2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 7, 2016

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 4

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

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2016

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES

M. Hunt: This morning’s motion concerning families and communities is an important one, as it encompasses what we do here in the Legislature. It’s the reason why I decided to enter into public office, and that was to make a difference in the day-to-day lives of our fellow citizens.

For me, it started many years ago in local government. For 24 years, I served as a member of city council in Surrey, and it was a role that I cherished because people depend on local government for everything, from drinking water to waste management.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

As a matter of fact, all too often I’m asked what it’s like serving as an MLA compared to serving as a city council member. From the outset, I would have to say that certainly there’s a division of responsibilities between municipalities and the provincial government, but at the end of the day, I’m very conscious of the fact that I am still serving the same families and the same community of Surrey, just in a different capacity. Hence the motion we have here to debate this morning.

Surrey is a distinct community for many reasons. First of all, it’s one of the fastest-growing communities in British Columbia, if not the entire country. As a matter of fact, the population of Surrey is expected to surpass that of Vancouver over the next ten to 15 years.

This is evidenced in many ways, including building permits, and 2015 was a banner year in construction, with values that reached almost $1.5 billion. It almost beat the record that was set in 2007. Most of this construction consists of residential permits, but it includes commercial and industrial permits as well.

[1005]

That means that a lot of families are wanting to live and work in Surrey. It’s estimated that between 1,000 and 1,200 people move to Surrey every month. Now, just so that you get the context of that, that’s North Vancouver has moved into Surrey in the last five years, and in the next ten years, all of Richmond will move into Surrey — and for good reason, too.

For example, a new landmark piece of architecture has opened in Surrey, by Coast Capital Credit Union. This B.C.-based financial institution chose to locate its new headquarters in Surrey because 70 percent of its employees live south of the Fraser. Many of them no doubt live in my riding of Surrey-Panorama. Coast Capital knows that Surrey has everything to offer. Indeed, they’re hoping it will be a big draw for future employees who want to live and work in the same community and, perhaps, start a family.

That leads to another distinguishing feature of Surrey. Nearly a third of all Surrey residents are under the age of 19. There are not many communities in British Columbia — or Canada, for that matter — that can boast a community with such a young demographic. It means that Surrey, as a community, is made up of many families who are just starting out. As a matter of fact, 5,000 babies are born each year at Surrey Memorial Hospital. These families will be looking for homes to raise their children, and our government is taking steps to help them realize their dreams of home ownership.

One of the ways the government of British Columbia is helping out on the housing side of the equation is the exemption from the property transfer tax for new homes valued at $750,000. This will have several effects. The purchasers of new homes will see a saving of $13,000 — money that can be well used in other priorities of the family budget. Secondly, the tax exemption also continues to stimulate even more construction, increasing the supply of housing and generating more jobs at the same time.

Families in Surrey will also welcome the expansion of the registered education savings plan by making more children in the province eligible for a $1,200 grant that will go directly to their future education. By extending the program to all children born on or after January 1, 2006, it is estimated that an additional 40,000 children in the province will be eligible for the grant. Education, without a doubt, is the smartest investment anyone can make in the life of a child. I’m encouraging as many people as I can to take advantage of this terrific program.

Another way that the government is helping families is the exemption of families from health care premiums. This will be welcome news, especially to single-parent families. For example, a household with one parent and two children will save a minimum of $864 a year, and possibly as much as $1,224 a year, depending on their income. These are substantial savings and something that families in my community are going to welcome.

Last of all, before my time runs out, one of the most distinguishing features of Surrey is our diversity. People from all over the world come to live in Surrey, from all cultural backgrounds and faiths. The fact that we live in harmony is one of the most remarkable accomplishments, which the rest of the world envies.
[ Page 11082 ]

As a testimony to the strength of our community, I am deeply impressed by the collective response to the Syrian refugees arriving in this province. Faith-based communities have come together to sponsor families, and individuals of all backgrounds are doing everything they can to help perfect strangers. This is the kind of community that Surrey is: a community that would welcome a family from a war-torn region halfway around the world and help them start a new life. That is the beauty of my community of Surrey.

S. Hammell: It’s always a pleasure to follow my colleague from Surrey. I do want to address the notion that the member has brought up around families and, of course, the community of Surrey.

I go back to quote the Premier, who said: “We’re talking about opening up government to British Columbians and making sure we’re serving the interests of families first and foremost.”

[1010]

Then, to add to that quote, I’d like to just reiterate what the member just said, that what is important is what we do here in this Legislature and what we do to make life in this province better for families. I’d like to take a look at some of the actions taken by the government in terms of families.

In five years, the government has increased MSP premiums, Hydro and ICBC rates every year by 25 to 30 percent, in total. These three increases add up to over $900 per year. Just to make it clear, on the record, I’ll be more detailed. Since 2011, MSP premiums for a family have gone up $348. Even though there has been a decrease in certain categories around MSP, the total gain to the government coffers is significant. Hydro has gone up $374 for the average family in this province, the average residential customer, and ICBC has gone up by $180 for the average customer.

To make things easier for people in the province, you have to look at the impact additional fees have on families. To think that…. The increase to the family’s pocketbook of over $900 is quite horrific. At the same time as we’re loading on money to average residents, we have continued with a tax decrease for the top 2 percent in this province. In 2014 and ’15, there was a surcharge put on the top tax bracket which brought in $230 million, so in 2014 and ’15, an additional $230 million came into the government coffers.

Since then, that $230 million has been eliminated in terms of a tax source. It would have been able to impact some of the additional increases that have gone to average families. It is hard to understand why you would tax more average families through services and fees while, at the same time, reducing the tax burden on those people who are more able pay it.

We know that it is difficult for families to get on in life. When we are talking about Surrey, in particular, we’re talking about a school system that…. Although we’ve had record residential buildings, we have not had a parallel building of schools. We are sitting with 7,000 school children in portables that, if we took them aside, would be the 24th-largest district. If we put all those kids in portables and called them one district, it would be the 24th-largest district. We know that puts pressure on libraries. We know that puts pressure on gymnasiums. We have four high schools that are on staggered openings because we don’t have the building for new high schools.

We can talk about how big Surrey is, but unless you have the accompanying money to build the schools, in terms of portables, then that’s a problem. To service those portables costs $4 million a year.

M. Hunt: I’d like to thank the hon. member for Surrey–Green Timbers for her contributions to this morning’s statement on families and communities and, certainly, the challenges that Surrey is facing. We may disagree on how the numbers are put together, but we know the challenges are there, and we’re working on that.

As recently as last November, I had the opportunity to take part in an announcement regarding the creation of 1,700 new licensed child care spaces as part of the B.C. early-years strategy.

[1015]

As I mentioned earlier in the debate, Surrey is one of the fastest-growing communities, and naturally, there is a high demand for high-quality child care spaces. The priority for these new spaces will be given to organizations that create spaces on school grounds, where children can smoothly transition from early-years programs to the classroom and to after-school care, or for created spaces that are co-located with other family-supporting programs in community-based settings, including B.C. early-years centres, recreation centres and family resource programs. Also, there could be created child care spaces in underserved areas of B.C., of which Surrey, of course, is one.

These new spaces continue to expand the more than 111,000 licensed child care spaces currently founded across the province. This announcement represented solid support for the creation of child care spaces, because operators can build a new child care facility, including the cost of buying the land or the building. Or they could buy and assemble a modular building and develop a site or renovate an existing building or classroom. They’re also eligible for equipment, including playground equipment and furnishings to support these types of projects that we have already talked about.

Most experts agree that the years between birth and the age of six are the most influential in the life of a child. Therefore, access to high-quality child care is a necessity for families today. The announcement I participated in last December is welcome news, not only for my riding of Surrey-Panorama but for families and communities all across this beautiful province.
[ Page 11083 ]

In addition, I should also mention that the new B.C. early childhood tax benefit, introduced by this government in April to help with the cost of raising a child, provides $146 million annually for approximately 180,000 families with children under the age of six. Altogether, everything I mentioned this morning represents a significant investment in this province, our families and communities.

KIDS DESERVE SAFE DRINKING WATER

J. Rice: I’m happy to rise today to talk about why I feel that children deserve to have safe drinking water, not only in their schools but also in their homes. Recently we learned that drinking water provided to children in four schools in Prince Rupert was contaminated with lead. This revelation came four years after drinking water in Kitimat schools was discovered to have also exceeded maximum allowable lead levels.

A published report written by government scientists after the Kitimat incident recommended that other northwest schools be tested for lead. It stated: “Given the serious health consequences of lead exposure…even at low levels, reducing lead exposures should be a public health priority.”

Why was drinking water in Prince Rupert schools not tested earlier? How long have officials known there was lead in the drinking water? Are other northwest schools being tested, and are they at risk? These are questions no one wants me asking.

According to the government’s own scientists, even small quantities of lead can be dangerous, especially to young children. The report also noted that if children were drinking water from homes with lead pipes in the same neighbourhood as the affected schools, the combined effect of drinking water from both sources could have serious problems, serious effects on children.

I think it is prudent that we have mandatory water testing for all schools in the province to ensure that schools have safe drinking water for the students and the staff.

The Ministry of Health has shown an absence of leadership by choosing not to test drinking water in a timely manner. Furthermore, to then not inform the general public in Prince Rupert that there are, in fact, lead issues in drinking water, not just in schools but throughout our community, is an abrogation of responsibility.

While parents are being reassured that there is not an acute health concern regarding lead in school drinking water, what the public is not being told is that the accumulation of even low levels of lead over time has been associated with neurological issues in children; developmental problems with growing fetuses; and heart, kidney and stomach issues in adults.

[1020]

It is well known that Prince Rupert and other northwest communities have an aging infrastructure challenge, with many buildings and homes still containing lead in their water pipes. The Ministry of Health has failed to test the drinking water of school children in the northwest, despite doing so in other parts of the province in the 1980s and 1990s.

Ministry of Health employees urgently recommended that northwest schools be tested in 2014. This neglect has resulted in children consuming contaminated drinking water. At Pineridge Elementary School in Prince Rupert, lead was found to be 14 times above the maximum allowable concentrations — 14 times. That’s from one drinking fountain.

Yet the Minister of Health told the B.C. Legislature just a few weeks ago that his staff discovered highly elevated lead levels in Prince Rupert school drinking water through “routine testing.” It should be noted that there is no routine testing of drinking water in B.C. schools. Only Ontario has legislation in place to regularly test and report for lead in schools.

The sad fact is the Minister of Health’s staff discovered the serious issue in Prince Rupert as a result of that 2012 classroom science experiment gone wrong in Kitimat, not routine testing. When salmon eggs in the classroom aquarium would not hatch, a teacher took it upon herself to get the water tested for lead and copper. When the results showed high levels of lead and copper, the test results were provided to public health which, in turn, prompted an investigation of other Kitimat schools. It was found that they, too, had lead issues.

The Health Minister’s staff wrote an academic paper about this issue in 2014 for the province’s Centre for Disease Control. The Kitimat report said: “Given the consequences of lead exposure during childhood and the effects that can occur even at low levels, reducing lead exposure should be a public health priority.” I just mentioned that. Yet the minister didn’t do a thing until one of his staff, a dedicated public servant, took the initiative and tested the water in Prince Rupert schools this year herself.

The 2014 report identified that if the plumbing in children’s homes is similar to that of the school’s older construction, then the cumulative lead levels from both sources would more than “double typical lead intakes.” The report also states: “Exposure in childhood has been associated with lower intelligence scores as well as behavioural disorders such as attention deficit disorder and anti-social behaviour.”

The report explains how low levels of lead can affect fetuses during pregnancy and cause the health problems I mentioned earlier in adults. As specified by the chief medical officer, Perry Kendall, there is no “acute health issue from drinking water from the schools alone” — no acute health issue, meaning no one is consuming a high dose of lead in one fell swoop and puking their guts out at the local Prince Rupert hospital.

Let me just go on to actually quote something that Mr. Kendall said. “This was a big news item in public health
[ Page 11084 ]
through the ’80s and ’90s, so I had thought that this was being dealt with systematically between the health departments and school boards,” he said. “I was surprised to find that it hadn’t been dealt with in the north, in their coastal communities. Ideally, testing would have been done earlier.”

What’s not being talked about is the accumulative impacts of drinking these low and elevated lead levels over time. Particularly, when we’re drinking them from our homes as well as our schools, what impacts have those had to our children and to our adults and our teachers?

For Prince Rupert residents, Northern Health is offering a lead test kit at the public health department for $30, so a public health issue is now left to the private individuals to deal with themselves. I think mandatory lead testing in our schools, at a minimum, should be required by this government.

S. Gibson: It’s a privilege to be here to represent my constituents of the beautiful Abbotsford-Mission constituency. I want to thank the member for North Coast for her thoughtful comments.

We all agree that kids deserve safe drinking water. In fact, everybody deserves safe drinking water. Water quality is crucial to the health and safety of British Columbians, and our government is always working to make sure that our water is safe, looking for ways to improve our processes.

We’re fortunate to live in such a beautiful province that has an abundance of fresh water. I know, if you travel around the province, you can’t help but notice the beautiful vistas of lakes and rivers everywhere.

[1025]

In fact, in Abbotsford just last week, the Clearbrook water supply was once again given top marks from judges at an international competition. It was named the best in the world for municipal water. Having lived in that part of Abbotsford for many years, I’m pretty proud of that record. Clearbrook waterworks previously won gold in ’08, ’09 and 2014, an amazing record. More than 15,000 people live in that neighbourhood and enjoy the best water in the world. No chlorine, fluoride or other chemicals are used. It’s all from deep wells.

British Columbians enjoy safe and clean drinking water. As for the member’s concerns with drinking water in schools, we’ve heard from the Minister of Health on that topic, and we’ll talk a bit about that. We’re aware that testing done by Northern Health has shown elevated levels of lead in the water during the morning hours of some schools in Prince Rupert, related to the leaks in pipes and the lead in pipes.

Northern Health has worked proactively with the school district and the city to ensure mitigation strategies were implemented immediately. With these strategies in place, the water is safe for drinking, but we understand that parents in the community are concerned. I’d like to point out there have been no reports of related illnesses. I’m sure we’re all pleased about that.

We’ve heard from Dr. Perry Kendall, as the member has noted a moment ago, the provincial health officer, that elevated lead levels is not an issue in B.C. and there is no evidence that children are being systematically exposed to high levels of lead in drinking water — an important comment, I think, from the provincial health officer.

Our Deputy Minister of Education sent a recent reminder to ensure schools with older plumbing systems that testing is important and essential. Health authorities have been aware of the potential issues posed by lead in drinking water for decades. They have done a good deal of proactive work around it with the school districts. This includes sending reminder letters to ensure that buildings with older plumbing systems implement flushing and testing programs.

We work hard to address the needs of water system operators and have developed a series of tools to support water suppliers. This includes a new tool to help water suppliers assess water quality risks from sources right to the tap. There is an assessment tool for determining groundwater supplies at risk of containing pathogens, and there is a guide to financial best management practices for sustainable water system operation. There are clear treatment objectives for surface and groundwater drinking water supplies that are based on national and international standards, and these meet best practices.

While these are positive developments, we know there’s more work to be done. We continue to work closely with health authorities, other ministries, local governments and water suppliers to ensure that British Columbians can continue to be proud of the quality of their drinking water.

J. Rice: I’d like to just respond to some of the comments that the member has stated in his response to my statement.

“No related health issues reported.” There are no related health issues reported because no one’s actually testing for those health-related issues. I would like to know if there’s any motivation on the other side of the House to actually examine the potential health-related issues to drinking accumulated lead levels over time to the citizens and the children of Prince Rupert.

The government knew in 2012. The government published a report in 2014 saying this is a public health priority and that other northwest schools should be tested. They didn’t test. As one parent said to me: “So my child has been drinking lead for four years. I didn’t know, but the Ministry of Health did know.” What is going to be done for that family and all the other families?

“It’s well known at Health, for decades, that there’s older plumbing in schools, and the Ministry of Health has taken a proactive approach.” I will contest that vociferously, because Northern Health chief medical offi-
[ Page 11085 ]
cers have told me: “Jennifer, we do not have a mandate to routinely test schools.”

[1030]

The process is even written in the legislation. They operate on a complaints-based process, usually by the complaints of a teacher or parent. So there’s no proactiveness in testing drinking water for lead in schools in British Columbia.

I would like to quote one thing from the Ministry of Health’s own report. “For lead, school water alone could have substantially contributed to a child’s daily lead intake, and when equivalent concentrations in residential water were considered, water more than doubled typical total lead intakes.”

This minister’s own scientist is saying this is a public health concern not just in the schools but in the community. However, there has been no leadership to inform other residents. The only communication that has been done was a letter written by the Ministry of Health staff, on behalf of the school superintendent in Prince Rupert, that was sent home in the backpacks of kindergarteners, with artwork and apple juice, that may or may not be read by parents.

No other public health notice was made — not a single thing on the Northern Health website. In fact, their website was down when this story broke. In their public health meeting that they have in the northwest, they cancelled the media inquiry, so media weren’t even allowed to write in about their regularly scheduled board meetings — nothing, not a Facebook post, not a tweet.

B.C.’S CARBON TAX:
AN INTERNATIONAL SUCCESS STORY

J. Sturdy: It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about B.C.’s carbon tax, what is an international success story.

First, I think it’s also important to mention why we’re talking about carbon tax at all. Global GHG emissions have rightfully taken a priority in international and national energy discussions around climate change. B.C. is engaged and has a legislated GHG emission target of 80 percent below 2007 levels by 2050. I think it’s also interesting…. As we talk to our constituents, we recognize that not everybody is convinced that it’s a problem, but the consensus is — and, certainly, I support that consensus — that we need to take global action.

In British Columbia’s case, we have made progress, but more action will be needed in order for us to start to begin to rebend the curve, as we’re producing around 64 million tonnes of CO₂ annually. It is rising, and our 2050 target is 13 million tonnes. Clearly, we have a tremendous task in front of us, and it begs the question as to what options we have to get emissions going in the right direction.

The most efficient approaches in reducing emissions to CO₂ include giving businesses and households an economic incentive for such reductions, which is what we have done here in British Columbia, with a tax on emissions — which also, in our case, has the added benefit of having a relatively low administrative cost. At the same time, we must consider the impacts to our competitiveness, as simply driving B.C.’s economic activity to other jurisdictions does no favours to our climate or our economy.

Since the introduction of our climate action plan in 2008, British Columbia has been recognized as a leader in the development of policies that reduce emissions without harming the economy. At the centre of that plan is the carbon tax, which was launched in July of 2008 and has made our province the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a broad-based, revenue-neutral tax on carbon.

B.C.’s carbon tax applies to the use of fossil fuels, putting a price on carbon emissions to encourage businesses and individuals to use less fuel, incentivizing the use of clean energy alternatives and ensuring that those who produce combustion emissions pay for them.

Dr. Stewart Elgie at the University of Ottawa found that since the implementation of the tax, per-capita use of fossil fuels has risen everywhere in Canada except British Columbia, where usage has dropped by 16 percent. These numbers are proof that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to grow the economy. In fact, between 2007 and 2013, our real GDP grew by more than 9 percent, well above the national average.

[1035]

There is an increasing global recognition that carbon pricing is the way to go to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that B.C.’s carbon tax is a successful model. The World Bank has praised British Columbia’s carbon tax as “one of the most powerful” examples of carbon pricing. This policy has also been profiled in The Economist, the Los Angeles Times and, most recently, in the New York Times as a leading environmental policy.

In the Times article from March 1, just the other day, titled “Does a Carbon Tax Work? Ask British Columbia,” the author writes: “The most important take-away for American skeptics is that the policy basically worked as advertised. British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbours’, even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined.”

The majority of British Columbians support the tax, and a significant portion of the business community does too. It is the most efficient market-friendly instrument available to tackle climate change. I’d add that I believe that support is easier to generate with a fundamentally simple and understandable tax instrument such as the carbon tax.

The carbon tax works because, by making fuel more expensive, we’ve encouraged British Columbians to drive less, to choose more efficient modes of transportation, to make their homes more energy efficient. We’ve also
[ Page 11086 ]
encouraged businesses to switch to less polluting fuels and invest in energy-efficient technologies. Because every dollar generated by the tax is returned to British Columbians through the reduction in other taxes, we’re ensuring that while we put a price on carbon, we don’t affect people’s buying power.

To ensure that we remain a global climate leader, the province has moved forward on a number of initiatives to help us stay on track to achieve emissions reduction targets. In January of this year, our government announced the creation of a new cabinet working group on climate leadership. This group gives a climate lens to cabinet and a focus on B.C.’s climate plan so we can be on track to realize our long-term goals. This includes continuing to find ways to reduce emissions in the transportation and building sectors so we can achieve our 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets.

At the GLOBE 2016 conference last week, B.C. announced funding for several innovative technologies to grow our economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This included more than $6.8 million in funding to support the clean energy vehicle program and more than $3.7 million to support the construction of a carbon engineering synthetic fuel plant in Squamish.

I’m very excited about this particular project, which will capture carbon dioxide from the air to synthesize it into diesel and gasoline fuels. This is a great-news story for my community, and provincially, and has game-changing potential for the planet, as it will demonstrate the world’s first air-to-fuel plant and that it’s technically and economically viable to produce low-carbon fuel using carbon captured directly from the atmosphere.

These are just a few of the projects that we’re supporting to reduce emissions while growing and diversifying the economy. The carbon tax showed the world that this could be done, and we’re committed to continuing this important work to keep British Columbia at the forefront to climate action.

G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure and an honour to stand in this House and talk about the important and critical issue of climate change to the people of B.C. as well as people around the globe — and also to talk about what we could have done and should be doing in the future to address this key issue.

The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky pointed out that the carbon tax was the key instrument for his government in addressing climate change. I would say there are two key instruments. One of them is putting a price on carbon, and the other one is meaningful measures to reduce emissions. In fact, many people would argue that there is simply and only one clear, real test of climate leadership, and that test is: are your emissions going up, or are they going down?

On that measure, this government is, frankly, failing. The carbon tax, about which the member opposite spoke, has been frozen since 2012. B.C.’s emissions, since the current Premier took office, have gone up by 4.3 percent.

[1040]

Let’s talk a little bit about the carbon tax. One of the features of the tax that the member opposite has said makes it successful is that it’s revenue-neutral. In fact, it is revenue-negative. If we look at the budget documents from this year, on page 56, we see that, in fact, the carbon tax is bringing in $514 million less than the offsetting tax cuts.

Let’s take a look at those tax cuts and exactly whom they affect. The member opposite has said it’s important in pricing carbon that we don’t affect people’s buying power and that we include household incentives.

Let’s look at the cuts. Most of the carbon tax revenues — two-thirds of them — have been in support of corporate income tax cuts. Now, I’m not speaking out against targeted tax credits or measures to help business create jobs, but I just want to point out that that has little, if anything, to do with household income. Seventeen percent went to personal income tax cuts and 12 percent to a credit for low-income households.

Let me talk about that for a minute. When this tax was first introduced, one of the selling points was that there would be a low-income climate action tax credit that would offset any damage or hurt that was experienced by low-income individuals.

By the fourth year of the carbon tax, the wealthiest 20 percent of British Columbians were getting more in tax cuts than they were spending in the carbon tax, even if they did absolutely zero to impact their carbon footprint, whereas the opposite was true for the lowest 20 percent of income earners.

This government includes in the offsets tax credit measures worth over 40 percent of the total tax credits that were initiated before the carbon tax was ever introduced. It’s true they’ve been expanded marginally, but in order to claim revenue neutrality, this government is taking credit for cuts for tax credits that existed before 2008 and not allowing the possibility of any tax credits to be used for building a green economy or for investing.

Let me close by talking a little bit about that. This government stubbornly refuses to spend any of the income from the target tax, the carbon tax, on transit, on green infrastructure, to support clean tech. But overwhelmingly last week on CBC’s Almanac, the callers to a show on the carbon tax said that’s exactly what makes sense to them.

Premier Wynne in Ontario, Premier Notley in Alberta and Premier Selinger in Manitoba have all said that it makes sense to spend carbon tax or cap-and-trade revenue to build and invest in the clean-tech economy of the future. It builds jobs, and it reduces carbon intensity.

That’s what we should be doing in British Columbia, and that’s exactly what this government isn’t doing. Instead, under this government, emissions are slated to go up by 30 percent between 2013 and 2030.
[ Page 11087 ]

J. Sturdy: When it comes to carbon taxes, clearly there are valid questions around how you manage revenues, and there are complexities in this any time that you’re taking a leadership role. For example, as we drive down carbon consumption, revenue potential also falls.

How do you adjust for diminishing revenues over a longer period of time, or how do you plan for disruptive technologies — atmospheric carbon capture, for example? This air-to-fuels technology could solve many problems around GHG emissions for transportation and storage but can disrupt long-term energy plans and investments. I don’t think there’s any question.

Or fusion. While it offers the prospect of an almost inexhaustible source of energy for future generations, it also presents, so far, insurmountable scientific and engineering challenges. But really, internationally, people are prioritizing these issues. Around the world — in China; India; Japan; Europe; the United States; Canada; and, clearly, here in British Columbia — many of the best minds are focusing on these problems.

[1045]

It’s hard to imagine the breakthroughs will not be made over the next decade or two which will change our collective energy future.

I’d like to finish by talking about our new climate leadership plan public consultation, which is taking place right now in British Columbia. We’re moving forward with our climate agenda through the development of a new plan, which is being assembled with advice from the climate leadership team, which I did have the honour of chairing.

The final climate leadership plan will be released later this spring and will include actions to drive down emissions while supporting a growing and diverse economy. This round of engagement began in January, and we’re inviting the public to read the guide and provide feedback with their priorities for a renewed climate plan. The consultation is open till March 25. I encourage everyone to participate at engage.gov.bc.ca/climateleadership to find out how you can participate and be part of our new climate future.

CHILD CARE MAKES GOOD ECONOMIC SENSE

J. Wickens: Tomorrow is International Women’s Day, a day when we are to celebrate the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. It’s also a day when leaders across the world are pledging to take action as champions of gender parity. I think that this is something everyone in this House can support. However, we cannot talk about gender parity without talking about child care. I would like to specifically talk about how child care makes good economic sense.

Among developed countries, Canada actually ranks last on child care, and I believe it’s the B.C. government’s failure to address this crisis that is keeping us there. We have a crisis in B.C. when it comes to our children in a variety of areas. The research, evidence and support for policy change around greater public investment in early childhood has grown, and it continues to grow.

In B.C., there are three areas that are issues. We see fees that are far too high and increasing at rates that outpace inflation. When it comes to access, only 18 percent of our children under 12 in B.C. have access to regulated child care spaces. And when it comes to public investment, we are the second lowest in Canada, investing only $2,200 annually per regulated space, when the Canadian average is double that, at $4,000 per year.

Now, looking at these numbers, I have a really hard time understanding how we in British Columbia can have the so-called best economy, but when it comes to investment in our children’s most crucial time period of development, we are doing almost the worst in Canada. We need to make B.C.’s young children and families a priority. The research is clear. The quality of a child’s early experiences in early intervention matter.

Too many young B.C. children do not have the opportunity to participate in high-quality child care. More than 30 percent of our children are entering kindergarten vulnerable in one or more areas. This is simply unacceptable. And it’s costly. It always costs less to invest early than to have to deal with issues that arise later on. So we know that early development is important, and we know without a doubt that we need to do better in this province when it comes to our children.

How does investment in child care benefit the economy and reduce poverty, especially child poverty? There has been extensive research on this, and what we know is that affordable and widely accessible child care more than pays for itself. In Quebec’s child care system, it returns $1.05 back to the provincial government for every $1 invested. Ottawa recovers 44 cents, even with no direct investment, and these returns continue to grow. More broadly, what we know is that every public dollar invested in quality child care returns $2.54 to the overall economy.

[1050]

We also know that investing in child care has a bigger job multiplier effect than any other sector. We hear all the time about job creation, and we hear about investing in a strong economy, so why on earth are we not doing what we can so that more children have access to quality care so that more women can enter the workforce? The economy benefits from investments in child care. Women and families benefit from these investments. Employers and business benefit, and our communities benefit from investments in child care.

Child care right now is the highest cost to our families outside of housing, and in B.C., that’s saying something. I’d like to take a moment to give you a personal example. A few years ago, after I graduated from Douglas College, I was looking at many different child care options, based
[ Page 11088 ]
on different employment opportunities. One of the things that we were looking at was before- and after-school care. I looked to a number of different child care options in Coquitlam.

There weren’t many, because there’s a lack of options available, but some of the options I did find were wildly unaffordable. For me to drop my children off for an hour before school and pick them up for an hour after school, it would cost us anywhere from $425 to $600 per month per child. This cost of before- and after-school care was going to cost us almost as much as our rent per month.

What did this mean? It meant that I looked at different employment options, and we had to rely on family. But there are thousands of women in British Columbia who cannot do that. What happens? Women typically sacrifice their careers, and families have less financial stability. This directly affects the amount of women and children living in poverty in this province. If our government would take a proactive approach to child care, what we would see is more people in the workforce stimulating the economy with wages of working mothers and early childhood educators.

We do need to diversify our economy, and we could start doing that by investing in this sector and making life a little bit more manageable and equitable for our women and our children.

D. McRae: Like many of us in this chamber, I will stand, rise and respond to the member but also acknowledge that I, too, am a parent. I’ll agree that having children is a life-altering experience. It changes our social activities. It changes our mental scope. We often have to think about those we have to support. It changes our economic choices. By all means, I’m sure most of us would agree we now have watched a new range of television shows that we never thought we would ever perceive. My Little Pony is huge in the McRae house.

I do believe that government has an obligation. It has an obligation to support its citizens. We do it for persons with disabilities, we do it for seniors, we do it for those with health issues, and of course, we do it for children. And I just want to remind the members opposite about the investments that we’ve been able to make, this government, over the last 15 years.

First of all, just for context. We often talk about the province of Quebec. Just for the sake of comparison, always remember that if you were to earn $75,000 a year in Quebec, you’d be paying more than $5,000 a year more in personal income taxes alone in that province as compared to this province. By all means, you get to make choices when you have a higher level of taxation, but literally, you are taking money from families to pay for the service you’re using.

On top of that, British Columbians often pay for the choices of Quebec. There’s about $18 billion in equalization payments across Canada. Quebec is a recipient of $10 billion of those equalization payments. In essence, in the past, western Canada has often paid for the social programs of other provinces. But even in that context, it is not supportable in Quebec. Why? Well, if you look in the news just recently, they’re talking of raising the $7- to $10-a-day daycare up to $20 a day in that province.

Why? Because they can’t afford that price. Even with the equalization payments, even with the high taxation, it is just not sustainable. At this stage, when it comes to debt-to-GDP ratios, they lead the nation — an over-50-percent debt-to-GDP ratio in Quebec. It is unbelievable and non-sustainable. In a sense, they’re asking the children who are being born today, but also the children being born tomorrow, to pay for the daycare that’s being used now. It’s all about those choices. This government, this province, has made choices to actually spend well, I will argue.

[1055]

For example, in this province, there are about 300,000 children in British Columbia under the age of six. There are about 111,000 licensed child care spaces. Since 2014, we’ve added 2,400 new spots. We’ve added another 17, just announced in the last month and a half. There has been an intake, and now those positions will start to be created. We have a goal of creating, I believe, around 13,000 more spots by 2020.

Again, we recognize there’s a need, but at the same time, you have to just make sure that there is the ability to actually pay for those programs as well. In fact, in this budget just announced by the Finance Minister, we’ve made the statement that we’re going to spend $328 million on child care, which is an increase, in the last 13 years, of 55 percent in the province.

But there’s more. I’m sure the members opposite are very happy about the childhood tax benefit. If you have children under six, you will get $55 a month or approximately $600 a year for those children. It’s an expense that we’ve made to give to families — a $146 million annual expense.

When you combine that tax benefit with provincial and other federal tax benefits, if you’re a single mother with two children under the age of six, you’ll receive about $12,300 a year in reverse tax credits that would come back to that individual. Now, I know that members opposite — and even members on this side — would say: “We want to do more.” That’s why we continue to make sure there are jobs for individuals. We grow the economy and make those investments.

We also did things like, perhaps, bring in all-day K, which, to be honest, the members opposite did not support. In fact, I have a quote from one of the members opposite, who said: “Well, all-day kindergarten. Now again, that’s a brilliant idea.” The member opposite said: “There are studies — and I will remind the member — that indicate…that’s a real waste of money” — an opportunity that I disagree with completely.
[ Page 11089 ]

I have children who went through the all-day K system. It worked very well for my children. It worked very well for many, many children in British Columbia. In fact, the vast majority of British Columbians, when you poll them, will say it’s a phenomenal program.

But there’s more. We’ve also made huge investments in StrongStart. Across the province of British Columbia, there are over 330 StrongStarts in schools, in neighbourhoods, making sure there are supports for parents, not to mention neighbourhoods of learning.

In the last budget, as well, what did we do? We gave more money back to families through MSP changes. If you are a single parent with one child or, perhaps, two, the savings to you could be $800 to $1,200 more. What are you going to do with those dollars? As a single parent or as a parent, you get to make those choices. Government isn’t telling you how to do this.

I think it is disingenuous for the members opposite to suggest that this party and this government have not made good investments in child care in the last 15 years. And we’ll continue to do so.

J. Wickens: I appreciate the time to respond to the member opposite’s comments in regards to my statement. First, I have to say that I think it is unfair to characterize an investment in early child care as a debt. I was talking, in my speech, about how it greatly benefits the economy to make these investments. The member opposite talked about a couple of things that I can touch on.

He talked about new spaces that this government has created and is creating. I’d like to remind the members opposite that there was a freeze in this type of investment in spaces from 2009 to 2013. So we had zero investment in child care capital spaces in that time, which has greatly contributed to the crisis we’re seeing today. It is a crisis because nothing was done for years and years. We now need to make up for that.

I also would like to talk a little bit about the fact that this government promised to reduce childhood vulnerability. What we see is that this vulnerability has actually increased to 30 percent over the last little while. We have one in five children living in poverty in the province of British Columbia. This is from neglectful behaviour, especially when we’re talking about child care.

We have a freeze in investments. We have zero poverty reduction plan. And I think that when we talk about investment in the early years, that’s what needs to be talked about — an investment, not a debt. It is greatly valuable for our children and our families and working women.

[1100]

I also think that when we talk about middle-income families and we talk about families who are really stuck in between being able to access some of the tax breaks and things that the government talks about and families who are doing well enough to be able to buy some of these extra things as far as child care goes, we have huge groups of families who aren’t accessing those things. So $55 per month to address exorbitant child care costs is not going to help an average family. It just isn’t.

I’d have to end by saying that I actually agree with a leader in our world, Nelson Mandela, when he says there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than in the way in which it treats its children. When we look at the climate in British Columbia around how we’re treating our children, I would say we’re in a bit of trouble.

Hon. M. Polak: I call debate on private member’s Motion 3.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 3 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 3 — KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY

S. Sullivan: I’d like to move a motion.

[Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy that supports innovation and technology.]

This is a motion that is very meaningful to people in my riding. Throughout Vancouver–False Creek, there are hundreds of companies filled with young people that are literally making our future. They are ensuring that we have a high quality of life for future generations.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Let me talk a bit about the tech sector. The tech sector produces $23 billion in annual revenue. There are more than 86,000 jobs in the tech sector, working at over 9,000 companies. Wages in this tech sector hit an all-time high in 2013, averaging $72,280 per year. They are 60 percent higher than the B.C. average.

Many large companies are moving to British Columbia and hiring local talent. We have Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, Electronic Arts, Disney, Animal Logic. They’ve all opened up offices in B.C. and are hiring local workers. There are also homegrown success stories like Hootsuite, Global Relay, Slack, Westport and Stemcell Technologies, which are competing at a local level and driving our economy forward. B.C. companies continue to thrive and hire.

Now, B.C. Innovation Council’s B.C. venture acceleration program has more than 440 companies participating, and the program has generated $42.8 million in revenue since 2011.

The #BCTECH strategy includes an investment of $100 million to give entrepreneurs and tech start-ups
[ Page 11090 ]
access to the capital they need to help build a strong and thriving economy. They want to generate jobs for British Columbians.

We want to develop and attract the highest-quality talent by introducing students to tech earlier, adjusting training and education in post-secondary institutions and creating work experience opportunities. We fully expect that this strategy will support the growth of B.C.’s vibrant technology sector throughout B.C. The strategy supports and builds on a strong foundation and contains a mix of new, enhanced and existing initiatives, all of which are aimed at creating an environment for further growth and investment in the tech industry and, ultimately, jobs.

The strategy recognizes that technology sector growth means economic growth and opportunities for all British Columbians. We are expecting benefits in every region. We fully expect that this strategy will have positive implications throughout B.C.

[1105]

B.C. offers a wide range of outstanding locations and full-service infrastructure, leading-edge post-production and visual effects facilities and a highly experienced, capable and committed workforce who have earned a reputation for consistently delivering high-quality product on time and on budget.

We consulted with the sector. We identified three areas requiring attention. The first is access to capital for promising companies, the second is talent development, and the third is market access. As to accessing capital, the access to capital is, of course, essential for technology companies to succeed in a competitive global marketplace. Over and above a low provincial corporate tax rate of 10 percent and a combined federal-provincial rate of 25 percent, we have tax incentives for business. We want more tech companies, investors and entrepreneurs to make use of them.

Unique in Canada, our Small Business Venture Capital Act provides provincial income tax credits of up to $33 million each year to persons that invest in shares of a registered venture capital corporation or an eligible business. These tax credits support investment of up to $110 million annually.

G. Heyman: It’s a pleasure to stand and talk about the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy in British Columbia, the topic of this motion. It has long been apparent to many British Columbians that this sector is vital to jobs and the economy in British Columbia.

Not to be too repetitive, it’s clear that we have almost 87,000 people working today in B.C.’s tech sector. That’s more than the forestry, mining, and oil and gas sectors combined. The average wage in this sector is between 60 and 66 percent higher than the B.C. industrial average. The B.C. tech industry generated revenues of over $23 billion in 2013, nearly doubling in size since 2002, and is currently generating approximately 6.5 percent of the province’s GDP.

But it’s important to put these gains and improvements in the sector in context. This government repeatedly — it has become almost a feature of Monday morning private members’ times — stands in this Legislature to talk about the importance of the sector to B.C. and everything that this government is doing and has done to make it better, to improve its prospects and to create more jobs. Yet the truth is that they have done almost none of this. What little they have done has been in the last couple of months. There is no sign whatsoever to people in the sector that this will be rolled out in an effective way or a meaningful way.

When we look at the fact that the revenue has doubled since 2002, the B.C. Technology Industry Association created a road map in 2014 to double the percentage of GDP from the tech sector and add about another 32,000 jobs. This government — fixated, as it was, on liquid natural gas and putting, as it did, all of its attention and tax credits toward liquid natural gas — did nothing in response to these demands until the tech sector, to their credit, lobbied hard. They lobbied effectively, and as a result, this government rolled out a $100 million venture capital fund, which is sorely needed in British Columbia.

This government has also talked about addressing what the member for Vancouver–False Creek talked about, the need to develop talent. At the B.C. Tech Summit, the Premier stood up and proudly hailed the coming requirements for every student in school to learn coding — a requirement that was later downgraded by the Ministry of Education to an opportunity, as apparently the Premier misspoke herself. But in this budget that we have been debating in this Legislature, there is not a single dollar of new money for the education system to support these coding classes or to support teachers in developing the skills or in purchasing the equipment needed for students to learn coding.

[1110]

The Minister of Education has said — and perhaps this is the reason why there’s nothing in the budget — that we don’t actually need computers to learn computer coding. Just think about that for a minute. I don’t know about you, hon. Speaker, but when I got my driver’s licence, it would have been a pretty pathetic test if I hadn’t had any experience behind the wheel of a car. There is nothing in this budget to support students to get those tools. Similarly, we have no details whatsoever about how and when the $100 million will be available for investment.

Let’s look at what Kirk LaPointe said in January in an article in Business in Vancouver. He said, with respect to talent, that there is “nothing to staunch the flow of the best and brightest talent to the more lucrative job markets in an era of a comparably devalued dollar.”

He went on to say: “The Premier and her Technology Minister’s mantra on recruitment and retention were
[ Page 11091 ]
good-vibe lines about how people will come here because of low taxes, nice health care, pretty mountains and ocean. What they didn’t note were the so-so public transit and the so crazy price of housing” — both of which this government has done nothing about and both of which are critical, critically pointed out by people like Ryan Holmes as necessary to attract and retain talent in this sector.

J. Yap: It’s my honour and pleasure, as the member for Richmond-Steveston, on behalf of my constituents, to take my place in this debate. I’m grateful to my colleague the member for Vancouver–False Creek for bringing forward this important motion that we support — a knowledge-based economy that is so important in fostering innovation and technology, an important sector in our province, as we’ve heard already from both my colleague and the member opposite who just spoke.

We’ve heard that over 86,000 jobs are part of this sector, and some of those are in my own community. I’m very proud. I would like to give a shout-out to some of the high-tech companies that are operating in the city of Richmond, companies that are well-known brands and others that may not be as well known, companies that are leading edge in their sector, with customers around the world — companies like MDA, MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, a leading-edge technology company; McKesson, another very significant software technology company; Sage; Sierra Wireless; ZE PowerGroup; and Ventyx and ABB. These are just a few that are operating in Richmond and in communities all around the province and the Lower Mainland.

B.C.’s tech strategy is an important part of making this happen. While the member opposite cast a somewhat negative view on this, in fact, over the last number of years, our government has focused and provided support that has led to the nurturing and growth of this sector.

We’ve heard of many more successful companies that are here in British Columbia because of the environment that we foster, that we’ve created, and the resources that we have put into this, including the recent $100 million technology venture capital fund to support the tech sector, an important part of our provincial economy.

There are a multitude of strategies that our government is deploying to support this sector. Whether it’s encouraging our young ones in our schools to consider coding as an option…. This will help to create a supply of skilled people to go into this sector. Coding is such an important part of technology, and I’m very pleased to see our government support the development of more skills in this area.

[1115]

Another important aspect of supporting this sector, including small business, is government procurement. We want to ensure that companies, including tech sector companies, have an opportunity to sell their products to the public sector, to the B.C. government. If companies are building technology that can improve services delivered by provincial agencies, we want to know about it, and we want these companies to have an opportunity to sell their technology to the public service.

Another important aspect is clean technology. We heard earlier, in the first hour of today’s debates, about our provincial climate strategy. The clean-tech sector, part of the tech sector, is an important part of this. My colleague from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky talked about the exciting, leading-edge technology that is happening in his community — the company that is looking to actually create fuel from the air. I mean, how exciting is that?

It is incredible — the opportunities that are there in technology. Our government is very focused on supporting the tech sector innovation so that we can continue to attract innovation, jobs, technology jobs and investment that are so important to communities around the province — Richmond and all over British Columbia.

I speak enthusiastically in support of this motion that we continue to support the innovation and technology sector, technology that will be part of an important sector that grows investment and jobs in our province.

K. Corrigan: Well, it’s very clear that this government does not recognize the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy. Where does knowledge come from? It comes from education. The B.C. Liberal government just last month, with its most recent budget, made the choice yet again not to prioritize our post-secondary institutions.

For the last two years, the funding to post-secondary institutions has actually fallen. For the next two years, there will again be cuts to services and programs, since the increases of 1 percent per year do not even cover inflationary costs. That is four years of cuts to the post-secondary system, a system which is the clearest path to economic prosperity and the knowledge-based economy.

Not only have the B.C. Liberals cut funding to advanced education; tuition fees have doubled. B.C. charges the highest student loan interest rates in Canada, at 2.5 percent above prime, and the 2013 BMO student survey says that students’ debts average $35,000, the highest in Canada.

In addition, thousands of post-secondary students are being shut out from an education because this government broke its promise to provide free adult basic education courses — this in addition to the thousands more that no longer attend post-secondary institutions because this government stopped funding English-language-learning programs.

We know that tech and other jobs — now and, increasingly, in the future — will require a higher level of education. When you talk about a knowledge-based economy and innovation, there is no better site than that, for example, of BCIT, in my community. Yet there, the walls are crumbling, and they are facing budget cuts.
[ Page 11092 ]

Our universities, colleges and technical institutions not only add a direct economic impact on regions, but they also have an impact on human capital and technologies and increased productivity. Employment, purchasing, contributions to the community, student spending, visitor spending, research dollars and housing…. From a strictly economic approach, our colleges and universities and other post-secondary institutions, both public and private, are hives of economic activity, both directly and in all of the businesses they support.

Not only do our colleges and universities have significant positive economic impacts on regions; they also improve the long-term economic fortunes of a region through the research and teaching that produce skilled workers and technological innovation. The approach, instead, of the B.C. Liberal government is to bring in temporary foreign workers — temporary foreign workers versus a long-term vision of success for our province.

[1120]

I’ve met with a great many high-tech businesses in Burnaby and elsewhere. Repeatedly, what they say is that either they were created from activities and research at our post-secondary institutions or they needed skilled graduates of our institutions.

Studies repeatedly have shown significant positive impacts to a region from the skills that a university or college provides its students. According to the most recent B.C. Technology Report Card: “Talent is a critical resource for the technology sector, feeding the innovation and creativity that in turn drive the global industry…. The technical skills required by the industry are primarily developed at higher education institutions, then nurtured within the industry.”

If this is true, if we want to have a tech strategy for British Columbia, then why are we cutting the budgets to our post-secondary institutions? We continue to lag in the granting of degrees in many technical fields that are needed in the tech sector, architecture, engineering, and we are underperforming the Canadian average in life sciences. Moreover, B.C.’s performance — and this in the report again — has fallen, relative to other OECD countries, in the granting of technology.

We have a deficit. You can’t just turn the technical graduate switch on and off. We have a deficit through underfunding and neglect, and it is going to take years to fix it. To starve our universities as they have been starved by the B.C. Liberal government is to starve innovation, to starve creativity and to starve the knowledge economy.

S. Hamilton: Let me start by saying the technology and innovation sector is a crucial job creator in British Columbia, and it supports innovation and productivity across all industries. We recognize that high tech is instrumental in building profitable, competitive companies and creating high-paying skilled jobs.

In fact, high tech is a crucial component of our diversified provincial economy and one of the reasons why British Columbia is the highest economic performer in Canada right now. Rapid advances in technology, coupled with the fact that British Columbia is one of the most connected provinces with high-speed internet, is generating a technological revolution that’s establishing B.C. as a hub for high-tech start-up success stories.

As a matter of fact, the tech sector employs approximately 4.4 percent of British Columbia’s workforce. That represents 86,000 jobs in B.C.’s high tech, and it contributes 6.5 percent to the provincial GDP. That number is rising. That’s $23.3 billion in revenue this year alone and a 5.2 percent increase over last year.

Last October I had the opportunity to rise in this House and talk about a start-up success story that began right here in British Columbia. Immersive Media is headquartered in Kelowna and is a digital imaging company that specializes in spherical immersive video. If you’ve ever used Street View on Google Maps, hon. Speaker, then you’ll be familiar with the kind of work that they do.

I’m familiar with this company because my daughter Paige works for Immersive Media, and she’s one of those 86,000 people in British Columbia who work in the high-tech sector. Like many small start-ups, Immersive Media is a classic example of B.C. homegrown ingenuity. This company is innovative. It’s grown and flourished to such an extent that it was recently purchased by a Hollywood special effects firm for a reported $100 million. This is really a complementary acquisition between the two companies that will ensure mutual growth for both companies in the future.

Success stories like Immersive Media would never have gotten started in this industry without the support of the British Columbia government. Our #BCTECH strategy includes investment of $100 million to give entrepreneurs and tech start-ups access to the capital they need. This strategy supports and builds on a strong foundation and contains a mix of new, enhanced and existing initiatives, all of which are aimed at creating an environment for future growth and investment in the tech industry and, ultimately, jobs.

Tax credits, such as digital animation or visual effects credit — DAVE, for short — are crucial to growing this industry. The digital media tax credit has also been identified as a key tool because it enables high-tech start-ups with the ability to reinvest in their company when they need it the most. The small business venture capital credit also contributes to a healthy economy.

Furthermore, the fact that British Columbia has one of the lowest personal income and corporate tax rates in the country also helps B.C.-based companies attract and retain high-tech talent in what is arguably one of the most competitive industries in the world.

[1125]

Coupled with investment in venture capital, tax incentives and low tax rates, we’re creating an environment conducive to the creation of tech companies and rich enough in capital and talent to give them the best opportunity to become large anchor companies right here in the province. B.C. also offers a wide range of outstanding locations and full-service infrastructure; leading-edge post-production and visual effects facilities and a highly experienced, capable and committed workforce that has earned a reputation for consistently delivering a high-quality product.

Given the fact that we need to keep up with the rapidly evolving high-tech sector, I do find it disappointing when the opposition members call the B.C. high-tech strategy things like corporate tax loopholes. The member for Vancouver-Fairview, a few minutes ago, suggested this government has done nothing to support this important sector, and that’s simply not true. In fact, to suggest otherwise is laughable. It displays a lack of understanding of one of the most important sectors of our provincial economy, and not only that, it serves to shake the confidence of international investors.

No, through our investment in venture tax, tax incentives and low-tax regime, we’re creating an environment conducive to the creation of high-tech companies. We owe it to those 86,000 British Columbians who currently work in high tech, because we want to give them the best opportunity to become large anchor companies right here in British Columbia.

R. Austin: I rise to speak to the motion brought forward by the member for Vancouver–False Creek: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy that supports innovation and technology.”

As somebody who represents several small towns in northern British Columbia — definitely resource-based towns — I’m going to come at this motion from a different angle. What we’ve currently got in British Columbia are, really, two economies: one that is booming in the south and a resource sector and a largely rural-based economy that are in trouble due to low prices in a whole range of commodities. Really, there’s just a huge divide, and this really, really hurts all of us who live in rural B.C., because we constantly go from this boom-and-bust cycle.

I’ll just give a quick anecdote. A year ago, when Rio Tinto was still building their new smelter in Kitimat and when companies were still spending a huge amount of money on ground development for LNG plants in Kitimat, all the planes were absolutely full, completely full, going back and forth for months on end. As somebody who travels back and forth between Terrace, Kitimat and here on a regular basis, it’s amazing what just six months has done in terms of us basically sort of sucking slough water.

I went home the other day on a flight. There were five of us — four adults and a kid. The entire plane was empty. I went back last Thursday. There were 11 of us.

I’m just pointing this out to show how calamitous it is when the resource sector, 75 percent of this province, is not operating at a full tilt. Yet what we see is the south and lots and lots of tech companies…. I’m not so naive to think that we’re suddenly going to have tech clusters all over in small towns in British Columbia, but what I do want to say is that we need to help rural-based towns by helping the kids to understand that there are futures other than simply going into the trades or waiting for the next big project to come around.

The member for Richmond-Steveston spoke here about the fact that the Premier recognizes now, finally, that the tech sector is very important. I should say that for the last three years of this four-year mandate, all we’ve heard about, really, has been, “LNG, LNG, LNG,” all the time. Now as we’re getting close to the election and we actually don’t have an LNG final investment decision, all of a sudden, at least the backbench of the government is saying: “Oh, we’d better start to speak about other issues such as the tech sector.”

My point is this. While people are waiting for big resource development to happen, people are unemployed and in real difficulty. We have a government that says, “Okay, we’re going to need lots of people in the trades,” so it encourages people to go into the trades. Do you know that in northern B.C., if you go into the trades at the moment, it is very, very hard to get an apprenticeship? Here we have young people coming out of Northwest Community College, for example, with a specific trade, who simply cannot get an apprenticeship to actually go and do their trade.

[1130]

I would like to see kids in rural B.C. encouraged to go and learn and study things that will enable them to join the tech sector. With the fact that we have the Internet and are, for the most part, connected, it should be very easy for people all over British Columbia to have input into a tech company by some degree. Yet we’re not seeing that.

The other side, the Liberal government, likes to talk about this investment of $100 million. That has come very, very late in the day. The government likes to speak about having kids learn about coding. In order for kids to all have access to learn coding, you have to have teachers, computer teachers, with IT skills in every school in British Columbia to be able to put those kinds of programs on. What we find right now is that in most cases, you actually have schools cutting programs, not thinking about putting new programs in.

The government likes to talk the right talk, but it doesn’t want to actually walk the walk. If you want to teach our kids to have those high-tech skills, then you actually have to put the resources in place. You have to have the computers, you have to have the teachers trained, and you have to have an ability for a school system to be thinking about putting new programs in place.
[ Page 11094 ]

Lastly, I’d say this. There has been a lot of debate in the House recently about the high cost of living in the Lower Mainland and here in Victoria, our two largest urbanite communities. Wouldn’t it be nice if people took advantage of low housing in rural B.C. to take technology firms up there?

L. Reimer: One of the reasons British Columbia has the strongest economy in Canada is because we are diversified.

While our resource industries are currently facing challenges with the fall of commodity prices, other sectors of our B.C. economy are booming. Our cultural industries, like the B.C. film industry and tourism, are both experiencing all-time record highs.

But there is another bright spot in our provincial economy, and that’s the high-tech sector. Most people would be surprised to learn that it employs 86,000 British Columbians at over 9,000 companies.

As a part of this debate, I would like to provide a deeper insight into three local companies and associations that are stunning examples of our high-tech sector: Finger Food Studios, with offices in Port Coquitlam and Coquitlam; Traction on Demand in Burnaby; and TriCelerate, located in Coquitlam.

Finger Food Studios is a professional services company that designs and develops software and connected products. The company was founded not too long ago, in 2009, and has since grown to more than 80 full-time creators. Their accomplishments include innovating Sphero’s app-enabled product line, which introduced a programming-focused education platform to children in the classroom.

This company has worked very closely with school district 43 on this, helping Microsoft realize their vision for a HoloLens platform through collaboration with their internal team and industrial partners and developing the NFL and ESPN experiences with Microsoft BigPark for XBox One.

According to CEO Ryan Peterson, Finger Food’s revenues jumped from $6 million in 2014 to $12 million in 2015. Ryan credits a lot of factors that B.C. has going for it. He says that UBC, SFU, UVic and BCIT are graduating world-class technical talent that has been a key foundation for their success on the world stage.

Ryan also points to the many supports offered by the B.C. government, including the interactive digital media tax credit. In his own words: “The interactive digital media tax credit gives us a yearly liquidity injection that Finger Foods could reinvest into the company, allowing us to grow our revenues by 100 percent between 2013 and 2015.”

Traction on Demand, located in Burnaby, is another stellar example. It is a cloud-based consulting and software development firm. Traction on Demand are experts in bending cloud-based technologies to enhance company sales, marketing and customer support. Again, this is a company that only got started not too long ago, in 2006. In that time, they’ve provided input and solutions to over 1,000 Salesforce.com-related products.

When CEO Greg Malpass founded Traction, he was one of the first 500 people certified in Salesforce.com. At that time, Salesforce.com was a new, small player in customer relationship management, making inroads in companies through small deployments. Today Traction on Demand is recognized worldwide for its excellence.

[1135]

Last of all, I want to tell you about TriCelerate in Coquitlam. TriCelerate is a volunteer association that supports the high-tech start-ups in the Tri-Cities. They provide access to expert mentorship and experienced investors for high-tech entrepreneurs. It provides high-tech entrepreneurs the opportunity to learn, connect and share stories so that they can grow and learn together. To date, a total of five start-up companies have been founded in the Tri-Cities thanks to TriCelerate.

All British Columbians stand to benefit from our technology sector, and that’s why the government of British Columbia provides tax credits and other supports to make our high-tech sector competitive and world-class.

D. Eby: When Vancouver was named the third most expensive city in the world for housing by Demographia this year, it raised concerns that were already very present in the tech sector. Now, the connection between that announcement and technology firms in Metro Vancouver becomes immediately apparent to anybody who has a conversation with a CEO or a COO of one of these firms.

I’m sure if the members spoke with Mr. Malpass at Traction on Demand…. A wonderful firm. I’ve had the chance of touring it in Burnaby — a great organization — and they’re doing great work out there. Talk to Ryan Holmes at Hootsuite, which was mentioned by the member for False Creek. Ask them: “What are your biggest challenges?” Finding and recruiting the top talent in the world is hard, but it’s even more difficult when you have to deal with high housing prices in the Lower Mainland.

This government actually had an open letter directed to them by the CEO for Hootsuite. As a social media platform, they have 300 employees in Metro Vancouver alone. They provide services to the top 1,000 firms in the world. Mr. Holmes wrote an open letter with the headline: “Without Affordable Housing, Vancouver Risks Becoming an Economic Ghost Town.” These comments are easily applicable to most cities in the Lower Mainland and the housing affordability crisis they’re facing.

In reply to Mr. Holmes, what did this government do? Did they say: “We hear you. We’re concerned as well”? No, no. The member for Chilliwack-Hope stood in this place and made light of those concerns, pretending that Mr. Holmes’ employees weren’t being recruited by firms in Seattle, Portland, California, Montreal, Toronto, using relatively affordable housing as a lure to pull those employees down there.
[ Page 11095 ]

He said, actually, that he thought it was a good idea that Mr. Holmes should be punished by the market for locating his firm in Metro Vancouver, where real estate is expensive. He said that this government would not intervene to address that issue. When I raised concerns about that in question period, the members of this government’s side actually pounded their desks and applauded that sentiment — totally out of touch with the technology sector.

The Housing Minister said that in his opinion, housing in Vancouver is “actually pretty affordable.” The Premier told employees of Hootsuite, current and prospective, and other people in a similar situation concerned about housing affordability: “Well, just move to Fort Saint John or Prince Rupert. We’re putting a sign up” — this is what she said, in effect — “on Metro Vancouver: ‘Closed due to housing affordability concerns.’” That’s the government’s response to the tech sector, to people concerned about housing affordability.

Now, it’s bad enough to hear this government dismiss the concerns of a major employer in an industry, the tech industry, that we need to support and grow. We know that practical and real solutions to the housing crisis actually exist: taxes on absentee housing investors, closing loopholes on the property transfer tax, investing the proceeds — which would literally be hundreds of millions of dollars — into affordable housing initiatives across the province.

What is not just bad, but what is awful to hear, is just how indifferent or unaware this government is of the reality that Mr. Holmes and CEOs of tech firms across Metro Vancouver face with the fact that they have options elsewhere. His employees have options elsewhere. The people they’re trying to recruit have options elsewhere.

For this government to say: “The market will have its way, Mr. Holmes, and we don’t see a role for ourselves here….” Will this government celebrate if Hootsuite relocates to a city in a state or a province where the government says: “We hear you. We’re concerned too, and we’re taking action.”

Now politically, I can understand why the member for False Creek might wish his government-supported tech firms in Metro Vancouver…. He’s got a lot of tech employees in his constituency, and I understand why he brought this motion.

[1140]

But what I don’t understand and what I can’t understand is why his government is not listening to the leaders of the tech firms in Metro Vancouver who say: “Please address affordable housing, because this is a major impediment to our growth, and we are facing major competition from around the world.”

There’s a wide gulf between what’s easy to say and take credit for in this chamber, where credit is not due. It’s easy to do that. What’s hard is to do the hard work around the real issues that tech firms are facing in our community, real issues that the leaders of these firms are writing open letters in newspapers to this government about. And they’re made light of in response.

Now, there’s a lot this government could be doing to support these firms, and I hope they do.

M. Dalton: I’m happy to speak in support of the motion recognizing the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy that supports innovation and technology.

Just going to some of the remarks that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey made about housing and affordability…. I just have to scratch my head. Is he not aware that you don’t necessarily have to live right in Vancouver proper in order to work in Vancouver?

There are many people, thousands, that live in Mission and Maple Ridge and Coquitlam that commute, that take the West Coast Express or else, in Surrey, take the SkyTrain. It’s a very nice commute. It’s not a long commute. People are able to purchase housing at a fraction of the cost, so there is the opportunity. People can work there and live in further areas that are more affordable and commute.

One of the reasons why housing prices are going up also is that we have a strong economy. One of the reasons we have a strong economy is because it’s diversified. All our eggs are not in one basket, as far as the resource sector, but the tech sector is extremely important, as has been mentioned by other members. There are 86,000 jobs in the tech field, and they’re high-paying jobs — on average, about 60 percent more than the average salary in British Columbia.

The world is changing rapidly as new technologies come into use each and every day. I have a cousin who is a farmer in the northern Peace River area. He was telling me that the yields on the land have doubled, and part of the reason is because of technology. Everything is by GPS. Everything is calculated as far as spraying, fertilizing. What used to be, under one family…. You needed one-quarter of a square mile of property to farm. Now a family can easily have eight, nine, ten square miles, and that, a lot, has to do with technology.

Technology is impacting agriculture. It’s impacting mining. It’s impacting everything.

Communications is a big thing. I know we’re not supposed to show any props, so I won’t show that. This cell phone makes all the difference. I was looking at it. It keeps track of how many steps I take or don’t take — the stairs, the elevation, everything. There’s as much technology in our cell phones that we are always carrying as sent men to the moon in the 1960s.

So it is really important, and it’s important that British Columbia keeps ahead of the game in the sense that we need to be preparing students for jobs and also diversifying the economy in order to take advantages of opportunities.

We want to develop and attract the highest-quality talent by introducing students to tech earlier, adjust training
[ Page 11096 ]
and education in post-secondary institutions and create work experience opportunities. That’s why, as part of the #BCTECH strategy, the K-to-12 curriculum will provide the opportunity for students to gain basic skills needed for careers in technology through targeted programs such as learning the basics of coding. The new curriculum is currently being phased in. Once it’s implemented in 2016-17, every student will have the opportunity to learn coding by the end of grade 9.

Talent development will start in our schools, and is happening in our schools, so that students are better prepared to enter the technology workforce, should they choose to pursue a career in that industry.

[1145]

The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and myself, a week or so ago, visited Westview Secondary, and they had the B.C. Skills Competition, a local competition. Many of the students there are working in collaboration with BCIT. The students…. I was talking to the instructors. There is high demand for their skills as they move into the workforce. That’s very encouraging to see.

B.C. tech companies need access to the best people, and we want to ensure that British Columbians are the best people for these jobs.

At the post-secondary level, we want even more success in programming that supports tech careers. We’re providing financial aid grants targeted towards post-secondary students in programs that align with the tech sector. The B.C. Innovation Council has created the B.C. tech co-op grants program to provide opportunities for businesses and skills training for students, and that’s good news. This program also provides B.C. talent to small technology companies. We provide funding to support researchers in B.C. through supporting the implementation of advanced research laboratories. A good example of that is the TRIUMF.

K. Conroy: I, too, would like to rise to speak to the motion brought forward from the member for Vancouver–False Creek: “Be it resolved that this House recognize the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy that supports innovation and technology.”

I’d like to take this opportunity to talk about the number of applied research and innovation initiatives at Selkirk College, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. The college has come a long way since 1966, when it became the first community college in the province. Today, as I said, there are a number of applied research and innovation initiatives at the college utilizing existing techniques or knowledge to solve problems or improve situations in the real world, especially rural B.C.

Some examples of these include the nursing faculty research on community in care; biology faculty research on health and wellness, with a focus on injury prevention and workplace performance enhancement; the SMARTS program, which links local businesses to applied research support in the fields of digital fabrication and geospatial technologies; and the adopting digital technologies program, a success story featured by the National Research Council which provided small and medium-size businesses with direct support, technical training and advisory services aimed at increasing productivity through the use of digital technologies.

As well, several faculty members at Selkirk College have dedicated themselves to applied research and development in their respective fields of interest. For instance, Dr. Delia Roberts, a biology instructor at Selkirk who teaches human anatomy and physiology, has created three bodies of research focusing on fitness, nutrition and avoidance of injury. This research and the systems and techniques Dr. Roberts has created have become a useful tool to many organizations within the respective industries.

Dr. Randy Janzen, chair of the Mir Centre for Peace and a peace studies instructor, is currently researching non-violent approaches for solving potential conflicts. Preliminary results of this research indicate that Canadians are in favour of the concept of unarmed civilian peacekeeping as a strategy of Canada’s foreign policy.

Also, the Columbia Basin Rural Development Institute, or RDI, is a regional research centre with a mandate to support informed decision-making by Columbia Basin and Boundary communities through the provision of information, applied research and related outreach and extension support.

Some of the RDI’s current research priorities include state of the basin, a program that collects and reports on data related to indicators of regional well-being. Business retention and expansion involves partnering with community-level organizations to take the pulse of the business community in order to identify ways in which the region can support economic development. Regional food system identifies opportunities to increase food production in the Columbia Basin and Boundary region in an environmentally, economically, socially and culturally sustainable way. Non-profit social sector explores key characteristics, financial and human resources, organizational capacity, social innovation and organizational connections in the Columbia Basin and Boundary non-profit social sector.

Also, Selkirk hosts the Selkirk Geospatial Research Centre, or SGRC, a leading-edge research centre specializing in geospatial technologies to aid in solving critical issues pertaining to environmental and socioeconomic problems. As Selkirk College began in abandoned buildings at Selkirk, the pulp and paper mill in Castlegar, it seems natural that many of the SGRC’s applied research and innovation projects have been focused on geomatics in the forest industry. One of their first projects was providing GIS support to the Kootenay spatial data partnership, comprised of forest harvest licence holders and forest managers.
[ Page 11097 ]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The challenges the forest industry faces, working over large, complex land bases where many values must be managed simultaneously, create many great R-and-D opportunities for a geospatial research unit like the SGRC. Someone once said that ecological forestry is not rocket science; it’s a lot more complicated than that.

[1150]

Over the last decade and a half, the SGRC has remained on the leading edge of geomatics, and they expect their portfolio of forest projects to grow to become almost as diverse as the great forests of our region.

Some of the other projects the GIS has been involved include the “Rise of the drones” or “Emerging unmanned aerial vehicle applications,” mapping population changes in health services in the West Kootenay–Boundary regional hospital district and mapping potential agricultural areas with remote-sensing supervised classification results of orchards and farmland.

It all adds up to amazing work done over the years, over many years, while investing in a knowledge-based economy that supports innovation and technology in a rural area that desperately needs the work.

Madame Speaker: Nanaimo–North Cowichan seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: Thank you to the members. Today I have the pleasure of welcoming two school groups from Ladysmith Intermediate School. One has already been in the gallery; there’s one in the gallery now. They’ve come with teachers and parents to experience the B.C. Legislature.

I reminded them that it’s their House and reminded them that they can’t take stuff home with them — but it is their House. All citizens should feel welcome here and that they have a stake and a sense of ownership, as well as duty, to this place and the political process. I thank them for allowing me to entertain them, and I welcome them to their House. Can the members help me.

Debate Continued

D. Bing: On behalf of my constituents of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I rise today to speak on this motion about the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy. Our technology sector is booming right now and has become a major engine of economic growth in B.C. The tech sector is one where innovation flourishes. It offers enormous potential and is an industry where British Columbia companies are thriving.

This sector is a crucial job creator across the province. This is a sector that supports innovation and productivity across all industries. The tech sector produces $23 billion in annual revenue, and there are more than 86,000 jobs in the tech sector. Wages are 60 percent higher than the B.C. average.

We want to make sure that B.C. students have the skills to succeed in this industry. As part of the #BCTECH strategy, coding will be introduced as part of the school curriculum. This way, talent development will start early in our schools when children have the opportunity to learn the basics of coding.

We have many large companies that are moving to British Columbia and hiring local talent. This includes Sony, Microsoft, Amazon and many others. As well, there are many homegrown success stories of B.C. businesses that are thriving.

One success story in my own riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows is a company called Left. They recently changed their name from Left of the Dot. Left of the dot refers to the domain name, and Chris Jensen and John Lyotier built their company on the business potential of holding great domain names. Headquartered in Maple Ridge, the company has grown to over 80 full-time employees. I’m proud to say they recently won a Small Business B.C. Award for Best Workplace.

This is just one example of a successful tech business that contributes to our community and our economy. There are many various subsectors of technology to highlight. These areas include digital media, clean tech, LNG, engineering, information and communications technology, and life sciences. Digital media companies range from web and social media companies to gaming, mobile apps, radio and TV broadcasting and motion picture production companies.

B.C. is home to a strong and internationally recognized gaming cluster, featuring a high concentration of specialized talent. This sector has seen strong growth in B.C., with currently over 1,100 companies that generate $3 billion in revenue annually.

Clean tech is quickly developing a subsector that crosses over into many traditional industries and is part of the #BCTECH strategy. Examples of clean technology include hydrogen and fuel cells, clean transportation, renewable energy technology, energy management and efficiency technologies, and water and waste resource management technologies.

[1155]

This industry works to create more efficient, effective and sustainable practices that create solutions to ecological challenges. This is truly an innovative industry that is placing B.C. at the forefront of Canada’s growing clean-tech industry.

Turning now to the information and communication technology sector. It is comprised of about 4,000 companies, including some of the earliest tech enterprises in
[ Page 11098 ]
the province. It’s one of the largest and the most mature tech subsectors. Companies are engaged in areas such as telecommunications, software development, IT, computer service and manufacturing.

Innovation is strong in the life sciences sector, and B.C. has one of the strongest life sciences sectors in the country. We have over 600 firms engaged in research and development that support a strong health care sector. These include drug and pharmaceutical development, research testing, medical labs, medical devices and equipment, and agricultural feedstock.

We have a thriving tech sector. We are providing a number of supports for the industry and for training for people looking to work in this area. Our $100 million B.C. tech fund was created as a catalyst to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and strengthen our technology sector. There is no question of the value of investing in a knowledge-based economy.

D. Bing moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 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