million committed to increase connectivity all across British Columbia. We’re at 94 percent. We’re at 94 percent right now. Madame Speaker, 94 percent of British Columbians currently have access to high-speed Internet — considered in today’s technology environment.

We are committed to ensuring that every single British Columbian is connected to high-speed Internet because it’s become a stable item. We are committed that every single person in British Columbia by 2021 has access to high-speed Internet.

CHANNEL RIDGE
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM

G. Holman: A private sewage treatment system for the Channel Ridge housing development on Saltspring Island has been out of compliance for 14 years. I’ll leave it to your imagination as to what “out of compliance” means on the ground, so to speak.
[ Page 10715 ]

Channel Ridge property owners have paid upfront capital charges and ongoing maintenance charges for years, even though the system hasn’t been working properly. Despite the best efforts of property owners, the Ministry of Environment, which regulates such facilities, has not only refused to step in and ensure the treatment system is upgraded; it won’t even talk to the property owners about the status of the file. Channel Ridge Properties is now in receivership and is being sold to the highest bidder.

Will the minister ensure that her staff immediately brief the Channel Ridge property owners about the status of the treatment system, which her ministry supposedly oversees?

Hon. M. Polak: I thank the member for the information. I will be pleased to follow up with him after our session here and endeavour to get more detailed information from staff with respect to the response to the specific situation.

Madame Speaker: Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: Thanks for the response. We called your office two weeks ago, and they still haven’t yet responded in terms of getting a meeting with the property owners.

The fact that the Channel Ridge property owners have been paying into a failing sewage treatment plant is bad enough, but this story gets worse. Twenty-six Channel Ridge lot owners have paid thousands in capital charges, but their lots can’t be serviced by the treatment plant. So 26 property owners have not been able to build on their lots. This property is about to be sold again.

Will the minister step in and ensure that this outrageous situation gets resolved?

Hon. M. Polak: Again, I’ll be happy to follow up with the member on the specific concerns.

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION
IN EDUCATION SYSTEM

R. Fleming: Eighteen months ago the Premier said she dragged 550,000 kids, their parents and teachers across British Columbia into the longest school shutdown in the province’s history because addressing…. And here’s the excuse. Here’s the rationale the Premier gave at the time. All of this turmoil and chaos was because of large class sizes and class composition. That was her number one priority. There were boosted tweets to prove it. These quotes were made up over and over again and broadcast.

Well, recently ministry data from a report shows that class size and composition have never been worse in the province of British Columbia — more kids per classroom than ever, more kids with identified learning needs per class getting less individual attention.

My question is this: if improving class size and composition was the Premier’s so-called number one priority, can she explain to this House why the problem has never been worse in B.C. classrooms than today?

[1055]

Hon. M. Bernier: Once again, I’m very pleased to stand in this House and correct the member opposite. In fact, when we talk about being number one, we actually have, in the English-speaking world, some of the best outcomes in the world in reading, science and mathematics. That’s because of the great work that’s happening in the classroom.

When the member opposite talks about how we need to put more money into things, what we concentrate on, on this side of the House, are the outcomes for the students — what are students getting? — making sure our students have the best education possible, being prepared for the jobs of today and tomorrow. On this side of the House that’s why we make those great investments. This year in our budget there is over $5.1 billion in public education in the province of British Columbia to help the students in this province.

What do we get for that investment? We get those great outcomes. And what we get for that, again — whether it’s special needs students, whether it’s aboriginal students — we have record completion rates in the province of B.C. It’s something on this side of the House we like to celebrate, and something on that side of the House they refuse to acknowledge.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Swan Lake on a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister’s description of his government’s budget as it relates to public education is not the one that parents and teachers and everybody in British Columbia sees it as. The budget that we have before us is one that found $230 million in tax cuts for the top 2 percent in British Columbia. It found $100 million to go into a fantasy fund, and it forced another $25 million of cuts onto our school system. That’s the budget that’s before the people of British Columbia.

What does this mean? In Vancouver, the school board is looking at a $24 million deficit. It is the result of the combined impacts of unfunded, downloaded cost pressures for MSP hikes, B.C. Hydro rate hikes, failed IT systems and provincially negotiated contracts that aren’t fully funded. The list goes on, and other districts across British Columbia are looking at deficits of a similar magnitude. That’s the reality out there.

The Minister of Education recently said to the Vancouver school board that they should just get on with implementing his special adviser’s report, the discredited report. Let me ask him about that — the translation, if he’s going to endorse that report.

Will the minister stand in this place and explain to Vancouver parents and kids and teachers how closing 25
[ Page 10716 ]
to 30 schools in Vancouver, firing hundreds of teachers and special education assistants, is somehow going to help fund class size and composition in B.C.?

Hon. M. Bernier: Only in the world of the NDP, with their math, is a $1.2 billion increase since 2001 a reduction in education funding. In fact, in this year’s budget alone, there’s over a $100 million increase.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Bernier: When you look at the investments we’re making, when you look at what’s happening in Vancouver specifically, Vancouver has an over $450 million budget that they go to. And at the same time, we’ve increased the budget for Vancouver. While that’s been happening, they’ve had a 6,500-student reduction.

Are those tough decisions? Absolutely, they are. But those decisions are best made at the local level. I’m not sure if the member opposite is expecting political interference — absolutely not that’s going to happen. The school district trustees are working within the per-student funding they get. They have record funding in Vancouver, and it’s something that they need to manage.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT
CAPACITY AND FUNDING

H. Bains: This Premier and her Liberal government have failed families and children in Surrey. The Minister of Children and Family Development admitted it here yesterday in this House when she said schools in Surrey “are bursting at the seams.”

We have children going to schools in shifts, brothers and sisters going to school across town from each other, and we have hundreds of portables crowding over our playgrounds. When will this minister finally address the issue of overcrowding in Surrey schools?

[1100]

Hon. M. Bernier: The member is well aware of the investments that we’re making in Surrey right now. The member is very well aware, being from Surrey himself, of the fact that we work very closely with the Surrey school district — the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being invested in that area as they are growing. In this budget alone, we have $1.6 billion put forward for investing in new infrastructure and seismic upgrades.

One of the things that’s important is working with the school district. On this side of the House, that’s exactly what we do. I’m meeting with the school district. We’re looking at the challenges that they’re facing. We’ve committed to working with them to find solutions.

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

H. Bains: You know, for the last ten years, I’ve been hearing exactly the same statement that the minister made here today — that funding is coming.

It’s not even about money. They found half a billion dollars over two years to give tax breaks to 2 percent of the top British Columbians, so it’s not about money. It is about neglect, lack of planning and putting politics ahead of children’s education in Surrey.

Here is a quote from Peace Arch Elementary Parent Advisory Council, what they say about the overcrowding in Surrey schools. “Teachers and resources are stressed to their limit. Securing gym time is like winning a lottery.”

The minister’s own colleague admitted here yesterday that Surrey schools are bursting at the seams.

Madame Speaker: Question.

H. Bains: So my question, again to the minister, is this. When will the minister do something to ensure that the Surrey school children get the new schools that they deserve and have been promised for the last ten years?

Hon. C. Clark: I’m delighted to inform the member that that is why, in this budget, we have put aside…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: …$1.7 billion for capital upgrades, specifically for schools in K to 12 across British Columbia. Much of that money, some of that money, will be spent in Surrey, where there is a huge need.

It’s a great story that Surrey is growing. It’s a great story that this thriving, diverse city south of the Fraser is experiencing so much confidence, so much growth. And seeing the place change, we need to change with it.

That’s why we need to make these investments in schools, as we currently are — and in addition to that, into welcoming the new students that are coming into British Columbia as our enrolment goes up for the first time in decades. It’s a vote of confidence from British Columbians, from immigrants and from Canadians from across the country who are coming to our province to start families, to build their future, because they know that in British Columbia, the future is very, very bright indeed.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present reports from the registrar of lobbyists
[ Page 10717 ]
— Investigation Report 15-05, Investigation Report 15-06, Investigation Report 15-07, lobbyist: Blair Lekstrom; Reconsiderations 15-05, 15-06, 15-07, lobbyist: Blair Lekstrom.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

L. Krog: Because the time is limited for debate this morning, and in light of the fact that I know there are some members who are very anxious to say a few words this morning, I’m going to be very brief and wrap up quickly.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

To paraphrase something T.C. Douglas once said, the real point of government is to achieve those things, to do those things collectively that we can’t do individually. In essence, the point of government is to ensure social and economic justice.

[1105]

At the end of the day, when one looks at this budget, when you consider the tax breaks for the top 2 percent — $230 million a year; when you consider, as I said last night, that the tax exemption for people who are buying a home is $13,000 a year — more than a person with disabilities status receives in a whole year; when you consider that there is no planned increase, no announced increase, in the benefits for those single employables on social assistance, by every measure, it is impossible for any caring, compassionate British Columbian to vote for this budget.

It is on that basis alone, let alone things that I would love to talk about, that I will not be supporting this budget. It is way past the time that this government can continue to brag about its achievements and ignore the needs of the most vulnerable and the poorest amongst us. It is inexcusable. It is unacceptable. These members may clap and cheer and brag and engage in their speeches and repeat the line over and over again. But ultimately, I am confident that the people of this province will levy a different judgment in the spring of 2017.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I thank the member opposite, the member for Nanaimo, for keeping his response to the budget short so the few of us remaining have an opportunity to speak to the budget.

I’d like to start first by thanking my constituency assistants, Debbie Sutherland and Judy Simonite, for their fabulous support of the residents in North Vancouver–Lonsdale. I wouldn’t be able to do this job without them there.

I stand here in this House, like so many of my colleagues have in the past few days, to support the budget brought forward by the Minister of Finance. I’m proud to say that, again, this is the fourth consecutive balanced budget brought forward by our government, something that’s helped us preserve our triple-A credit rating. With our modest surplus, we’ll be able to provide the opportunity to reinvest in British Columbia’s social programs and infrastructure.

My budget response intended to be a little longer, but we are pressed for time. I’m going to keep it rather short, so I won’t be able to speak to the fabulous announcement with respect to newly built homes being exempt from the property purchase tax. I’ll leave that up to our Minister of Advanced Education, who will be wrapping up the budget response. But that’s fabulous, especially for those folks in North Vancouver who may not be able to afford their own homes.

We’ll also be investing $355 million for construction and renovation of affordable housing for people with low to moderate incomes. I would also like to acknowledge the city of North Vancouver, who actually have made some effort to make changes to improve housing density, which I know has done a lot to make North Vancouver and the North Shore a little bit more affordable. They should be acknowledged on that.

I’d like to speak to the film tax credit, but regrettably, I don’t have time to highlight the record year that we have had in B.C. film. Thousands of folks work in B.C. film — hundreds of TV shows and movies and documentaries being filmed all over British Columbia using beautiful British Columbia as a backdrop.

But whether you’re making films professionally or taking a selfie while you’re hiking on our North Shore Mountains or trail running down the trails, if you’re in B.C.’s back country, you do have to be careful. So I will take the couple of minutes that I do have to talk about being prepared.

This year we’ve announced a $10 million grant to the B.C. Search and Rescue Association, which will be supported by emergency management B.C. in allocating funds to ensure that volunteers on our search and rescue teams — and there are over 80 in B.C., 2,500 volunteers — who save lives throughout British Columbia all year around, are trained and equipped to the best of their ability. We’re making it just a little bit easier for them to do that.

Our emergency management B.C. team takes special pride in ensuring British Columbians are safe at home and when they want to explore B.C. That’s why I’d like to thank the Premier for creating this portfolio, for my role as the only minister solely responsible for emergency preparedness in Canada and for the awareness that we need to increase the public awareness for being ready for major earthquakes, floods, forest fires or any disaster.

[1110]

Since my appointment, emergency management B.C. has released the B.C. Earthquake Immediate Response Plan. We’re now engaged in the second iteration of the plan, which focuses on sustained response planning. This is the first-ever plan produced in B.C. that will guide our efforts in the event of a major earthquake.

We are now engaged in a $1 million provincial-level exercise which will occur in June of this year. It’s entitled Exercise Coastal Response 2016. It will be centred in Port Alberni and will test the preparedness and response to a major earthquake in B.C. This opportunity will be the first chance for a large-scale cooperation between multiple levels of government, including the regional district and local First Nations, in a response to a major quake. We will use the lessons learned at this event to further improve our systems and planning.

With a budget increase to $15 million for operations for emergency management B.C., we will improve provincial operational capacity with additions such as a new team of 24-7 duty managers and a logistics team, as well as improving our public alerting through social and conventional media channels. We will continue to utilize targeted public education initiatives, including the PreparedB.C. site and corresponding guides and guidance for personal and neighbourhood emergency preparedness.

I’m very excited about this. We will distribute $55 million for flood mitigation and seismic research, making sure that the rivers and oceans that so many British Columbians, like myself, enjoy playing and fishing in don’t end up becoming a threat to our homes and communities.

This is all in addition to the $127 million that we have already invested with the federal government to pay for 168 flood mitigation projects in 65 communities across British Columbia since 2008. A $3 million increase over three years is being provided to emergency management B.C. to support outreach-related emergency preparedness.

As so many British Columbians know, however, after the flood season comes fire season. Last year, when fires ravaged the Boundary and communities like Rock Creek and Westbridge, people were evacuated. The village of Midway opened its doors, and its people opened their arms to their neighbours.

Our job as government is to equip communities with the infrastructure and opportunities for growth, but — and this is especially highlighted in my work as Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness — it is the profound generosity and decency of the people of British Columbia who have come together in times of crisis, whether it is in the face of a raging wildfire or in the tragedy of a capsized ship, like the people in Tofino and Ahousat experienced not so long ago, that provides the real solace and the energy and hope needed to rebuild.

Nevertheless, we take the risks associated with wildfires seriously and have committed $85 million to establish a new organization, the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C., that will work towards wildfire prevention and mitigation through forest-fuel management, reforestation and habitat restoration. We will be committing $10 million for the strategic wildfire prevention initiative for community wildfire protection plans, FireSmart plan activities and fuel management projects, which follows through on another UBCM commitment. This will keep communities safe, and it will help ensure that a vital industry to British Columbia’s economy maintains its prominence in our rich and diverse resource portfolio.

That’s why so much of this budget is about investing in and equipping British Columbians to be even more resilient. Today we have the privilege of leading the country in growth and providing more opportunities and jobs because of it. As the Premier just said, the future is bright.

J. Wickens: It is an absolute privilege to stand in the House here today to represent the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, to speak about the budget speech delivered by this B.C. Liberal government.

I’d like to start my first speech in the House by saying I love my community. I love the people in Coquitlam, I love raising my family there, and I am proud to have been chosen by the good people of my community to be their voice.

[1115]

Coquitlam is home for a diverse population; 42 percent of the city’s residents are immigrants. Korean, Farsi, Mandarin, and Cantonese are the top four languages spoken at home, preceded only by English.

My husband, Brian Wickens, has lived in Coquitlam for 47 years. Our children go to the same elementary school he did, and I cannot imagine calling another place home. With all of this being said, I have to say that this budget nowhere near addresses the needs of the people in my community. But before I get to why I am so passionately opposed to the out-of-touch budget that this government has put forward, I need to talk a little bit about how I got here to represent my community that I have grown to love so deeply.

I was born to a teenage mother, and I was raised by very young parents, Kim and Gary Parkinson. Life was tough, growing up. There was very little money, but my parents instilled unwavering values in me. They taught me to stand up for what I believe in, even if, at times, that meant I stood alone. My parents taught me about budgeting, and they taught me that, with very little money, what is most important is your priorities.

I know that there were many times, growing up, that my parents went without so that my sister and I could have something essential for our growth and development. They taught me about priorities. I have to give a special mention to my mom, Kim Parkinson, because as a 16-year-old young woman, she was told by many people that she would be setting me up for a life of failure. Well, Mom, here I am. Thank you.
[ Page 10719 ]

At 17, I moved out on my own to go to university. I worked two jobs. I took out student loans to pay for school, and in my early 20s, I met my husband. We got married, fell in love, had a family. My husband, Brian, is a small business owner. In fact, he is a milkman. Yes, I have the good privilege of saying I actually did marry the milkman.

Raising a family is tough when you are trying to build up a small business. But it was even tougher when our oldest child was diagnosed with autism. For most families, that diagnosis is hard to hear, but what makes it even harder to handle is that there is no handbook on what to do next. You essentially sit down with a panel of professionals. They tell you a list of things that is wrong with your child. They hand you a massive white binder, and they say: “See you later. Good luck.”

So there I was in my mid-20s. I had a beautiful baby girl. I had a wonderful son just diagnosed with autism and epilepsy, a husband trying to make a small business work and student loan debt. Just like thousands of other families, young families, in British Columbia, life was hard.

I consider myself pretty lucky. I have a huge support system in my life. I have parents who have always encouraged me. I have in-laws who have helped with free child care and continue to do so. I have a husband that never stops backing me. So I was able to go back to school to learn what I could to help my family and other families like mine.

Through this journey, I realized that there were thousands and thousands of families going through similar things but who weren’t in a position to have those same types of supports, and those families were incredibly lost. So once I graduated, I went back to school and started working as a therapist for families in the Tri-Cities. I became a strong parent advocate in public education and eventually the executive director for the Autism Support Network.

It was through my work in my community that I developed a strong desire to represent the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain here in the Legislature. I put my name forward, and I began the hard work of campaigning. Now, outside of getting married and having my children, this was the best experience of my life.

[1120]

Why? Well, because I got to knock on thousands of doors and talk to hundreds of people in my community. I got to meet hundreds of people who want change. What did I hear on the doorstep? I heard from families, seniors, students, who were concerned about the state of this province. I heard from many people who said: “This government’s priorities are not ours.”

Before I get to those concerns, I’d like to point out something in the budget that I agree with — something that I actually think this government has gotten right. The Finance Minister stated: “Prevention is key to protecting our communities.” This government recognizes that preventing wildfires is important for the protection of our natural resources, and I think they have the good sense to understand that prevention is much less costly than actually putting out those wildfires. It makes economic sense to invest in this type of early intervention. So there’s the positive.

But what I can’t understand is why the members opposite cannot see how this philosophy is applicable in so many other areas of our society. Services for our most precious resource, our people, have been starved for so long under this Liberal government that we are putting out wildfires everywhere. That makes zero economic sense. What people in Coquitlam and Burke Mountain agreed with most was that this government is not investing appropriately in its most precious resource — our children and our people.

What were the specific issues that people in my community brought to my attention? And how has this budget completely missed the mark for the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain?

Let’s start by talking about public education. Time and time again I have heard from parents, teachers and support staff, telling me that things in our schools, in our classrooms, are becoming more and more unmanageable.

Some of the most heart-wrenching stories in my campaign were standing on the doorstep while mothers cried on my shoulder to tell me that they cannot get the help at school for their children who desperately needed it. It is disrespectful for the people who have been elected to serve our children in British Columbia to be so out of touch and disconnected with what is happening in our schools and our classrooms.

Ironically, the Minister of Finance’s speech for our budget was framed in the analogy of a report card on government progress. But when it comes to funding for public education, this government is simply failing. The budget includes a 1 percent increase for public school funding, which won’t even cover the cost of inflation, let alone the increase in student enrolment and the constant downloaded costs to districts by this government.

Our Minister of Education states that we are funding education appropriately. He cites stats that reinforce his own story, without acknowledging that these stats do not take into account many variables and complexities that contribute to the outcomes of our students. Instead of listening to the people that he was elected to serve, our Minister of Education went on CBC this week to dismiss the concerns of parents and teachers and boards of education, saying that the only people who are concerned about education funding are “a few groups.”

I can go on and on about how this government does not prioritize public education, but if we want a concrete example of how little a priority education has been, we just have to look to Burke Mountain, where families have been waiting over a decade to build a school. Families are
[ Page 10720 ]
driving across the city to bring their children to school, not only because there is no school, but because our district has no money for buses. Those families continue to wait, and a photo op and a funding announcement right before the election just is not good enough.

The fact that education has not been a priority isn’t just my opinion as a parent with children in public school. It’s what our teachers, our students, our parents and our support staff know. Even the people in my community who don’t have children in public school are concerned about education. The fact is we all know that if we want a bright future, if we want a strong and resilient society, the way to do that is through strong public education.

[1125]

Now, public education is not the only thing that people in my community were concerned about. I heard a lot from my neighbours about affordability. As I said earlier, we have a diverse population in Coquitlam — seniors, families, immigrants. While I was listening to the people of my community, what I could relate to is that life is becoming more and more unaffordable under this government.

Average people are feeling the pressures of increased MSP, increased hydro, increased ICBC, tolls. If you have children in public education, parents have to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year on school supplies. Average families are going deeper and deeper into debt because they cannot afford these costs.

I did talk to some people in my community who have been able to buy a home. What they said to me is this: “I might be doing okay, but I am terrified for my children. I don’t know how they are ever going to be able to live here.”

You see, our Liberal government would have you believe that housing affordability is only an issue in Vancouver, but it’s not. I know this, because I don’t own a home. You see, we rent a basement suite in Coquitlam. We chose, years ago, not to buy a house because we had to pay for therapy for our child. We set our priorities. Our priorities were to invest in our son. And I know that that was the right decision. But recently, we looked at what it would cost and what it would take for us to get into the housing market in Coquitlam. A modest, 20-year-old townhouse — $600,000.

Now, for some people in this House, that might be attainable. But what I can tell you is that for a middle-income family, feeling the pressures and the hidden taxes that this government continues to download on its people, it’s not.

When it comes to affordability, I am saddened to say that we have a government that has completely lost track of what families are going through. I talk about families, because that is what this government promised. It promised to put families first. Today, I stand here to say that that promise was broken.

Now, if I had more time, I could talk about what else I heard on the doorstep. I heard about a lack of transit options. I heard about issues at Eagle Ridge Hospital. And I simply heard from people who feel forgotten.

I’d like to end my speech talking a little bit about what has been professed in the budget. We have heard a lot of comparing to other provinces. We’ve seen a lot of back-patting, and we’ve heard from this Liberal government that they are the only good stewards of our economy. Well, the last time a politician said that, it was Mr. Harper, and we know better now. Just because you say, “We have a strong economy!” and make downward comparisons does not make it true for our hard-working families in British Columbia.

In the last week since I’ve joined this Legislature, I have heard about the ’90s over and over and over again. I just turn on the TV in my office, and I hear “’90s.” I turn it off. I turn it back on again, and I hear “’90s.” Here’s the thing. I was in high school in the ’90s. Things change in 20-plus years. What the people of British Columbia need is a government that will look forward and not back, a government that will invest in its people, a government that will have the right priorities, and a government that will listen to its people and not just blindly defend their own story.

I am honoured to stand here today to say that I will fight for families. I will fight for schools. I will fight for affordability. I will fight for what is right and what is just for the people in my community and the people of British Columbia.

I have a six-year-old and a ten-year-old who are counting on me to do that. I will build, with my community, a brighter future, built on the priorities of the people of British Columbia. I will look forward with my colleagues and my sister Melanie Mark, and I will continue to be an advocate and to stand up for the people that I was elected to serve.

[1130]

V. Huntington: Government budgets by their very nature are sweeping documents that touch on many areas of our collective social and political lives. Some changes may be modest, while others may be….

Deputy Speaker: Member, given the constraints of the speaking times, we have to stop at 11:30 to conclude the debate.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. If it’s agreed, the member will proceed and continue until 11:45.

V. Huntington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I start again?

Government budgets, by their very nature, are sweeping documents that touch on many areas of our collective social and political lives. Some changes may be modest, while others may be more dramatic. The implications for each change may be complicated and not readily apparent at the outset of debate. Yet in the end, we, as elected repre-
[ Page 10721 ]
sentatives, are expected to make a simple vote, yea or nay.

Government is charged with determining the fiscal priorities of its jurisdiction. Those determinations — over time and subjected to either good or bad fortunes of a national and global economy — will tell us the health of the province.

Living outside one’s means is easy. It makes decisions easy. It makes people happy — or, at least, happier — if only for the time being. But living within one’s means if those means are limited requires a commitment to priorities and decisions about values. It means denying some expenses while supporting others.

The provincial budget is ultimately a document which reflects the values and choices of government. And with the values and choices that our government has committed to in mind, I want to qualify that, while I will be voting for this budget, I have significant concerns about many aspects of it. Before I outline those concerns, I would like to emphasize what I believe are positive aspects in the budget.

I’m glad this province is rated triple-A on the financial markets. I’m glad our interest rate on capital debt is lower than many other provinces must pay. I’m glad that the operating debt is coming down and that the budget is balanced. It is imperative to have a stable fiscal performance if we expect investment dollars to flow into this province and if we expect B.C. to have the strength to weather the ups and downs of the global economy.

In so many ways, we are no longer masters of our own fate. And in so many ways, that means the stronger you are, the more financially secure you are, the better able you are to manage the bad times. Fiscal discipline is not much more than the recognition that there is not an unlimited amount of money in the pot. We can’t have it all, and the most we can hope for is that the pieces of the pie do as much good as possible.

As I said, a provincial budget reflects the values and the choices of government, the values and choices of the people who run government. And question then becomes: do those choices reflect the values of the people in this province? Some do, but many don’t.

I think the most egregious comment I have heard so far is the claim that people on disability “just sell their bus passes for $10 anyway.” Even the Minister of Finance mentioned the sale of the bus passes. And those comments reflect a difference in values that is almost impossible for me to understand.

Yes, some people on disability sell their bus pass for $10. They shouldn’t, but they do. Why? Because that $10 might mean the difference between eating or going hungry. That $10 is the reflection of the desperation of people, people who have no other means and are trying to survive on $610 a month. That $10 reflects the reality of assistance rates that have been frozen since 2007, even as the cost of living has continued to rise. I challenge anybody in this Legislature to live on anything close to that amount.

The poverty line in this province runs anywhere from $1,068 a month to $1,633 a month, depending on where you live. In effect, the values of this government are a choice to deem assistance rates — rates that are below the poverty level — as an acceptable standard of living for roughly 40,000 British Columbians. That choice does not reflect my values.

[1135]

If the PWD rate had been an honest $77 lift, I would have been pleased to say it that it was a meaningful attempt to raise rates. I would have said that the government really had tried to do what it could to make life a little easier, that the provincial surplus had been shared wisely and more widely and that the cost of living with a bit more dignity was something this government valued.

But what did the government do? It gave on the one hand and took away with the other. “We’ll give you $77, but we’re taking away your bus pass.” And then came the spin. “Of course, it’s your choice. You can buy that bus pass if you want. It’s your choice — $77 or $11. Your choice.” It is a disgusting, insulting thing to do. It is a choice which, I dare say, reflects the values of no one but this government.

Government isn’t going to hear the end of this one. There are petitions starting, letters coming, phone calls mounting up. The people are not pleased by this choice. Let people keep the bus pass, and let everyone receiving PWD benefits keep the full $77 monthly increase — which, by the way, doesn’t even keep up with inflation from 2007. Goodness, that would have meant an $88 lift. God forbid.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The government has claimed it hasn’t increased assistance rates in a meaningful way because it can’t afford it. But governing is about making choices and setting priorities. We only need to look at the new $100 million prosperity fund to see the use of public money for nothing more than political posturing. The surplus money could have funded a $60-a-month increase for everyone on income assistance in this province, or it could have saved the bus pass. The problem we are faced with is a lack of political will to prioritize the British Columbians that government has left behind.

We seldom hear government talk about the total capital debt or the deferred accounts of the agencies not funded by taxpayer-supported debt. We may be dealing with the operating debt in a responsible manner, but what about our capital debt? Isn’t that just as serious, especially to our children and even to our great-grandchildren?

This government says: “We spend to build.” Well, building a bigger house than you can possibly afford is folly. Pretending you’ve paid off the Visa bill when the mortgage is so large that you can never hope to escape debt is not good fiscal management. And you can say whatever you want about debt-to-GDP ratios; it is still overspending — and overspending on the future tax-
[ Page 10722 ]
payer’s back. This government must start managing this debt. It must start capping this debt, and we must start to see the debt curve turn south.

The $1 million funding increase for the Agricultural Land Commission, on the surface, seems a positive step in the right direction. But how much of the increase is because government really wants to buttress the ALC? How much is spin? The rumours are flying that the funding uplift is earmarked for increasing application turnaround in zone 2, earmarked to speed up the removal of land from the ALR and to more quickly allow non-farm uses to proliferate. We can only hope the rumours aren’t true.

The new farmers food donation tax credit, worth 25 percent of the market value of the donated product, is a step in the right direction. However, where is the funding to support the vague commitments to buy local and grow local that we heard in the throne speech?

Government could go much further with its commitment to support farmers and to protect agricultural land. It could put its money where its mouth is and help farmers stay on the land, which in the Fraser Valley is unaffordable for existing, let alone new, farmers.

I’ve been encouraging the Ministers of both Agriculture and FLNRO to convince their cabinet colleagues that Crown land holdings in the ALR should not be sold at market value. It should be sold at the average provincial farm price value.

In my riding alone, a heritage farming family — a family recognized by this province for being on the family farm for over a century — has a fourth generation who wants to continue farming and who cannot afford one single piece of property. Young farmers, even with their family’s help, cannot purchase available land from this government because it is being sold at speculative values.

Why doesn’t the government really show the farming community that it supports the industry, that it will not fall prey to the crush of development pressure on land in the Fraser Valley, that it believes in agriculture and in the long-term security it brings to the people of this province?

[1140]

Because of time, I will have to jump to the end of my talk. It leaves out a number of the points that I had hoped to be able to make.

On the MSP premium front, I would like to suggest that now is the time we need a thorough public discussion on whether premiums ought to be rolled into income tax. Should it be a progressive tax? Is the minister right when he says people need to know that the service costs money? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I do know it is time we have to find the answers.

A budget reflects the values of government. This government has managed the fiscal realities of the province’s revenues well. Where this government has failed, in my opinion, is on the choices it makes on provincial expenditures. Some are good and a reflection of the fact that money is not limitless, and I understand that. What I do not understand, however, are choices that leave surpluses in the bank and people destitute in the streets. Somehow, we have to do better.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I note the dense and extensive applause from the opposition ranks as I stand up, or perhaps I’ve mistaken that as the applause due to the member for Delta South. In either case, I won’t be hurt.

We are here at the end of the budget debate in an environment where we find that a government that has been elected for 15 years has now found itself in a position to start to reap the dividends of responsible fiscal management. This budget is a responsible, positive document, showing real leadership as we create opportunity and ensure prosperity now and into the future.

This is not easily done. Many, many difficult decisions have been made over the past 15 years which lead us to this place where we can ensure that British Columbia continues to be the most prosperous jurisdiction in the country, as predicted by the Conference Board of Canada, for the next three years.

This has been accomplished by balancing the need for social spending, the need for investment in capital infrastructure, the need to serve our health budget — which is now by far the largest component of our budget — and to do that in a balanced-budget environment while also not creating an environment of excessive taxation or onerous fees and other sources of revenue.

This has been done by balancing our budget for four years in a row. This is remarkable in the current context. All of us were fully aware of the events of 2008-2009 which led to an economic meltdown around the world. There was a collapse in the financial system which, fortunately, didn’t affect Canadian banks but certainly affected markets worldwide.

None of us knew what would come out of that environment, but here in British Columbia, through strong fiscal management and appropriate fiscal discipline, we were able to rise out of the ashes of 2009 in very, very good condition.

As a result, this government has been able to invest in our future. We are now investing $1.6 billion in new incremental spending over the next three years, including a 3 percent increase in the health care budget. We are now moving from $17 billion per year for health care up to $19 billion in the next three years. When we arrived in this building in 2001, that budget was $6 billion, demonstrating the degree of inflation, the degree of cost pressures and the degree of new developments in health care that drive up the cost of health care.

We’ve also been in a situation where we’ve been able to manage our affairs to avoid interest costs. If we were in the situation that Ontario is in today, in a comparable fiscal environment with a comparable fiscal credit rating
[ Page 10723 ]
to Ontario, we would be spending an extra $2.4 billion of this budget on paying creditors, paying interest, mostly abroad. That is the equivalent of the entire budget to wipe out the Ministries of Advanced Education, Agriculture, Energy and Mines, Environment, and International Trade. They would cease to exist if we were paying that amount of interest.

Instead, through fiscal restraint and appropriate management, we have maintained our excellent credit rating and have kept our costs under control so that we can spend that money on British Columbians rather than on creditors.

[1145]

As the Minister of Finance said earlier, we are now in a position to look forward to wiping out completely our operating debt for the first time in 40 years. This has not been easy. This is a major accomplishment, and it’s testament to the degree of discipline and responsibility on this side of the House.

There are a few dividends in this. We’ve been able to improve the affordability of housing by reducing the amount of property purchase tax on new houses up to $750,000 so that individuals coming into the housing market looking for a new home can look forward to saving as much as $13,000 off the cost of that first purchase.

I remember very clearly paying property purchase tax for the first time in 1992 under an NDP regime, and it was a big obstacle to that first purchase. It had to be paid up front, and it was not part of the lending package from the credit union or bank we elected to use as a mortgage financier. That being reduced by a full $13,000 provides for a much higher level of affordability in our market.

In terms of those who aren’t able to purchase a house, we are putting $350 million into the B.C. Housing Management Commission over the next five years to support more than 2,000 new units of affordable housing. In addition to this, we’ll be clarifying the issues that surround the current controversy about home ownership on the west side of Vancouver, where I live, and in some other enclaves of British Columbia.

We must remember that 70 percent of British Columbia’s population lives outside these hot real estate markets. They actually live in areas where real estate is less of an issue than it is in Vancouver. We therefore have to govern for all British Columbians. This is part of our view that rural British Columbia is essential to the future of our province. We therefore have dedicated $75 million over three years to the rural dividend program, which will assist rural communities as their economies transition.

If we think of a place like Burnaby, there are dozens of different industries involved, and if employment winds down in one, people find work in another. That is less clearly the case in many parts of rural British Columbia, where transition must be assisted.

In keeping with that concept of assistance, we are proud to be supporting British Columbia’s most vulnerable citizens. We’re providing an extra $673 million over the next three years to the two ministries that deliver our social services most actively: the Ministry of Children and Families and the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation.

Of course, as has been stated here earlier, $217 million of that goes to support vulnerable children and families, as they implement the Plecas report recommendations. A further $286 million is to address caseload pressures and temporary income assistance, disability assistance and related supplementary benefits.

These are the dividends that are paid out of the fiscal discipline of the last 15 years and the taxation and economic environment that leads to people wanting to invest in British Columbia, generate revenue here and pay their taxes so that we can all prosper from that.

In addition, we have $12 billion over the next three years to invest in infrastructure. This is extraordinary. The list is impressive: Royal Inland Hospital, a new British Columbia Children’s and Women’s Hospital, a new Penticton Regional Hospital, new hospitals in Comox and Campbell River.

In my own ministry, $2.5 billion will be spent on that critical role of advanced education — for an entirely new campus for Emily Carr University of Art and Design, new trades facilities at Selkirk College, Camosun College and at the University of British Columbia.

Transportation investments to the tune of $3.1 billion. This is an extraordinary dividend that we are reaping from the discipline over the past 15 years.

We will be looking outward, too, with investments in the International Maritime Centre, strengthening ties with India, where, I must remark, my father was born some 90 years ago.

In short, to summarize, we are proud of our record. We are pleased to be self-sufficient in our finances. We have a positive outlook on the future, and we are pleased to be able to provide the financial backbone for a forward-looking British Columbia with a bright future that all of us anticipate with great enthusiasm.

I am pleased to end the debate on the budget and pleased to hand over the chair to the House Leader.

Madame Speaker: Government House Leader closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: With thanks to everyone who participated and expressed their views on the budget that is before us, I move, seconded by the hon. Deputy Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[1150-1155]

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, it has been moved by the Government House Leader that the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I move the motion whereby the House authorizes the Committee of Supply for the session to sit in two sections, designated Section A and Section B.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. de Jong: I won’t propose to read the motion into the record in its entirety. Copies have been provided. I can advise members that it is entirely similar to the motion that was presented in the House last year.

With that leave, I do so move:

[Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:

1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committee of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply, save and except that in Section A Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.

2. All Estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion without notice by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be decided without amendment or debate and be governed by Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation.

3. Section A shall consist of 17 Members — being 10 Members of the B.C. Liberal Party and 6 Members of the New Democratic Party and one Independent. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member’s Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved.

For the fifth session of the Fortieth Parliament the Members of Section A shall be as follows: the Minister whose Estimates are under consideration and Messrs. McRae, Hunt, Yap, Sturdy, Ashton, Hamilton, Plecas, Hogg, and Mme. Thornthwaite, and Messrs. Bains, Simpson, Farnworth, and Mmes. Karagianis, Hammell and Corrigan, and Ms. Huntington.

4. At fifteen minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Section A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:

(1) Other Members;

(2) Opposition; and

(3) Government.

5. Section B shall be composed of all Members of the House.

6. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

7. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times, at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.

8. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole.

Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.

9. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designated Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as herein before provided by Rule Nos. 2 and 8.]

Motion approved.

M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Copyright © 2016: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada