2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number 13

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Today it is my honour to welcome Paige Norton to the Legislature. Paige is a decorated Special Olympian that competes in both winter and summer games, with excellence in speed skating, swimming, track and field for the past 12 years. She has represented Special Olympics B.C. in four national games, including the 2016 National Winter Games, where she earned three gold medals. Paige’s total medal count so far is over ten, half of those being gold. I think she’s trying to catch up to my medal tally very quickly.

Today is Pink Shirt Day, so I must also mention that Paige has represented athletes with disabilities in the ViaSport initiative to erase bullying in sport.

Next up for Paige: she will travel with the Canadian team to the 2017 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Austria. On behalf of all the members in the Legislature, I would like to wish Paige all the best of luck while she’s competing. We will all be cheering for you.

Would the House please make Paige feel welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: He’s referred to sometimes as the president for life of the press gallery. Tom Fletcher’s birthday is today. Although he’s pushing closer to 60, he’s not quite there yet, so I won’t tell you his age. But if you go on the Internet, he’s already told you how old he is.

It’s his birthday today, and I wish the House to please wish him a happy birthday.

J. Horgan: On behalf of all the members of the official opposition, I wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to note “the passage of time” and “Tom Fletcher” in the same sentence, so I’ll join with the Deputy Premier.

I also want to take the opportunity to introduce someone I had lunch with today, and I’m not referring to the former member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Brian Smith, or the former member for Victoria-Hillside at that time, Sheila Orr. I’m referring to the new Ambassador from Ireland — my father’s homeland — Jim Kelly, who joined us today. After six months in Ottawa, he has discovered that the secret to Canada is coming to Victoria in February.

Would the House please welcome our newest arrival, the Ambassador of Ireland, Jim Kelly.

Hon. S. Anton: The other day, I introduced my predecessor, but he actually wasn’t here at that moment. Now he is — Brian Smith, QC, former Attorney General, always welcome back in this House.

D. Eby: I have to apologize to the House. I introduced my sister on Monday, and I made a classic big brother mistake. I introduced her as my sister, and I didn’t give you her name.

So I’d like to introduce my sister, Meaghan Eby. She’s the general manager of a very successful brewpub in Toronto. You should go to the Indie Ale House, if you’re there, and say hi to her. She is her own person. I’d appreciate it if you’d join me in welcoming her to the House.

K. Corrigan: After being in this House for almost eight years, it finally gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to introduce the love of my life. I am, by the way, talking about my husband, just in case anybody was wondering. His name is Derek Corrigan. He has a long history of public service to our community of Burnaby, which we both love.

He has been on city council for 30 years, serving as the mayor for the last 15 years. I think maybe he wanted to get out of the house, actually, is what it was all about. I also point out that Burnaby was named the best-run city in Canada. Since they haven’t held the contest again, we get to have the title forever.

[1340]

I want you to all make him very welcome. I also think it would be really important for Mr. Corrigan and Ambassador Kelly to get together and meet. I mentioned to Ambassador Kelly at lunch that he would probably love to meet you and how much you love meeting people from all over the world.

Will you please give my wonderful husband and father of our four children a wonderful welcome to the House.

Hon. T. Stone: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House a former member, someone who represented Victoria-Hillside passionately, who is a strong community advocate, a philanthropist and a successful businesswoman. But I know her well, and she would tell you that her greatest achievements are her children and her grandchildren. I would ask the whole House to please welcome Sheila Orr, who formerly represented Victoria-Hillside, back to the House.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce one of my favourite political science students from UBC, my nephew Manraj Bains. Growing up, he tells me that his eyes are on the Premier’s chair. After watching question period, I hope he doesn’t change his mind. Please help me welcome him to this House.
[ Page 13732 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to point out to the Ambassador of Ireland that this is a welcoming community, because his name is about to be mentioned for a third time. We have a lot in common between B.C. and Ireland — good people, landscapes, but especially whisky and beer. I want to thank the Ambassador for Ireland for coming today and having meetings with the government about how we can continue that great relationship between both jurisdictions. Please help me welcome, once again, the Ambassador of Ireland.

D. Routley: There’s a gentleman in the gallery whose MLA sits two seats from me, the member for Nanaimo. He’s asked his MLA not to introduce him, but I’m not bound by that, so I can stand here and introduce Nelson Allen. I should say also that the member for Nanaimo is constantly complaining that, with redistribution, I take some of his best territory. Well, I’m handing, through redistribution, the support of Nelson Allen. He’s been a great supporter of all good causes in the Nanaimo region. Could the House please help me make him very welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: There’s a gentleman in the gallery today who actually makes me think of Atlas Shrugged when I think about what he’s managed to do in the last six or seven years. He’s taken a mining project from just an idea to a $1.2 billion project.

There are 1,100 people working at that project right now. There are about 175 First Nations, British Columbians, working at that project. That project will pay, over the first 20 years of its life, probably $2 billion in provincial taxes that we can use for health care and social services. So it’s a great honour for me to introduce Mr. Robert Quartermain from the company called Pretium with the project called Brucejack.

J. Rice: On Monday, getting caught up in the rivalry I have with my colleague here over All-Native Basketball, I failed to mention that another team within my constituency had won the intermediate championships. That was the Lax Kw’alaams, or Port Simpson, Strike Force, who beat out Prince Rupert’s Synergy Storm. This was their second year in a row of winning the intermediate championships, so I wanted to congratulate Lax Kw’alaams in their victory and acknowledge that we had masters playing as well.

The Hydaburg, Alaska, team beat out another constituency team of mine, Masset, but it was again a phenomenal tournament. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the House…. If you ever get the opportunity to come up to Prince Rupert for this All-Native Basketball Tournament, it’s a phenomenal tournament. It will be 60 years, almost.

[1345]

D. Bing: It is my pleasure today to introduce a teacher, Mr. Patrick Glover, and a class of grade 11 students from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. They’re here today in Victoria from Westview Secondary School. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: I would be remiss if I didn’t take what may be my last chance to also join the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake in welcoming our mayor, His Worship Derek Corrigan, to this House.

This is a story that maybe not everybody here knows, but it was about five years ago this time that I was teaching at VCC and also serving as the head of program. The administrative portfolio that I had, had me scratching my head and wishing to get more involved and know more about the politics of our province.

I wrote, on one late October night after my lecture, an email to then Prime Minister Harper, the Premier, as well as my mayor in Burnaby. He granted me the honour of a half-hour meeting at the time, which turned into two hours. As they say, the rest is history. I’ve been on the roller-coaster of this political landscape ever since.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Corrigan for not just being the champion and the guardian of the city of Burnaby and all of our citizens but also a mentor for the many, including myself, and the kind of opportunity that he’s made available to many of us. Thank you again for my political maker that’s in the gallery today.

If the House would please welcome him as well. Mayor Derek Corrigan.

G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by a legislative assistant, Simran Sahota, better known as Sim Allah Bim. He’s responsible for five difficult-to-manage MLAs, and he’s responsible for everything we do, except for the way we dress.

D. Donaldson: I, too, would like to welcome Robert Quartermain, the executive chairman of Pretium, the company that’s bringing the Brucejack project to fruition in my constituency in Stikine. As was mentioned, over 1,000 people are employed there at the moment. I want to remember, with Bob, the times that we met over the years — at least six years ago now — when he’d bring his core sample with him in a satchel bag, and we’d break it open on the table and have a look at the visible gold in the core sample.

Congratulations to Bob. His approach with First Nations has made the project an incredible success, and I look forward to the mine opening this year. Would the members help me welcome Bob Quartermain.
[ Page 13733 ]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PINK SHIRT DAY AND
PREVENTION OF BULLYING

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Pink Shirt Day, a day when thousands of British Columbians, myself and my colleagues included, take part in raising awareness for those who have been bullied. It is a day that I hope we might not need in the future. But until then, I will stand in this House and denounce all acts of bullying.

Ten years ago, a grade 9 boy in Nova Scotia wore a bright pink-coloured shirt to school and was harassed by a couple of bullies. The next day, the child’s admirable classmates collaborated in protest against the bullies by wearing pink and giving 50 other boys in the school pink tank tops.

This outpouring of support has continued to grow each year, expanding across the country. As a result of the event, hundreds of thousands of dollars are fundraised annually for anti-bullying organizations. In 2008, our Premier brought Pink Shirt Day’s message to B.C., and our ongoing contributions and commitment to anti-bullying have been recognized by Pink Shirt Day’s founder, Travis Price.

Similar to our involvement with Pink Shirt Day, we have started initiatives like B.C. Friends and ERASE Bullying programs. The B.C. Friends program aims to improve conflict resolution and prevent anxiety in school-aged children, while ERASE Bullying educates youth about the damaging effects that bullying can cause. Both programs are vital to our children’s understanding of the impacts that our choices can have on one another.

It is my belief that we should not limit the principles of Pink Shirt Day to just one singular day, but let us stand against it every day, in our schools, our workplaces and everywhere in between.

[1350]

GEORGE DOERING AND ERIC GOODMAN

R. Chouhan: Madame Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity for me to stand up and celebrate the lives of two very special people from Burnaby.

George Doering passed away peacefully with his family by his side on February 7, two weeks ago. He was 87. George is survived by his loving wife of 60 years, Trudy, and his two sons, Ron and Rob.

George was born in Schwedt, Germany, in 1929. He immigrated to Canada in 1954. George was a machinist, millwright and first-aid attendant. He had a long and very distinguished career volunteering his time for people in Burnaby all the years that he lived there.

He received many accolades and awards — Queen’s Commemorative Medal, 1996; Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, 2012; Seniors of Distinction Award for Healthy Living, 2015; hero of Burnaby award, 2015; and in 2016, George received the first annual award for Extraordinary Contribution to the Community, to name a few. But above all, he was my executive member for all his life. He helped us. He was our IT person. He worked so hard. Every time we had any community function, George was always there.

The second person I want to mention is Eric Goodman. Eric Goodman was 90 years old. He passed a week before George. They both worked so hard, so beautifully, for the people of British Columbia. We’ll be missing them forever.

KEN AND LOU RYAN

R. Lee: I believe it’s pertinent for me to rise today to honour a couple who are residents of North Burnaby. Whether by starting an initiative for B.C.’s youth who are deaf, volunteering at local food banks and forming one of their own, or taking kids to Disneyland who may not have that chance again, Ken and Lou Ryan enriched the city of Burnaby for much of their lives. When most people would close their windows and turn a blind eye to those less fortunate, this couple instead opened their door, not just for a warm cup of soup or a place to stay for a night, but for a place to stay for three years.

These acts are what earned Ken the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal. After volunteering at Lochdale Community School each Christmas for over two decades, Ken was known by many Burnaby kids as Santa Claus. Others knew him as the organizer of Kool Down, a Friday night youth swim at the Kensington pool. Others still just knew him as the King of Kensington or Radio Shack Guy.

Ken founded the Kensington Community Fair in 1993. He also contributed in numerous committees, including the Burnaby North Community Association, anti-graffiti, Comshare, Hats Off Day, the Optimist Club, Coats for Kids and Block Watch.

In September, Ken was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and passed away last month. He is survived by Lou as well as his son, stepchildren, brothers, sister, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. When Ken’s family looks back at his life, they know that he lived honourably, with commitment to community.

His life was dedicated to Burnaby, and Burnaby is better off for it. I ask my colleagues to join me today to recognize Ken and Lou for their incredible contributions.

GABRIOLA ARTS COUNCIL

D. Routley: This year marks the 20th anniversary of the formation of Festival Gabriola Society on April 15, 1997. It later became, in 2006, the Gabriola Arts Council, a non-profit society that supports artists and art festivals. Gabriola Island ranks sixth across Canada with respect to
[ Page 13734 ]
concentration of artists in the local workforce. Every day is a celebration of the arts on this isle of the arts, and in this community of writers, actors, poets, painters, dancers, musicians, sculptors and potters, artists are an important part of the island’s economic and social engine. The Gabriola Arts Council is growing this sector through building audiences and by increasing accessibility to all ages and interests.

[1355]

Gabriola Arts Council supports local artists in all mediums and at all levels while ensuring that local residents have opportunities to engage with art and artists and that off-island communities are aware of our rich artistic resources on Gabriola Island.

The importance of the arts community on individual development, both economic and social, has been well documented. Numerous studies of rural communities indicate that the arts stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life. Gabriola Arts Council’s mandate is to foster and facilitate greater public awareness and understanding and participation in the arts. They stimulate economic vibrancy through promotion of island arts and take the lead in promotion of innovative and diverse culture-led economic development.

In two weeks time, March 5, I invite all members and, indeed, anyone from British Columbia — that is, who can scrape together the princely sum to ride the ferry to Gabriola — to come and join us for the Gabriola arts festival. It’s a really fantastic event, and you will be rewarded with a hospitality commensurate with the large investment you will make in getting there.

PERCEPTION OF SELF AND OTHERS

G. Hogg: I went to kindergarten in Mrs. Corfield’s class, and I soon learned that I and each of my classmates tended to see things somewhat differently. During colouring class, I tried as hard as I could to colour inside the lines, and I did quite well when I was colouring the cows, at least. The grass was easy to colour, because there were no lines to constrain me. I soon found out that Mrs. Corfield was not going to give me a gold star for my colouring. Yet it looked perfect to me, even though my friends Peter, Douglas and Dennis all laughed at my work.

I soon learned that I’d coloured the cows green and the grass brown, and even though that’s how I saw the world, I was still wrong. I learned later that I was partially colour-blind.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Only partially, I’m pretty sure.

So the world looked somewhat different to me. I could stay within the lines and still be wrong.

As I grew older — and believed that all of my clothes matched — everything looked as though it went so well together, but Peter, Douglas and Dennis still laughed at my colour combinations. So my mom helped me out by putting numbers on my socks, on my shirts, on my pants so that I could match them and so that people wouldn’t laugh at me.

I have found that I’m probably wrong about a lot of things about me, and it seems that we’re all wrong about a lot of things about ourselves. My judgments about how open-minded, conscientious and impulsive I am are different from the judgments of those who know me well.

It seems that how you see me and how I see me are different, and that’s okay. Studies find that how you see you and how others see you are also somewhat different. It helps me to understand Mrs. Corfield’s and Peter’s and Douglas’s and Dennis’s perception of me and my perceptions of them.

We must each work hard at developing a sensitive understanding of and appreciation for each other and for our wonderful differences — differences that recognize and support a more compassionate, appreciative and caring society. While I still haven’t received a gold medal for my colouring, I have grown to really like this baby-blue-coloured suit.

MATERNITY WARD AND NEONATAL ICU
AT BURNABY HOSPITAL

K. Corrigan: I know that in the past, or often when I’ve risen in this House to talk about Burnaby Hospital, it’s to say that we need a new hospital and complain about the seismic problems or the age of the hospital. But I’ve always at the same time talked about the dedicated staff and the professionalism of all the staff at Burnaby Hospital. Today I want to recognize a couple of the units there that my family recently were very grateful to have. Those are the maternity ward and the neonatal intensive care unit.

The maternity ward I knew well. That was where all four of our children were born. But more recently, our twin grandsons, Finn and Bastien, were born at Burnaby Hospital three months ago, a month early. The professional and knowledgable staff of doctors, nurses and support staff in the maternity ward expertly helped Natalie and Darcy through a tough three days.

The 3.5-pound and 5.5-pound boys were moved to the neonatal intensive care unit, where they had to stay for a couple of weeks. Those times were difficult, particularly because little Finn forgot to breathe a few times. Natalie and Darcy and all of us were so impressed with the caring and professionalism at a time that was not only exhilarating but also, at times, very scary.

It was also in the middle of a huge snowstorm. I remember Natalie saying that she was so happy there was a neonatal intensive care unit at Burnaby Hospital, because it would have been difficult to travel to Children’s Hospital every day in the snow.

[1400]

They also appreciated that the dedicated staff were there, despite having some staff shortages. They filled every shift.

On behalf of Derek and I, Natalie and Darcy, and little Finn and Bastien, who are not so little anymore — I think they’re 11 pounds and 13 pounds now — thank you so much to the maternity ward and the neonatal intensive care unit of Burnaby hospital.

Oral Questions

ICBC REVENUES AND
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

J. Horgan: In 2012, before the last election, the government knew it had big, big problems at ICBC. So the Premier did a quick review, asking Liberals to tell Liberals what Liberals wanted to hear. After that, the Premier said: “No worries. We’ve got it under control.” Then we had an election, and after the election, ICBC rates went up 30 percent for basic auto insurance.

Now it looks like we have problems again at ICBC. In 2015, when the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, ICBC was projected to have net revenues of $678 million over a three-year period. Unfortunately, in the document tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance, those surpluses are now a deficit to the tune of $833 million.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Is he going to tell the drivers of British Columbia how much they’re going to have to pay for his bad choices?

Hon. T. Stone: Our government has made very clear to ICBC that their number one priority is to do everything they possibly can to keep rates as affordable as possible for British Columbians.

This is why we directed BCUC to approve an increase no greater than 4.9 percent, which took place earlier this year. This is also why we have launched a wide range of initiatives with ICBC to apply as much downward pressure on costs and rates as we possibly can. This is why we directed the ICBC board to commission an independent third-party review to look at all facets of ICBC and their operations and how they do what they do to ensure that they are employing every strategy, every initiative possible to drive costs down and, for the long term, to protect the ratepayer.

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

J. Horgan: For the uninitiated, they might not be aware that the minister who just took his seat was responsible for ICBC over the past three years, and instead of returning $600 million to the treasury, they’re in the hole $800 million. When you add it all up, it’s a $1.5 billion blunder, and the only people who are going to have a tough time of it are not the senior executives appointed by Liberals, not the people that the Liberals found to tell the Liberals what they wanted to hear. It’s going to be the drivers in British Columbia.

We had a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Now, I know that’s an institution that that side of the House doesn’t like to call upon, because it’s independent and it’s tasked by legislation to do that work. They prefer to find a campaign contributor, ask them to do the work and then report to the former Liberal minister, who is now the chair, and have him tell the current minister that everything’s fine. Not good enough.

We’re coming up to another election. The Premier wants to go behind the curtain and say everything’s fine. The drivers of British Columbia want the truth this time. Will the minister have the jam to stand up and tell people just how much his boondoggle is going to cost the drivers of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, if you want to talk about boondoggles, let’s talk about the boondoggle of the 1990s, when insurance rates went up 34 percent. When they had the opportunity in the 1990s, the combined rates of auto insurance…. The cost to the ratepayers went up 34 percent in that time frame.

[1405]

There is no question that the pressures on ICBC and its costs are enormous. These are pressures that are being experienced by insurance companies right across North America. As we are seeing the number of collisions increase, we’re seeing the cost of those repairs increase. The bodily injury claims cost is increasing. All of this is applying a lot of pressure to ICBC and insurance companies across the country.

That is why we are resolute in doing everything we can to protect the ratepayer. That is why we are getting tough on fraud. That is why we have amongst the toughest distracted-driving penalties across Canada right here in B.C. That’s why we are moving forward on a number of fronts, including this independent third-party review.

Working with ICBC, we’re going to continue to throw everything we can at keeping rates as affordable as possible for B.C.’s families.

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

J. Horgan: I appreciate accountability is not something that the B.C. Liberals take seriously, but in this instance, surely the minister understands that we had an independent third-party review happening just before Christmas. It was called the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Now, I know B.C. Hydro doesn’t have to do anything at the B.C. Utilities Commission anymore, but surely to goodness ICBC should, after this document, tabled by the Minister of Finance, shows a $1.5 billion swing in what they said they were going to do and what the ac-
[ Page 13736 ]
tuals are going to be. The solution from the B.C. Liberals: blame drivers; blame British Columbians. Never, in the time I’ve been in this House, has a Liberal taken accountability for a darn thing on their watch.

I’m asking the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to be a trendsetter on that side of the House: stand up, be responsible before an election campaign, and tell drivers how much your incompetence, your bad choices, are going to cost them.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. Member. Members know that all comments are directed through the Chair.

Hon. T. Stone: The only members that we hear from that actually support tax increases are the members that sit opposite. We heard it again from the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

The government just delivered a budget that provided British Columbians with $1 billion of tax relief.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: I am proud to be part of a government that just tabled a budget that will provide British Columbians with $1 billion of tax relief.

I know that the members opposite do not want to focus on any of the underlying challenges that face ICBC: the fact that bodily injury claims are rising — they’re up 10 percent year over year; or the fact that there are more crashes taking place on British Columbia’s roads, which is a trend we’re seeing across North America. These pressures are applying an immense amount of pressure on ICBC’s costs.

We are doing and will continue to do everything we can with ICBC, whether it’s cracking down on fraud, whether it’s distracted-driving penalties, whether it’s hiring more claims staff, whether it’s the transformation upgrades that we’re making — a wide array of initiatives to keep rates down for British Columbia’s drivers.

A. Dix: Underlying? This was the government that took $1.2 billion meant to pay claims out of ICBC, the first government in the history of B.C. to do it, and that’s the minister responsible for that.

They stood up in 2015, that Finance Minister and that minister, and they said ICBC — all the same factors were in place — was going to make $210 million. They lost $293 million. That’s a $503 million mistake that drivers will pay for.

[1410]

Not to be outdone, the minister stepped it up the next year. He said: “We’re going to make $231 million.” They lost $396 million. That’s a $627 million mistake.

Now in their budget, tabled yesterday, they’re claiming $280 million in savings from a review that hasn’t even started yet.

They aren’t watching what’s going on; they’re not witnesses to rising insurance costs. They’re driving the car. When will the minister finally take responsibility for those bad choices that B.C. drivers are going to have to pay for?

Hon. T. Stone: Look, the choices that this government has made have resulted in a fifth consecutive balanced budget. The choices that this government has made have resulted in amongst the lowest personal, corporate and small business tax rates in the country. And the choices that this government has made have been to invest strategically in infrastructure in every corner of our province, including a record level of infrastructure on our highways, which is mostly about road safety.

We are going to continue to apply everything that we possibly can towards the pressures that are very real and that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway doesn’t want to talk about. He doesn’t want to talk about bodily injury claims rising as steadily as they are. He doesn’t want to talk about the rising costs of tin. He doesn’t want to talk about the rising costs of claims that ICBC has. The volumes are up; the costs are up. Those pressures are real. This government, working with ICBC, is going to continue to throw everything that we possibly can to drive the pressures down and to keep rates affordable for British Columbia’s families.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, the same charade took place before the last election. They were “protecting drivers” — that was what they said — and then they soaked drivers. They did a review before the last election. And we’ve heard this before, even this session: “We accept all the recommendations” from this Liberal review. “We accept them all. We’re taking action.”

Things haven’t changed since then. What’s changed is the position of ICBC. What’s changed is that they’ve soaked ICBC. They’ve taken away their money They’ve scooped away the capital. They need to take responsibility for this. It’s drivers; it’s hydro customers; it’s people who pay premiums, rising fees. It is becoming harder and harder.

British Columbians can’t afford this minister, and they can’t afford this Premier. His $1.5 million blunder is $1,000 a family. That’s how much it is. How are they supposed to pay for his blunder, for his bad choices?

Hon. T. Stone: What British Columbians cannot afford is the reckless spending and the increased taxes that the opposition represents. The member from Kingsway stands up every opportunity he gets, and he talks about all these hundreds of millions of dollars which were
[ Page 13737 ]
scooped out of ICBC, as if they went off into some never-never land. These dollars went into critical health and education programs for British Columbians. So I’d be interested to know: which health programs and which education programs would the members opposite say we shouldn’t have invested in with those dollars?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: Which programs would the members opposite not have supported with those dollars? The member from Kingsway knows these dollars are generated on the optional side of the insurance business, and that excess capital has been used to fund critical education and health programs.

[1415]

He also knows that during that same period of time, $1.4 billion was transferred from the optional side of the auto insurance to the basic side to help keep rates as low as possible.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue, quickly.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, I know that the members opposite have been flirting with alternative facts for quite some time now. They just make it up as they go.

Yesterday British Columbians were provided $1 billion of tax relief. We’re going to continue to work as hard as we possibly can to also keep ICBC rates affordable for the long term.

CARE STANDARDS AT
SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

J. Darcy: This government would love nothing better than to have British Columbians forget about their sorry record on the deficit they’ve created in services for people, under their sorry record for the last 15 years.

The fact is that the abysmal record of this government in seniors care means that seniors care hours have gone down, not up, in the last year. In 2015, according to the seniors advocate, it was only 82 percent of care homes where the government’s own staffing standard of 3.36 hours of care per resident per day was being met. This year, 91 percent of care homes are not meeting the government’s own standard — 91 percent.

Yesterday we talked about Lana Turner, who relies on home support and who hadn’t been able to get a bath in 51 days — seven weeks. Well, the reality is that in seniors care homes, there are seniors who are going without baths, sometimes for two or three or even four weeks.

When is this government going to take responsibility for the crisis it has created in seniors care and make sure that seniors get the dignified care that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: Over $800 million — those are the additional dollars in the Ministry of Health budget announced yesterday. Over $800 million — that’s the increase the Ministry of Health received yesterday. And as the member knows, a large, large percentage of health care goes directly to seniors. In our increase that we received yesterday — a record level of increased dollars to spend on health care in this province — we will see increased services to seniors in residential care, in home care, in primary care that’s directed specifically to seniors in this province.

In other ministries — in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, an increased number of handyDART hours that directly help seniors. In Victoria, over 4,000 more hours. In Kelowna and Kamloops, over 2,000 more hours of handyDART service. We are committed to serving seniors in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: This minister and this government refuse to take responsibility for the fact that seniors care has gotten worse, not better. It is a national disgrace, what’s happening to seniors in the province of British Columbia. There’s no other word for it.

[1420]

Front-line health care workers, seniors groups, B.C. care providers came to the Legislature this week looking for a solid commitment in the budget for seniors care, and there wasn’t one word in the budget about seniors care — not one word.

We’re told that the Minister of Health wasn’t on side for the federal health deal, so maybe he wasn’t on side for the provincial budget either.

Again, to the minister: will the minister finally take responsibility for the systemic crisis his government has created in seniors care and act to ensure that our parents, our grandparents and our loved ones get the dignified care that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: The care of our seniors is critically important for this government. The member opposite and I were at the B.C. Care Providers Awards this week, honouring the amazing people that work in home care, in residential care, looking after our seniors.

We’re the first province in Canada to have an office of the seniors advocate. Our seniors advocate has presented a series of reports upon which we have acted. Important changes to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act allow people to stay in assisted living longer and reduce the need to go into residential care prematurely.
[ Page 13738 ]

Together with the federal government, with our agreement signed, there will be over $700 million over the next ten years directed towards home care and other seniors services.

A record increase in the health care budget — much of that will directly benefit seniors in the province of British Columbia. And over 90 percent of seniors in this province will benefit from a massive decrease in MSP premiums. This budget is a seniors budget, and we are proud of that.

S. Robinson: A seniors budget, and you don’t even mention the word “senior”? I heard a completely different budget.

In the Fraser Health region, only 13 of 79 facilities are meeting the minimum staffing benchmark for seniors care. That’s just 16 percent. That’s actually the best record of all five health authorities in this province — a mere 16 percent meeting the minimum standard of care hours. In the Interior Health Authority, only five of 75 facilities meet the minimum standard of care. On the Island, it’s only two of 59 — two.

I want to ask the minister: when can seniors expect adequate residential care in this province?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, we are spending record levels on health care, and a large portion of that, of course, is directed to our seniors. On top of the acute care that we provide are the home and community supports and the residential care supports that we provide. All of those are increasing. This budget sees the largest increase ever in terms of dollars in our health care budget, much of it directed towards seniors.

We are happy to come to an agreement with Ottawa for home and community care that will see directed, targeted funding for seniors care. The members opposite will see that plan as it is developed over the next few weeks, now that this agreement has been signed, and there’ll be lots of good news in it for seniors care in the province of British Columbia.

S. Robinson: The B.C. Liberals have been in power for 16 years. The benchmark for hours of care per resident per day is 3.36 hours of care, and 91 percent of facilities aren’t meeting those necessary care hours. I think that’s disgraceful.

What does this mean when 91 percent of the facilities that this government is responsible for funding don’t get sufficient funds to make sure that there is sufficient staff? Well, it means that seniors can’t get a proper bath. It means that they have to sit in a chair for longer than they want. It could mean that they sit for hours because there’s no one to assist them to move to another part of the facility. It also might mean that they sit in soiled clothing for longer than they care to.

These are all indignities to the seniors of our province. Again, I want to know from this government: when will seniors finally get the care they deserve from these B.C. Liberals?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: I will happily compare the record over the last 16 years on every file in health care, versus the 1990s, when you could not find a placement in residential care. We have added 6,500 publicly subsidized residential care, assisted-living and group home beds since 2001. Health authorities invested $2.9 billion in home and community care in 2015-16. That’s an 88 percent increase since 2001.

Other benefits for seniors. We mentioned the MSP reductions that over 90 percent of seniors will benefit from. I’m told of, around the province, over 100,000 more hours of handyDART service. And a historic agreement with the federal government will see targeted funds directed at home and community care. We will continue to make sure that our valued seniors are looked after in the province of British Columbia.

SENIORS CARE IN PORT McNEILL

C. Trevena: There are 40 seniors in Port McNeill with mobility problems who don’t have access to either a shower or a bath. There’s nothing suitable for them at Port McNeill’s hospital. The minister keeps claiming that his government is looking out for the needs of seniors. If that’s the case, how does the minister suggest these elders keep clean and keep their dignity?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I was very pleased to be with the royal couple in Haida Gwaii this year to open a $50 million hospital that not only has acute care beds in it but also residential care. The care that the folks in Haida Gwaii are experiencing is much better today than it ever was.

Up and down the coast, all around the province, we’ve invested in residential care: 6,500 new placements around the province. When some members on this side were first elected, it was two years’ wait to get into residential care. Now that is less than 90 days.

We will continue to make investments in seniors care around the province. The members should stay tuned as we put together the final touches on our seniors plan, with our agreement with the federal government.

C. Trevena: Is the minister suggesting that my constituents in Port McNeill move to Haida Gwaii? Geographic challenges, very clearly, here.

The minister clearly forgot that I actually did write to him about this concern. I actually got quite a prompt response, but the minister didn’t resolve the problem. What he suggested in his response was that these seniors not go to Haida Gwaii, not go into care in Haida Gwaii. They are actually being cared for at home. The issue is that they don’t get baths at home, and there is nothing
[ Page 13739 ]
in their community to give them a bath. But the minister suggested: “Go up to Port Hardy.” It’s 45 kilometres to Port Hardy. “Go to the seniors home there,” which is full, “and have a bath there.”

So the minister — I will help him along here — is clearly suggesting that people try and find a way to get to a different community on the same island — not different islands but on the same island — and then stand in line with other seniors simply to have a bath or a shower.

When the minister did respond, he did say that he wanted these seniors to have “quality patient-centred care.” Can he explain to this House how any of this is quality or patient-centred or even care?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite know full well what the situation was like for seniors in the 1990s in this province. They want to forget about that. I get it. There was a dismal, dismal record in the 1990s on seniors care. You could not get into residential care let alone have home care supply.

[1430]

An 80 percent increase in home and community supports for seniors….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

They know the dismal record of the ’90s. That’s why they’re so defensive. That’s why they react so strongly when anyone mentions it. And now they stand up every single day: “Spend more here. Spend more there. Spend more over here.” But they get in the way of every single bit of economic development that would pay for those increased services.

Their answer: “Just raise taxes. Just raise taxes some more.” Then we can spend on all of these things, all of these ideas that the members opposite have.

We’ll continue to grow the economy. Despite the party of no over there, we’ll continue to grow the economy and provide the valued services that British Columbians deserve.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Thornthwaite: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fifth session of the 40th Parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that the report be adopted, and in so doing, I would like to make some brief comments.

The report summarizes the committee’s activities in 2015 and 2016. The committee reviewed six reports of the Representative for Children and Youth, one joint report of the Representative for Children and Youth and the provincial health officer, and the representative’s 2014-15 annual report and 2015-16 to 2016-17 service plan.

The report also provides an overview of the committee’s special project on child and youth mental health. The committee completed more than two years of work on this project with the release of their final report titled Concrete Actions for Systemic Change in January 2015.

I would like to thank the former Deputy Chair, the member for Stikine and the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for their service to the committee over those years. I thank all the committee members for their contributions to the work of this committee over the past year.

As noted in the committee’s annual report, 2016 was the final year of service by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as Representative for Children and Youth. I want to recognize her many years of dedication to that role.

I’d also like to acknowledge the support of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. On behalf of all committee members, thank you for the important work that you do.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

M. Karagianis: On behalf of our Deputy Chair, and as a past-serving Deputy Chair, I would like to respond to this and urge members to accept this report.

I would like to take a moment to say thank you to all of the members of the committee. As members know, I am not running for re-election. This is probably the last opportunity I’ll get to speak about this committee.

I have served on it since its inception, and it has been an enormous privilege to work with all of the members and to work with the representative for children and families. And especially to our past Chairs, I would like to offer congratulations for the really terrific work we did.

It has been one of the few select standing committees that has done outstanding bipartisan work. We have accomplished wonderful things. We moved beyond our mandate and went out and conducted a poverty forum and helped educate this House on the true situation of poverty issues that face this province.

We then extended, under the current Chair, our mandate to go out and seek education on child and youth mental health issues and did an enormous forum over a long period of time and produced some really excellent and profound information for this House, to help to educate this House.
[ Page 13740 ]

It has been an extreme pleasure and privilege to have served on the committee for all of these years and to have worked with all of the committee members, past and present, and to have done excellent work. It is not often that you get a chance to feel this kind of pride for the job that we do on both sides of the House, so I thank everyone for their participation. It has been really a wonderful experience to have sat on this committee for so long.

[1435]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Madame Speaker: Anyone else speaking to the committee report?

The motion before you is a question of adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

R. Austin: I would like to present a petition from the Catholic Women’s League and other concerned citizens, signed by 127 people from my community in Kitimat.

They are requesting that the government ensure a separation of the delivery of assisted suicide and euthanasia from current hospice and palliative care facilities to ensure the trust of vulnerable patients and their families. As well, they would like to ensure that health care workers have the freedom of conscience to not participate in assisted suicide if they so choose.

H. Bains: I have a petition to present to the House signed by 21,590 petitioners.

It reads that Sikhs have played a vital role in building a diverse and prosperous Canada and continue to contribute on all levels. Over the past few decades, members of the Sikh community who wear turbans have encountered difficulties in their workplace with respect to wearing hard hats instead of their turbans. This is contrary to the tenets of the Sikh religion. Sikhs have worked at all places with their turbans in hard hat areas in the U.S. since 1975 and in the U.K. since 1989. The Sikh community would like to request that your government allow a person who practises the Sikh religion to have unshorn hair, to habitually wear a full turban and to be exempt from wearing a hard hat at their workplace.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

C. James: I rise to continue my response to Budget 2017. I’ll just outline the topics that I’m going to cover today and use my time.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I want to start off with talking about the choices this government has made. I heard very little about choices. The government talks about budgets being about decisions. Well, I’d like to go through some of those decisions and go through some of those choices.

The second area that I’d like to cover during my time today is to talk about the impact of those choices. Choices are made, and there are direct impacts on people and on families. I’d like to take some time to talk a little bit about the impact of those choices and what people and families in this province are facing after 16 years of this government.

I’d like to talk about the reality of B.C.’s economy and take some time to put the real facts on the table about B.C.’s economy — the record on jobs, the two British Columbians — and talk a little bit about that.

I’d like to talk, as well, about what the public asked for in the budget. I’ve had the honour of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, where we travel the province. It’s an opportunity to hear directly from the public. So I’d like to take some time to talk a little bit about what the public was talking about over the last number of years that I’ve sat as Finance critic. Then I’d like to close off by talking about some possibilities and some strengths. I am the designated speaker as well.

I want to start off with choices. The minister, in this budget — and, certainly, in the government throne speech as well — talked a lot about this government’s record. The Finance Minister said — I’ll just read a few things from both the throne speech and the budget — in his opening remarks that his government was committed to moving away from feast-or-famine budgets. Well, in fact, Budget 2017 is just the opposite of moving away from feast-and-famine budgets. The government even admits in the budget that they’ve tightened their belt. They’ve not been able to provide resources to the public and to services, and now is the time that they’re looking at it.

[1440]

Well, to me, that, in fact, is the definition of feast-and-famine budgets. That’s exactly what the minister said he is committed to not doing. But, in fact, Budget 2017 was
[ Page 13741 ]
just that — one of the wildest examples of that. I’ll get into the specifics as we go along.

This government actually said that they were committed to social investments. Well, that certainly is all of a sudden — ignore social investments for 15 years, and then when you bring out a budget at election time, all of a sudden decide that “We’re committed to social investments.”

Well, I can tell you that is no way to run a government. That is no way to put a budget together. I’ll talk about the individual impacts of that over the time that I have.

The minister also said that he was committed to the most important service that he believes government funds, and that’s education. Well, I don’t know how the Finance Minister could stand up and say that in this House when it was this government that spent the last 16 years going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, with taxpayer dollars, to not have to put money into education. For the Finance Minister to stand up and say that the most important service is providing money to education is unbelievable after 16 years of starving the system. It took the Supreme Court of Canada to force them to put money back into education. Incredible.

The other piece…. This is again why it’s an alternate reality if you look at this budget. The government also said in this budget speech that they were committed to affordability. Well, that would be laughable if it wasn’t so painful for people in this province over the last 16 years. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t the public who have been struggling to get by, for the government, all of a sudden, now in an election year, to say that they’re committed to affordability. Unbelievable.

The government also talked in the budget speech, and the Finance Minister talked in his budget speech, about years of sacrifice by all of us in British Columbia, and that the government is now in a position to pay you back, to invest in your household and to invest in your families. In the throne speech, the government said we have “the ability to do more, and to be caring from strength.” “We want to give back to you.”

The government says they’re in a position to give back to you. Well, let’s remember — and I don’t believe any member of the public will forget this — that it isn’t the government’s money. They’re not giving it back to you. They took it from you in the first place.

That’s what this government did. They took that money in the first place. It’s the public’s money. It’s money that the government took and now says we’ll share a little bit back. “Because of our work, we did such a great job taking money from you, now we’re going to give a little bit of it back, and you should all be so happy that we’re doing that. It was our good management that did that.”

Well, the surplus this government is claiming came directly from the public. It’s the public’s money. It was taken from medical service premium increases. It was taken from tuition doubling. It was taken from ICBC rates and hydro rates and the property transfer tax.

This government is actually attempting to have you believe that after years of taking and taking and taking, they suddenly care about you. Well, I do not believe that the public is going to forget this government’s record. The choices that this government has made have directly impacted British Columbians, and now they expect the people of this province to be grateful?

The government, after years of taking away, says that they’re going to give a little bit back, hoping that all of us are just going to forget everything they’ve done to make the public’s life more difficult. And by the way, it just happens to be an election year. What a coincidence. It’s a pattern. It’s a pattern we saw from this government in 2013. It’s a pattern we’re seeing again.

[1445]

The people of this province know that this Premier and this government are not working for them. They know that this tactic of cutting services and cutting programs, raising fees and raising costs — the public pays more, and you get less — is simply a crass election tactic, simply an election tactic by this government.

Now, this government spent a lot of time in the throne speech and the budget speech talking about their decisions and their choices that led to the surplus. But I happened to notice that they spent very little time, in fact no time, talking about how those decisions and choices have negatively impacted the people of this province. So I’d like to do that. I’d like to take my time to actually talk about what those decisions have done to the people in this province.

Certainly, the Premier and the government hope you’re not going to be looking at their record. They hope this budget will have you forget all the things they’ve done, forget all the fees and the costs, forget how tough things have been.

The public knows differently. They know differently because they face these challenges firsthand. I want to take some time to go through that list, because I certainly don’t expect that we’re going to hear the government talking about it over the next while.

Let’s begin with MSP, medical service premiums. Just in the Premier’s time, so just in the last five years, this Premier has increased medical service premiums by 24 percent. Since 2011, they’ve gone up 24 percent. What does that work out to? It works out to roughly $345 a family. That’s the increase.

This government actually takes in more from MSP than corporate income tax. That’s incredible. When you take a look at what that does to a family budget, when you think of what that increase will cost an average middle-class family…. There are families in this province who pay more in MSP than they do in income tax — more in medical services premiums than they do in income tax. So while we actually hear the government stand up and crow — and you do hear this in the budget, “Lowest taxes, we have the lowest taxes” — they don’t include….
[ Page 13742 ]

Interjection.

C. James: I’d suggest that the members hold their applause, because if you take a look at the lowest taxes and take a look at MSP premiums, in fact families are paying more under this government. I finally heard the Health Minister, actually, in question period, call the MSP a tax. It’s the first time.

This government actually stands up and says: “Oh, it’s not a tax. Our income taxes are low.” They don’t include things like MSP. They don’t include all the additional costs like hydro and ICBC. That’s the choice this government made. “Oh, yeah, don’t worry. Look over here. Things aren’t bad. Don’t pay attention over here where we’ve increased costs for you and your family.”

As we know, MSP is one of the most regressive taxes there is. If you make $45,000 as a family or you make $400,000 as a family, you pay exactly the same premium. That’s an unfair tax, and this government has continued and continued with this tax.

What does Budget 2017 do to MSP? Well, it announces that the government has seen the light. They’re going to actually eliminate MSP premiums eventually, they say, and they’re going to begin by reducing our MSP premiums. Well, as I said at the start, there’s no question that this is an election year. This budget makes it obvious. It was only six months ago that the government, the Finance Minister and others across the way actually mocked the NDP for even suggesting that the MSP premium should be gone. They actually said….

Do you want to go ahead?

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, I wonder if I could just seek leave of the House to advise people of the situation with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member wasn’t feeling well last night. He wasn’t feeling well in question period. He is in the hands of the paramedics. He is in good shape. He wishes us all well. He says he expects to be back soon, so it probably sounds like a minor flu or something. We thought that rather than have speculation and rumour going around the building, I would stand up on behalf of the government and keep you up to date about the member’s condition.

Thank you, Member.

C. James: Thank you for the update. I think many of us were wondering, so I appreciate the update.

Back to MSP. As I said, the government said that they wouldn’t look at MSP premiums, that it was important for the public to actually make a payment so that they knew that health care costs them something.

I heard the Finance Minister say that. I heard the Premier say that it was really important for them to get that separate bill so that they understood that there was a link between income — between the money that they had — and the health care system. Well, I don’t know anyone in the public who doesn’t know that it costs something to provide health care. I think everybody in our province is well aware that there are costs to our health care system.

What the public was rejecting was a regressive tax like the MSP, where you make $45,000 or you make $400,000 and you pay the same amount. The public understands that. That is not fair. They get that. So for the government now, after all of this time, to say that it was not something that should happen, that the NDP was being ridiculous when we thought we were going to look at MSP premiums….

Now the government comes forward at election time and says: “Forget what we’ve said. Forget everything we’ve done. Now we care about it. Now we’re going to move and look at it. By the way, you’re going to see them reduced by 50 percent.” Well, let’s not forget that this government actually increased MSP premiums. They’ve doubled them since 2002. So taking 50 percent away is actually taking away the increase that this government presented and took away from British Columbians. So it’s not a huge savings. It’s giving back some of the money that the government has gouged from the public over the last 12 years.

They’ve doubled MSP premiums, and now they want you to think that they’re going to fix their damage. Well, if you needed anything to show you that this was an election budget, it’s that commitment and that promise. The government wants you to forget what they’ve done over all of these years and just take a look at the election budget.

As we’ve said, as our leader has said, you can’t take a bad tax and make it better. You have to eliminate a bad tax, and that’s what needs to happen to MSP premiums.

Let’s take a look at another choice that this government made. Again, when we talk about choices that this government has made — the lists that you don’t see mentioned in the discussion, the lists that you don’t see mentioned in the throne speech or the budget response from the Finance Minister — one of those choices is the issue of hydro rates. What’s happened to hydro rates under this government and, actually, directly under this Premier? Hydro rates have skyrocketed. They’ve gone up 30 percent since 2011. What has that cost the taxpayer? That’s cost the average taxpayer $375 more every single year.

While the government has increased hydro rates since 2011 by 30 percent, they’ve also decided to take an unprecedented $700 million a year out of Hydro and put it to their bottom line. In other words, they padded their surplus with money from Hydro. Who has to pay for that? The public. The public has to pay for that.

The government wanted to come forward and say how terrific everything is. Well, as I said, it’s not terrific for families. Not terrific for hard-working British Columbians. Not terrific to people who talk about the tough choices they have to make because they can’t afford to pay their hydro bill.

[1455]

Don’t forget that in the last election, in 2013, the Premier stood up and said that she didn’t think hydro increases were going to be necessary, that you weren’t going to see them. That’s what she said before the election. After the election — a 30 percent increase in hydro rates and continuing to go up. That doesn’t take into account the challenges that are going to be left at Hydro because of the government taking money to pad their budget.

What about the other Crown corporation, ICBC? Again, a Crown corporation. I think this is really important for all of us to recognize: these Crown corporations belong to the public. They don’t belong to the government. They belong to the public, and the public are the shareholders of those Crown corporations. But you would never know that, given how the government treats ICBC and Hydro as their own piggy banks to put money into the surplus so that they can look good when it comes to election year and make you pay for it.

What’s happened to ICBC rates? When budgets come forward, particularly in an election year, it’s important to take a look at what the government’s record is — not simply to look at the promise they made, not simply to look at what’s there but to actually look at the track record. This government has a 16-year track record. If we take a look at this Premier’s record alone from 2011, the ICBC rate increase, 36 percent, has cost drivers $235 more each year. And what’s it predicted to do? Go up 42 percent in the next five years. That’s the prediction.

What about ferry fares? Again, it’s a vital service for families and the economy on Vancouver Island. I’ve lived on Vancouver Island most of my life. I moved here when I was five years old, and I know that the ferry fares aren’t simply a challenge for families. They’re a challenge for the economy of Vancouver Island. They’re a challenge for economic growth for Vancouver Island.

There was a wonderful report put together for the Union of B.C. Municipalities — which members will be meeting with later today — a few years back that was presented and that talked about the challenges to the economy of ferry fares continuing to rise.

What choice did this government make on ferry fares? Again, since 2001, fares have gone up 80 percent on major routes and 100 percent on minor routes. What does that mean to the bottom line? That’s what matters to families: how much families are having to put out. That means a family of four on a round trip to Vancouver pays $216 — $96 more, under this government. That has a direct impact. It’s a choice this government made that has a direct impact on families and their bottom line, a direct impact on affordability for people, at a time when most families can least afford it.

Even camping fees. Even camping fees went up — one of those last vestiges of a holiday or an opportunity for families to be able to find a chance to get away for a weekend that isn’t too expensive and that they might be able to manage. Even those have increased five times since 2001, and they’ve actually doubled in the largest and the most popular campgrounds in B.C., which tend to be those campgrounds close to large urban settings. At the same time, we saw the parks budget cut by 40 percent since 2001.

Again, what kind of a commitment is that to families? That’s certainly not a choice that I’ve heard the government talking about in their budget speech, not a choice I hear the government crowing about — but a choice this government made that has a direct impact on families.

What about tuition fees? Well, tuition fees have more than doubled since 2001. Graduate fees have in fact tripled. It cost the average UBC student at least $10,000 more, under this government, to complete a four-year degree.

[1500]

Education is an opportunity that families work hard to save for, to provide that chance for their young person to head off to college or to university. For many families, it’s their opportunity to get out of the cycle of poverty, to be able to have hope for the future.

Yet for many families that I talked to, to think about coming out with these kinds of huge debts is overwhelming. They couldn’t even imagine being able to save the amount that would be needed to be able to even get a student loan, to be able to even get into university or college. That creates even a bigger social divide in our province, which isn’t good for people and certainly isn’t good for the economy as well.

Now, I’m glad to know that student loan interest rates are finally going to be dropped in this budget, but I think it’s important to note that we were the only province that was gouging students in this kind of way. We had the highest interest rate in the entire country, right here in British Columbia: 33 percent higher, in fact, than the Canadian average.

Again, the government is hoping you’ll forget that. They’re hoping you’ll just take a look at this budget that they tabled and not remember their record — their record of making life more difficult for families in British Columbia.

It’s not that people expect government to fix everything. The families and the citizens that I talk to understand the government can’t fix everything. In fact, they want to do their part. They’re working hard, many of them two jobs. They’re doing their best to try and find money that they can put away to save for their kids’ education, to be able to provide that support.

What people don’t expect is their government to make their life tougher. They don’t expect government to get
[ Page 13744 ]
in the way of the hard work that they’re doing. Yet that’s just what this government has done.

Let’s take a look at child care costs — again, a huge burden for families. We’re second only to Ontario in our big cities when it comes to child care costs. There are families who are paying more in their child care costs than they are in their mortgage payments. That says a lot when you take a look at the skyrocketing housing costs, and I’ll get back to that.

No fix in Budget 2017. Nothing to address that challenge for families. Nothing to say to them, “We understand that raising children is one of the most important jobs you could do” — that providing quality child care is not only right for families, but it’s right for the economy.

It’s an opportunity for families, for women in particular, to get back into the workforce. It raises productivity for employees. I have to tell you…. The number of employees I’ve talked to and families that I’ve talked to who have said that having quality child care has meant that they can focus on their work…. They’re not worried about where their children are.

That when there’s a challenge…. Particularly if you look at an organization like Telus, who has put a child care centre into a couple of their workplaces, for parents to be able to take that lunch hour and go and visit their children, go and take some time to say hello — run down, have that visit — that’s good for the parents. That’s fantastic for the children. It provides quality child care.

It’s also good for the economy, because your employees are much more productive. You have less turnover when people aren’t scrambling to try and find child care. We’ve all heard the stories, and I’m sure it’s not simply this side of the House. I’m sure the other side of the House has heard the stories of parents who, the day they get their pregnancy test, put their name on as many wait-lists as they can for child care, because that’s how desperate people are. That’s how desperate people are.

Well, again, I think part of government’s job is helping families with a hand up, not a hand out, providing support for that infrastructure to be there so that women can go back — mainly women — into the workforce, so that families can make the choices that they want to make. That wasn’t fixed in this budget.

These are choices that have had a direct, negative impact on families. I have to say that one of the most glaring choices, from my perspective, and a choice that really does speak to this government’s priorities more than any other, is the $1 billion tax cut for the top 2 percent of income earners. The Premier and this government made a choice after the last election to eliminate the top tax bracket for people earning $150,000 or more after tax. That’s individuals, not families. That costs almost $1 billion over a four-year term.

[1505]

Now, if we talk about government being about choices, that’s a choice that this government made. That’s a choice that they made when they were telling everyone to tighten their belts. When they were telling everyone that times were difficult, the government made a choice to give the top 2 percent, the wealthiest British Columbians, a tax break.

I think it’s important for everyone to remember that when this government stands up and says: “We’re going to invest in you. We’re going to invest in your family. We’re going to pay you back.” Well, in fact, they did pay someone back in 2013. They did pay back the top income earners. They did decide to take care of those people. They actually invested in the top 2 percent of high-income earners while the rest of the families in British Columbia were stuck with more fees and services. Families were having to put out over $1,000 for Hydro rates, for ICBC rates, for MSP premiums.

So it’s pretty clear from our perspective, and I believe from the public’s perspective, where the loyalty of this government lies and what this government cares about. While they told the public to tighten their belts, while they left the most vulnerable without supports, millionaires certainly got their break. That was the choice that this government made.

While this government took away a $45-a-year bus pass from people with disabilities, making life tougher for the most vulnerable, they gave a tax break to the top 2 percent. That’s a choice. This government is right; it is about choices. That’s a choice that this government made, and I think that’s important for all of us to remember.

This government also chose, in 2002, to make drastic cuts to supports for the most vulnerable — the Ministry for Children and Families. What’s happened over the last 16 years? This government didn’t invest. They didn’t invest in children and families. They didn’t invest in youth mental health and addictions and recovery services, people struggling on income assistance, people struggling on disabilities or affordable housing. Those were not large investments made by this government, and there’s a consequence to that. There’s a consequence to years of neglect.

I heard the minister in this forget-everything budget, in this Budget 2017, that he presented. Now they’ve decided to put investments in, in children and families, in mental health. Well, it doesn’t make up for those 16 years. It’s not the right thing to do for those people who lost out all those years. I think, as others on this side of the House do, about Alex Gervais. His entire life, not getting the kinds of supports and services that he needed — the basic supports and services to be loved and cared for and looked after.

Again, when we talk about the Ministry for Children and Families, the ministry is a parent for children who are in care. That’s their legal obligation. Children who are taken into care — the government then has the responsibility to be the parent for those children. This government has failed so many in this province. What does it say when it’s election year and they want you to forget
[ Page 13745 ]
that record and just take a look over here? It says that’s not a real commitment.

You know, I think of the families that I meet with in my constituency office, who come in talking about what it’s been like to try and find supports for their young person with mental health or addictions issues. These are heartbreaking stories. These are individual families who have mortgaged their house, who’ve gone from office to office, who’ve phoned and been put on wait-list after wait-list because there aren’t supports and services, or they can’t navigate what isn’t a system. It’s just a broken up bit of services and supports that have long wait-lists.

[1510]

The people who work in the system have done an extraordinary job over these last 16 years — extraordinary — under very difficult circumstances. I talk to those outreach workers and I talk to those social workers, who are in tears at the end of a day because they haven’t been able to do the kind of work that they want to do. They haven’t been able to meet with the children in care that are on their caseload. Because their caseload is so large, they aren’t able to get to them all. They aren’t able to do the good work that they went into the field for.

Believe me, no one goes into the field of outreach work or community support work or social work for the resources. They go in because they care. They go in because this work means something to them, because they want to make a difference. There is nothing worse than people who are in those caring professions not being able to do a quality job because they don’t have the resources and the supports that they need. That’s what’s happened. That’s what’s happened over the last 16 years.

It isn’t building a strong economy when you starve a system and then decide in an election year that you’re going to put a little, tiny bit back. That isn’t building a strong economy. That’s not a good budget. That’s not good financial management.

I hear the government talk about deficits. We’ve had a social deficit. That’s the situation we have in British Columbia, and it is the children and those families who have paid the price.

Let’s remember, again, that while the government was telling everybody to tighten their belts, and those children and those families weren’t able to get the services and supports they needed, the government certainly found money to spend on their priorities. I mentioned the tax break for the top 2 percent. Well, there are more choices that this government has made. What about doubling political ad spending? Up to $15 million of your tax dollars for those ads that people are seeing running constantly. That’s a choice made by this government.

I’m sure we’ll hear it’s simply a coincidence that all of a sudden, you see all of the government ads and all the government spending happening just a few months before the election. The public sees through that. The public knows that the only reason that the government is putting more money into government advertising is that we’re coming up to an election year. That’s the only reason we see these ads running.

This government made a choice to find $1 million to spend on photographers for the Premier. That’s, again, a choice made by this government. Then I haven’t even touched on all of the information technology computer systems that this government either messed up or scrapped or had to redo.

Let’s remember BCeSIS, the system that was put together for the K-to-12 system, where $97 million was spent putting this information technology system in place. Then what did the government do? They scrapped it. It was so bad, it couldn’t even be fixed after they put $97 million into it, so they had to toss it out.

Well, $97 million, $1 million in photographers and $15 million in doubling the advertising budget. When this Premier talks about tightening your belt, it was very clear that those weren’t the choices being made by the Premier for her choices. Those weren’t the choices being made by the Premier for her priorities or this government’s priorities. But the public’s priorities? Too bad. That’s just too bad. “There are tough times.”

The integrated case management system in Social Development and Ministry of Children and Family Development — $182 million. And the Auditor General said this week that there are still privacy problems with that computer system. There are still issues that haven’t been worked out.

Well, think about if that system had actually worked from the start or had been cost-effective. Certainly, the staff that I talk to in the field gave lots of feedback to the government about how to do it differently. They talked a lot about the importance of consulting people in the field before you develop a computer system for them.

[1515]

Seems kind of basic to me that if you’re developing a computer system for people in a workplace, you’re going to talk to them first to see what makes sense. Well, even the government had to admit that that didn’t happen with the integrated case management system. They didn’t spend time talking to the social workers on the front line or the employment counsellors on the front line.

We had stories. I went into an office to see the challenge that some of the employment counsellors had on the computer system. It took 22 steps through the computer system to be able to provide a bus pass — a one-trip bus pass — to an individual who was going out to look for a job. That’s 22 steps on the computer system, and if you missed one, you had to go back to the start again. If there was a mistake on one of those 22 steps, you had to start all over again. I had workers say to me: “I took the money out of my pocket. I provided it to my client because I felt bad for the poor client who had come in to see me and who was stuck while I was stuck in front of the computer system, not providing the kind of quality support.”
[ Page 13746 ]

What kind of support and what kind of service does that give? But those were choices made by this government, choices that they felt were more important than taking a look at supporting the most vulnerable or giving some affordability to families.

Let’s take some time now. As I said, I wanted to talk about choices this government made. I’d like to take some time to just review the consequences of this government’s choices, because as we all know — and certainly, as parents, as we tell our children — every decision has a consequence to it. Certainly, many of this government’s decisions have had a profound impact on the people in British Columbia. I do not expect you’ll hear the government, in their response to the budget, talking about that. I do not expect we’ll hear a lot about the consequences on people. So I think it’s important to take some time to run through that.

The first clear consequence has been the affordability crisis that we see in B.C. I have never heard so many concerns on the issue of affordability as I have in the last number of years in my constituency office, and from such a wide range of individuals over the last five years. This is an issue that is impacting so many. It’s certainly impacting people living in poverty — families, individuals, seniors — but it’s also impacting the working poor. It’s impacting people who are struggling with precarious part-time work, and those are often younger workers who are put in those kinds of positions. It’s also impacting the middle class, who are working hard, trying to get by and just not able to get ahead.

I want to start off by talking about the most vulnerable. British Columbia, as we all know, is one of the most expensive places to live in our country. We have the second-highest rate of child poverty in the country and the highest rate of working poverty — those with employment. Let’s just take a minute to think about that, because I think most people think that people living in poverty are people who aren’t working, people who don’t have jobs, people on income assistance or with disabilities. In fact, we have the highest rate of working poverty in this country, which means individuals who have jobs, who are working and who are living in poverty.

With all of that record, we are the only province in this country that doesn’t have a poverty reduction plan. Did Budget 2017 change that? No. It did nothing to address that.

Now, we’ve heard a lot about the crisis in housing and affordable housing, and I’ll come back to talk a little bit more about some details on that issue. But I’d just like everyone to imagine what it’s like being on income assistance or disability and trying to find a place to live. The impact of this government’s choices to ignore the crisis for those on income assistance and on disability is seen on our streets every single day. Individuals who can’t find a place to live. It’s impossible, at $610 a month as your total income, to try and find a place to live, in rural or urban settings.

[1520]

Individuals want to get out of the cycle of poverty and are stuck because the supports and a hand up just aren’t there for those individuals.

Now, I’ve heard the Premier and I’ve heard the Finance Minister and I’ve heard other members on that side of the House say that a job is the best poverty plan. Well, that’s ignoring the reality for many, many individuals who are living on income assistance and living on disability.

Just imagine having to look for work when you have an abscessed tooth and you can’t get any dental care, when you’re not able to get any kind of support. When you have infections, the response that I’ve heard from this government, from the individual offices, is that the government will pay, through income assistance, for you to have your teeth pulled, but it won’t pay for the dentures to replace your teeth once they’re pulled.

Now, that may seem like a dramatic thing to say in this Legislature, but it’s a reality for people out there. How do you tell someone to go and find a job and look for work when basic dental care that they need to be able to go to see an employer is not available for them, when you can’t afford a phone or you have no home and no connection for anybody to reach you when you’re told to go out and look for employment? You won’t have a bus pass anymore because you had to give up the bus pass to be able to get that little bit of extra resources to support yourself.

Then when you need to go and check email and see if an employer has got back to you, or apply on line for a job, you stand in line at the public library. Thank goodness for public libraries because they’ve become much more than simply a place for lending books. They’ve become a community hub. They’ve become a community hub, in many settings, for individuals on income assistance and disability. They provide an opportunity for people to be able to access the Internet, to be able to access job searches.

But if you ever visit a public library, you’ll know that there’s only so much time you can spend on those computers because someone else is waiting behind you to be able to get on there. Well, imagine trying to look for work when that’s the only option you have or when you don’t have clean clothes and you certainly don’t have money to be able to go to the laundromat.

Or what about the supports for your mental health issues? When you’re not able to get those kinds of supports and you’re struggling with anxiety or so many other challenges that people with mental health are facing, the government says to you: “The best way to get out of poverty is go and get a job.” Well, unless you get those supports, that’s not even possible for you as an individual.

Then think about those who need to upgrade their education, those who are taking a look at trying to better themselves — perhaps in a minimum wage job, perhaps hoping that they’re able to upgrade themselves and get into better-paying employment. They find out that they need grade 12 science. They didn’t need grade 12 science
[ Page 13747 ]
to graduate when they graduated, but they need grade 12 science to go into a care aide program, for example, or a nursing program that will really help them get their family out of poverty.

They head off to their local college, talk to the instructor about getting into an adult basic education program and find out that now the government charges. Those programs that used to be free — English language learning, adult basic education programs — you now have to pay for. You’re now charged for those programs.

Well, those individuals aren’t going to go back. Many of them have been turned down by systems for years. You finally get them to access the course. They finally go to a college or university. In many communities, for First Nations communities, school was not a warm and welcoming place. It was not good memories. The opportunity for them to access free courses and free upgrading is huge. Well, that’s now a barrier.

[1525]

Did that change in Budget 2017? No. Is that door to opportunity open by this government? No. In fact, it’s slammed shut. That’s a reality for individuals trying to get out of the cycle of poverty. That’s the real human consequence of this government’s choices.

What’s another consequence that we’re seeing because of this government’s choices that they’ve made? B.C. has the highest household debt in this country: over $60,000 for every man, woman and child. More than half of British Columbians live paycheque to paycheque — 53 percent — and 49 percent say they can’t save any money at all. And 47 percent of all British Columbians — again, the highest rate in all of Canada — say they’re within $200 a month of being unable to pay their bills. That’s a consequence of this government’s choices.

Budget 2017 doesn’t change that. People are going to have to continue to pay the increasing and rising costs of MSP. No changes come until January 2018, even if the government choices happen. Hydro increases, ICBC rates, tuition costs. As well, more British Columbians rely on expensive payday loans than in any other province. What’s the consequence of that? Never getting out of the cycle of poverty — being stuck.

I was on a call with an individual constituent of mine last week who phoned to tell me that she had gone, during the snowstorm in Victoria, to the income assistance office. She’s on disability and income assistance. She hasn’t had a new coat for 12 years, she hasn’t had new shoes for ten years, and it snowed.

She’d heard that there was an emergency grant that you could get at the income assistance office if you had an emergency. She has never, in all of her years being on disability, gone for an emergency grant. She said: “I don’t like to ask for help. I think there are many more people who are more needy than I am, and I don’t like to go and ask for help.” But she was really stuck — holes in her shoes, no winter coat, snowing and predicted to be cold for a few weeks here in Victoria — so she went to her income assistance office.

She first had to phone, because you don’t get an appointment anymore. They actually don’t have an ability for you to go get an appointment. You have to go on line, or you have to make a phone call. So she had to go down to the library, she had to get on line, and she had to try and get an appointment.

She was told that emergency grants don’t cover things like this, that if she’d had a fire in her apartment and all her clothes had burned up, maybe then there was an opportunity to be able to provide her with some support. But that’s not what an emergency grant covers, so she was stuck at home. She was stuck inside.

She mentioned payday loans at the end of that call and said: “I live on a payday loan. I have to get one every month. I can’t survive otherwise.” She said: “I’m really, really serious about paying off that payday loan. I go in there every month, and I make my payments so I don’t have to pay the extra interest. I only pay the huge, exorbitant interest that they already charge me. I pay that.”

She said: “When I go in, because I’m serious about making my payments, they spend ten minutes talking to me about trying to take another loan.” She said it’s a sales time period. “I can’t pay off my bill every month without getting a sales pitch and pressure, every single month, to try and take out another payday loan.”

“It’s great. You’ve paid this one off. You can take out another $100.” Or: “Because you’ve made your payment this month, we can give you another $150.”

She was telling me this, not because of herself, but because she was worried that for so many people on income assistance and disability, that’s the only way they manage to survive.

What about food bank usage, another indicator of this government’s choices? It’s at the highest rate ever in British Columbia. Even charitable giving has dropped. A report came out about charitable giving, and British Columbia has had the largest drop in charitable giving in the country. Again, that’s affordability. People don’t have extra to be able to share. They can’t get by, themselves — they and their family.

[1530]

I mentioned that I would come back to the issue of housing because it is certainly a crisis in our province. We have a runaway speculative housing market that this government did absolutely nothing about until it became a headline problem for this government and this Premier and until there happened to be an election around the corner.

It’s not that they weren’t warned. They were warned by the opposition. They were warned by even the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. They were warned by people who where trying to buy houses that there was a problem in this province, particularly in our urban settings, in the Metro Vancouver area and in Victoria and the capital region.
[ Page 13748 ]

Yet this government ignored it until all of a sudden — just as they’ve done with Budget 2017 — it looked like it was going to be an issue as it came to the election. They want you to forget they did everything, and by the way, “Just look now, when we think we’ve fixed it.”

Well, if I take a look at my own community, we have a 0.06 percent vacancy rate. I hear the stories every single day about the results of this government’s choice not to invest in a long-term, comprehensive housing strategy in this province. Seniors sleeping in their cars. I had those conversations this summer.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Who would have imagined, as an MLA or as someone who grew up in my community, that I’d be having a conversation with a senior who sleeps in her car because that’s the only option she has? She told me she’s grateful for one of the Tim Hortons in town, because they’ll let her go in and use the bathroom and wash up in their sink. That indignity is unacceptable in my community or any single community in British Columbia.

Families unable to find housing. Parents unable to get their kids back who have actually turned their lives around and are looking to get their kids back from government care. But what’s one the one of the requirements when you need to get your children back? Housing. You need to have quality housing.

Well, I defy anyone to find quality housing that’s affordable if you’re a single parent and you’re on disabilities, in my community or in many large communities around this province. What that has meant is that it has squeezed the entire housing market. It has squeezed the rental market, because it’s a speculative real estate market, because prices have gone up. You’ve seen new owners buy rental buildings and decide that they’re going to renovate the buildings. They’re either going to increase the rent, or they’re going to look at turning them into condos.

That has huge consequences. I’ve certainly faced it. I’ve had, I think, three, four, five town hall meetings now with individuals from buildings who have not been treated well, who are not getting the basic respect they deserve as tenants in our community. If those rental accommodations disappear, where are these individuals going to go?

These are individuals who work in our community. Who’s going to do those jobs if you can’t find housing? We’ve had large employers come forward, like Hootsuite, to say that they can’t keep employees because of the cost of living, because it’s too high, because they can’t afford to live in their community where they work.

Again, it’s not simply an issue of not being able to provide good-quality housing to individuals; it’s an economic issue. It has a huge impact on employers. It’s a direct consequence of this government ignoring what they were told over and over and over again, and then thinking at election time that they better fix it. But that’s too little, too late.

I just think of all the lost opportunity in all the areas that I’ve talked about, all the programs and services that have been taken apart. That’s not good economics — to take apart a system, to starve the system for all those years, and then all of a sudden at election time decide to put some resources back in. That doesn’t save money. In fact, it costs more to take that kind of approach.

In the meantime, think of all those consequences for all the individuals. Think of the cost, both human and social. Think of the economic cost of this government’s decisions.

[1535]

What about seniors? We didn’t see any mention of seniors in the throne or the budget, in fact — when we take a look at the kind of lack of care that we’re seeing for seniors in British Columbia, when we read the reports that come out from the seniors advocate, when you see that 91 percent of care homes in this province don’t meet the basic standard for seniors, basic standards meaning a few hours of individual care for things like bathing and toileting.

We’ve asked these questions before, and I’ve heard the Minister of Health say: “Oh, these aren’t issues.” Well, I’ve talked to these families — where their mother has to get up two hours before breakfast because if the care aide doesn’t provide for and get the individual residents she looks after up out of their bed and into a chair, then they won’t be ready to feed in time. They won’t be able to provide them with the care they need.

That’s not quality care for people who built our province, for people who contributed as taxpaying citizens all those years — to not get basic care in care homes. That’s a direct result of this government’s choices to not enforce those standards and not provide the resources to ensure that those standards are provided.

My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake and I held a seniors forum a couple of weeks ago — an overflowing crowd. We had a care worker from residential care, from home care, who talked about what it’s like to run from appointment to appointment. I support investments in home care, but investments in home care doesn’t mean providing a senior citizen with 15 minutes of someone’s time, which includes the travel time that they have to get to the place and to get out and get to the next place.

That’s not quality care. That’s not providing a senior citizen with the dignity and respect that they deserve. No wonder you see revolving doors. You hear seniors and their families talking about the challenge of having different care aides each time that they have a person come to their place. Well, no wonder, when people go into this work because they care and the situation that they have to work in is to run from appointment to appointment, to deny people basic care that they need. That’s not a strong economy.

What about post-secondary? I talk to young people and their families. They certainly hope that their young people will go to post-secondary, are saving up so that
[ Page 13749 ]
they can go to college or university. But when they do get there, they pay double for their classes if they can even get the course that they want.

The other thing we’re seeing is that lots of post-secondary institutions now are squeezed financially by this government, have had to increase the number of foreign students that come to their university or college. This provides a wealth, a mix of people at universities and colleges. People and students will say that it adds to the experience — but not at the detriment of making courses unavailable for all students. That’s what we’re seeing in some of our colleges and universities.

Then what about the K-to-12 system? Children certainly haven’t been getting the supports that they deserve and that they need in B.C. classrooms, for 15 years. That means that an entire generation of children, for their entire education from kindergarten to grade 12, under this government and under this Premier, have not been getting the basic supports they need because this government and this Premier felt it was more important to pick a fight with teachers than it was to put the resources into our education system.

This government used taxpayer dollars to fight the teachers all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it took the Supreme Court of Canada to say to this government: “You are wrong. Put the resources back into the classroom.” That’s not a commitment of this government, to now say, “We’re going to put money back into education,” when they had to be forced by the Supreme Court of Canada to put those resources in. That’s no kind of commitment whatsoever.

[1540]

Think of all the children who lost out for all of those years. Think of the lack of teacher-librarians and counsellors and specialist teachers. I know the difference it can make to have a reading recovery or a support teacher in a classroom helping kids who just need that little bit of extra support at the start to be able to shine through the rest of their education.

Or to that child who the music program is what keeps them in school. That’s what makes a difference every day when they go. Those specialist teachers were gone.

Or the counsellor who happens to notice that that child is having a really hard time right now and takes them under their wing and gives them a little bit of extra support so they can go back to the classroom and manage. That’s what was lost. That’s the real human consequence of this government’s decisions.

What about health care — people waiting longer? We’ve had the stories and we’ve told the stories of individuals who have been waiting in pain, progressively getting worse when it comes to their health. The people who can’t find doctors. That is a huge issue in our province. Not able to find a health care team to be able to provide them with quality, ongoing care. Not able to get diagnosis treatments. Not able to get basic supports.

Then there are those, as I mentioned earlier, struggling with mental health and addictions, and people who haven’t been able to navigate the bits and pieces of service that are out there. Those are the human consequences to the choices that this government has made.

I talked about children in care earlier — endless empty promises. I sat as the critic for Children and Families for a couple of years, and I have to tell you I asked questions over and over again of this minister as the government would come forward and say they were going to implement this recommendation or implement that recommendation. Was anything put forward? No. We’d ask questions about resources, and resources weren’t there. That’s a consequence of this government’s decision.

I see a member who’d like to make an introduction.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I have a wonderful group of students from White Rock Christian here, their teachers and a number of parents supervising them. They are exceptionally fine rap singers. They’re quite engaged in the political process. Three of them are colour-blind, they told me, so they really do like my blue suit. Please welcome the group who came here from White Rock Christian to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

C. James: Now I want to take a little bit of time. I’ve talked about the choices that this government has made. I’ve talked about the human impact of the choices that this government has made. I just want to take a little bit of time to move on to the reality, the real facts, about B.C.’s economy.

I want to start by saying that a prosperous economy that benefits all British Columbians should be a goal that everyone in this House strives for, but it’s not what we see in Budget 2017. That’s not the goal that is being worked on by this government — in fact, just the opposite. That’s why I want to take a look at a few numbers that don’t often get brought forward by this government when they talk about the economy.

We’ve seen very clearly in this province that the growth of B.C.’s economy has really been focused on a speculative, out-of-control housing market. That’s not sustainable. It impacts hundreds of thousands of families who can’t afford to live in their own communities. The Royal Bank of Canada housing affordability index shows it takes 87.6 percent of the median income to afford an average house in the greater Vancouver area — 87.6 percent of the median income to buy an average house in the Vancouver area. That’s the highest ever recorded in
[ Page 13750 ]
all of Canada. That’s what the speculative real estate market has done.

[1545]

Those aren’t just numbers. Those are families. Those are workers who aren’t able to be in the community, stay in the community or provide their expertise to all of us as tax-paying citizens.

Those numbers impact families who are looking at home ownership. They also impact, as I said earlier, tenants and renters. As vacancy rates drop, the rents go up. The market is skewed, and there isn’t that balance that you need for people to be able to move from accommodation to accommodation, for renters to move into housing and to provide opportunities for more renters to move into those rental markets. You need that continuum of housing to provide affordability and support to individuals in our province. That has gone because of this speculative market.

Let’s unpack some of the numbers that the government talks about often. The government talks about giving security to hard-working British Columbians when it comes to jobs. Well, in fact, in British Columbia, part-time jobs grew almost four times faster than full-time jobs. Part-time growth in our province was 7.6 percent, and full-time job growth was 2 percent.

While the government likes to talk about employment and employment numbers, I think all we have to do — the sad example, from my perspective — is to take a look at the forest industry. Now, this is an industry that built British Columbia, that has been part of our past and should be part of our future. Yet if we take a look just at that industry alone….

The Quesnel sawmill closed in 2014, 209 direct jobs. The West Fraser Houston mill, 2014, 225 direct jobs. The Tolko mill in Merritt closed in December 2016, resulting in a loss of 203 direct jobs. The Canfor mill in Canal Flats closed permanently in November 2015, laying off 75 employees — or 170, when you consider the employees who were laid off earlier in the year. In August 2016, Catalyst Paper shut down one of its three magazine paper machines at the Powell River mill, 50 job losses. Pinnacle Renewable Energy closed its Quesnel pellet plant in May 2016. They said they were unable to secure sustainable, economically available fibre to support the operation of the mill. That’s just a short list of the challenges in that industry.

When the government talks about things in the economy being strong and it being well for everyone, certainly not for those families, certainly not for those communities. They haven’t seen the kind of boom that the government has talked about in this budget.

What does it look like when you take a look at the statistics around wage growth? Well, B.C., in fact, had the worst record in the country when it comes to wage growth. When adjusted for inflation, wage growth fell by 1.1 percent in British Columbia. Since 2011, when the Premier became the Premier, B.C. has had the worst record of wage growth. It’s no surprise that affordability would be a crisis for people in our province when you take a look at flat wage growth. It’s no surprise that we see the kinds of debt levels I talked about earlier or the increasing use of payday loans or the increasing use of food banks. It’s no surprise when you take a look at the numbers below the numbers that the government puts forward.

We have the largest wealth gap in the country right here in British Columbia. I don’t think there’s an economist who doesn’t come forward in these times to talk about the challenge of growing inequality. That’s a global issue, and it’s an urgent issue right here in British Columbia. It needs to be addressed, not simply because it’s the right thing to do but because it’s also the right economic thing to do. An economy isn’t strong if everyone isn’t benefiting. We need to make sure we address inequality.

[1550]

Growing income inequality is going to be huge this next year continued. A report just came out from CIBC that talks about the growing income inequality across this country but, more importantly, right here in British Columbia. What did that report say? It says that growing income inequality divides communities. People trust each other less. There’s more emphasis on trying to keep up with the Joneses, resulting in feelings of alienation and isolation. It divides communities.

Income inequality is also associated with reduced physical and mental health. It decreases children’s well-being. When you add onto that the precarious jobs that we see happening in British Columbia, you end up with a double factor. We see increases in insecurity, meaning that individuals are struggling with precarious employment — poorly paid often, casual, even part-time. Even if you hold more than one of these kinds of jobs, it can be hard to make ends meet.

What’s the impact of that on individuals, often younger workers? There’s an increase in burnout, specifically emotional exhaustion. Workers feel drained and depleted. They have no hope. They begin to dread what’s ahead in their workday. They experience physical symptoms, like chest pain and heart palpitations. They may struggle with anxiety and depression. That’s what happens when we don’t address the issues of precarious work, of low-wage work and of inequality in British Columbia.

In addition to the low wages, in addition to the challenges of building an economy on a speculative real estate market, we also have seen a large portion of that economic growth happen in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island. We truly are two provinces. We truly see those challenges. In fact, the TD Bank said in January of this year that construction and real estate “explain over 100 percent of the growth” in employment. “In other words, in the absence of this sector, there would be an outright decline in full-time jobs in this province. The real estate sector reflects a concentration risk in job de-
[ Page 13751 ]
mand that marks one reason why we maintain a cautious outlook on employment growth for British Columbia in 2017 and 2018.”

That’s not the opposition putting forward these quotes. This is the TD Bank. The TD Bank has said there is a risk. There’s an economic risk when you base your economy on a speculative real estate market that is going to soften, and it is going to see a slowdown.

Regions outside the Lower Mainland and outside southern Vancouver Island have seen their unemployment rates go up over this last year. The rest of the province is shrinking. The populations, the labour force and the overall employment in every region outside the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island have been shrinking since 2011, since the Premier became the Premier. Kelowna, the Premier’s own riding, lost 2,400 jobs since she became Premier. The unemployment climbed from 8.6 to 8.9 percent.

Young workers, as I said, have been particularly hard hit. They’re the people that often have to take that part-time temporary work, without benefits, without support. Precarious work really is a reality for many of our young people.

What about the quality of jobs available? I often hear the government talking about all the job vacancies that are there and, as I said earlier, that the best way to address poverty is a job. Well, there’s an interesting new table that’s done by Statistics Canada that looks at job vacancy and wage survey. When you take a look at British Columbia, the current data that’s available, it shows that, in B.C., many of the new jobs that are available, that do have vacancies, are part-time, temporary and low paid. Among the ten occupations with the most job vacancies in 2016, over half of them paid less than $12 an hour — over half of them. That’s Statistics Canada data.

So when the Premier says that a job is the best poverty plan, it’s pretty tough to get out of poverty when you’re living on a wage that’s below the poverty line, when you can’t find affordable housing and when those are the choices and the jobs that are available — low wage, part-time, less than $12 an hour. That’s pretty tough for most families and most individuals I know.

[1555]

Again, when we come to the economy and we hear the government talking about the economy and we hear them boasting about the issue of taxes, let’s not forget, as I said earlier, that this government chose to take from families, take from individuals, in fees and costs.

What has that meant? What has that meant to our economy, and what has that meant to our tax system? Well, it’s meant that B.C.’s tax system has become much less fair over the 16 years of this government. When you start charging people with MSP premiums and Hydro and ICBC rates, those are regressive taxes. They’re not based on your income. They’re not based on how much you make, as would happen if it was the income tax system, where you pay more as you earn more. Those taxes you have to pay regardless.

As I said earlier, on MSP, if you make $45,000 or you make $400,000, you still pay the same amount in MSP. That’s meant that our tax system has become much less fair, much more regressive. That means inequality grows, as I talked about earlier, which isn’t healthy for an economy, isn’t healthy for a community and isn’t healthy for society.

We’ll all remember, in 2002, when the government talked about tax cuts benefiting all British Columbians. I’m sure we all remember that 25 percent tax cut that they all talked about and said it was wonderful. Everyone was going to benefit. In fact, if you analyze that cut, you find out that the reality was actually just the opposite.

With the constant increases in regressive taxes like medical service premiums, the benefits of that tax cut were actually skewed to higher-income earners. Households with income over $400,000 — the richest 1 percent in our province — gained the most from those tax cuts by this government: $39,000 per year on average, compared to the 2000 tax rates.

So in 2002, this government comes in. They make a choice to give a tax break and have benefited the richest 1 percent in a much larger way. For comparison, households with income between $20,000 and $43,500 actually saw their taxes increase since the year 2000. That’s not taking into account the other costs that I’ve talked about, like tuition or ferry fares or housing or child care.

When you take a look at the reality of the economy in British Columbia, it’s no surprise that the public feels that they’re struggling to get by. It’s no surprise that they can’t stretch from paycheque to paycheque. There’s a reason for that, and that reason is this Premier and this government and the choices that they have made.

I heard the minister and the Premier say that they listened to the public. Well, as I said earlier, I’ve had the privilege of sitting on — and it is a privilege, regardless of all the travel and the time….

Interjection.

C. James: Yes. My colleague says that the top 2 percent income earners have certainly benefited and been listened to by this government. But when it comes to the rest of hard-working British Columbians, they’ve been completely ignored.

I travelled the province on that Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It’s always interesting, because that’s a bipartisan committee. It has both sides of the Legislature sitting on it. We come up with a report, and we have come up with a unanimous report over the last number of years, on some very strong recommendations for the Premier and the government to take a look at in the budget.

It’s a chance to hear from people in rural and urban settings all over this province. It’s an opportunity to be
[ Page 13752 ]
able to hear firsthand the issues that matter to them. You get a wide range, believe me, of issues the public comes to present on — things that they care deeply about and that they really want the government to focus on when it comes to setting their budget.

I think it’s important just to take a look at a few of those areas that the public said they felt should be priorities in this Budget 2017.

One of the areas that has been a priority over the last number of years since I’ve sat on the committee — so not just this year, but in fact last year and the year before and the year before that…. Number one priority for the public was schools and education funding.

[1600]

Here we have the public saying: “Put money into K to 12. Put money into education and schools. We believe that’s critical.” Yet the only way we see this government actually listen to the public is when they’re forced to by the Supreme Court. That’s not a commitment. That’s not a commitment to education. That’s being forced to have to put money into something that is a basic service that should have been provided in this province.

The second area is the issue of hospitals and mental health supports. Again, last year it was a priority. The year before, it was a priority, and the year before, it was a priority. You’ll see, as I go through a couple of these, that there is a clear pattern — a clear pattern where the government wants to starve the system of those supports and then, when it comes to an election year, say to the public: “Don’t look at our record. Forget about everything that’s happened over the last 16 years. Just take a look at Budget 2017.” Well, that’s not good enough. Simply not good enough.

What was the third area that the public requested for the government to set as a priority in this budget? The area of environmental protection and climate change. Barely mentioned. Barely mentioned in Budget 2017. When it comes to listening to the public, the public report…. The government’s own committee that goes out and travels around the province wasn’t listened to by the Finance Minister, wasn’t listened to by the Premier, wasn’t listened to by this government.

What was the fourth priority that people asked for in that report? An increase in social assistance. Was that in Budget 2017? Not at all. In fact, the small amount that they gave to people with disabilities wasn’t enough to even pay for the new bus pass that people on disabilities now have to pay for — didn’t even cover it.

What was No. 5? It was the area of child care, early childhood and poverty reduction. Was that included in the budget? No. Budget 2017 didn’t talk about poverty reduction. It didn’t talk about building a child care system instead of a piecemeal approach that doesn’t provide support to families.

I think that when it comes to child care, we’ll all remember the government crowing about their child care map around this province that basically gave parents a chance to be able to go on line and see where child care spaces didn’t exist. That’s really what that map did. It showed parents all the places that there were no child care spaces and, certainly, no affordable, quality child care spaces that were accessible.

L. Krog: Liberal transparency.

C. James: Yeah. Liberal transparency, my colleague says. I suppose, though, that’s a pretty sad statement but, I think, an accurate statement for the challenge we’re facing in British Columbia.

No. 6: reduce the MSP premiums. Well, I was glad to see that some tinkering is happening in the budget, in Budget 2017. Once again, let’s remember that a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums basically just makes up for the increases that this Premier and this government have put on families over these last 16 years.

No. 7 priority for the public during the budget consultation: reduce Hydro, Ferries and ICBC rates and costs. Was that in the budget? No. That wasn’t in Budget 2017. People will still have to continue to pay out of pocket. They’ll still pay $1,000 more. They’re not seeing a break in those areas. That wasn’t a priority for the government when it came to their budget. It was a priority for the public but not a priority for the government.

When the government talks about support for families, when the government says they’re listening to the public, their own report shows just the opposite. Their own report shows that they didn’t listen to the public. They didn’t take into account the presentations that were made at that committee. They didn’t take into account the areas the public said should be a priority for them.

In the final piece that I want to talk about today, I want to talk a little bit about possibilities and a little bit about what is possible and opportunities in British Columbia.

[1605]

I think what we really saw in this budget was that the government wants you to believe that everything is fine. They want you to completely forget everything that they’ve done for the last 16 years and believe that in the B.C. Liberals’ world, everything is absolutely fine in British Columbia. Well, people in this province know things aren’t fine. They feel it every single day. They also know that it doesn’t have to be this way. Quite literally, families in British Columbia can’t afford more of this Premier or of this government.

The people of this province deserve a government and a Premier that puts them first every single day, not simply at election time, not simply when it becomes a problem for them but that works on behalf of the public of British Columbia every single day, remembers who they are here to serve, remembers why they are in this place and in this Legislature.
[ Page 13753 ]

That’s why, on this side of the House, we want to work to make life affordable for everyday families. Instead of driving up costs with higher fees and higher services, we actually want to address the issue of affordability for families because that’s what families face every single day. As I said earlier, they don’t expect government to fix everything for them, but they don’t expect their government to make their life tougher. That’s what this government has done, and it doesn’t have to be that way.

That’s why we, on this side of the House, want to fix the services that people rely on, like schools and seniors care, and stop the cuts that are hurting so many people. Seniors deserve to live with dignity and respect, and we are not seeing that in the supports that are there now. Children deserve the best start in life, and we’re not seeing that in this province right now. The most vulnerable, people living on income assistance and disabilities and children in care, certainly deserve better than they’ve been getting. Basic services and supports that they’re not able to get because the government doesn’t put them first. The government doesn’t put them at the top of the list when it comes to providing services and supports.

That’s why, on this side of the House, we’re committed to building a sustainable economy with more good jobs for more people in every corner of British Columbia, not built on a speculative real estate market but built on a diverse economy where people, no matter what corner of the province you are in, have a chance to be able to contribute and be part of their community with a job in their community.

That’s why we’ve committed to a number of pieces. I just want to run through a few of those right now because I think they’re critical. They are not part of Budget 2017. They’re not commitments that were made. I think it’s important to talk about the critical pieces and the difference it can make to individuals.

The first one I want to talk about is the $10aDay child care program. The $10aDay program for child care in this province would not only be good for children. It would be good for families. It would be good for business. It would be good for employers. It would be good for the economy. That’s why you’ve seen so many chambers of commerce and municipal governments and boards of trade step up to the plate and endorse the $10aDay child care program.

They know the difference it can make to their businesses. They know the productivity increases that occur when families are comfortable with their children in child care and know that they don’t need to focus on that. They can focus on their job and on their work. There’s less turnover, and there’s more support. The savings that can be found by addressing some of the children as they come through the child care system, addressing their needs early, before they get into the school system…. Quality affordable child care benefits everyone. It’s a critical investment that will build a strong economy and that we’re committed to.

It’s why we’re committed to increase investments in transit, in renewable energy and building retrofits, to create those jobs and to build a sustainable economy. That’s why we’re committed to building new schools in Surrey and other communities and to actually getting the seismic upgrading done in schools around British Columbia, to make education a priority again — without the Supreme Court of Canada having to force it — to actually make it a priority because it matters in British Columbia.

[1610]

That’s why we believe in increasing the minimum wage, to start making life more affordable for families. And that’s just a short list of the many possibilities that are here in British Columbia.

I’ve said it often in this House, and I’ll say it again. I’m a very proud British Columbian. I’ve lived here almost my entire life.

We have everything in our province to make it a rich, prosperous place for all British Columbians. We are so fortunate to have people from all corners of the globe who live here. That gives us a huge strength in our province when it comes to the economy, a huge opportunity and benefit that we don’t take advantage of and that we don’t tap into, expertise we don’t tap into. We have an extraordinary natural environment. We have natural resources that are the envy of the world.

Most importantly, we have the greatest strength in our province, and that’s our people. Our future truly rests with people. Our future rests with the students who are attending Camosun College or UNBC, who are working days and nights to complete their apprenticeship or complete their degree, who want to contribute to building strong communities and a strong economy for all of us.

Our future rests with the teachers and nurses, social workers and support staff, outreach workers and bus drivers, paramedics and firefighters who support us every single day in our communities around B.C. Our future rests with the senior citizen who has spent years working and paying their taxes and now decides to give back in our communities by volunteering and giving of their time. It rests with the young child who, with a little bit of love and nurturing and encouragement, is going to actually be our future.

That’s why this Premier and this government want you to forget their record. It’s because they have not invested, in 16 years, in the greatest resource we have in this province: our people. After a decade and a half of neglect, I believe it’s long past time for a government that is actually going to stand up and support the people and work every day in this Legislature for the people of this province, because they are the future. They deserve better than they’ve seen over 16 years.

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s an honour and a privilege to stand and to respond to Budget 2017 and an honour
[ Page 13754 ]
and a privilege to continue to represent the great riding of Kelowna-Mission.

Just before I start, I do want to take this very, very quick opportunity just to thank my wife, Brenda, and my family for their continued patience and support and to thank Nan and Janice at our constituency office in Kelowna, who continue to do great service for all of the constituents in Kelowna-Mission and our region. We can’t say that enough when we get the opportunity, and I just want to, again, thank them.

This budget, I’m very proud to stand and support, because it is about what the choice is going to be. It is about what this government has achieved and what no other government in Canada has been able to do.

For the past five years, we’ve had five balanced budgets and a fiscal plan for eight; a triple-A credit rating, the only province in Canada to do so, which is saving hundreds of millions of dollars in interest costs; the best-performing provincial economy for the past two years; the lowest unemployment rate in Canada and the strongest GDP growth.

I listened very carefully to the member opposite in her presentation and her comments on the budget. I listened carefully to what she had to say but listened even more carefully to what she didn’t say. What she didn’t say was, for all of those initiatives that she’s talking about, how they’re going to pay for it. This comes from an opposition that consistently has said no to every major opportunity to create jobs in this province, a consistent response that is not supporting the economy in British Columbia.

[1615]

I think it’s very telling, in the member opposite’s response, around what wasn’t said as opposed to what was said.

Our record of fiscal discipline and management is the envy of the country. This is a budget, Budget 2017, that provides funding for new investments in classrooms; in mental health services; other supports for families, children and those most in need; and record investments in infrastructure — $13.7 billion in new and upgraded provincial taxpayer–supported infrastructure that supports services and jobs. It’s a budget that leaves $1 billion more in the pockets of B.C. families by cutting MSP premiums in half and starting the process to eliminate them.

Despite a fragile economy, we continue to have one of the brightest economic outlooks among all the provinces in Canada. We didn’t arrive at this point accidentally. It was purposeful. It took discipline to keep public finances under control. It took a willingness to keep the lowest taxes for the middle class in the country, while at the same time using existing resources to the fullest without increasing the size of government. It took a commitment to reduce and eliminate red tape that can stifle our private sector.

Yesterday’s budget, Budget 2017, represents the work of that labour and all of that hard work. I can look around my riding, Kelowna-Mission, in Kelowna and see the evidence of how these policies have helped diversify our economy — investments in infrastructure, services, diversification and growth.

Just a couple of examples. For example, this month it was revealed that the Okanagan is steadily growing its film and TV production industry, with news that Eagle Creek Studios will be constructing two permanent sound stages in Kelowna.

Okanagan Film Commissioner Jon Summerland declared: “This is the biggest thing since film has been made in the Okanagan. Now we can get full-time film. Now we can supply a television series.”

Eagle Creek’s Kelowna facility, to be built in an industrial park near Kelowna Airport, is budgeted at $3.5 million — 6,000 square feet of office space, a 15,000-square-foot sound stage. It is scheduled to be ready in early 2018, and there are plans for the second sound stage. Our area is now home to between 200 and 400 film workers, and that will increase.

Our creative sector is booming because we have the competitive provincial tax credits that directly target at attracting more business. The same applies to our high-tech sector. British Columbia’s technology sector is breaking employment records, with more than 101,000 people now working in its ranks. According to the latest statistics, tech workers earn a weekly average salary of $1,600. That’s 75 percent higher than the average wage in British Columbia.

Technology now employs 4.9 percent of B.C.’s workforce and is the third-largest tech workforce in Canada. As a matter of fact, my riding of Kelowna-Mission contains the lion’s share of those employees in the Okanagan — approximately 1,500 people out of the estimated 4,000 in our region.

The tech sector is having a huge impact on the local economy in the Okanagan. According to Accelerate Okanagan, the overall impact of the tech sector in our region is $1.3 billion. It has grown by 30 percent between 2013 and 2015, adding 1,000 jobs. This represents an increase of over $300 million of revenue contribution to the Okanagan economy since 2013.

Kelowna is the third-largest technology hub in B.C., and technology is the fastest-growing economic sector in Kelowna. The Okanagan innovation centre is a key part of that strategy. It’s going to provide a vibrant and supportive environment for everything from small start-ups to large, cutting-edge innovation technology firms. The Okanagan centre for innovation will help promote, nurture and support Kelowna moving to the most innovative, creative and entrepreneurial technology and innovation community in Canada.

I’m very proud of the work that’s being done there and proud of our government’s investment of $6 million in this project, which is expected to be open very soon in 2017. It’s going to add tremendous vitality, new jobs and increased economic contribution in our community.
[ Page 13755 ]

Budget 2017 also contains a number of features that directly benefit families and support economic growth in our region. Families will benefit from the 50 percent reduction in Medical Services Plan premiums for those earning a household income of less than $120,000 a year.

[1620]

Premiums are reduced for two million British Columbians, in addition to the two million who already don’t pay premiums. As the Finance Minister noted in his budget presentation, this is the first step to eliminating medical service premiums entirely.

A three-year increase in health care funding, $4.2 billion, will support critical investments in our community, like the Interior Heart and Surgical Centre in Kelowna, adding increased services and more support. It’s a record investment in health care funding in our province.

I also want to recognize the investment in Budget 2017 in the enhancement of services for mental health and substance use, with the focus on youth — I’ve had many visits in my constituency office from parents, from families who are suffering from mental health, substance abuse and addiction — and the $45 million to the Ministry of Children and Family Development over three years for more mental health counselling and treatment for children.

With $12 million for up to 28 additional youth addiction treatment beds, $9 million for the expansion of youth service centres at up to five sites, up to $5 million to support mental health services for post-secondary students and $11 million over three years for the B.C. Centre on Substance Use — all of these initiatives are going to provide much-needed additional support and services in the province and in our community, meeting a very, very critical need.

We’ve also seen significant investments in affordable housing. Our community has benefited greatly from those investments. So $920 million in this budget for affordable housing — a record level of investment — in Budget 2017. In our community, this has resulted in a number of projects that we’ve been able to recently move forward on and announce projects in partnership between the city and not-for-profit societies: the Ki-Low-Na Friendship Society, the city of Kelowna, the Society of Hope with the Apple Valley projects — many strong new initiatives in the recent announcement. So 130 new units as part of those projects.

Last week we had the opportunity to open one of the earlier projects — at Chapman Place, with the Ki-Low-Na Friendship Society — and had a chance to talk to the people that have moved into those facilities on how much they appreciate those facilities, how much they value them, and on some of the wonderful stories of people who have found those affordable housing units through those projects.

We know there’s more to do, and we know there is going to be the opportunity to do more with this very, very significant investment in affordable housing, in Budget 2017.

We’ve also seen significant investments in transportation in our community and investments in our great post-secondary financial institutions at UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College. So $40 million into a new teaching and learning centre at UBC Okanagan, investments to come in Okanagan College, providing great, great service and support for students, building those skills. Record levels of enrolment in both of those institutions. Great results are coming out of those institutions.

I just want to do a little shout-out for the Okanagan College business program and business students. Just very recently the students in that program competed in the Inter-Collegiate Business Competition at McGill University and received a first place and two runners-up awards in those competitions.

You should know and recognize who these students are competing against in these competitions: teams from Simon Fraser University, Concordia, McGill, St. Mary’s, Hong Kong Polytechnic. They are doing a great, great job in those competitions because of the programs, the services and the great instructors that we have in our institutions and the investments that we’ve been able to make in those institutions. The $38 million into a new trades facility at Okanagan College is meeting those key needs of the growing demand for the skilled trades.

[1625]

Significant investments in our community are all as a result of the strong fiscal performance of the province, the fiscal discipline that allows us to make these record investments in transportation, housing and infrastructure in our communities.

I did want to talk a little bit about the key items in the budget for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, my ministry — some very, very significant investments in Budget 2017.

So $27 million for a comprehensive caribou recovery program, a program that will take a multispecies, holistic approach to build on the existing recovery plans and focus on five key areas: restoring and protecting habitat; expanding on the maternal penning projects; predator management, research and monitoring; and compliance and enforcement. This comprehensive approach will help reverse the population decline and ensure the long-term survival of B.C.’s iconic caribou.

Today there are some 19,000 caribou in the province, compared to between 30,000 and 40,000 at the turn of the century, so we know we need to make these additional strategic investments. Budget 2017 has provided us with the opportunity to do that. We’re taking the necessary steps to protect habitat and working to assure that economic development activities can continue without compromising those recovery efforts.

Just last week we announced another $150 million contribution to the Forest Enhancement Society of British Columbia. You might recall that this society was es-
[ Page 13756 ]
tablished last year as part of balanced budget 2016 and backed by a provincial investment of $85 million. So an additional $150 million contribution to the society. This investment will restore forests adversely affected by mountain pine beetle and wildfire and assist in our fight against climate change. It meets commitments made under our B.C. climate leadership plan and the forest sector competitiveness agenda.

It’s an important step against climate change, but more importantly, this initiative will create jobs and provide certainty to many small business owners who work in silviculture or forestry consulting, and to equipment workers, contractors and businesses in the communities. The dedicated program will create over 3,000 jobs over the next five years, focusing on the main goals of the Forest Enhancement Society around preventing and mitigating the impact of wildfires, improving damaged or low-value forests, improving habitat for wildlife — a critical component of the work — supporting the use of fibre from the damaged and low-value forests and treating those forests to improve the management of greenhouse gases.

This funding is further to previous investments, such as the $445 million invested by the Forests for Tomorrow program since 2005, and will ensure our future generations can enjoy the same environmental and economic benefits from our forests as us.

This is probably the most significant investment in reforestation, silviculture and rehabilitation of the forest land in many, many years. Budget 2017 has allowed us to make these strategic investments and work with communities, the industry, businesses, the silviculture associations and the nurseries in implementing this program and providing this very, very significant investment.

Budget 2017 also includes a one-time $10 million investment for land management activities to control invasive plants and improve Crown range fencing — initiatives that are extremely important to ranchers and rural British Columbians.

I’ve also just finished reviewing and approving the second round of project applications for our rural dividend program. Funding announcements on individual projects will be made in the next few weeks. After one full year of operation, we’ve allocated nearly $25 million to over 300 project recipients in that program.

[1630]

I’m confident that we’re going to continue to build on the initial success of that program, particularly since balanced budget 2017 extends the program for one more year into 2019-2020, bringing the total funding committed up to $100 million in the rural dividend program — critical investments in our rural communities as we look to diversify those economies and those communities, have capacity-building, workforce development, community and economic development and business sector development.

The rural dividend is one of the ways that government is taking action to strengthen rural communities and to support the needs of rural communities and growing local economies. Shortly, the province will also be releasing a rural economic development strategy, being led by the Minister of State for Rural Economic Development.

You’ll see significant initiatives and focus on building those rural economies, of which the rural dividend program and the increased funding in that program is a key component. This strategy will help rural communities leverage their strengths, building on significant contributions they’ve made to B.C.’s economy, creating new opportunities and enriching the lifestyle advantages that rural British Columbia has to offer.

I want to talk a little bit about the investment in parks and the environment, which is partly in our ministry, partly in the Ministry of Environment. As part of the $36 million for the parks future strategy, my ministry is receiving $2.2 million for specific programs for campsite expansion in recreation sites around the province. They provide a more rustic camping experience but are also a very, very important part of B.C.’s outdoor recreation experience. We have over 1,700 recreation sites across the province, and over the next five years, we’ll be increasing that number of campsites and opportunities by over 1,000 additional sites.

This builds on the continued work we’re doing to ensure that we have areas of the province that are preserved and protected for future generations. One of the world’s greatest treasures…. I was very proud to be able to complete this process, along with all of our partners: environmental organizations, First Nations, industry and government. The legislation to preserve and protect 6.4 million hectares — an area the size of Ireland — in the Great Bear Rainforest is a gift to the world that was recently recognized with the prestigious Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy initiative following the royal visit of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Adding to those opportunities is the protection of a unique area outside of Prince George: the Ancient Forest, another very, very significant protection that has been put in place, protecting those unique values, adding to tourism opportunities for Prince George and the Robson Valley in that area. Again, those initiatives and, adding on top of those, are new investments in parks, new investments in rangers for parks through the Ministry of Environment programs, and significant expansion in campsite opportunities, both in parks and recreational sites.

We’ve got continued funding for our natural resource permitting project, meeting our commitment to reduce red tape for British Columbians. We’re increasing the automation and streamlining of natural resource–related authorizations — new services such as e-licensing for hunters. A transformation of all of our processes within the ministry and within Natural Resource Operations is
[ Page 13757 ]
going to provide additional client support and services to the many users of our services and recreation opportunities in the province.

I also want to applaud the Finance Minister for the planned elimination of PST on electricity over the next two years. This measure will save small, medium and large industrial businesses around the province $164 million by 2019-20. This acts on the recommendation of the Commission on Tax Competitiveness and supports our forest sector competitiveness agenda and recommendations brought forward by our Pulp and Paper Task Force.

[1635]

This initiative within Budget 2017 has been widely supported and recognized by the industry. Len Posyniak from Catalyst Paper: “This tax change will help improve our global competitiveness and create better hosting conditions for reinvestment in British Columbia.”

Mayor Dave Formosa of Powell River says: “Exempting the PST from power purchased by manufacturers is a smart tax policy that will improve the competitiveness in our forest sector, protect and support jobs in every region of the province. Improving the competitiveness of our local mill will help keep my constituents working and our local tax base sustainable.”

He made those comments on behalf of eight municipalities that rely heavily on the forest sector for local employment and for contributions to their local tax base. He was joined in that support by the mayors of Vernon, Quesnel, Port Alberni, Port Alice, North Cowichan, Mackenzie and Taylor — so very strong recognition and support of a very, very positive initiative within Budget ’17 that is going to help contribute to the long-term competitiveness of our forest sector.

Talking about the forest sector and why it’s so important to many communities across British Columbia…. That is why we are going to continue to work and continue to vigorously defend B.C.’s interest in the softwood lumber dispute.

Last week Premier Christy Clark named David Emerson as B.C.’s special trade envoy to Washington. In my view, David is the right person at the right time on this issue. He will work very closely with the B.C. government, with B.C. industry, the Canadian government and U.S. administration, finding a path forward for a managed trade agreement for the softwood lumber exports.

This is the highest priority for the province, highest priority for the federal government. We have been working extensively at all levels of government and with the industry over the last year and a half to achieve a managed trade agreement.

Unfortunately, the circumstances didn’t provide for the ability to do that, but we are refocusing and re-engaging with the new administration to achieve that objective. We know, and we believe the U.S. will know and understand, that they need the B.C. lumber there to achieve their economic objectives. They will need our lumber. They don’t meet their domestic needs. We know that in the long run, the work to build and grow the pie, in terms of lumber use and construction, is where our focus should be, rather than on a dispute over the existing pie. We are strongly focused to do that work.

In the meantime, we will also continuously vigorously defend B.C.’s interest in the trade litigation. It’s an onerous, expensive process, but it’s one that we are fully engaged in to make sure that we protect B.C.’s interest in that litigation and Canada’s interest in that litigation. We have always been able to prove that our policies are trade-compliant in the process. Unfortunately, the system allows those actions to be taken, and we will need to defend those, but with a key focus on ensuring that we find that path forward to a managed trade agreement.

We have made very, very significant investments over the last number of years in diversifying our market for the B.C. forest sector, investing in trade missions, investing in work in international markets to make sure that we have a diversified market for our industry. We’re much less reliant on the U.S. industry than we have been in the past, although it is still a critical and important market for us, and that’s why we need to treat the softwood lumber dispute with the highest priority. We will continue to invest in diversifying that market.

[1640]

Budget 2017 provided $6 million for three new international trade offices in Southeast Asia, and these offices will help open doors for B.C. business so that we can thrive and create jobs. We will continue to keep that focus on building a strong, diversified sector for our industry.

This Budget 2017, our fifth consecutive balanced budget, delivers the dividends of a strong, diversified economy and of prudent fiscal management. Both as a minister of a large and diverse portfolio and as a local MLA for Kelowna-Mission, I’m proud today to stand and support the benefits that this budget delivers to all British Columbians.

It’s a budget for the future. It’s a budget that sets out clearly the choice that is to be made, one that continues to support strong economic development in the province, supports families, returns dividends to those families, with record investments in health care, record investments in infrastructure, record investments in education — all as a result of the dedicated work of government in leading the country, leading in all factors.

We look forward to taking those results forward through all of the initiatives in Budget 2017, and I’m proud to stand in this House and support Budget 2017.

H. Bains: It is always a pleasure to stand and speak. I think one of the most important discussions that we have in this House ison the budget, and I will be speaking on and giving my response to this year’s budget.

I’ve been listening to the Minister of Finance and some of the ministers that have spoken so far and whatever
[ Page 13758 ]
they’ve been saying to the media for the last few days, building up to this so-called election budget. You would think that they would come to this House at this time, just before the election, and try to own up to the mistakes that they have made, the neglect of 15 years. The list is a long one, and I will try to touch on some of those.

They will try to paint a picture that everything is fine and everything is great here. We are creating jobs. We are doing this. We are doing all of that. But if you really scratch the surface and find out exactly what is going on out there, then you will know that things are not all that great, except for a few that they’ve been helping, a few at the top.

These are the choices and the policies of this government that brought us here: on one hand, tax breaks to the richest 2 percent; on the other hand, you continue to push costs on working- and middle-class families. That has been the history of this government for the last 15 years, and as a result, the middle-class, the working families are working longer and harder, but they are falling behind. They worry about their future.

With this budget, throwing some goodies out, they think that the people will forget the 15 years of neglect, the 15 years of ignoring the real issues that affect working people, the middle-class, those on fixed income, our seniors, our children, post-secondary education — you name it.

They want us to forget that in Surrey…. And I hope that the members from Surrey will pay attention to this because they will be questioned on this when we are in this election. They will be questioned. “Do you want us to forget that because of your neglect, we have 7,000 students in portables today?” That is the equivalent of the whole New Westminster school district. The equivalent to that number are in Surrey school portables right now.

[1645]

Just before the election, they woke up one day and said: “Oh, by the way, we are coming here to Surrey, and we will build some schools.” But they will not forget that you’ve been ignoring them for the last 15 years.

The last time the capital budget was approved for capital infrastructure was 2006. Then it took them six years after the Surrey school board, the Surrey city council, the parents, the teachers and the students…. If you recall, there were two high schools who had to walk out of their schools to try to drive the message to this government that they don’t have space to go and study.

The ad hoc committee, numerous meetings with the different Ministers of Education — and they’ve been saying no to that. Talk about forces of no. It’s the B.C. Liberals and this government that have been saying no to the real needs of our people, the real needs of our children in schools. So 7,000 students in portables right now, and they’ve been saying no to building schools.

They want us to forget that they have been fighting with the teachers, denying the resources to our students — 14 years of fighting with teachers. After they ripped up the collective agreement of teachers, taking the class size and class composition out, 14 years of fighting and millions of taxpayers’ dollars wasted.

In the meantime, a whole generation of students came into the school system and left the school system without proper resources given to them. This is the government that said no to them. They denied them the right to those resources, especially special needs children. Those are the children that needed help in those 14 years. They came and went through the whole system and left, without proper resources.

This government is responsible. They want us to forget that with this budget. Our parents will not forget. The people of Surrey will not forget. We will not let them forget. This government continued to ignore them, and with this budget, they will not be successful in trying to have us forget their 15 years of neglect.

Mr. Speaker, you take a look on the health care side. God forbid if any of your loved ones ends up in Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency. A six-to-seven-hour wait to see a doctor is common in Surrey Memorial Hospital. You walk through it on any given day; the lineup in the hallway is a long one.

Our seniors who should be in long-term-care beds are stuck in the beds in hospital. They’re not there because they don’t have the long-term-care beds. That’s the kind of neglect that they have, and they want us to forget that record. That will not happen. It was brought up today. It was brought up yesterday. Things are so bad that a quadriplegic, 55 years old — 51 days for her to have a bath.

They want us to forget that with this budget. It’s not going to be forgotten. People will ask questions. They will ask questions going into this election.

I just want to say my deepest condolences for Nimrat. Her parents, Amarinder and Balraj Gill of Abbotsford, lost their three-year-old child. They went to the hospital to get help. They were told: “Take her home. Give her Tylenol. She will be okay.” Three days later her condition persisted. They went back. Within hours, they were told their child is no more. They are mourning the loss of their child right now.

[1650]

When you have so much stress in our health care system and our health care providers are stressed to the limits, something is going to go wrong. They’re questioning whether they live in Canada or a Third World country. This government thinks that we should all forget, just because they are bringing some goodies in at the last minute, just before the election. It’s not going to happen.

You take a look at our crime situation in Surrey. Other than all kinds of announcements, nothing is working. Whatever program they have, nothing is working. Gun violence, drug dealing continues on. They don’t even listen to their own member from Abbotsford who came in with some recommendations to come up with some com-
[ Page 13759 ]
prehensive crime reduction strategy. They’ve been saying no to that. How could you forget that?

When parents don’t feel safe in their own homes, when parents don’t feel safe walking around their neighbourhood or to take a walk to the park or to use public facilities, nothing else matters.

This woman that I just talked about — 55 years old, 51 days without a bath. She was told: “You cannot get service after six o’clock because you are living in a crime-ridden area.” So crime alone isn’t affecting our neighbourhoods; it’s affecting the services to our seniors as well, because no one wants to come and provide their service after six o’clock. No one is going to forget that, come this election. They want us to forget that.

We have some wonderful people in Surrey who are trying to work with communities, work with authorities, to deal with some of the issues that are facing Surrey. The Wraparound program is working. It can be improved, yes. But how a child who is at risk when they are referred to the Wraparound program…. That child is told: “We have a waiting list. Get on the waiting list. We’ll talk to you when we have time.” That person needs help now. No wonder that they continue on in the wrong direction they started.

We have no resources for the parents or the teachers when they see, early on — grade 6, grade 7 students — something wrong. When they see that the child is maybe moving in the wrong direction, there is no help for them. They don’t know what to do. Parents will do what they do. But when they go to school and talk to the teachers, trying to work, trying to find out what can be done, the teachers say that they don’t have resources, don’t have time. And they’re right, because resources aren’t given to the teachers or to the parents.

If we continue to ignore these very basic things, we as a society will pay a huge price. We’re already paying that now in gun violence, police costs, court costs and human loss. They want us to forget that. It will not be forgotten.

How about post-secondary education? Talk about the forces of no. They promised 5,000 new spaces at Simon Fraser University in Surrey. How long ago was that? In 2005. How many were delivered? I think the ministers from Surrey should know this, because they hear about this all the time. Very few. How could you stand here and say: “Everything is fine”? South of the Fraser, we have the lowest per-capita post-secondary education spaces of anywhere in B.C. or other parts of the Lower Mainland. Those are the facts.

[1655]

Go out there and listen to our education community rather than stand here and make speeches without any facts. Without facts. Yes, they will have some alternative facts. I learned that today. They’re really good at that. On time, on budget — remember? Have you heard that? I’ll talk about that a little later on. Talk about alternative facts.

So 5,000 seats were promised. How many delivered, 11 years later? I think it’s about 300, 400. As a result, we have the lowest participation rate of high school children coming out of high school for post-secondary education south of the Fraser — lowest participation rate. There’s something wrong with that. How do you forget that?

When you talk about public transportation…. Some of the real key issues that we are facing south of the Fraser, with Surrey being the fastest-growing community in Canada, are in public transportation. The Premier was asked before the last election four years ago. What did she do? Rather than showing some leadership, she abdicated her responsibility by saying: “Go and have a referendum. You decide how you want to pay for it.”

There never was a referendum on the Expo Line, Evergreen Line, Canada Line, Port Mann Bridge, Massey Tunnel bridge. Announcements were made. These projects were built. But she wants to play politics, and she played politics. As a result, four years later, nothing to show for it as far as extension to south of the Fraser of SkyTrain or LRT is concerned. Nothing to show for it.

The Minister of Transportation probably should come and ride with me. I challenge him. Ride with me between 3:00 and 6:00 on 140 Street, 128 Street, 132 Street, King George Highway, 76 Avenue. You figure out what you have caused. What have you caused because of lack of leadership? Long lineups. The businesses have to do their work. How do they do their work when they’re stuck in traffic for half an hour, 45 minutes? That should take only ten minutes or five minutes.

That’s the forces of no, over there. They have been saying no to expand Surrey public transportation. They have been saying no to show leadership in that area. As a result, we have traffic jam after traffic jam.

They’re the ones who are saying no to implementing an agreement that they signed here: Port Metro trucks. They signed that agreement after a long strike. Once the agreement was settled, was signed, the Minister of Technology, the Minister Responsible for TransLink and the Premier were tripping over each other to sign that agreement, to get in front of the camera, to get a photo op.

After that was done and the photo op was finished, what happened? Nothing. Those truckers are still suffering from long waits. That was one of the key issues of dispute: long waits. Still there. They’re still suffering. The agreement that was signed…. It’s a part of that agreement that there will be round-trip rates. They failed to implement that. That there will be off-dock rates — they failed to implement that.

That there will be a commissioner who would have the powers based on the intent of that agreement, the 14-point action plan…. They didn’t give them enough jurisdiction on certain areas or resources. They’re working only on a part-time basis right now. So business as usual. The truckers continue to suffer, and the government got their photo op. They are the ones saying no to these things. Talk about forces of no.

[1700]

On the other hand, we will fix the truckers issue. We will fix the truckers issue so that the intent and the agreement that was signed by this government is implemented.

We will give the commissioner the resources they need and the jurisdiction they need, even if it means Legislative changes. We will do that.

We will work with all parties. That’s what it takes. That’s what the leadership is all about. You work and bring all those parties together to the table and ask them: how do we make this work? You don’t just have a photo op and then walk away and then never show your face again. That’s not leadership. That’s coming from the forces of no over there.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

This is the government that’s saying no to the injured workers — workers who are injured at workplaces. I know each one of these offices, MLAs on the government side and our side, has heard those horror stories. Those workers who are injured at the workplace are treated as criminals. They’re treated as they’re cheating the system, right off the bat, and then they have to fight to make a claim that they are right. Something’s wrong with that picture.

In 1913 and 1914…. I want to remind this House of what was called the great compromise. Workers gave up their right to sue the employer. The employer, on the other side, agreed to look after the injured workers when they are injured at work. Workers are living up to, or forced to live up to, their part of the contract, but the employer is not. It’s because of this government’s policies, because the WCB act is legislated by the B.C. Liberals here. They’re the ones who put those clauses in there.

First they cut their benefits, cut their pensions, cut the rehab programs that used to be there, and then they forced them to go back to work when they’re not even ready yet.

This is the government that is saying no to these injured workers. These are the ones who create wealth. These are the working people, who create wealth for this province. They need respect. Their health and safety should be protected in the workplace. When they’re injured, WCB’s role should be to protect them and rehab them back to work, not to act as some insurance company for employers. That’s what this government has made them to be.

They will talk about how prudent they are with taxpayers’ dollars. Well, let’s talk about some of the things. I want to talk about some of those alternative facts as well.

Remember the headline in the Vancouver Sun? Vaughn Palmer said: “Another day, another bogus claim by B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers that another project is on time, on budget.” Then he went on to list a number of projects that were not on time, not on budget. I’ll give you a few.

This is what’s happening with taxpayers’ tax dollars. Tax breaks to the richest 2 percent, tax increases for middle-class working people, and B.C. Hydro, ICBC, MSP premiums, ferry fares. The Minister of Energy said: “Wrong.” Maybe the Minister of Energy should stand up. Oh, the Minister of Agriculture. Okay. That makes it even worse. He should know better. He should know better, because they have been increasing all those rates for the last 15 years.

[1705]

Let’s talk about some of the on-time, on-budget claims that they’ve been making. Let’s talk about the Evergreen line. Original budget: B.C. government’s portion was $410 million. When all bills were in, it cost $586 million, a 43 percent cost overrun. It was a two-year delay, but the Minister for TransLink will stand up and say: “It’s on time, on budget.” You want to talk about alternative facts? Those are the alternative facts.

You look at South Fraser Perimeter Road. The original budget for B.C. was $635 million. The final budget, the final cost, came in at $899 million — 42 percent up.

Hon. A. Virk: Is that the one you voted against?

H. Bains: How would you know?

Interjections.

H. Bains: Oh, really? Make it up, as your Premier does. Go ahead and make up the facts. You know that is wrong.

Hon. A. Virk: Name one you said yes to.

H. Bains: We said no to sell public lands that were assessed at $125 million and sold for $82 million.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Bains: We said no to that, Minister.

Hon. A. Virk: We know you said no. Name one you said yes to.

H. Bains: I have a list here, Minister, and we will talk about those. Let’s talk about the Vancouver Convention Centre. Original budget of about $495 million. Final was $841 million, 70 percent up — and that was “on time, on budget” as well.

B.C. Place roof. The original cost was $365 million. The final cost: $514 million, 41 percent up. Port Mann Bridge. Alternative facts again. Port Mann Bridge. The original budget was….

Interjections.
[ Page 13761 ]

H. Bains: I know the truth hurts. I understand that. I know that you don’t want to hear this, but you’re going to have to hear this. The original budget was $2.3 million; the final was $3.3 billion. How much was that up? Forty-three percent up, a 43 percent cost overrun, and again they said: “On time, on budget.” That’s what they said.

Let’s talk about the public assets I just mentioned — $125 million assessed value. They don’t want to listen to this. So that they can play politics…. It was sold for $82 million. They talk about prudence with taxpayers’ dollars. That’s their example: $125 million assessed value and sold for $82 million — a gift to their friends. That’s exactly what’s happening here.

The big companies donate to the B.C. Liberals for them to get elected. They give them all these goodies — in this particular case, about a $42 million gift. They get the contracts, they build the projects, money comes to B.C. Liberal coffers again, and the cycle continues on. Who’s losing? Taxpayers. Taxpayers are the losers at the end.

They also like to forget that this budget…. The same companies who have been donating to the B.C. Liberals big time…. Numbers are all out there. The Premier took about $300,000 out of that, and those companies and those people, the wealthy, ended up getting $1 billion in tax breaks.

[1710]

You know, it smells of corruption, and that doesn’t send a very good message out there. You made headlines in Maclean’s magazine. We made headlines in the New York Times. We have become an embarrassment, not only nationally but internationally, with the actions of this Premier and this government. When will that end?

We can’t afford them anymore. B.C. residents can’t afford this government anymore. We need to clean up. We need to bring in a clean government, a government that will actually work for all British Columbians, not just for the top few who donate to their coffers so that they can stay in power and give them benefits when they’re in government. That’s not how you should run a democratic country like Canada.

No wonder that people are losing interest and that there’s so much cynicism about politicians and politics in this world — especially in this country, this province. It’s about time. It’s about time that we say no to big money in politics. It’s about time that we run a clean government without influence from the big and powerful. It’s about time that we have a government that will look after all citizens of British Columbia — school children, seniors, post-secondary education workers, unionized and non-unionized workers — everyone, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Hon. M. Bernier: Well, it’s an honour to stand up in the House today and speak around our 2017 budget, to speak around my ministry, what’s happening within the Ministry of Education. But it’s really important, I would say, to start by acknowledging today — Pink Shirt Day. I just want to acknowledge my colleagues and all of our friends who went on the front of the steps of the Legislature today to celebrate Pink Shirt Day, to really recognize ERASE Bullying — our strategy that we have within our education system — and how important that is.

We’ve actually trained over 15,000 educators, support staff and community partners in the province of British Columbia about really recognizing the importance of making sure that we get rid of bullying in our school system. Today was actually even more important, because we were stretching outside of those boundaries and talking about erasing bullying in sports. Thanks again to my colleagues that were part of that today.

It also lends to one of the announcements we made last year — one that I was very honoured to make on behalf of government — when we included sexual orientation and gender identity within our anti-bullying policies. I want to thank all of the school districts around the province that worked with us, that acknowledged the importance of making sure that those policies were in place. We’re now virtually complete, hon. Speaker, and with that, we have a great partnership with the ARC Foundation, which has been working not only with the Ministry of Education and with my staff but with school districts around the province to make sure those supports are in place for our educators. Really, what it means is that sports are in place for our students in the classrooms.

This last year has been an amazing year for myself, for the province and for the students in the province of British Columbia when we look at our capital and seismic program. One of the things we’ve done is to really focus on what’s happening in the province of British Columbia. Most importantly this year, what we saw in our school system is increased enrolment. Actually, it’s the first time in over a decade — actually, in almost two decades — that we’ve seen increased enrolment in the province of British Columbia.

In fact, we’ve had, over the last two years, almost 10,000 new students in the province of British Columbia going into our education system. That’s because families are moving to British Columbia. Families are coming here for jobs. They’re coming here for opportunities. They’re bringing their children here. They’re lucky to be doing that, not only for the economic opportunities that we have here but because we have one of the best education systems in the world. Their students, their family members and their children get to be part of that.

[1715]

With that growth of enrolment, it’s also meaning growth in the budget. That means we’ve been making further investments in our budget. In fact, we’ve actually increased the budget and are building and expanding schools. It went up by 36 percent last year. It’s money that is being invested in upgrading schools, money that’s being invested in seismic, in new schools around the province.
[ Page 13762 ]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: I really want to acknowledge my colleague here who’s sitting next to me and appreciating that, because he knows the importance of those investments in his area and other parts of the province where we have increased enrolment, where we have growing populations, to make sure we make those investments — investments that this government is committed to continue making.

With that, one of the things that we’ve been doing is making sure that we have safe schools for our students. We work closely with APEGBC, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. We have a globally recognized, award-winning seismic mitigation program here in British Columbia, and we work with school districts to make sure that we’re seismically upgrading our schools.

In fact, we made huge investments last year. We have the Kitsilano school, which is around $65 million, in Vancouver; Centennial Secondary in Coquitlam, $61 million — the work’s taking place on that school; Langley Secondary, $26.2 million to seismically upgrade that school.

One of the things we’re doing with those is also making sure we’re building new schools. In Langley, Surrey and Coquitlam last year alone, we invested in schools to create 4,800 new seats for students in British Columbia in those specific ridings.

One project that is the largest single investment in a school in recorded history that I could find is in the municipality of New Westminster. The member for New Westminster, I know, was very excited to be part of that announcement when we made $106.5 million to seismically replace that school, one of the largest schools in the province of British Columbia. It’s going to be a complicated job. It’s going to be a large job, and at the end of it, over 2,000 students are going to be in a brand-new, seismically upgraded modern school. It’s the largest investment in history for a single school district.

One of the things that we’re also going to do is to continue on the path in other districts. We know, in Vancouver, that there are a lot of schools that need to be seismically upgraded. Last year alone we had nine projects that are underway, $200 million worth of seismic projects right now. That’s part of the commitment that this government has already made.

We have seismically upgraded 163 high-risk schools and spent $1.3 billion to complete those projects. We have 224 schools right now that are either complete or under construction, in the planning stages. That’ll leave us with 118 schools left to go. That’s why further investments are important. That’s why having a strong economy is important. That’s why making sure that we have increases in our budget, which we have done year over year in the Ministry of Education…. It’s to make sure we can make investments like that.

In fact, we announced $65 million in our school enhancement program this year as well. That’s money that’s being spread around every school district in the province. While we’re making these seismic announcements, while we’re building new schools, we know that there are other schools that need maintenance. So we made sure that, on top of the money that’s already going to the school districts to do maintenance, we added an additional $65 million to go to the school districts.

We have hundreds and hundreds of projects around the province that have been completed last year because of that money to help have safe schools for our students.

I heard the member earlier talking about Surrey. I’d love to talk about Surrey. This is one of the areas where we have announced, thanks to the hard work and the efforts of the Surrey MLAs on the government side, who have met with me over and over again to push for investments in Surrey. I was very pleased to be out in Surrey just a few short weeks ago to announce $217 million to create new school space, brand-new schools that are going to build almost 5,200 new seats in Surrey. That’s the largest single capital investment in a school district in recent memory.

I want to thank my colleagues from Surrey who have met with me and who have advocated so hard to make sure that we’ve had those investments in Surrey.

[1720]

Part of that investment is not only making sure that the money is there for the school district to be able to move those projects forward. It’s making sure that we expedite it, making sure that we have a team working together so those projects can come to fruition as quickly as possible.

That’s why, as part of that announcement, I was very pleased to announce a new Surrey project board that’s actually going to be working collaboratively with members of the community, with the ministry, with professional engineers and geologists and the people who really know how to get these jobs built and get them built quickly. That’s a commitment that we’ve made to ensure we can do that.

All totalled in Surrey, since 2014, with the recent announcement this year and the $100 million announcement that we made last year with Premier Christy Clark and the MLAs out there…. That’s going to be almost 12,000 new seats being built in Surrey in that area.

I think, also with that, it’s important to highlight that since this government has been in charge of making sure we’re making investments like this, not only are we building all of these schools in Surrey; we have 100 fewer portables now, over the last 15 years, in Surrey than we had in the 1990s. That’s 100 fewer portables, and with this investment of bringing 12,000 new seats into Surrey, we know that’s going to go a long way to continue eliminating those portables.

Why do we make these investments? It’s not just to make these investments to have bricks and mortar. The important part of making these investments is to make
[ Page 13763 ]
sure we have great schools for our students, great schools for our teachers. Why? It’s what takes place, actually, in the schools that’s important. It’s not the bricks and mortar. It’s the great work the teachers do. And what do we get for that? We get some of the best outcomes in the world. In fact, we have actually been through the last PISA tests. Again, they have shown that our grade 10 students rank tops in the world in English, in science, in math, in reading. We have amazing outcomes in the province of British Columbia on top of our record investments.

While we’re making those investments, while we’re having great outcomes, our completion rates are going up as well in every single category. Our aboriginal students graduation rates, their completion rates, have skyrocketed. Students with special needs have skyrocketed. Our completion rates, right across the board, have gone up. In fact, they’ve gone up from 37 percent, when this government took over, to over 65 percent. Most school districts are now in the 80s for their aboriginal students, on par with non-aboriginal students. That’s because, again, we continue to modernize our system. We make sure we have an education system that excites our students. It empowers our teachers, and it’s one that parents around the province can be proud of when you look at our outcomes for our students.

The world is changing, and we want to stay on top. We’re going to continue to make not only our financial investments in our capital investments for our schools; we’re going to make investments in our students. One of the big things we’re doing is our new curriculum. We had over 100 teachers work with the ministry to make sure that we could modernize our curriculum in the province of British Columbia to make sure that we stay top of the world, stay the envy of all of the other jurisdictions globally.

I want to thank the teachers who have worked diligently as we’ve rolled out that new curriculum. I know that every time there’s change, there can be challenges that we want to work through. That’s why I’m proud of the relationships that we have with the BCTF — that we move forward, make sure we recognize those. We make the investments, and we collaborate together. We want to make sure our students have that education that’s required, not only for the jobs of today but for the jobs of tomorrow.

We have amazing opportunities in the province of British Columbia, and that’s why people are choosing to come here. We want to make sure that our students are ready for those opportunities. One of the big opportunities, which we highlighted in our curriculum, was around coding. We know that with 80,000 jobs in the province of British Columbia — over 9,000 companies in the tech sector — we need to make sure that our students are trained for all of the opportunities, whatever they choose to do in the province of British Columbia, whatever they choose to do when they grow up.

[1725]

Our new curriculum is inspiring students. Again, teachers are excited to be rolling this out. When I travel around the province, they tell me the stories of how this new curriculum is really allowing the great teachers to do what they were already doing. They’re empowering the students. They’re working with them. And the coding? Something new. This is different, but that’s modernizing our new curriculum.

I was really pleased when we put in extra funding, extra time for the teachers, time through training for the teachers. We announced $6 million to go towards buying new equipment and that training in the schools because this government recognizes that we want to make sure those investments are there and that training is there for our students, for the jobs of today and for tomorrow.

As we’re modernizing that new curriculum, one of the things that we need to make sure is that we’re consulting with parents. So we’ve embarked on a consultation process, reaching out around the province, talking to parents to make sure that they’re involved. We know — statistics show us — that any time a parent is involved in their child’s education, they succeed. They do better. They’re more engaged. They’re more involved. So we want to hear from parents.

What can we do? When we talk about our student reporting, what do parents want to hear? How do we get that information out? We’ve had almost 24,000 visits and parents engaged in our on-line survey that we’re doing right now. I want to thank the parents who have given us that feedback. As we roll out ideas, as we roll out the new system, we want to make sure that it’s not only working for those within the school system. It’s working for the parents as well, for their children, to make sure that they’re involved, they’re engaged and, more importantly, they’re supporting what’s going forward, because it is their students.

Again, with consultation, one of the big things that we need to be doing is making sure we’re reaching out to all parts of the province. I was really pleased when the member for Boundary-Similkameen was appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary for Rural Education and embarked on a full consultation process around rural British Columbia to make sure that we’re hearing from people in rural B.C. about what is working and what’s not working. How can we make improvements? I’m looking forward to that information coming forward to make sure, as we’re making investments, it works for all parts of British Columbia. We’re talking to community leaders, to the school districts, to parents, to teachers, to everyone to try to make sure that we hear from them what’s important.

We know in rural British Columbia that there are extra stresses and extra pressures, whether it’s decreasing enrolment, smaller community sizes, the remoteness that some school districts face, the harsher climates. That’s why rural school districts receive, on average, around 20 percent more in per-student funding to help with some
[ Page 13764 ]
of those stresses and challenges that they face that are unique in comparison to other parts of the province.

Last year we heard from school districts with declining enrolment, which were being faced with looking at having to close schools. They reached out and said: “We need to make sure that we recognize these unique situations that rural British Columbia faces, and as a province, we need to assist.” So I was really pleased when we were able to work with those school districts and announce an extra $2 million under our rural education enhancement fund to help those schools stay open, especially while we’re going through this consultation, to make sure that things work in rural British Columbia as well as in our urban areas.

On top of that fund, we want to make sure we’re having resources for our students, resources in the classroom. We had record funding last year of $5.1 billion that was going into our public education system. That funding goes to the school districts to make sure that they have systems in place for our teachers, for our classrooms and everything. We also heard that we can do more.

That’s why last weekend I was really pleased to announce, on behalf of government, an additional $29.4 million to go into a student learning fund to actually go towards supplies in the classrooms — things to help teachers, to help our students, as we’re rolling out the new curriculum, to make sure those supports are there. That was on top of the $6 million that we had already announced for equipment and time for coding.

In the classrooms, in the schools, again, we talk about our amazing outcomes because of the teachers. I’m really pleased that we are sitting down right now, collaborating, negotiating with the B.C. Teachers Federation and moving forward to make sure that we are making investments and hiring teachers that are needed in the province of British Columbia.

[1730]

We recently announced almost $100 million, as a preliminary step, to make sure that we have those teachers in place. School districts around the province are going to be hiring almost 1,100 new teachers across the province of British Columbia, in the classrooms, because of that $100 million. We’re at the table, we’re still discussing, and we know there are going to be more investments being made and more commitments with this government as we move forward.

Last year we also announced $14.7 million to make sure that we have busing opportunities for our students. We’ve heard from our school districts who are having to charge some parents around the province. So we actually put forward $14.7 million to make sure that that money is there, that the school districts can continue to supply busing, helping their students get to schools and making sure that that money is available so they no longer have to charge parents.

I want to now move into a little bit about this year’s budget within the Ministry of Education, because it builds on last year. We have been making amazing investments in our students. Last year we announced $5.1 billion, which was record funding. The Ministry of Education budget this year is going to be at a record — almost $6 billion. We have increased — this is unprecedented; it’s historical — the amount of money that is going, this year, the lifts, into the education budget.

We have $740 million in operating funds that are going to be added in there, and that’s in addition to the $400 million that was already previously announced. All total, our budget is going to see about $1.1 billion in additional funding over the next three years. That’s going right into the school system, right into our school districts right around the province, which will help our students in the province of British Columbia.

We’re committing almost $2 billion on top of that in capital. We are going to be investing in new schools, more seismic. We’re going to be making sure that those investments right across the province are helping all school districts, helping teachers and helping students.

We would not be able to make investments like that if we didn’t have the money. That money comes from a strong economy. That money comes because government is working hard with businesses, with the people in the province of British Columbia to make sure that that income comes in so we can invest it where it’s needed — invest it in our health care, invest it in education, in social programs.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Bernier: In agriculture — from my friend here — as well.

We need to make sure. We need the funds coming in, in order to invest it where people are asking us to invest it. And we have historical investments again this year in our education. That’s really something that we’ve been advocating for, that we’re working on, and it’s something that we’re able to accomplish.

We know that we’re going to have enrolment growth, so we have about $228 million in our budget committed to fund that enrolment growth as this government promised we would do. We have $44 million in the budget for teacher and support staff wage increases that we promised would be funded.

We are helping school districts manage the inflationary and operational pressures that they’ve told us about. We’ve added $94 million in the budget to help school districts with those. That’s on top of the $45 million, as well, for our transportation fund that we’ve put forward and also the $320 million in the budget in our negotiations in the interim agreement with the BCTF.

Our funding is up in education 44 percent under this government — funding that we know is important, funding that we’re going to continue making. And it’s one that we know that we’re going to continue advancing in work-
[ Page 13765 ]
ing with our school districts and working with parents in the province of British Columbia.

When you look at our capital side, that’s up as well — $1.8 billion per year. We’re investing more in our system, and we’ve invested $4.5 billion just in new school construction expansions and seismic upgrades in the tenure of this government.

Prior to this government, there was no plan for seismic or these kinds of investments. In fact, the Education Minister in the 1990s cancelled the program for seismic mitigation, because they said they could not afford it because of the economy that they had at the time.

[1735]

It wasn’t until this government…. In 2005, we came forward and we said: “The money needs to be invested. Students need to be safe. We need to have a plan.” And we actually do have a plan to make sure all of our schools that need to be are seismically safe for our students in British Columbia. That is built into our budget. It’s built into our plan. It’s one that we communicate with our school districts. And we’re going to continue to make sure those investments are being made.

On top of all that, we know there are going to be more investments. We are at the table right now with the BCTF, making sure that we’re implementing the restored clauses. We know that we are going to be moving forward with further things required in our school system. Commitments are being made. We have negotiations ongoing — great negotiations. I want to thank everybody who has actually been collaborating and working together at the table.

It’s not helpful to presume or guess how that’s going to unfold. The responsible and respectful thing is to sit down and have those negotiations. We have committed, as a government, that whatever comes out of those negotiations will be funded by this government.

In January, we sat down. We started meeting. We made the announcement on the initial $50 million amortized to $100 million per year, and we’ve seen teachers being hired already. We’re seeing those results in the schools. Over the next three years, we know there’s going to be $300 million specifically earmarked to sustain those positions. The government has committed to it, and we know there are going to be more investments on top of that.

We make sure that we look at what funds are needed in the classroom. I have heard hon. members across actually talk about that we don’t have funding in our school system to help students with special needs — or making sure that we have those resources in place. I want to correct those members yet again. We have almost $1 billion in this budget to go towards students with special needs to make sure resources are there, support mechanisms are in there, and make sure the teachers have what they need for those vulnerable students and make sure that they have what is needed to move forward.

That investment is showing. That investment is helping. Again, I look at the completion rates. For some of our students with special needs, the completion and graduation rates have gone up by 195 percent under this government because of those investments. We also have the learning improvement fund. We continue to make investments. We make sure that that money is targeted where it needs to be targeted.

You know, before my time runs out…. On a local level, I really want to thank all my constituents. I want to thank my school districts in the North Peace and the South Peace, school districts 59 and 60, and all the school districts around the province. I have travelled around the province. I have met with almost every single school district in the province of British Columbia in my time as the Minister of Education.

It is one that I’ve recognized — that, as a government, what we realize on our side of the House is that success in the education system comes with relationships. It comes with partnerships. It comes with communication. That’s something we’ve committed to, and that’s something that we will continue to do under our government. The investments we have been making happen because of those relationships as well as the strong economy that we have to make those.

I want to again thank all of the teachers, the support staff, principals and vice principals — everyone who’s working in the school system. Because when I talk about the amazing outcomes that we have, I know, and our government knows, that that doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It doesn’t happen by accident. It happens because of the great teachers that we have, and I want to thank them.

When I have travelled around the province, it’s the great stories that I have seen, the passion they have in the classrooms, the excitement that teachers have, but the excitement that students have to go to school every single day in our school system.

Again, we’re going to continue making investments. We recognize, as the Minister of Finance said in his speech, that the number one thing we can do is invest in education. The number one thing we can do is inspire our students and make sure that they are ready for the opportunities that this province, above every other province, has for them.

They can get educated here — the best education in the world. They can graduate here. They can have a great job here. They can raise their family here in the most beautiful province in this country.

[1740]

It’s something that we pride ourselves on. All the ministers, all of my colleagues, all of the MLAs on this side of the House — every single one of us will stand up and talk about the importance of this budget. Why? Because it’s focusing on what people need in the province of British Columbia.

We can all be proud about the province and the beauty. What’s important is that we’re proud of the investments
[ Page 13766 ]
we’re making to live here — that the supports are there, that the services are there. Again, it doesn’t happen by accident. It happens by a government that plans, a government that actually works to make sure that we have investments being made. We have money coming in for those investments. You need to be saying yes to projects.

In my riding, we have Site C. I think it’s about 1,500 people right now working on site. Almost 80 percent of those are British Columbians in my area who are working right now. That shows that when you say yes, when you move projects forward, that moves into investment.

I’ll end by thanking my family, my support, my members here that I have in my office and also within my ministry. We have amazing, dedicated staff in this building in all of our ministries who support all of us every single day. When we stand up in this House and we talk about the great success that our ministries have and that this government has, it happens because of our staff working with us as we are trying to implement the programs that our government can afford and our government can support. It doesn’t happen by accident.

Again, when members opposite stand up and actually criticize the investments that are being made or things that are happening within Health or Education or other ministries, they’re actually criticizing the hard-working staff in the province of British Columbia who day in and day out stand up. They go to work, and they make sure that they have the best outcomes for all of us in the province of British Columbia.

I will end with that, hon. Speaker. I see my time is up. Thank you very much for allowing me to talk about the amazing things that are going on with this budget and within the Ministry of Education.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. [Applause.]

N. Simons: Thank you to the member from Nanaimo. Even my friends opposite are giving me a warm welcome, warmer than usual.

I just have to say that I appreciate the words of the Minister of Education. I felt I was getting a lot of fodder for my speech during his speech. Then, at the end, he said that he didn’t want to hear any criticism. I prepared, and now he’s taken away my….

Interjection.

N. Simons: No. I think he strongly suggests that I don’t point out the reality of the budget that was presented in this chamber. It’s just a pre-election budget promising a lot of goodies but absolutely no possible way that British Columbians are going to buy it this time.

Interjection.

N. Simons: No, I know. There was a mention of how proud the government was to be able to address the issues around class size and composition and what a wonderful opportunity it was for them to take full advantage of the situation. I pictured and thought to myself that that’s kind of like someone going into jail and going: “Wow, 8 by 8. I never realized that by committing a crime, I’m going to find myself in a place like this.”

You spent 15 years fighting the people of British Columbia — the teachers, the educators and the people who care deeply about public education in this province. They knew what the problem was, but the government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming. Now, finally, we get to where they’re supposed to be, and then they’re saying: “Oh, look how happy we are to be here.”

I think that speaks to the whole approach of this government. They’re hoping against hope that people don’t see through that. They’re hoping against hope that people think that a few candies here is a replacement for a meal. I think what we really need to do is recognize that we’ve had 16 years of pretty much hollowing out the social support networks that exist in this province, hollowing them out until now, suddenly, before an election, surprise. We can now deal with the issues of neglect that we’ve been forcing on the people of the province for so long.

Let me just give you a few examples, if you don’t mind, of how this government is trying to cover up for the failures of the past. It’s like playing a really, really loud note and hoping that people will forget that they’ve just been blowing air through their trumpets for the last 16 years.

[1745]

We’ve got, absolutely…. We have a situation now where…. Across the province, we have a homelessness situation that has never been as bad as it is now. We have a child welfare system that might finally start to…. Well, there’s a recommittal, after report after report, to start addressing the issues. Who’s supposed to believe that the government has suddenly changed their perspective on everything?

It’s just so curious that here we are, a few months before an election, and the government is trying to portray itself as actually caring about the well-being of people in this province. I hope that the people of this province don’t have political Stockholm syndrome, because I think that if they do, they might be fooled. I don’t want people in this province to be fooled by this budget, which has all sorts of trinkets and all sorts of bells and whistles on it, but the truth is that it’s trying to cover up for the mistakes that have been perpetrated by this government for the past number of years.

It’s troubling to me that anybody is going to be fooled by it. I’m going to do my absolute best to make sure that the seniors, the children, people on disability and people working in this province realize that their lives have been made difficult. Just because there’s going to be another so-called promise to do better this time, I hope they don’t
[ Page 13767 ]
buy it, because I think it’s false. I think what we have on our hands here is the quintessential pre-election budget advertising effort to try and rid British Columbians of the memory of the failures of this government.

When I use the word “neglect,” I don’t quite use it in the same way as I did when I was a child protection social worker, referred to recently in this House as an angel, which I appreciate. But I cannot perform miracles, nor can other angels in this province perform miracles. We’ll get to that later when I talk about child welfare. I think, fundamentally, what we have here is a failure of this government to provide for the basics of food, shelter and health care.

Now, food. Food banks in this province…. I know that government members don’t like it when we point out their failures, and I know that they don’t like it when it seems to them that we’re sounding negative. So let me try to put it in a positive way. More and more people have benefited from being able to go to food banks in order to find their meals and to survive by eating food in this province. More and more people are in the position to benefit from the ability to go to a food bank — probably more and more food banks in their communities, as we go along, since 2005. So their access to food is improving. That’s the positive way of looking at it.

The fact is that more and more people, more and more families, are using the food bank because affordability is a crisis in this province.

More and more people are benefiting from the vast increase in the number of homeless shelter beds. Well, there we go. More and more homeless shelter beds for the people of this province. I’m reframing it. I hope the government doesn’t think that we’re actually happy that we’re having more and more homeless beds, but it’s a reflection of the failure of previous governments, this government’s social policies and their inability to see ahead and actually determine what needs our province is going to have.

Of course, when you see and when you hear about seniors in our acute care hospitals, who sit in their chairs, sometimes with medical conditions that make their cognitive functioning…. They’re suffering from cognitive decline. They’re sitting unattended, in many cases, without the appropriate stimulation, which the health care workers around them recognize, but they’re overworked. These are the seniors that have been left to their own devices.

All of a sudden, we have a government that seems to be changing its stripes three months, or two months, before an election. And I don’t think that this leopard can change its spots. What we’ve seen over the last 16 years, although there were moments of moderation during those periods, and moments of civility, even….

Interjection.

N. Simons: I long for the days of the civility. I won’t get into that.

What we have here is a budget before the people of the province. The people of the province are going to evaluate it based on what they know about this government’s record and, I think, make the appropriate decision based on that.

[1750]

We have a social deficit in this province. Any attempt to cover up for the failure of the last 16 years is not going to work. We have a generation — a generation — of children who have grown up, and if they’ve needed any assistance from government, if they’ve needed any intervention from outside support networks, they have probably not been able to benefit from those interventions. That is sad.

The lifetime of this government is something like almost 16 years — 15 years, nine months, I think it is. So a child born 15 years and nine months ago would have not benefited from the services as a toddler or as a child or as a youth. They would not have benefitted from the program.

I find the effort to cover up for the failures of the past to be not fooling anybody. How do you put that? I just worry that what we have before us is simply a budget of a nice banner with nothing behind it. Unfortunately for this government, I do not believe the people of the province are going to fall for it.

There are so many areas that have been neglected over the last 15 or 16 years; it’s hard to know exactly where to start. We’ve seen a forest industry losing dozens of mills. We’ve seen a forest industry, people in the forest industry, suffering from government policy. Unfortunately, that has not been something that…. The government has attempted to try to cover that up with false promises about an LNG industry. That has not worked. That has not worked at all.

The court systems in this province. We had, I think, 24 courthouses closed in this province. Where is the money that you saved from that? I find it problematic that this government is basing its projections on a budget that’s highly inflated by the housing boom, and it’s not sustainable in terms of revenue. I’m not sure government is actually being prudent.

My concerns go back to my professional area prior to being a politician, and that was in the area of child and youth protection. If I can just refer to some of the cases that we’ve heard about in this chamber. You think about what has been missing for 15 years and what has been missing not just in terms of public policy but missing for the children and youth who could benefit from the programs that have not been there.

The idea that, all of a sudden, the government is prepared to listen to reports on the state of the child welfare system…. It’s just surprising. The Hughes report was clear that in 2004 and 2003, the ministry was in a state of chaos and confusion with budget cuts and reorganizations happening at the same time. What did the government learn
[ Page 13768 ]
from that? Not very much. In fact, more reorganization, more budget cuts and disorganization — $66 million spent on reorganization resulted in absolutely no benefit for any child anywhere.

I think that speaks to a failure that shows no real sign of changing. That, to me, is a problem. We did not see anything in this budget that shows a real commitment to strengthening the child protection system in this province. The mental health system in this province got an infusion, but it is not going to make up for the fact that a 15-year-old today has gone without.

[1755]

A fundamental problem in the government’s planning is that it doesn’t realize that a child who’s been through the education system during this government’s regime has been one where the class size and the class composition has not been beneficial to any of the children — special needs or otherwise — in the classroom, nor to the teachers and to the administrators in the school.

I think, fundamentally, this is a budget about whether we can trust this government at all — if we can trust this government to truly be suddenly interested in the well-being of the people of this province, quite simply put. Obviously, their primary goal is to try and cover up their mistakes. We’ve seen a lack of accountability be a characteristic of this government, whether it’s in the child welfare system, whether it’s the education system, the social development sector.

This budget shows that the average cost for caring for a person with developmental disabilities is going to go down, not up. Increased caseloads should suggest that perhaps there’d be an increase in resources for people with developmental disabilities. We don’t see that. We see an actual expectation of an average cost to be going down. I don’t know where the government’s going to be making those savings, but I hope it’s not going to be on the backs of those families and caregivers who have already suffered.

We saw nothing in this budget to improve the lives and the conditions of people in our community who need assistance in their day-to-day living. Whether they’re in residential care or home share or if they’re in independent supports at home, we have families that are desperate for some assistance and have been calling out for support. I see nothing here before us that’s going to alleviate their concerns. Maybe they’re not a big enough voting bloc. Maybe they’re not a high enough donor. Maybe they’re just not on the government’s radar. But they should be. It’s a reflection of this government that the most vulnerable are still left out of their equation.

I worry about the people who’ve been left out. They’ve been left out for 16 years, and even with this windfall of revenue from property taxes, they’re not seeing any immediate relief.

Let me quote from some reports from the Representative for Children and Youth, who is going to be honoured tomorrow at a First Call dinner in Vancouver for her ten years of service to the province. Her job came about because the Hughes report — Hughes recommendations — said that this government’s elimination of independent oversight was a bad idea. They said that this government’s elimination of the children’s commissioner and the children’s advocate were not good decisions, quite frankly.

Of course, typical of this government, they had to be dragged back to the reality that we needed independent oversight. But then when you got independent oversight, you would have expected government to take their issues and recommendations seriously. Right now, of the representative’s recommendations, we’ve probably seen about 75 percent actively worked on and the rest sort of ignored.

Recently we were told that there was going to be a reinvestment in aboriginal child welfare — still way overrepresented in our child welfare system, in foster care and in residential foster care as well. I think the fact that there’s actually no plan to address those issues is just a failure. It’s not like they don’t know about it.

As long as this government doesn’t realize that these are, fundamentally, for our province…. In order to create social justice, we need to make sure that people have the opportunities to succeed. If you continuously or you repeatedly ignore an entire group of people and don’t provide the tools necessary to help those communities resolve their own issues, then we’re going to continue to see problems, especially under the current system. It’s concerning to me, and I think it’s concerning to most British Columbians.

We talk about the failures of the child welfare system, and we often bring up cases to illustrate points, to illustrate the fact that our social support networks are hollowed out and not as effective as they should be or could be in a province as wealthy as ours.

[1800]

We often refer to the fatalities, the children who’ve died either in care or recently out of care. But there are also other children we don’t hear about: children who have been impacted by the lack of appropriate staffing in a child welfare ministry.

Now, in the old days, when there was a crisis in the number of child protection social workers, there were active, extraordinary recruitment efforts in order to bring in people, and there were efforts to retain workers as well. What is happening in our system with the turnover that exists right now is a reflection of the fact that there are ongoing problems in the ministry.

We’ve seen the government take credit for increasing the number of adoptions. But you know what? When you increase just the number of adoptions — you haven’t increased the number of adoption workers, or the number of people who are available to provide those kinds of supports — then you’re actually rushing adoption. It’s not about the numbers.
[ Page 13769 ]

Children are not little widgets. An adoption has to be well planned. An adoption has to be well supported. The success or failure of adoptions isn’t the numbers that have been completed. For a government to be measuring success or failure on that basis I think is wrong, especially in the circumstances where the situation is completely distorted by the fact that people who do adoption and placement and resource work are also on a team with protection workers, and sometimes they share responsibilities.

We have children who are in for-profit care homes. That has been something that is a serious problem. Why are doing that? Are we trying to find more ways of saving money? Are we going to save money on the backs of these kids, who actually need professional, secure, competent workers to help guide them through their difficult youth, past the trauma of their childhood, to become citizens who are productive in our communities?

That should be our goal. It should not be to try and download or offload or contract out to someone else who you’re not going look over. You’re just going let them do whatever they want and hope against hope that they’ll be successful.

There’s one issue that we don’t bring up in this chamber enough, I think, because it’s a huge cost to the people of this province, and that’s our criminal justice system and our correctional system. We have a lot of people in our jails, and we spend about $200 a night for everyone who spends a night in jail. I know some people who spend time in our provincial jail system. When they come out, they’re given $50 and a ticket to the location of their last offence.

Let me ask you if it sounds prudent and fiscally responsible to say to somebody who needs job skills, who needs literacy skills, who needs life skills, who needs alcohol and drug treatment, who needs mental health counselling and who may need some social support networks on the outside that he has to pay for very single phone call he wants to make from a jail. If he has to pay for every single phone call he makes from jail, what opportunity do you think he’s going to have when he gets out? Who has he spoken to? How is he going to get money?

There’s no opportunity for work in jail. There’s no opportunity for programs. They’re being denied their cultural services, and they’re going to come out more angry and more resentful and less likely to stay clean — if they’ve, in fact, managed to stay clean inside jail.

There are ways that this government could focus some attention on the people who are potentially part of an important workforce, potentially skilled workers who are left to languish in what could sometimes be described as warehouse conditions. I find it troubling that our society is reflected in the way we deal with people who have fallen from whatever situation they’ve been in, whether it was trauma in their childhood or simply the circumstances of their life that have led them into these situations.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Our criminal justice system is essential in order to protect our communities but also in order to ensure that we have justice in our society. Justice does not include putting people into situations where their human dignity is compromised and where there is no opportunity for improving their own life. I’ve heard this repeatedly.

[1805]

I think it’s a responsibility of government to set good standards and policies, and budgets should reflect the needs. If we are prepared to spend an exorbitant amount of money on our criminal justice system — in particular, in our corrections system — we should be thinking about how we can maybe stem the cycle of violence or the cycle of criminality.

It’s to benefit those peoples’ families and their children and their communities, because we can do better. I firmly believe that we can do better, and I think we could have done better with this budget. But once again, it’s not a budget that we should take too seriously because of the fact that it is completely mythological that this government thinks that people of the province are going to buy it, essentially.

I hope in fact that as we proceed, we’ll know that the returning of the MSP premiums…. The idea that we should be thankful that the increase that was imposed is now being decreased — it defies logic to suggest that we should be grateful for something that should never have been imposed on us in the first place. The MSP is a regressive tax. It’s a form of taxation. MSP is a fee like all the other fees that have gone up.

We’re talking about fixed expenses, flat taxes such as our ferry fares on the Sunshine Coast. We’ve all recognized that the impacts on our communities are such that they should have at least been examined before service cuts went into place. There’s never any effort on the part of government to find ways of improving the service. It’s always an effort to try and trim as much as possible, to squeeze as much as possible, to push down as much as possible.

We should really be looking at our communities. How do we encourage economic activity? How do we encourage businesses to thrive? Unfortunately, it’s very selective. The government is very selective on how they want to do that. I don’t necessarily believe that any intention has changed because of this budget. It’s a pre-election budget in its purest sense. It’s got all sorts of efforts to placate people who have otherwise been hurt over the years.

I don’t want to get into individual criticisms here, but it’s hard to separate the decisions of this government over the last 16 years and this budget. It’s hard to see how they come together. It seems to me that this budget is simply sort of a Hail Mary, and I do strongly suggest that it’s not likely to be a top pass.
[ Page 13770 ]

Interjection.

N. Simons: What’s that, my friends? Okay, let me get into some other things.

The government decided that the social worker shortage is suddenly an issue. Let me read from a letter from the minister. I complained; I raised a concern to the minister about the fact that there was a shortage of social workers in a single particular office. I’d like to read the minister’s response. “I’m informed that the office has two official vacancies” — it’s an office of six — “which the ministry is currently in the process of filling. One position has been posted and will soon close. The other will be filled through MCFD’s quarterly recruitment hiring. There is also a third position, which the team strives to keep filled. This position helps to alleviate workload pressures for times like these. This position is also vacant, although not a vacancy.”

Now, I don’t know if it’s just me or if anybody reading this would have to stifle a laugh to think that they’d go to any extreme to deny the reality that the child welfare system has been starved. There are three vacancies, but one isn’t called a vacancy because it’s there to fill in for the vacancies, and its being vacant makes it not a vacancy.

[1810]

I don’t get it. This is just typical of this government’s approach to serious issues, problems that should have been addressed a long time ago, problems that should have been addressed before a pre-election budget.

Within five months of becoming minister, the representative told the government that it “must fulfil its role as a prudent parent and immediately take steps to ensure that children in its care who have complex special needs are provided with residential settings to meet those needs.”

Three years later, Alex, a child with complex special needs, was placed in a hotel — three years after that recommendation from the representative. The Super 8 was not what the representative had in mind. And when the ministry was caught, only then did government express shock and surprise.

The minister sought the sympathy of this House after being appointed. The representative said the services for mental health were a fragmented, under-resourced system of services for youth between 16 and 19. You know who that was talking about? Alex Gervais. In need of mental health counselling, he didn’t get the mental health services when he needed them. The minister won’t take responsibility for the decisions she has made to create the conditions under which social workers had absolutely no choices, no ability to adapt.

It goes on and on. If you look at the hollowing out of our social support network over the last 16 years, and you see this budget, you know that it’s an attempt to cover up for its failures. The failures have been real to the families, the failures have been real to the children, and the failures should not be allowed to continue. That’s why I’m hoping for a big change in May.

J. Martin: Not once, not twice, not thrice, not four but five times, this government has balanced the budget, and you can’t beat that.

One of the easiest things for me to do right now would be to talk about all the wonderful things in Budget 2017. I’m probably going to do a lot of that, but first, let’s see what some other people are saying. Let’s see what the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has to say about the budget.

“Our provincial government has been practising great business fundamentals, balancing budgets and investing in a more diversified economy, and this means they can now roll out bolder investments, laser-focused tax credits and a deeply competitive tax structure that gives businesses the choice to invest and hire more British Columbians.”

That’s from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. How good is that?

They go on:

“This targeted tax relief will put hard-earned dollars back into the pockets of business owners, both big and small, so they can make bolder investments and hire more British Columbians, exactly like we all want them to do.

“B.C. businesses know that paying down the operating debt gives them more choice as to how they invest in the teams, the infrastructure and, ultimately, communities that create B.C.’s nation-leading GDP growth.

“We’re pleased the government is heeding the collective perspectives of both the commission and what’s on the mind of business by removing the PST on electricity bills for business.

“This targeted tax relief will put hard-earned dollars back into the pockets of business owners, both big and small, so they can make bolder investments and hire more British Columbians.”

“This is a pretty good budget,” says Jock Finlayson of the Business Council of B.C. “I think it will have a tangible impact on business confidence and consumer confidence. Today’s budget,” he adds, “offers a series of tax measures which, all together, will help to keep B.C. on a path toward a more productive and competitive economy, chief among them being the elimination of PST on electricity.”

How about the Business Council of British Columbia. Well, they welcomed today’s provincial budget, which managed to find room for tax relief, while maintaining the government’s commitment to balance the budget. “This is a noteworthy accomplishment at a time of global uncertainty when most other provinces continue to face budgetary shortfalls.”

[1815]

And they sent out a nice little tweet. This is from the Business Council of B.C.: “Good news for B.C.’s economic competitiveness. Government’s decision to expand the interactive digital media tax credit to cover augmented and virtual reality products supports the expansion of B.C.’s technology sector.”

From the Business Council of British Columbia:

“The government has earmarked additional funds to build infrastructure and refurbish critical infrastructure in the province. This, too, helps bolster B.C.’s competitiveness and also improves the quality of life for our residents.
[ Page 13771 ]

“The extension of the scientific research and experimental tax development credits, as well as the mining flow-through share tax credit, is also good news as B.C. seeks to attract investment and develop a more innovative economy.

“Delivering a balanced budget within a climate of modest economic growth and a mixed outlook for commodities sets B.C. apart and signals that the province is a stable place to invest and do business” — the exact antithesis of what B.C. was in the 1990s.

Let’s hear from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade:

“There isn’t a government of any political stripe in this country who wouldn’t want to deliver today’s budget. British Columbia continues to lead Canada in terms of financial management and economic strength, giving our business community a stable foundation on which to build. The business community looks to government to enable us to compete and to help attract people and investment, all the while building great communities. It’s a big ask, yet this budget takes meaningful steps to achieve just that.”

Further from the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade: “On behalf of thousands of businesses across the Lower Mainland, the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade has given the 2017-18 provincial budget an overall grade of A.”

How about that — A? How many As did we get in the 1990s? No, I don’t remember. I do remember the nine deficit budgets. I think I remember six or seven consecutive credit downgrades, and I remember us becoming a have-not province, going with our little cardboard sign and our cap in hand, begging for handouts from Quebec and the Maritimes and all those other provinces who were so fortunate not to be governed by the NDP.

I’m going to carry on. I’m just going to keep on going here. Look it, there’s lots of time.

The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. Great organization. They applaud the provincial government for delivering a fifth consecutive balanced budget.

“It’s this kind of solid, prudent financial management that has led to B.C.’s continued triple-A credit rating from Standard and Poor’s — the only province in Canada with such a strong rating. What’s more, today’s budget also included a road map to deliver two more balanced budgets, which would bring the total to seven consecutive balanced budgets by 2019-20.”

Now, when I stand to announce the seventh consecutive budget, hopefully, I’m going to be out of breath when I go: not once, not twice, not thrice, but seven times — seven times. That’s going to be a tough one. I’m going to have to work on that.

Vancouver Board of Trade:

“We’re encouraged to see that B.C.’s direct operating debt is forecast to be $1.1 billion by the end of the current fiscal plan period, which marks a 90 percent reduction since 2013-14. As the Finance Minister identified in his speech, it is now within the province’s reach to eliminate our operating debt entirely for the first time in 45 years.”

Love it. Absolutely love it.

“We applaud the provincial government for committing to phase out PST on electricity charges. Once fully implemented, this tax will save small and medium-sized businesses across the province approximately $50 million a year, which will allow them to be more competitive and reinvest in their businesses, including equipment, skills training and salaries.

“Another announcement that will benefit Greater Vancouver Board of Trade members is today’s affirmation that the provincial government will cut the small business corporate income tax rate from 2.5 percent to 2 percent, which will make B.C. the second-most competitive tax environment for small business in the country.”

[1820]

Their small business tax rate is going down to 2 percent. Do you know, in the 1990s, it actually was jacked up for a while to 10 percent — a deliberate assault on small business and entrepreneurs, the people who are the drivers behind the British Columbia economy. Well, that’s not going to happen under our watch.

What do the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters have to say? It’s $6 million to support new trade offices in Asia in the B.C. budget, good support for Canadian manufacturers and exporters.

What about the senior vice-president of Catalyst Paper?

“It’s good news for the pulp and paper industry, good news for our workers and communities. We’re B.C. Hydro’s largest industrial user, and we make up about 5 percent of the load. The elimination of the PST on electricity is a welcome and strong step forward to protect and support jobs in British Columbia’s pulp and paper sector.”

That’s exactly what we encourage. We love hearing that.

“I want to thank government for recognizing the importance of the pulp and paper sector in B.C.’s economy and for taking action to protect the high-paying jobs that the pulp and paper industry creates in every region of the province.”

How about some words of reflection on the budget from the Association of Mineral Exploration?

“Today’s budget announcement demonstrates that the provincial government is aware of the significant contribution that mineral exploration and development makes to the province and to its communities and families. We thank the B.C. government for its balanced 2017 budget and for confirming the extension and expansion of important tax credits that recognize mineral exploration as the lifeblood of mining.”

That is very different from saying no to every single mine project in the province.

What about the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia? Here we go: “The government’s fiscal responsibility has allowed it to reduce MSP premiums and make strategic investments in health care, K-to-12 education, housing affordability and provincial infrastructure. These investments will not only help the average British Columbian but will also position B.C. as a leader within Canada.”

The accolades keep coming.

From Santa Ono, the president of the University of British Columbia: “The $87 million committed to the #BCTECH strategy will jump-start our efforts to diversify B.C.’s economy.” We love diversifying the economy, and that’s why we have the strongest economy in the country. We are best-positioned to withstand the winds of change.

How about the Council of Forest Industries? Well:

“The Council of Forest Industries today welcomed the government of B.C.’s fifth consecutive balanced budget which provides some tax relief to encourage competitiveness and a continued commitment to expand our export markets.

“The Council of Forest Industries also appreciates the province’s continued commitment to diversifying our export markets. Over the last ten years, we have worked collaboratively to expand our markets in Asia. These efforts have produced results, and
[ Page 13772 ]
today Asia makes up about 30 percent of the export market for B.C.’s high-quality forest products. We are now exploring opportunities in India and ASEAN countries. Today’s announcement of $6 million to fund three B.C. government trade and investment offices in these countries will help support such efforts.”

From the Independent Contractors and Business Association: “The message in this budget is clear. When governments save and spend responsibly, they can cut taxes, invest in construction projects and support small businesses.” And I say yes to every single thing in that statement.

Balancing over the past five years has given the government the flexibility to make investments that are creating jobs and driving a stronger economy — not just a stronger economy but the strongest economy in the country and the strongest it’s ever been. The Independent Contractors and Business Association of B.C. adds: “Now is the time to build. Putting money back into the pockets of families and small business owners will reap strong benefits for the construction sector in B.C.”

[1825]

Now, I know the NDP has pledged that they’re going to fight those tax breaks, and they don’t want the money going back into the pockets of British Columbians, but they seem to be the minority.

What about the Independent Contractors and Business Association’s statement on this particular issue? “Today’s budget demonstrates the province’s commitment to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility is paying dividends for British Columbians and for the construction industry.” They add: “The government has rolled out an aggressive plan to build our province and to support families and small businesses.”

How about something from the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce? Kamloops is a wonderful town, one of my very favourite. Do we love Kamloops? Do we like Kamloops in here? I love Kamloops.

Here we go, the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce. “Obviously, the small business tax rate is being reduced on April 1 from 2.5 percent to 2 percent. This is putting money in the pockets of small business owners, and they can invest in their business and create better jobs.” Now, how do you say no to that? Well, some people will find a way.

Another place I love is Burnaby. Here’s what we heard from the Burnaby Board of Trade.

“Overall, the Burnaby Board of Trade was very pleased to see a fifth consecutive balanced budget and applauds the provincial government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and its prudent fiscal management. The Burnaby Board of Trade believes that British Columbia benefits greatly from distinguishing itself as a jurisdiction with sound economic policy as evidenced by balanced budgets, surpluses, a triple-A credit rating, especially given the recent uncertainty surrounding economic and trade policies across much of the world.”

You didn’t hear much about triple-A credit rating during the 1990s, did you?

They add:

“Budget 2017 announced eliminating PST on electricity over the coming two years, a positive move which will help businesses across the board, particularly manufacturing and resource firms.”

What did the Investment Industry Association of Canada have to say? Well, they had this to say.

“British Columbia has turned in another stellar budgetary performance for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.”

Stellar — I love that word.

“The forecasted budget surplus of $1.5 billion for fiscal 2016-17 is the latest in a five-year string of consecutive surpluses, a record far exceeding the fiscal performance of any other government in the country in recent years. Budget 2017 projects surpluses over the next three years.

“B.C.’s consistent sound management of public finances translates into relatively low debt-carrying costs and a triple-A credit rating give B.C. scope to strengthen tax competitiveness and to attract capital needed for growth and jobs and ensure social spending remains on a sound footing.”

I can’t stress enough that this triple-A credit rating isn’t just something to get accolades about. What it does is it allows us to borrow money at the lowest possible rate. If we had the type of fiscal situation that you have in Ontario or Quebec, we would be spending an additional $2¼ billion servicing our debt. That’s what would happen if we had an NDP government back in B.C. We would be spending an additional $2¼ billion servicing our debt — $2¼ billion that doesn’t go to schools, doesn’t go to hospitals, doesn’t go to infrastructure. But mercifully, none of us want that to happen.

What did the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have to say? Well, they had this to say. “Overall, this is a solid budget for B.C. business.”

What did the Mining Suppliers Association of British Columbia have to say? They had this to say.

“Mining Suppliers Association of British Columbia welcomes the government’s commitment to phase out the PST on electricity…. By expanding the mining exploration tax credit to include costs incurred by environmental studies and community consultations, government is recognizing both the important and significant costs associated with this aspect of project development.

[1830]

“The reduction of the small business corporate income tax rate to 2 percent will be welcome news to smaller firms offering services to the mining industry. Extending the training tax credit is another important measure that will help ensure B.C. has the skilled workforce it needs to capitalize on opportunities as investor confidence returns to the mining sector.”

Another one of my favourite places, Surrey. The Surrey Board of Trade — here’s what they had to say:

“The Surrey Board of Trade applauds the elimination of PST on electricity over the next two years for all businesses. Good bottom-line savings. The Surrey Board of Trade was pleased to see continued investments in global trade. The extension of the scientific research and experimental developmental tax credit, as well as the mining flow-through share tax credit, is also good news as B.C. seeks to attract investment and develop a more innovative economy.”

And we pretty well have just about the most innovative economy in the country.

How about our friends over at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.?

“‘Well, it’s going to help a lot,’ says Jordan Bateman. ‘I want to see it fully implemented. I think we’re on that path. I actually did a happy dance in the budget lockup over the news.’

“‘Pop the champagne corks,’ says Jordan. ‘This 50 percent MSP cut is the broadest tax cut for British Columbians since Gordon
[ Page 13773 ]
Campbell brought in 10 percent income tax cut a decade ago.’”

He adds that the MSP tax cut means $900 a year in savings for families netting $45,000 to $120,000; $75 a month is a real help to the middle class and that this is a signature tax cut of the Premier’s six years as Premier.

Let’s hear from Zak Matieschyn, the president of the Association of Registered Nurses of British Columbia: “We are pleased to see this decrease in MSP premiums, which reflects the value of universal health care and will positively impact the budget of many B.C. households.”

One little visit back to our friends at the Surrey Board of Trade: “It’s a good first step to see MSP premiums cut in half for those with family net income up to $120,000.”

Anne McMullin, over at the Urban Development Institute: “Increasing the property purchase transfer tax exemption threshold to $500,000 from $475,000 for first-time homebuyers will enable more locals and families to get onto the first rung of the property ladder.”

Let’s hear now from the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia — a great bunch of folks over there: “The provincial budget announced today in the Legislature includes new tax savings for both first-time homebuyers and small business. These changes are welcomed by the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia.”

Back to the Association of Registered Nurses of British Columbia: “In general, we are comfortable with the direction set by this budget, which stays the course for the province and the health care system. Today’s provincial budget will have a positive impact on the health and well-being of individuals and communities throughout British Columbia, a direction which is welcomed by the 40,000 registered nurses and nurse practitioners.”

Well, the nurse practitioners welcome it. I know that the government members welcome it. Not everybody, though.

Let’s hear from Jonny Morris, senior director of public policy, research and planning for the Canadian Mental Health Association of B.C.: “We’re encouraged by Budget 2017. There is dedicated earmarked funding to support mental health and addictions, mainly for children and youth and families but also for some adults.”

Vancouver Board of Trade also weighed in on this part of the budget, “We applaud today’s commitment of $165 million in funding for mental health services for youth,” as did the Surrey Board of Trade: “We were pleased to see funding to support government’s $100 million three-year enhancement in services addressing mental health and substance use issues, particularly for youth. This is important for Surrey.”

[1835]

Jenelle Davies, secretary treasurer of the British Columbia Federation of Students: “Students are pleased that the government has taken a step toward mitigating student debt. This announcement will not only help current and future students, but also those who have graduated or left their studies.”

We also get to hear from Clean Energy B.C.: “CEBC is encouraged that the budget includes items that will help B.C. build on its clean electricity sources.”

Jordan Bateman from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation also weighed in on this.

“I like a lot of things they did in it. You know, one of the things they did that may not get a lot of press is they’re going to take the PST off of electricity bills for businesses but also for local governments.”

He says:

“This should save city hall some money, as well, because city halls are actually huge consumers of power. Think of the swimming pools in community centres, everything that they use electricity for — streetlights. By taking PST off that, there should be savings that city hall could actually pass along to property taxpayers as well.”

Is my friend from Powell River here? No, he’s gone. What about the mayor from Powell River? What did the mayor from Powell River say?

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Martin: He’s a man of few words: “I would give it an A.”

Deputy Speaker: Member, in your speech, don’t talk about members who are here or not here.

J. Martin: Sorry, I apologize for that.

Interjection.

J. Martin: I thought he was, actually.

There is a lot more we can talk about. The budget is the fifth consecutive balanced budget. It is a prudent budget. It is a budget of principle. It is honest, it is responsible and it is going to shape the future for British Columbians.

I for one am proud to be part of the team that helped to bring this in, and I am looking forward to when I can rise from this chair and support Budget 2017.

L. Krog: I am delighted to rise in this chamber this afternoon. You know, in a moment of genuine human sympathy, sometime in the last year or two, the Minister of Energy said to me as I made some sarcastic remark about serving in opposition for so long: “I don’t know how you do it.”

Then I come in this afternoon, and I have the pleasure of listening to the member for Chilliwack, and I am once again inspired by someone who is so full of the rhetoric of the B.C. Liberal party, who has done his earnest best to dredge out from wherever possible every bit of manure that the Minister of Finance missed when it was disappearing under the snow drifts of his farm.

The fun fantasy facts from the member for Chilliwack are an inspiration to all of us. Every time I hear him list all the usual cheerleaders, supporters and contributors of the B.C. Liberals, one would think that British
[ Page 13774 ]
Columbia was in marvelous shape, that after 16 years, British Columbians should be grateful.

Having listened to so many statistics, let me tell the member just a few statistics. I know that as a former Conservative, he has no use for Statistics Canada, because that was one of the proudest achievements of the Harper government — to get rid of StatsCan. The last thing we’d ever want to have is unbiased, factual information. I realize that in the world of alternative truths, that concept is really very much out of fashion.

I just want to give the member just a few facts available from StatsCan — the most recently available statistics. The wealthiest 10 percent in Canada own 47.9 percent of the wealth. Recent studies suggested the top two richest men in the country own 30 percent of the national wealth, but that doesn’t matter for my purposes today. In Canada, the bottom 10 percent owned 5.5 percent of the wealth. Now, you remember the average. I just repeat it — 47.9. In the Atlantic provinces, 31.7 percent of the wealth is owned by the top 10 percent. In the province of Quebec, it’s 43.4. It’s 48 percent in Ontario, and it’s 49.4 percent in British Columbia.

[1840]

Well, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to anticipate what I’m about to say: 56.2 percent of the provincial wealth in British Columbia, the private wealth of this province, is owned by the top 10 percent. The bottom 10 percent — do you know what percentage of the provincial wealth they own? One in ten British Columbians — 3.1 percent. Remember the average for the country is 5.5. Do you remember Atlantic Canada, the poorest part of the country? It’s 11.5. Quebec is 7 percent and Ontario, 4.8 percent. Even the Prairies are 5.6. British Columbia — 3.1 percent.

Now, if this was some passing phase, if this had just happened overnight, if this was the result of a crushing blow to the economy, then I could perhaps be a little more benevolent to the member for Chilliwack. He reminded me so much of the…. What is it? Is it the Mikado, where they say: “I always voted at my party’s call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all”? So you could have a speech prepared to bring into the Legislature that bears no resemblance to facts.

I would be forgiving, except that what this government continuously reminds us in the opposition and British Columbians is that they’ve been in power for 16 years. [Applause.]

I take it, from the incredible round of applause that they’ve given themselves, that they’re actually proud of the fact that the wealthiest British Columbians are doing better than the vast majority of British Columbians, that they have managed single-handedly to reverse economic policies of W.A.C. Bennett and Dave Barrett and Bill Bennett to boot, and drive the poor down further and make the top British Columbians wealthier.

What’s one of their signal aspects of that great change that they’ve managed to bring about in 16 years? You give a tax break to the top 2 percent of earners. It’s $1 billion over four years. But here’s the more interesting statistic. When, then, is this great economy that they brag so much about actually going to be shared with those at the bottom?

The reason I emphasize the 16 years…. If it was four years into their term, if it was eight years into their term, if it was 12 years into their term, then I would know that, deep down, they had a conscience and that they really cared about the poorest of the poor. I would know that from the facts, because these numbers would be different. But they’re not. They have resisted, continuously, any significant increase to the minimum wage. They have resisted allowing an increase….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh yes, they’ve raised it a little bit over time. But it’s not the highest in the country — not like the concentration of wealth in the top 10 percent of British Columbians. If they really cared about the poor…. It’s sort of lost in the haze of the budget. And all the lovely words….

Interjection.

L. Krog: The member from Kamloops will get his chance. You should take some time out and learn how to do a sales job. Maybe we can get a better price for the next ferry.

They didn’t increase social assistance for the poorest British Columbians, and there was no announcement in this budget of an increase to the minimum wage. If things are so good, where is that change?

What I draw from this…. I’m not the brightest guy in the world, but you have to sort of draw something from this. You have to draw that after 16 years of power, with what they tell us are five balanced budgets — and they’re very proud of it — is that if you’re poor in British Columbia today, they not only don’t care about you; you’re going to be poor in British Columbia, tomorrow and next week and next month and next year and the year after that — as long as this government is in power. That’s the message of this budget. We’re giving an income tax break to corporations, down from 2½ to 2 percent.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh my goodness. The member goes on. But the reality is….

[1845]

I must be pricking their consciences — I presume they have consciences — because they’re upset by these words. They know that in their heart of hearts, after 16 years, the truth is out. The Premier can pretend, and the Minister of Finance can pretend. But ultimately, what this budget
[ Page 13775 ]
says to British Columbians who have is, “You get to keep,” and for those who don’t: “You’re never going to have it, and we’re not prepared to do anything about it.”

This is the Liberal message: “We would like people to forget everything that has happened in the last 16 years. We would like to forget the fact that the poor Premier, who is only pulling in $195,000 a year, managed to get another $300,000 out of the pockets of donors to the B.C. Liberal Party.” They’d like us to forget that. They’d like us to forget the $1 billion tax break that they’ve managed to give the top 2 percent of income earners. We in the NDP were excited — weren’t we? — when they adopted our proposal to put a surtax on high income earners. I mean, let’s face it. If you were making $160,000 a year, we were asking you to throw another $200 into the pot. That’s pocket change.

But you know, the B.C. Liberals couldn’t find it in their hearts to have the political courage to even continue that modest tax increase, because after all, we have to drive the economy and ensure that things keep ticking. Except, I come back to the statistics I started with. If the end result of this is a greater concentration of wealth in the hands of those at the very top, something’s really wrong.

Now, I know that the members across the way are literate folks. Certainly, on my holiday, I took advantage of time to read a few books, and one of them was The Return of History. I’m sure many of the members opposite have taken time to peruse it. It’s basically a compilation of the speeches given by Dr. Jennifer Welsh at the Massey Lectures. She talks about the return of a number of things, following on Professor Fukuyama’s essay back in 1989, when he talked about “The End of History.” With the Berlin Wall collapsing, his thesis was that Liberal democracy had taken over the world, that we were essentially past this and that free-market Liberal democracies would be the new world.

Somewhere along the line, in the last decade-plus since that time, we have seen what Dr. Welsh refers to as the return of history. There are some big themes in her book: the return of barbarism and the return, most importantly — and she concludes with this — of inequality. The return of inequality, which is rampant, I would argue. Maybe I won’t say “rampant.” I don’t want to go over the top. The last thing we want to, do in light of the cautious words of the member from Chilliwack, is to use any language that might suggest hyperbole. Let’s just say that all the numbers tell us that growing inequality is a significant problem in so-called Liberal democracies and that Liberal democracies, in fact, around the world are disappearing.

My point, I guess, is this: is this the kind of evolution that the Liberals are proud of? They’ve certainly done their part from a policy perspective, and the numbers bear it out. They can sit there and look somewhat chagrined at this, but they know what the numbers say. The amusing thing about this is that this was the Massey Lectures. Of course, they were named for the Massey family, some of those great capitalists of over a century ago who built farm equipment. That farm equipment enabled the opening up of the west, allowed farmers and immigrants and folks who had to flee oppressive regimes, where they never thought they’d own a piece of land, to come and settle the west, to colonize western Canada.

A hundred years down the road, some of that Massey money is helping to pay a brilliant Métis Canadian, world-respected, to author an international bestseller that’s telling us what we know is happening in British Columbia and what this government has failed consistently to address, and that is the growing inequality amongst British Columbians.

They don’t want to talk about that. They want us to forget about ICBC and hydro rates and the MSP premiums that they kept raising and raising until it became a political nightmare, and then suddenly they discovered that it’s got to be reduced. They want us to forget about 15 years of cuts in classrooms. They want us to “rah-rah” with them for the money going into public education only after the Supreme Court of Canada took them out behind the woodshed and whacked them so hard, even the Premier felt it.

[1850]

They want us to forget that nine out of ten seniors homes in this province don’t meet recommended hours for care. And I am positive that every one of those members must have somebody they know or love who is in a seniors facility in this province, and they know what I’m talking about.

They would love us to forget all this. They would love us to just say now: “Oh, my goodness. We’re spreading out the money. We’re spreading out the money, and things are just grand again.” “We want to be loved.” I mean, I’ve heard it before from the members opposite.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Some of them, in their innocence, say: “I just don’t know why the opposition won’t support anything. You’re always so critical.” Well, it’s a democracy, and we’re supposed to be critical. We’re called the official opposition — Her Majesty’s Official Opposition.

So if the Liberals really wanted to be loved, they wouldn’t have had a record of 16 years of making the rich, rich and the poor, poor and everybody in between struggling and trying to get ahead of the game. The reality is that more British Columbians are living paycheque to paycheque than at any other time in decades. The only thing that’s motivating this Liberal government, and we know it, is the prospect of an election. It’s the prospect of an election.

Even then, notwithstanding the prospect of that election — I want to come back to this — they still couldn’t find it in their hearts, or in a $2 billion surplus, to give a few dollars to the very people at the bottom of the heap. People who arrive at the door of the ministry are told:
[ Page 13776 ]
“Oh, by the way, there’s a waiting period.” It doesn’t matter that you’ve sold off everything you own of any substance. It doesn’t matter how desperate you are. There’s a waiting period, to boot, to get your little $610 a month, or whatever it is.

I am sure many of the members of this chamber probably went out, took a foursome out for dinner, and spent more money than a single person gets on welfare in this province, just at a nice restaurant in Vancouver.

They’d like us to forget that the forest industry, which is still marked by one of those wonderful murals outside this chamber, lost 30,000 jobs under their watch. If they care to come to my community, they can watch the boats be loaded with raw logs because of a tenure system and practices by this government that make the mills in my community have to fight for every bit of fibre they can possibly get in order to keep them running, in order to support the workers who get decent jobs out of those mills, instead of a government that cared enough about forestry to actually deal with the problems in the forest industry, to ensure that the truck loggers of British Columbia weren’t under the thumb of the major employers in this province in the forest industry.

What else would they like us to forget? They’d like to us forget that we are the laughing stock of western democracies, that even the New York Times has taken note of British Columbia, and not because of our balanced budget. Oh no, not because of our balanced budget — they’re not worried about that. They’re worried about the fact that we have, in British Columbia, some of the weakest campaign financing laws anywhere in the world.

If I recollect…. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke is a well-read guy. He’ll remind me.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: I think on that list of countries that do better is Afghanistan. That’s what they’d like us to forget. They’d like us to forget that they rely on corporate and union donations, that they have their war chest filled. Their friends have filled their pockets. They’re expecting their return on May 9. They’d like us to forget all that.

I’m conscious of the fact that the Speaker is in the Chair. I’ve got a few more minutes, and the last thing I’d want to do is tire out the members who have listened so carefully and thoughtfully to my every word. So noting the hour and reserving my right to finish my remarks, I move adjournment of the debate.

L. Krog moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.

Access to on-line versions of the official report of debates (Hansard),
webcasts of proceedings and podcasts of Question Period is available on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television.

Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada