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)

Monday, February 27, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 42, Number 4

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

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure. I see that we have in the gallery today a longtime colleague of mine from when I was working at the Canadian Union of Public Employees. He is sitting right across the way. I hope you all make him feel very welcome. His name is Justin Schmid.

L. Throness: It’s nice to have Sheila Denis in the gallery today. She’s my scheduler. She does a great job ordering my various lives. She’s joined by her husband, Chris. They’re a wonderful couple, and they’re great friends to me. Would the House please welcome them.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to introduce med students from UBC, who we had the opportunity to meet with today, as I’m sure other members of the House did. Every time I meet with UBC med students, I know that the future of health care and the future of the medical profession is in good hands in British Columbia. These med students always come to us with bold policy ideas, progressive solutions for the future.

Today, it was very much about solutions to deal with harm reduction, to deal with the opioid crisis, to deal with pain management — interdisciplinary teams. They really are on the mark about the issues that we need to be tackling in this province. I hope you’ll join me in welcoming the UBC med students who are here today.

[1335]

R. Sultan: We have in the gallery today five representatives of the engineering profession, beginning with Keith Sashaw, who is the CEO of the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, B.C. — otherwise, ACEC-BC. This organization represents 85 consulting engineering firms in our province, approximately 9,000 employees, annual billings in the range of $3.6 billion and operating on a worldwide basis.

Secondly, in the galleries, we have Jeannine Martin with COWI North America, who would perhaps be more familiar to us — on the North Shore, at least — as formerly in its North Vancouver affiliation, Buckland and Taylor, very much involved in very high-tech bridge design. COWI, which has strong roots in Denmark and Bahrain, is involved in bridge tunnel engineering consulting work globally.

Thirdly, we have Ken Savage from Tetra Tech. Tetra Tech’s been in business for 50 years. They’ve got about 16,000 employees around the world. They specialize in water, environmental work, energy, mining, industrial sector and infrastructure, very versatile people — like, in fact, most consulting engineering firms.

Next we have Ken Wiecke of Amec Foster Wheeler, a mere 36,000 professionals worldwide. They have specialties in oil and gas, chemicals, mining power, environmental and infrastructure as well.

Finally, another constituent of the North Shore, Tim Stanley of Stratice Consulting. Tim, through his many years of experience in the consulting world, has become a senior adviser to many major civil engineering projects, including the Evergreen Line, the Canada Line and Ottawa’s new Confederation line.

Would you please make these very, very accomplished engineers welcome.

M. Mungall: I’d like to introduce the House to Brett Macdonald. She’s a longtime friend of mine and has actually spent the last 11 years teaching international students in Germany. We are very fortunate to have her back on Canadian soil. May the House please make her very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: We have some animal lovers here in the House today. From the SPCA, I’d like to welcome Amy Morris, Geoff Urton, Tina Heary, Melinda Mennie, Tess Morgan, Marcie Moriarty, Craig Daniell, Erika Paul, Graeme Wright and Annie Prittie-Bell, as well as Catherine King, a very responsible breeder from my constituency of North Vancouver–Seymour. Can the House welcome these animal lovers to the House.

J. Darcy: Among the engineers who are here today is a constituent of mine, Selena Wilson, a professional engineer who works with McElhanney Consulting Services. She’s here with the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies, who are visiting us today. I hope the House will join me in making Selena feel very welcome, together with the rest of her colleagues.

V. Huntington: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce guests of mine — Delta fire department chief Guy McKintuck and his family, Melanie Cheesman and his two lovely daughters, Brynn and Neve. I would like the House to know that Brynn single-handedly tackled one of the restaurant’s famous turkey clubhouse sandwiches and demolished it. Congratulations there.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, would like to introduce some medical students that came to visit me in my office this morning — Emma Mitchell, Laila Drabkin, Laura J. Kim and Kevin Liang. They had some very fruitful suggestions for chronic pain and addictions management that I will be happy to pass on.
[ Page 13852 ]

N. Simons: I hope the House helps me welcome a couple of friends from lower Elphinstone on the Sunshine Coast, John Davis and Petrina Wing. It’s really nice to see friends in the House. They’re also animal lovers, so a lot of us here today.

[1340]

L. Reimer: I have two sets of introductions today. We had the pleasure of being hosted today by the Association of Consulting Engineers, both sides of the House did, for lunch. It’s very rare for me to find three of my constituents at that lunch. I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce Maureen Kelly, Lawrence Bicknell and Geoff McLennan.

I’d also like to acknowledge four UBC medical students I met with this morning — Laura Kim, Sarah Weicker, Yuhao Wu and Tanjeet Singh. Would the House please make all these people very welcome.

J. Rice: I have two introductions I’d like to make today. The first one I wanted to nab away from the member for New Westminster. Selena Wilson was a resident of Prince Rupert for three years, up until recently. She’s down here to be closer to family, but I know her heart truly lies in the north coast. She still has properties in Prince Rupert. I would like the House to make her feel welcome as well.

Also, I think I’ve started a little bit of a trend here that I surely cannot stop. I need to mention that last weekend, the Charles Hays girls basketball team won the zone championships, which they hosted in Prince Rupert. They played two hard-fought games against Caledonia Secondary School and Smithers. As well, I’d like to acknowledge that Ruby Mason was named the MVP of the tournament, while Brittany Waite and Carly Cochrane were named the all-stars. So I would like to acknowledge more basketball players in my riding.

V. Huntington: I’d like to introduce four other guests that I have with me in the House today. These are four of the founding members of an amazing organization called Imagine X, whose website I encourage everybody to review — Taylor Singleton-Fookes, Yutaka Takahashi, Melody Ma and Gordon Jones. I’d like the House to make them feel quite welcome.

L. Popham: I would like to join my colleague from Delta South on her first introduction. Those are my family members — my brother, Guy McKintuck; my sister-in-law, Melanie Cheesman; and my two lovely nieces, Brynn and Neve.

Now, if you look up into the chamber and see those two lovely, sweet faces that they are, don’t let them fool you. These two are British Columbia’s best candy hounds. I’m just putting an FYI out into this chamber: if you have a candy drawer in your office, I suggest you lock it up for the next three hours, or you’ll have two visitors in there. Anyway, please make them welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL M224 — ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT, 2017

A. Weaver presented a bill intituled Endangered Species Act, 2017.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to move that a bill intituled Endangered Species Act, 2017, of which notice has been given, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I’m pleased to be introducing a bill intituled the Endangered Species Act, 2017. The world is in the midst of an extinction crisis, and humans are the driving force. British Columbia is the most biodiverse province in Canada, but it is also the home to more at-risk species than any other province. Half of British Columbia’s assessed species are deemed at risk.

In addition to identifying, protecting and rehabilitating at-risk wildlife populations and habitats, this act seeks to introduce proactive measures that will prevent healthy species from declining in the first place.

The act substantively expands upon the Ontario Endangered Species Act, the B.C. version of their legislation tabled by the B.C. NDP in 2011 and the American federal Endangered Species Act. Under the guidance of lawyers and advocates who have worked tirelessly on this issue, I was able to close problematic loopholes and make this act more proactive, transparent and effective.

Of note is the addition of a section that changes how exemptions are made. Instead of being left to the discretion of the minister, under this new section if government or industry want to take actions that will result in a species going extinct, it is required to go through an independent publicly disclosed board review.

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

Bill M224, Endangered Species Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1345]

BILL 7 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

Hon. N. Letnick presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017.
[ Page 13853 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: I move the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017, be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Letnick: Today I am pleased to introduce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017. This act will amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to enable the creation of a registration or licensing scheme for commercial breeders of cats and dogs.

The new act will allow government to create regulations that will prescribe standards of care that all commercial breeders of dogs and cats must follow once enacted. The amendments deliver on the Premier’s commitment to target irresponsible commercial breeders of cats and dogs so that puppy mills — like the recent one in Langley where over 50 animals were seized — do not occur anymore.

I move that the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 7, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M225 — POVERTY REDUCTION AND
ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2017

M. Mungall presented a bill intituled Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2017.

M. Mungall: I move that the bill intituled the Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

M. Mungall: Today marks the sixth time the New Democrat opposition has introduced this legislation. Since 2011, when we first introduced a bill for a poverty reduction plan, we have seen food bank use in B.C. dramatically increase, while housing costs, food costs, hydro rates and post-secondary education costs increase too. We have also seen every other province adopt plans that tackle poverty and seek economic inclusion for every one of their citizens. B.C. now remains the only province without a legislative plan that is transparent and accountable to its citizens.

If we had a plan, government would have the structure in place to know when they are about to make a poverty-creating policy and avoid such detrimental actions. A plan, as enabled by this act, would also task government with identifying poverty-creating policies that already exist and seek to end them.

There are so many factors that contribute to poverty, and ignoring poverty costs our communities and our economy more than taking action with a real plan. To be sure, several studies have shown that there are substantial savings for taxpayers as a result of a poverty reduction plan. Because of this and because it’s the right thing to do, we need a comprehensive plan with targets and timelines to do the meaningful work of reducing poverty and including everyone in the economy. Today this Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act can do just that.

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

Bill M225, Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SPCA CUPCAKE DAY FUNDRAISER
AND ANIMAL WELFARE ADVOCACY

J. Thornthwaite: It is my delight to remind the House that today is National Cupcake Day. This event is an important fundraiser for the SPCA and for other humane societies — great organizations that do outstanding work to protect the animals we love and care for. As a dog lover, this is a cause that is very close to my heart. Unfortunately, not all pets have the good fortune of living in a caring and loving home so they depend on the care and generosity of organizations, like the BCSPCA, to receive care and shelter.

That is why I’m incredibly pleased that I was able to announce that we provided an additional $5 million to the BCSPCA’s facilities plan to upgrade or replace aging facilities. This funding is on top of the $5 million provided previously.

I’m also proud that moments ago we introduced amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to strengthen animal welfare in B.C. This legislation is the province’s latest action to target irresponsible dog and cat breeders. We want to develop a system that is supported by the responsible breeders in B.C. and that targets the ones that aren’t.

I want to thank the members of the SPCA, veterinarians, responsible breeders, the Canadian Kennel Club and the Canadian Cat Association for their input in developing this legislation and their tireless advocacy for animal welfare. I also want to encourage my fellow members to buy a cupcake and contribute what they can on National Cupcake Day. Together, we can bake a dif-
[ Page 13854 ]
ference and improve the lives of animals who need our help the most.

[1350]

MARILYN SMITH

L. Krog: Today, I want to speak about Marilyn Smith and public service.

Marilyn started, in what we used to refer to as a secretarial pool, with the City of Nanaimo in 1974. She served under six mayors: Frank Ney, Graeme Roberts, Joy Leach, Gary Korpan, John Ruttan and, finally, Bill McKay.

She also worked with the much-beloved Helen Sponaugle, who worked at city hall for many, many years as well. She started on call, then full-time and eventually permanent full-time in 1988. As the city grew, she became, in 1993, the full-time assistant secretary to the mayor and council.

During that time, she served our city diligently and well. Her public approval rating, if we had been able to publish it, would have been much higher than most politicians, I can assure the House. However, rather sadly — without getting into any kind of controversy — changes at city hall meant that she had to bring a constructive dismissal and human rights claim in 2016. So in a sense, you could say she left city hall with a tiny bit of controversy surrounding her.

As a result, the city responded in very direct ways in support of Marilyn’s long and illustrious career. John Ruttan, the mayor, said: “She never failed to contribute her very best efforts at all times.” Gary Korpan, who served on council as mayor and councillor for 24 years said: “It is impossible for me and, I expect, any city councillor who has worked with her to think that anyone could have done a better job as secretary to mayor and council than Marilyn Smith.”

Former councillor Fred Pattje said, quite simply: “Marilyn Smith was city hall’s treasure.” Joy Cameron, former city councillor, said: “The Marilyn Smiths in our world are rare and irreplaceable.”

In those circumstances, Marilyn didn’t get a going-away party. She didn’t get a big, public thank you. But I think it’s important that we honour people who give 42 years of public service to their community.

Today in this House, I am seeking support for Marilyn and an acknowledgment of those 42 years of public service.

SEA TO SKY AREA TOURISM AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

J. Sturdy: Can we love a place too much?

In West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, improved access and proximity to Metro have brought many new residents as well as ever-increasing visits. After people have had an unforgettable experience in the front or back country, for good reason they want to relate those experiences, telling the world about the magic. And with a picture worth a thousand words, social media spreads the news. Tour companies are thriving, record numbers on the hills and in the stores and needing services.

But in places where people used to just get away to experience a more subtle nature — that is becoming harder to achieve. When camping along the Squamish or Lillooet River valleys, there may be camping congestion. In much of Garibaldi Park, reservations for campsites are now required in order to bring better order to people’s experience and contain the impacts of camping in a fragile alpine environment.

North of Pemberton, B.C. Parks upgraded a trail to a spectacular chain of lakes with an icefall above. After just a little social media, the parking lot at Joffre Lakes was overwhelmed.

The germane question today is: how big should that parking lot be? Our constituency office has been meeting with individuals and community organizations to try and better identify the range of concerns and opportunities as we manage our cumulative impacts on the landscape.

At the table have been recreation tenure holders, camping and climbing organizations, wildlife organizations, motorized and non-motorized access groups and others to see trends. What are the value components that need to be monitored? What is an acceptable level of impact and can it be mitigated? How do we grapple with assessing and predicting the quality of our collective experience?

For all the trials that a job as an MLA entails, questions like this are also why I so appreciate this House and this opportunity.

JIM TAYLOR AND UNIVERSITY
NEIGHBOURHOODS ASSOCIATION

D. Eby: The neighbourhood where I live at UBC is made up of people from all over the world. The university neighbourhood community truly is the definition of diversity. But this didn’t happen overnight or by accident.

One of the founders of this diverse community was Jim Taylor, Queen’s Counsel, who, sadly, passed away last year at the age of 72. Jim’s influence in the university neighbourhoods and at UBC, where he had been a law professor, was so profound that the flag was lowered to half-mast when he passed away.

[1355]

His work in establishing the University Neighbourhoods Association, a local resident group at UBC, led, in part, to him receiving a Queen’s Diamond Jubilee medal for his work.

I learned only after he’d passed that as a lawyer, I knew Jim before I met him. He was co-author with current Supreme Court of Canada Justice Beverley McLachlin of McLachlin and Taylor, the go-to civil procedure guide for all litigators in the province. Without Jim, I would have been an even more confused law student. So thank you, Jim, for the help.
[ Page 13855 ]

In his later years, Jim was a founder and driving member of the University Neighbourhoods multicultural committee, which is often the first interaction new arrivals in Canada have with community involvement in our neighbourhood. Rather than attempt to explain to you Jim’s influence in this new arrival community, I’ll draw from quotes from members describing Jim’s influence.

Florence Luo, the current chair of the multicultural committee, wrote: “Jim was the most supportive and open-minded mentor…. He was a kind and insightful soul…. Jim was the type of true friend who wanted to take your troubles on his shoulders and used real actions to help out.” Ying Zhou, a prominent campus volunteer and outspoken elected member of the University Neighbourhoods Association board, wrote: “My life as a new immigrant to Canada changed dramatically after I met Jim…. Jim encouraged my friends and me to get involved in the UNA election that year. This was the first time I had voted, and it was my introduction to democracy.”

Thank you, Jim, for all of your work for British Columbians and for our community.

DAVE HOLMBERG

S. Gibson: I miss Dave Holmberg, and I speak on behalf of the members for Abbotsford West and Abbotsford South. He passed away last month after a five-year battle with cancer.

Dave was truly one of Abbotsford’s outstanding citizens, a generous man, a genuine philanthropist. He personally contributed $1.3 million to construct Holmberg House hospice, just one of many causes he supported.

A highly respected businessman known for his integrity, he served on numerous boards and committees — Abbotsford Air Show, restorative justice, Ledgeview golf course, Ducks Unlimited and so many more.

He was instrumental in helping to develop the first phase of the popular Discovery Trail, which traverses much of our community. He was chair of the Abbotsford Airport Authority and presided over the expansion and success of our great airport in Abbotsford.

Dave was very much involved with civic politics, municipal campaigns, provincial. He was passionate about politics. He was a familiar sight, an emcee at many events in our community. And he was the recipient of numerous awards and recognitions.

I know I speak for thousands of British Columbians when I join the family and close friends in mourning the passing of a truly great citizen. Dave Holmberg will be missed and remembered for a very long time.

GITANMAAX CAREER FAIR

D. Donaldson: Some MLAs in this chamber know what it is like to be mobbed in a good way.

I was partway into that experience when I entered Tse-kya hall in Hagwilget earlier this month. A steady stream of young people immediately headed my way. I quickly realized they were actually headed to catch their bus back to Hazelton Secondary, but it was a premonition of what awaited when I finally got into the hall — a mob scene it was, and that’s because the fifth annual Gitanmaax Career Fair was in full swing.

Inside were booths representing employers, post-secondary training institutes and community organizations. Members from all communities along Highways 37 and 16, from Gitanyow to Moricetown, filled the hall. Organizers previously prepared 700 welcome packages, and by noon, 500 had already been handed out. I sat with Pansy Wright-Simms from the Gitanmaax band office as she put together the 1,000th package by early afternoon. An incredible success and the best turnout in the career fair’s history.

As official opposition spokesperson on Mining, I was especially pleased to see the amount of traffic at the booth set up by Pretium on their Brucejack mine project and Seabridge Gold on their KSM project.

I also had a booth set up by the Stikine MLA Hazelton office’s Julie Maitland. Its main focus was registering voters for the May 9 provincial election, as statistics show that once a voter is registered, they are much more likely to come out on voting day.

As in the past, CFNR, Canadian First Nations Radio, was live broadcasting from the floor to add additional excitement to the day. Other major sponsors included Northwest Community College, the Upper Skeena Development Centre, Gitxsan Government Commission, Gitxsan-Wet’suwet-en Unlocking Aboriginal Justice and, of course, the Gitanmaax band.

The themes of the career fair — heegal, hard working; lip gyat, self-sufficient; goliit’ lax ts’ap, locally based — speaks volumes as to what economic development means to Gitxsan on the lax’yip and Wet’suwet-en on the yinta — the unceded territories.

Congratulations to the organizers for a job well done. Lugul um.

[1400]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR
MAPLE RIDGE YOUTH SHELTER

C. James: Last week the members for Maple Ridge–Mission and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows announced $1 million for the Iron Horse youth homeless shelter. The problem? The shelter actually closed two years ago. At that time, the government said no to the mayor’s request for support to keep the doors open.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Where was the minister and where were the two
[ Page 13856 ]
local MLAs two years ago when this homeless shelter shut down?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thanks to the member for her question. She should know, however, that Iron Horse was actually under a federal program when federal walked away from the funding.

We’ve been building a suite of transition housings for youth that were in the market and continue to do. As we came in, they were looking at the issues in and around Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. Some of the community people brought this up to us. At that time, we were actually looking for something that might work and thought this particular facility might work. We have the operating dollars for it. So we made the announcement, along with the MLAs.

They made that announcement to the community, but they also announced an ACT team for people who are very seriously sick on their streets, needing homes, a connection to housing, a connection to supports from Health. They’ve also announced a number of other initiatives, including…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …the fact that the government has still got $15 million on the table to build a purpose-built shelter in support of housing in that community, as well as a number of initiatives that they’ve worked on with the community — absent, probably, some of the work from the mayor, who has just basically said she doesn’t want to cooperate with us to even make these things work in Maple Ridge.

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: Well, always this government’s line: it’s somebody else’s fault. “Forget what we’ve done. Don’t look at us.”

Let’s recap this. First, the local MLAs announce funding for a shelter that shut down two years ago. It was announced publicly in the newspaper, the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows News, in 2015. Then the local MLAs, when they were actually questioned about why they announced money for a shelter that is shut down, said they didn’t have all the details at their announcements, that they misspoke.

Now the Minister for Housing says: “Forget everything we’ve done. There will be funding to reopen a shelter.” Well, that’s two years — two years without shelter, two years without emergency housing for youth in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, two years where youth were sleeping in tent cities and on the streets.

My question is to the minister. Why should the public believe anything that this government says?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe the member opposite might want to do some research on this file and get her head out of the clouds. The fact of the matter is that when Iron Horse shut down, we purchased another facility for youth in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, for kids. We did that, and it’s funded by the Ministry of Children and Families.

Iron Horse became available as we did our scan for future opportunities in that community so we stepped up, in addition to the one we bought, for another one for youth that can serve the north side of the river. If you’re opposed to having transition housing for youth, just say so.

M. Mungall: If anybody needs to do research in this House, it’s that minister and it’s the MLAs from Maple Ridge. One of the MLAs had actually been to Iron Horse; the other one, apparently, had a son who worked there. But they are so entrenched in this forget-everything budget, so entrenched in this “Forget everything that we’ve neglected for the last 16 years” scheme, that they even forgot that this important service for youth has been closed for two years.

[1405]

My question is to the minister, since he’s the one that wants to get up. Can he tell us which one it is? Did he get caught in a major flub by his back bench, or does he just want everybody to forget that this shelter closed two years ago because this government said it wouldn’t give it a dime?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me speak slowly for the member opposite so she can get it straight in her head. The former Alouette Home Start Society, which was….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: The former facility was closed because the federal government was not continued. At the same time, we went and bought a facility in Maple Ridge for youth. We replaced it.

Now, if the member wants to neglect that and then say they did nothing…. You’re wrong, Member. They did. They came to us. They worked with us. We got a different facility for youth, which has been working very well.

As we came through some issues with regards to homelessness north of the river, we looked at this facility because the building was now available to us and decided to go in and move on an addition to it for youth that may be in transition from north of the river and, in some cases, even south of the river. We’re always trying to build in-transition opportunities for young people and youth in our communities.
[ Page 13857 ]

In addition to that, just so the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast knows, if he wants to go read the budget….

I’m sure you’ll vote for the budget, because there’s $65 million in there for youth housing.

M. Mungall: Well, let me just for the record reassure the minister opposite that I understand this issue very well. He doesn’t need to explain every little thing to me like I’m a little girl.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: It’s clear listening to this minister that he just wants everybody in British Columbia to forget what’s gone on for the last 16 years, that they’ve just let this important housing shelter close. It’s been closed for two years. But I’ll tell you who didn’t forget over the last two years. It’s the youth who are sleeping in tents, who are sleeping on couches, who are sleeping in unsafe places. They know that they were shut out by this government.

Again to this minister, how on earth could he have ever let this place be closed for two years? I don’t want to hear the excuses. I want to know why kids were left in the cold for two years by this government.

Hon. R. Coleman: The only thing this member doesn’t want to hear are facts. Let’s take you briefly on a visit down memory lane. In 2001, money invested in operation for housing in British Columbia: $125 million.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: Today it’s over $500 million in operating dollars. The number of households helped in British Columbia today by the housing programs, not including the shelters and the outreach — it also goes on — over 101,000 families. That’s about 30,000 to 40,000 more families and couples in British Columbia than there were in 2001.

We have built 14,000 units of housing in the province of British Columbia. We’ve bought about 3,000 units in British Columbia. We’ve continued to renovate and save for people that are vulnerable in our society. We’re the only government in history that actually put meals into a shelter and took them 24-7 so they weren’t thrown out every morning and could only come back at night. We’re actually the only jurisdiction to put 24-7 into transition houses in British Columbia. We keep stepping up.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: We’ll continue to step up, and even in your own community. Of course, I’ve never received a letter of thanks for the buildings we’ve actually built in Nelson.

HOMELESSNESS IN METRO VANCOUVER

G. Heyman: If the minister wants to deal with facts, let’s deal with some independent ones. Earlier this morning, Metro Vancouver’s Regional Homelessness Task Force released the report on the homelessness crisis.

Interjections.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

Members, the Chair will hear the question.

Please continue.

G. Heyman: Their findings make it clear that homelessness has gotten much worse under this B.C. Liberal government. There are 4,000 people who are in immediate need of housing right now in the region. And under this Premier, the number of people who are homeless has jumped 26 percent every year.

My question is for the Minister of Housing. Why did he let the homelessness crisis get so out of control?

Hon. R. Coleman: On the noon news, the mayor of Vancouver — the NDP mayor of Vancouver — went on Global and said that in the last number of years, from 2011 to 2017…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: …under this Premier, we didn’t invest anything in housing in British Columbia. Can you imagine anybody going before a camera and doing that absolutely non-truth statement on Global? Imagine that. So I thought maybe we should have a little memory with that for you too, hon. Member.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 27,555 households in the city of Vancouver that receive assistance from this government every month in operating funds. Just in the city of Vancouver, we spend over $200 million a year in operating costs for people who are homeless — mental health, addicted and needing supports — across the community
[ Page 13858 ]
for housing. In addition to that, we’ve added shelter space, and I can tell you what it was: 720 spaces in 2001. Over 2,000 24-hour spaces in Vancouver today.

Not once under the former NDP government did you actually give a meal to somebody that was in a shelter in Vancouver. Today they get three meals a day, because nutrition helps people get better, helps them to get stable, helps them so that we can connect them with people for health and support and get them housed.

By the way, in addition to that, Vancouver was the first city to get outreach workers in the province of British Columbia, and they got it under the watch of this government. That program has continued to expand in the city of Vancouver. We have a relationship across Metro Vancouver. I heard from three mayors this morning who deliberately called me to say: “We don’t support this report. We think you guys have been an absolutely fantastic partner in the Lower Mainland and in British Columbia, and we look forward to doing more with you.”

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

G. Heyman: I think this Premier and this minister are guilty of doing the same thing that he accuses the mayor of Vancouver of doing. He can stand there and smile and take glee, when the truth is that there are people in desperate straits in Vancouver, in every municipality in Metro Vancouver, and across the province. The facts are simple, and he doesn’t want to deal with them — 4,000 people in immediate need of housing, a 26 percent jump in homelessness every year under this Premier.

The homelessness crisis we’re facing is the cost of this government’s choices. When people can’t afford housing, the result is rising homelessness. When people can’t access mental health services and addiction services, the result is rising homelessness. For years, this government chose to ignore the housing crisis. For years, they chose to cut services to mental health, and now, every week, five more people in Metro Vancouver become homeless.

Why did the Housing Minister let us get into this desperate situation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, the one thing I did agree with the mayor of Vancouver on today when he spoke was he said that up until two years ago, 18 months ago, we were actually bending the curve the other way for homelessness in British Columbia and on the Lower Mainland of B.C., because we had made the significant investments to lower the number of people who are homeless in British Columbia. But the member knows just as well as I do that there has been an influx of people that are in need because of where our economy is, and people coming from other jurisdictions are having difficulty.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: We track this, so this is a fact, okay? I know you hate to hear this.

[1415]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: This member knows very well that we bought 24 buildings in his city that would not be there for housing today if we hadn’t bought them. We actually went in and renovated them, gave them another 50 to 100 years of life, because some of them were as old as 100 years, and never lost a single tenant.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: See, that’s what you don’t get. We keep buying. We’ve bought more in the last six months. But you don’t have to have the facts because you’re not interested.

The fact of the matter is that we bought 24 to 30 buildings in Vancouver, over 60 across the province. We continue to do that. We continue to invest in new buildings with the city with regards to supportive housing for people that are homeless, mental health and addicted. We’re making another $900 million investment in affordable housing in British Columbia right now. That’ll take us to an additional 2,500 units of housing, which is more than the NDP built in the entire decade of the ’90s.

We have actually been the most aggressive investor in trying to find solutions for mental health and addiction — including outreach workers, ACT teams, coordination with health care, coordination with police — as we try and drive this backward.

The one thing I told the media today…. I won’t do it, and I have never done it in any speech or any interview. The mayor of Vancouver chose to politicize the most vulnerable people in our communities today. I totally agree with that. I totally agree with it because he knows darn well all the good work that’s been done in his city.

PROVINCEWIDE HOMELESSNESS COUNT

S. Robinson: There are more than 70 homeless camps in Metro Vancouver. They’re in communities from Chilliwack to Abbotsford to Maple Ridge and in Surrey — more than 70 camps, and there are thousands of others who don’t have a home. But this government doesn’t even know how many homeless people there actually are in British Columbia. Why? Because they actually refuse to do a provincewide count, making it very easy for this government to completely ignore this crisis.

My question for the minister is: why does the minister continue to refuse to do a provincewide homelessness count?
[ Page 13859 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: A number of the communities the member just said were in Metro Vancouver are actually not in Metro Vancouver.

The fact of the matter is that in the city of Chilliwack, we’ve just purchased….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members. This House will come to order.

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: I actually don’t…. I missed the letter from the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville saying thank you for 3030 Gordon, the supportive housing and shelter that was purpose-built in that community at the expense of dollars paid in by the provincial government.

I missed the fact that the member didn’t mention that we’ve already just bought another building in Chilliwack. We’re actually in the planning stage and have announced the money for another supportive housing and purpose-built shelter in Chilliwack to help them deal with their needs.

Missed the fact that we’ve already done two new buildings in Abbotsford and that we’re already in the middle of doing another planning for an additional facility; missed the fact that we’ve put money on the table for a purpose-built shelter in Maple Ridge, in addition to adding all kinds of other supports to put wraparound supports around people in that community; missed the fact that there’s a purpose-built shelter in Surrey that’s about to be approved, that has the money committed to it and that other facilities that have already being built there; missed the fact that there’s a purpose-built shelter and supportive housing project in Langley — all the way across Metro Vancouver.

There is one exception, however. There is no purpose-built shelter or supportive housing project for people with homelessness and mental health and addictions in the city of Burnaby. The mayor of that community refuses to zone a property and recognize that maybe he’d like to do something in that community and maybe, maybe just maybe, take an example from those other communities in British Columbia.

[1420]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

S. Robinson: Well, this minister missed the fact that there are 4,000 people without a home — 4,000. And also seems to take lightly…. I wonder if the member from Chilliwack and the members from Abbotsford think that it’s okay that this minister takes it so lightly that there are homeless camps there too. The minister….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Robinson: The people in these communities know how bad the homeless crisis has grown under this B.C. Liberal government. Whether they’re in Chilliwack or Abbotsford or Surrey or Maple Ridge, they all know how bad it has gotten. They live with it every day. The people in Maple Ridge know this government is so neglectful that when this government tried to announce resources for the Iron Horse youth homeless shelter that was closed two years ago, it really demonstrated just how out of touch this government is.

I want to know from this minister what it would finally take for this government to actually do a real homeless count of the real people who are out there on the streets in every single community of this province.

Hon. R. Coleman: This morning I sat in this House and listened to the member opposite advocating to open an old building for people who are homeless and for mental health and addictions, on the Riverview lands, not even thinking that maybe there might be asbestos in the building. But it’s okay for those guys to go live there, right?

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: You don’t like it, do you?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: You have this warehousing mentality towards housing and mental health and addictions.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, just wait.

Please continue.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

To the member opposite: the fact of the matter is that for homelessness and mental health and addictions, there have been probably close to 8,000 to 9,000 units developed in British Columbia in just the last five years. In addition to that, there’s additional shelter space, which is the front door connecting people with outreach workers and ACT teams for health care and support to actually connect people with their mental health and addictions.
[ Page 13860 ]

The member didn’t mention that we’re spending close to $200 million on the Riverview lands right now for a facility for mental health and addictions — a brand-new one. Also, the replacement of the Maples is there and a commitment to also build a significantly sized seniors project on the Riverview lands in Coquitlam.

The fact of the matter is pick a community and tell me where you can find a place where there’s been no investment in housing in British Columbia and you won’t find one, because we’ve been making those investments across British Columbia, including some pretty innovative stuff, even outside of this piece of the file, to keep seniors in their homes in small communities. So 1,350 little seniors cottages have been built across British Columbia for seniors in the last few years alone, and $900 million is about to be invested.

In addition to that, for the member from Vancouver — let’s just pick one community. There are also 110 people — families, couples, individuals — in the city of Vancouver that have already been approved to buy their first house with the down payment assistance program called HOME.

They won’t actually admit the fact that they don’t support anything to do with housing. When the budget comes, when you see the millions for housing, get up and vote for the budget.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO BACK-COUNTRY
AREAS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

S. Fraser: While travelling yesterday morning towards Port Alberni on Highway 4, it was quite treacherous. It was snowing. But despite that, at the turn-off at the top of what they call the hump on Highway 4, approaching Port Alberni — the access route to our regional park called Mount Arrowsmith Massif — there was a crowd of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people who had braved the weather to be there to express their outrage at this Liberal government’s inaction while gates go up all over Vancouver Island, not just the Alberni Valley, restricting and preventing people from accessing their back country, their recreational areas and their parks.

To the minister that should be responsible: why is he sitting idle while the public are systemically having their rights and their access removed to the back country, parks and recreational areas in their very backyards?

[1425]

Hon. S. Thomson: The government recognizes the importance of access to Crown lands and the experience of recreation and tourism in our backcountry. That’s why a balanced budget has provided additional funding for recreation sites and campsites across British Columbia.

With respect to this particular situation, access through private land, the member opposite well knows that there are times when, temporarily, access can be restricted because of safety concerns, because of fire concerns, because of protecting equipment during active logging operations. All of those are part of the agreement that was made when these lands were established — that access would be maintained, but it would be also restricted under certain conditions for public safety, for protection of assets.

That’s the case here. The information is put onto an information site, a blog, in terms of where those sites go in place. Can we improve that process around communication and access? I’m sure we can. We’ll continue to work with the company to ensure that they reach out and work with the recreation groups and the citizens in that area to make sure that access is maintained when appropriate but, also, restricted when appropriate.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: Well, the minister should get out a little more. You know what? There were hundreds and hundreds of people there from as far as Campbell River and Victoria. They travelled from all over the Island.

The people of Vancouver Island are being systematically prevented from accessing their back country, the areas that they’ve used as recreation for hunting, fishing, birdwatching, mountain climbing. We had groups — the alpine society of British Columbia. We had quad groups. We had snowmobile groups. We had hiking groups from all over the Island.

They’re systematically being prevented from access to their traditional areas, and the minister knows this. He’s done nothing for a year on this except spout a company line. He’s supposed to take care of the public interest, not some private interest.

Will the minister stand in this House and commit to protecting the public interest and making sure those gates come down?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said, we recognize the value and the importance of public access to Crown land. I would like to maybe draw the attention of the member opposite to the agreement that was put in place when those private lands were put in place.

It says that subject to applicable law, operational, risk management and other needs, companies will maintain current access for public industrial road users and aboriginal groups. Subject to applicable law, subject to risk, subject to operational risk, subject to public safety, that access is to be maintained.

Island Timberlands has access management agreements with a whole number of groups, including the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district. We will continue to promote and work on those access management agreements to make sure that we provide that access, recognizing the important responsibility of public safety and protection of forest assets, protection of company assets,
[ Page 13861 ]
protection of the values in those areas — and mostly, public safety.

VIDEO RECORDING OF NDP YOUTH EVENT

D. Eby: It was this weekend that an employee of this government secretly videotaped ten young people, many of them minors, at a young New Democrat meeting in Richmond. These young people had organized a discussion about politics for youth in a multipurpose room at their local community centre. Yet a government employee showed up posing as a young New Democrat.

She said she was interested in “post-secondary education and housing.” Those are her words. She then secretly recorded these youths, using a cell phone she tried to hide on her lap. When we posed for a group picture, she pretended to take a phone call and left the room to avoid being photographed. How ironic.

[1430]

At a minimum, this violates part 3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It violated the privacy rights of these youth.

To the minister responsible for government communications: will he destroy this recording and send a privacy breach notice to these youth? Or is it too late, and it’s already on B.C. Liberal Party’s servers?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, we can tell we’re getting close to the big day in May when it’ll be determined by the people of British Columbia what the future of the government of British Columbia will be. So we can expect that these kinds of events may occur, where individuals perhaps do things that are debatable. But under the circumstances, these are wild allegations with no names, locations or specifics. I would invite the member, if he has a serious complaint, to file that complaint.

[End of question period.]

S. Fraser: I seek leave to present a petition.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

S. Fraser: I have a petition signed by, as of this morning, well over 6,000 individuals, demanding that this government take action and ensure that the public have access to their back-country recreation areas and parks.

M. Farnworth: I have a petition signed by about 400 constituents, concerning palliative care in British Columbia.

“The petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House enact and uphold laws that will keep hospice and palliative care facilities separated from those that offer euthanasia and assisted suicide; will implement regulations and policies that ensure respect for the freedom of conscience of all health care workers and administrators who will not and cannot accept suicide or euthanasia as a solution to pain and suffering.”

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, continued debate on the budget.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Holman: I’m pleased to continue my remarks on the budget of the day. Just to recap briefly, I challenged, last week, whether the budget actually has been balanced. When you look at the shell game that’s been occurring with Crown corporations — B.C. Hydro and ICBC incurring massive debt and annual financial shortfalls — one really has to question whether or not the budget has been balanced.

[1435]

If you look at the dividend transfers from these Crown corporations over the past years, billions of dollars have been transferred to the provincial budget. So there really is a serious question about how it has been balanced or whether it is balanced.

Of course, those dividends are based on huge increases to ratepayers — to drivers through ICBC, to ratepayers through B.C. Hydro and also massive increases in MSP, ferry fees and tuition fees. On and on it goes. Really, these budgets have in a very real way been balanced on the backs of folks who are less able to afford it. All of these are taxes and fees. The other side doesn’t like to acknowledge that in fact they are taxes, but in reality they are. The problem with them is that they’re regressive in nature, so they hit low- to modest-income households much more severely.

I was making some thoughtful suggestions about what we could put on the side of the Premier’s bus — who, you’ll remember, famously campaigned on a “Debt-free B.C.” slogan and on having an LNG industry, which I’m not even sure got any mention at all in the budget or related documents. LNG seems to have disappeared from the agenda, and the promises of $1 trillion in economic activity, $100 billion in government revenue, reducing debt to zero have faded considerably. So I have been thinking of some possible alternatives for the bus.

One that occurred to me, given the huge run-up in debt in this province: rather than “Debt-free B.C.,” I think “debt-spree B.C.” would be a much more suitable slogan for the campaign bus. It’s the same amount of words, and I think a much more accurate portrayal of what has actually happened in the province.

This government has taken debt from about $34 or $35 billion, and at the end of the forecast period, that will be
[ Page 13862 ]
approximately doubled to about $78 billion. In the term of this Premier alone, she’s run up debt to the tune of $21 or $22 billion in a space of five or six years. That’s unprecedented in the history of British Columbia. That truly is a record — not one to necessarily be proud of.

The other side points the finger at the NDP about being free-spending, not concerned about fiscal prudence and running up the debt. We ran up the debt in the 1990s, when GDP, population growth and employment growth all proceeded at a faster rate than under this Liberal term. The debt was run up during that period for things like hospitals, roads, schools and all good things — those things are invested in by this government as well — but we increased debt from about $17 billion to $34 billion. This government has taken it from $34 billion to $78 billion. If you look at the absolute dollars involved, they’re actually quite stunning.

Of course, those figures don’t include the equivalent-to-debt run up as a result of this government’s imprudent policies around power development in British Columbia. By precluding independent power producers and the so-called smart meters, tens of billions of dollars have been run up in additional contractual obligations over a 30-year period in which B.C. Hydro is obligated to pay a fixed high price in the face of a huge power surplus in British Columbia. Power demand has been flat for the last decade, and as a result, ratepayers — i.e., taxpayers — are paying through the nose for these very expensive decisions that are ideologically based.

During the ’90s, the NDP did approve independent power projects. It’s not that we’re opposed in principle to private power production, but in the face of zero increase in demand, those kinds of investments just don’t make sense.

[1440]

The problem with this government is that they’ve been unwilling to refer those kinds of decisions — which are very, very important to ratepayers and taxpayers — to our independent utilities regulator, which in fact was established by Premier Bill Bennett back in the day.

So a so-called right-wing government created this entity to protect ratepayers in British Columbia, and this current Liberal government refuses to refer huge capital spending to this independent regulator. The result is that we are paying hundreds of millions of dollars more per year, each and every year, because of projects that are not being referred to the Utilities Commission. It’s very financially imprudent.

Debt-spree B.C, I think, would be a suitable slogan that perhaps the other side could consider. LNG-free — there would be another one that would be a more accurate portrayal of what’s actually happening in the province. No LNG whatsoever, despite grandiose promises by the Premier, by the Minister for Housing and Gas. Those benefits to B.C. taxpayers have not come to pass.

It’s very doubtful, given the status of LNG markets in the world — huge supplies coming on, much more competitive than British Columbia. Projects that already have been decided on are being built — a huge excess supply in LNG. There continues to be a bit of a blind spot of this government to look at economic conditions.

With respect to Hydro, we’re busily building a $9-billion-and-counting project in the face of a huge surplus of electricity — flat demand, even declining somewhat over the past ten years — yet we proceed with the use of taxpayer money in this way. That $78 billion of debt, by the way, at the end of this forecast period doesn’t include Site C, and it doesn’t include independent power projects.

There are a couple of alternative thoughts for the side of the Liberal campaign bus this year. Perhaps the other side can take that under advisement.

Hon. R. Coleman: I rise, pleased to respond in favour of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance, the fifth balanced budget in British Columbia in five years. I want to touch on a number of things that are in the budget. I want to start out, first of all, for the members in this chamber today, with just a little update and some information and understanding.

The province, as you know, has launched a $705 million B.C. HOME partnership program. Basically, B.C. HOME partnership allows someone, if it’s going to be the first time they’re ever going buy a home, to get assistance with their down payment for five years at no interest costs. This is actually recognizable by the financial institution as part of their down payment.

Up to today, we have received 609 applications for the B.C. HOME project. Over 400 of those have already been approved to buy their first home. So these young people — singles, couples, couples with children — who are renting in the marketplace will be vacating, probably within the next 30 days, 400 units of rental housing so that they can go into their first home. They get to go into their first home and actually open up more rental supply in the marketplace. They get this opportunity to own for the very first time.

I know what that is like. When I was 20 years old, I got married to my sweetheart, who I’m still married to today, and we moved to Brooks, Alberta. That’s where the RCMP had chosen to station me. We looked at a house in Brooks. It was $20,000 back then. We only made about $5,800, so it wasn’t like we had a huge income. Interest rates were around 13 percent. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to buy that house, because the foundation was weak, and CMHC wouldn’t give me a mortgage.

I ended up convincing my wife at the time that we should buy a single-wide mobile home. The reason that I was able to make that sale to her was because in Alberta, they were 14 feet wide and not 12 feet wide. It gave you just that much square feet, another 140 square feet.

[1445]

We moved into that home, and that home allowed us to build a little bit of equity and save some money. I bought
[ Page 13863 ]
a lot ten miles north of Brooks, Alberta, for $2,000 on a cul-de-sac. There I built our first home — our first home that wasn’t a manufactured home.

I know what it meant to get that start. I know that when I left the RCMP, the money I made on that house helped me to start my first business. I know my home equity that I built up over the years has helped me to start two other companies but also to help my own children, who are homeowners today, who started out in condos and moved up the market to duplexes and single family to where they are today.

The beauty of the first-time-homebuyer program, the B.C. HOME partnership program, is that it gets people into their first home, whether it be a condo, whether it be a duplex, whether it be a townhouse. In many areas of the province of British Columbia, it will be a single-family home, simply because we know where the prices are regionally, across the mix.

I think the interesting thing, Madame Speaker, is that just in the short period of time of this program…. I want to give you sort of a sense of where these are coming from and who is actually applying.

In Fort St. James, which is in northern British Columbia, there are three homes that would be bought by people for single family; two in Smithers; in Victoria, it will be 50; and in Kelowna, there are 26 approved. As we go through the list, it goes to all kinds of places — Cranbrook, Edgewater, Fernie, Kimberley and to places like Agassiz. Abbotsford has 21 people approved to buy their first home. Burnaby, Metro Vancouver, has 40. Coquitlam has 19. But little places, like little Surrey — well, they’ve got 62. Just Vancouver by itself is over 102.

These are all people who are buying their first home, and they’ve been approved. They’ve been preapproved for their mortgage and their home, and they can go out and buy. It also includes places like Fort Nelson and Osoyoos and Okanagan Falls. As a matter of fact, if you go through the province of British Columbia, you actually find out new names of places where people are going to buy their home, like in Baldonnel, which is in the Peace River area, or Rolla and Pouce Coupe, and places like Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes as well. Lillooet, Gibsons, Half Moon Bay, Madeira Park, Chase, and the list goes on and on. Today over 500 people have been approved to go buy their first home in just over a month since the program was launched.

I believe this program is worthwhile in a number of perspectives. The first one is our commitment of $703 million is actually to get 10,000 units a year for the next four years, up to 40,000 people, into their first home in British Columbia — 40,000 people.

Now, our research so far, as we’ve seen this come through, is that about 90 percent of the people who are buying their first home are renting. So if you could take 36,000 units that were no longer rented and put them back into the marketplace while you put people into their first home, you accomplish two things. You increase rental supply, because notionally, that is what happens when you vacate. Somebody else goes into rental, and it actually changes the outcomes with regards to many communities.

If somebody said, “Go build a purpose-built, 110-unit project in Vancouver for rental,” the first thing they’d have to do is get the land. Then we’d have to zone it. Then we’d have to get the permits. Then we’d have to build it. In Vancouver, that’s three years to get into the ground. This is opening up 100 units in Vancouver for rental in the next 30 days.

Now, I know it’s very clear that this is one of the areas that us and our opposition totally disagree on, and I accept that. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey has made it clear that the NDP will cancel this program should they form government — clear. A public statement made, very clear: “We will just cancel that.” So that’s a line that’s different than us, because we actually believe in young people getting their first home. We believe that people should have the opportunity, if it’s possible, to be successful by building equity in their first home.

And it’s not the first time that it’s happened in British Columbia. It happened in the 1970s under W.A.C. Bennett. Actually before 1970, they had a program to assist with first-time down payments.

I just know what it felt like to look at the ceiling in my first home, what it felt like to move into it. It was difficult to move into it, because my bride, my sweetheart, wanted to be carried across the threshold, but I hadn’t built the steps yet. So I’m trying to boost her up. She says: “I’m going in only if you carry me in.” I’m going: “Micky, it doesn’t make any sense. We’re just going in to have a look at it. We’re going to move in, in a week or so.”

[1450]

Anyway, I did eventually carry her over the threshold when I got those stairs built, and she was pretty happy about it. It’s a bit of a family laugh now — a memory of the first night we spent in our first home and how important to us it was and, frankly, how proud we were, as a 19- and a 20-year-old, moving into our first house.

I want that feeling for everybody. I wanted that feeling for my children, and they’ve had it. The stability for them has been important. But I want it for other young people. I want it for other young people who may be living in Vancouver and renting who could now go buy a one-bedroom condo and use the down payment system to help them buy that first place and build their equity. Every month, as they spend their money, they’re building down principal on their mortgage payment and building up equity in the marketplace. It’s important that they have that opportunity.

I think it’s an important piece of a strategy which was written in 2006. It was the final piece of the strategy where we were going to find a way to have a map to affordable home ownership for British Columbians.
[ Page 13864 ]

When I look at this here, I think this is pretty fantastic to know that in the next 30 days or so, probably 400 people are going to move into their first home. The next 30 days after that, it looks like there will probably be another 300, 400, 500 into their first home — and each month after that, as we go through the year and we start to see an uptick in applications.

Those people deserve that opportunity. This is us giving back to British Columbians. As we’ve balanced our budgets and gotten to where we have, we’re able to build programs like this, programs that can actually strengthen and change lives for young people, for their families and for the pride in their parents when they see their son or their daughter or son and daughter-in-law or daughter and son-in-law actually having their opportunity to get into a home.

That’s one piece. In this budget, we also had the opportunity to vote to support the single largest investment in social housing, supportive housing and housing for people with mental health and addictions in the history of our province.

In addition to the 2,000 units that are already under construction, 2,600 additional units will be built across the province of British Columbia. We will also…. We’ve done this already. Some of these you know in your ridings, or you will be advised as they come through and subjects are taken off, because nobody knows where we are buying. We never actually just buy as B.C. Housing. We know that we have to do it through a numbered company or agents simply because we don’t want someone to just raise the price because it’s government who happens to be interested in buying the property.

We bought a number of buildings across B.C. — about 60, to be exact — where we’ve renovated them, upgraded them and allowed them to be a different use than what they were before. I’ll give you a couple of examples.

In Prince George, there was a need for women who were fleeing the sex trade and abuse to have a place to be stable and live. We couldn’t find quite the right property as we went through this, but our two members in Prince George really worked with us to let us know what the concerns and the issues were in that community. As we did that, the member for Prince George–Mount Robson made it clear that we really needed to find a solution for this cohort of people because we were having difficulty mixing them in some of the normal housing cohort.

Lo and behold, the Astoria hotel came up for sale in downtown Prince George. We bought it, we renovated it, and we opened it up for support for women fleeing sexual abuse and the sex trade. It’s operating today for those people. It has changed the lives of a number of those people in the five or six years since we’ve owned it. I think that’s a smart investment to make in housing that actually addresses a problem quickly, if you can find that opportunity.

We had a situation in Quesnel. We needed something, a place — the ability for people to come out of shelter into something. We went into the community. If you know Quesnel, there are a number of areas that have had some issues with some of their slopes, so you’ve got to stay away from there if you want to develop that situation with housing. But the Wheel Inn came up. We picked up the Wheel Inn, and we renovated it. We’ve stabilized the population in Quesnel for some years now.

But the Wheel Inn got a little older. So recently we announced that we’re building additional facilities, new in Quesnel to support those vulnerable populations in that community, which is the right thing to do.

We have communities across B.C. that support the work of government, that really do support trying to be collaborative and trying to work together and not politicize the issues around mental health, addictions and people that are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

[1455]

One of the biggest frustrations I have as minister — and I’m sure all local governments do too — is that communities will say: “You’ve got to do something about the people that are homeless in this community.” They’ll tell the council, tell the community: “You’ve got to do something about this.” So government, in partnership with municipal governments, will come along, find a location by agreement, and then we’ll try and get it zoned. I feel sorry for the guys in local government sometimes because they’re the ones that are at the front end of this piece.

We can come along and say: “Here are the dollars. Yes, we’ll build a purpose-built building for $20 million with a shelter and supportive housing and transition housing in the same campus of care. We’ll do it in your community.” We’ll have a public hearing, and hundreds of people that have told the local government and us and the MLAs, no matter which party or which side of the House they’re from, that this is needed in the community will come and say: “Don’t put it here. Don’t put it in my backyard. How dare you think of bringing this into a community?”

I’ve seen this at so many levels, and I admire the people in local government that actually do, after long hours of public hearing, make decisions that they think are important for the most vulnerable citizens.

When I became the Minister Responsible for Housing, I attended an opening of a facility on Fraser Street in Vancouver. Now, this was one of those marathon public-hearing-type projects. I don’t know if the member for Vancouver-Fraserview remembers it, but I think it was four or five nights till midnight or one o’clock in the morning. The council of the day had decided to say yes — to their credit. At that time, we went ahead, and we built the project.

I wasn’t the minister at the time, but I was the minister that opened this project. The neighbourhood was pretty upset at the project going there and all of the rest of it. When we got there, I went to the opening. It had been open about three months at this point in time.
[ Page 13865 ]

A number of the people from the neighbourhood came to the opening, and I remember two elderly women that spoke to me at that opening. One said to me: “I’m a little embarrassed about all the fuss there was about this. I really didn’t understand. See, these men are wonderful people. We thought they were all criminal and what have you. We judged them based on an idea of who they were in our minds.”

“Do you know they pick up the garbage in the alley and on the streets every day? Do you know they come over and ask me if they could cut my grass because I’m a senior?” She said the relationship now between the community is actually part of the healing of these people in the community.

The second lady said to me: “I heard about all of this, and I didn’t go to the public hearing. I knew it was pretty tough on the community. But I’ve met this young man over here.” She pointed him out. I don’t want to use any names, but she said, “I really like him,” and she gave him a hug. You could just tell that there was a welcome.

I know when we try and do projects for people that are vulnerable, we have a tendency to be afraid. Don’t be. You can work with the community. Remember, each time you decide you don’t want to support somebody getting into something affordable…. If you don’t support them, remember that’s somebody’s son, daughter, mother, father, even maybe a grandfather or a grandmother who you’re opposing.

I have a project in B.C. where there’s a modern subdivision beside it. It hasn’t gone through public hearing. It’s just in the early phase of approval, and the community has already said they’re opposed to the project. It’s seniors housing, with 15 units of townhouses for affordable rental for families.

In the area where this project is, some people have said: “We don’t want those people living here. We don’t want their kids going to school with our kids.” But the irony of this one is this: in the neighbourhood around where this project is, there are people on rent assistance living in those very people’s basement suites that will be in this project.

The education for them, as we go through that, will be important. They need to understand that the rent assistance program, which is in place in British Columbia for 20,000 families and children and parents, is everywhere. In any community you can find in British Columbia, pretty much, there’s somebody on rent assistance. Quietly in the marketplace every month, they get a cheque to offset their rent so they can have affordable housing for their families.

[1500]

That’s important too. It’s important to note, though, that my opposition has made it clear a number of times in estimates that they do not support the rent assistance program. So I don’t know what they’re going to do with 20,000 households.

I was in opposition as a Housing critic in the 1990s, across the House from the minister of the time, who told me straight up: “We don’t support rent assistance. We don’t support rent supplements.” Today in British Columbia, just so everybody knows, there are 30,000 households plus, both seniors and families, who get rent assistance in their marketplace, in their homes, somewhere integrated in the marketplace of British Columbia.

Nobody knows who they are. They get to have that assistance that helps them shape their lives and improve their outcomes without somebody having to build something, cut a ribbon, do a celebration or say: “This how good a job we’ve done.” We just take care of people.

Now, back many years ago, I got a letter from a lady in the early days of rent assistance. I told a story about her at my annual barbecue. Of course, I didn’t use the name. The names were changed to protect the innocent, so to speak. She had written to me saying what a difference it had made to her that she could get on rent assistance. Her son at that time was 12, so today that boy would be 23. Her letter started out: “You’ve changed my life. This program has really made a big difference for my family and for its outcomes and for its future.”

At that barbecue, a lady came up to me. She said: “I’m on rent assistance. I have six children. I was moving into my car when you developed this program. I was able to go find a home and get assistance for my rent.” She’s been employed in my community for the last decade plus. The kids are grown up. Their outcomes are better. She’s healthy. She’s happy. Whenever I see her, because she works in a place where I sometimes take my grandchildren, she reminds me of just how important that program was for her to change her life.

As we move from being able to own your own home to being able to have affordable rentals in your community, why do you make the second strategic investment on rent assistance? Why not go down the song sheet of the NDP of the ’90s, and others before that, about building, owning and operating every form of social housing in British Columbia?

The reason you can’t is because it’s too much capital. You can’t get it zoned fast enough. You can’t get it built fast enough for people to use it. So what you do is you actually help people immediately in the marketplace to change their outcomes. It’s also strategically done for another reason.

Let’s take the capital left over that we won’t have to put into building, let’s say, 30,000 units, which would have cost somewhere around $9 billion, and put the money into the most vulnerable, people who are homeless, at risk — youth transition housing, types of facilities that you need, better shelter space with meals and activities so you can actually connect people with supports and help them turn their lives around, whether the issue is mental health, addictions or otherwise.
[ Page 13866 ]

It’s what we did. We went out into the marketplace, and we started to purchase buildings. There were 900 units purchased in one buy in Vancouver under the watch of the then member for Vancouver–False Creek — 900 units that were going to be torn down. Some of the buildings were over 100 years old.

They were seismically upgraded. They were renovated, and people were moved between floors and buildings as it was done. Of 900 people, 898 went back into their new unit after the project was done and one couple moved out of town. We knew every single one of them, and we made sure that they were rehoused as we did that.

We’ve continued to do projects like that, because it’s the most important way to get into the market to help people that are the most vulnerable. And to be honest with you, it saves time with regards to being able to be nimble on the ground. We buy a motel. We can renovate it, and we can get it into the market very quickly. But at the same time, we’ve done some pretty neat purpose-built stuff.

I come from a pretty cool community — the Langleys, we call it. When it comes to this file, they’re kind of special, in my mind.

Back in the day, when we first started to build transition housing with supports for families and meals and all of that attached to shelters, there was one project going on in the Lower Mainland where there was a huge amount of opposition, a huge amount of people going to the public hearings and some very nasty conversations about the clientele and people of humanity that they were prepared to, basically, turn their back on.

Not too far away was another community — Langleys. Instead of saying no, what they did is the local Rotary set up a fundraiser to help to raise money for the Salvation Army’s Gateway of Hope. The governments…. Langley put up land, the municipality put up $1 million, and B.C. Housing and us came in with the rest.

[1505]

Today it’s one of the best-operated purpose-built shelters — transition housing and supportive housing — in the province, supported by the community not just at the beginning but way back at the beginning to help to raise money for it too. It changed the dial — that that community had some love for people that were disadvantaged to them.

As I look at this budget, I see a significant investment — $900 million in affordable housing; plus that, $65 million now for youth housing as well, which is now being deployed in the marketplace to add additional transition housing for youth. As we go through that, we’ve got to remember that if we go back, there’s another substantial $500 million being spent in the housing market today — $1.4 billion. The totality of that is amazing for any jurisdiction across Canada.

I know that the members opposite would like to just attack us on this issue. I accept the fact that they’re in opposition, but I ask them to remember, when the budget comes for a vote: decide, when you’re voting, for whether families should have their first-time home; decide whether we should create more rental market by actually having people move into a first-time home, vacating a rental that we could use for SAFER or rent assistance or just anybody wanting to move into the market; decide whether you support the billions that are invested in the tens of thousands of units to help people with mental health, addictions and supports, and the additional money that’s on the table to do more and more of that.

Ask yourself, well…. I mean, I know you want to kill the HOME program. You don’t support rent assistance. I understand it. There are philosophical differences here. But think about the woman with the six kids when you decide to vote against the budget and rent assistance for families. You know what? I’ve gotten to know those kids. That program changed their lives, and that’s important to remember.

Now, we always hear the members opposite saying that the LNG idea is dead, nothing is happening in LNG, so I thought I’d spend a couple of minutes on this.

Woodfibre has taken a final investment decision in the $1.9 billion investment in Squamish. Fortis is building their phase 2 and looking at their phase 3 for liquefied natural gas, which will also help to change the fuel in our ferries, to reduce fuel costs and have a cleaner ship.

The fact of the matter is there’s actually been about $20 billion invested in B.C. as a result of pursuing LNG. Just as a result of approving LNG, AltaGas recently announced its final investment decision to build a propane port in Prince Rupert. The activity and the drilling that’s been taking place, for people to be prepared to prove out the resource for an LNG opportunity, has also brought on the fact that we’ve learned we have benzene, methane, propane — the liquids, they call it in natural gas, which are all the by-products — which now has proven to turn out that we in the northeast part of our province have one, if not the one, of the richest reserves in the world with regards to combination in natural gas.

There’s more coming. There’s some more innovation going on. I think people will be surprised to see what other products come along as we pursue the natural gas opportunity.

The fact of the matter is that there are nine environmental assessments completed; six are underway. There’s an estimate that $20 billion in natural gas assets and development has been done in British Columbia. The building of the plants is even exponentially bigger than that, as we move forward. Work has been done on a number of aspects of this, including working with communities, working with First Nations.

I want to talk about First Nations for a minute. I was asked to go in by the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, as the Deputy Premier of the Premier, to be the government-to-government negotiator for the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council in British Columbia. The Carrier-Sekani Tribal
[ Page 13867 ]
Council is made up of seven First Nations groups. We negotiated a pipeline benefit agreement and some other agreements that led to agreement for pathways agreement on resource development, on forestry and on education.

There are two things I learned in those negotiations — firstly, how passionate the people were at the table, who represented the very people in those First Nations communities, and their love of their people and their concern for their future. They saw this as maybe the only economic opportunity that will come along where they can actually oversee the environmental control of the pipelines and the work but have the training and the jobs as well for the next generation and the generation to follow.

I also did the direct negotiations with the Lax Kw’alaams and Metlakatla up in Prince Rupert. I’ve never seen more passionate people for their children and their grandchildren and their future than some of these folks that I’ve dealt with.

[1510]

They know that they have huge unemployment compared to other portions of our society. They know they’d like to build more housing, but they don’t have the dollars to do it. They know the employment rates are low. They know their education outcomes could come up. But more than anything else, they know that the best thing they could do for their nation would be an opportunity for those young people to go to work.

So we’ve started a program with the Lax Kw’alaams and the Metlakatla and the rest of the Tsimshian nations up in northwestern British Columbia to pre-train people for opportunities like natural gas. I don’t think we should ever forget that. I won’t, because when you have a grown man and a matriarch from a community, when they sign an agreement with you, grab on to you, hold you and cry with emotion about what they think they’re doing to improve the outcome for the lives of the community, you recognize — to the members — one thing. The resource is there for everybody. The opportunity has to be there for everybody.

The opportunity to be part of the economy and to be part of what’s going on in British Columbia and for the future of their children and grandchildren should be the same as for all the rest of us and even more. They deserve better housing, better outcomes and better opportunities.

We set up a tutoring program in one First Nations community a couple of years ago, as part of one of these, so the kids could get through grade 10, past grade 12 and into training — by getting direct tutors to come into the community and sit down one-on-one or one-on-two with young people to help them with their high school.

It’s amazing the passion and the love that go into First Nations and their community. We should never forget, as we work on LNG, albeit how critical we want to be of the opportunity in pursuing it, that we’re actually pursuing something a lot bigger than just the production of a resource in British Columbia.

We’re pursuing a better future for First Nation communities in British Columbia, with their leadership at the table working with us, passionately believing that they should be part of the environmental oversight, that they should be part of the jobs and training. With the confidence that…. If they’re part of the environmental oversight on a daily basis, through the construction to the finishing of the project, the transcending agreement we’ve signed with the Metlakatla and the Lax Kw’alaams, will change how all of these things will be done in the future, in a relationship.

Thank you for my time today. I wish I had more time because the budget has a lot more in it than that. I look forward to other members in the debate.

D. Routley: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Budget 2017 and, first, to thank the people in the many communities I represent between Duncan and Nanaimo. This includes Chemainus and Ladysmith and several island communities like Gabriola, Thetis, Penelakut. There are 14 local governments — six First Nations, two school districts, six local governments. It’s a widespread area that includes very urban portions of Nanaimo through to very rural portions of the Cowichan Valley and the mid-Island area generally.

It’s a wonderful place, beautiful, and it shows great hospitality to everyone who visits. I’m very proud to represent the area that I grew up in.

I need to also ask the Speaker’s indulgence in thanking my family, my spouse, Leanne. I love you, Leanne. Thank you so much for the support. I feel really grateful and blessed by Leanne’s love and support.

Then we come to Budget 2017. The member from Saanich North, being an economist, asked a question in his presentation. He asked: “Is this budget balanced?” He asked the question in a very serious way. It’s been asked by many people. How can the government consider its budget balanced when, in fact, it’s robbing billions of dollars from B.C. Hydro and ICBC in order to achieve this supposed balance? We see the dividends from these Crown corporations being extracted not from profit but from increased debt.

[1515]

B.C. Hydro — if it were profitable, as it was in the ’90s, when it was paying into the treasury about $1 billion a year — is now losing billions of dollars. Now it finds itself in debt, $19 billion. This is directly as a result of choices by the B.C. Liberal government.

That’s what budgets are all about: they’re about choices, and they reflect principles — the choices made by a government and the choices made by a parent when they’re budgeting. If the parent decided that the new car in the driveway was more important than housing and clothing and food for the children, that would say something about their principles. And it says something about the principles of this government that it leaves children in
[ Page 13868 ]
care and seniors languishing without the attention, support and resources that they need, while they brag to British Columbians about a surplus that they extracted from the pockets of ratepayers.

Ratepayers, British Columbians, have seen huge increases in fees and taxes. This government has increased taxes to balance its budget. It increased the MSP premium. It doubled the MSP premium, the most regressive tax in the province, in order to achieve a balance. So while they pat themselves on the back, all along they should be thanking and indeed apologizing to British Columbians for the conditions they’ve delivered in order to achieve what they consider to be a laudable goal — to load, onto the backs of struggling British Columbians, an inordinate, unfair share of the burden for this province’s operation.

While billionaires and millionaires walk with huge tax breaks, regular families struggle. This government wants people to forget that. This budget was designed not to satisfy the demands of British Columbians, not to repair damage done in previous budgets, not to make an investment in the future of British Columbians, but simply to encourage people to forget the last 16 years, and people are not forgetting. They’re not forgetting. They won’t forget that this government views child care as a scheme versus the economic infrastructure program that the opposition, the B.C. NDP, see child care as.

This government is unwilling to support the people of B.C., especially those vulnerable people who they are most responsible for. It really begs the question: who is all of this exercise for? Who is the economy of British Columbia for, if it’s not for British Columbians, if it’s not for the families, the working families of the province? And it’s not. It’s been converted by this government to deliver benefits to their donors. It’s a government that holds the door of the treasury open, while their donors take benefit at the expense of every struggling British Columbian. This budget does nothing to reflect any other principle than that.

We can see it in the government’s priorities around electrical power generation when they created a run on the rivers, a gold rush on rivers in British Columbia, through IPP speculation. They entered into project agreements and power purchase agreements that will see B.C. Hydro purchase $55 billion of power it doesn’t need. At a time when power demand is slumping and is projected to remain low or flat, this government is charging ahead with a $9-billion-plus dam, Site C, designed as a political wedge and not a component of economic infrastructure.

This project by itself reveals the principles of the B.C. Liberal government — that they are willing to commit to a project that is unneeded, that will flood enough class 1 agricultural land to feed one million people, that will flood 1,500 First Nations cultural sites, heritage sites, that will propel climate change rather than fight it and that is being done against the opposition of local First Nations fighting the project in court.

[1520]

The B.C. Liberal government needs a political wedge to drive between environmentalists, people in the labour movement and the progressives of the province. That betrays a cynicism that has become all too characteristic of the B.C. Liberal government. A tax break for the top 2 percent, worth $1 billion, through this last term of government. That’s what they see from their government.

What they see from their government, physically, every time they turn on the television are ads paid for by themselves. British Columbians watching the ads they paid for, bragging about the B.C. Liberal government’s achievements. Those ads, if the B.C. NDP form government, will be illegal.

The ads run by the B.C. Liberal government that praise their own performance…. How can those be considered simply informative government ads in the public interest? They’re not telling people how, when, why they should apply for a certain support or program. They’re simply bragging about the government’s latest sloganistic attempt at buying votes. That’s all that they do, and every British Columbian who watches them knows it.

This is what they see from the government, rather than child care, rather than full-time, family-supporting jobs in the forest industry and rather than schools that have adequate supplies and class sizes that are manageable for teachers. No, they don’t see those things. Instead, they see government spending millions upon millions of dollars of their own money, of public money, to buy votes.

This is a government that refuses to ban corporate and union donations to political parties because of the huge donations that they take from corporations. Sixty percent of their donations come from corporations, 20 percent from individuals over $250 per donation and a single-digit percentage from individuals under $250.

The B.C. NDP: 60 percent from individuals under $250, 20 percent from unions and less than 10 percent from individuals over $250 per donation. It’s the mirror opposite. So it’s clear why this government refuses to ban corporate and union donations. Because they benefit, because it has bought them power and because they don’t want to surrender that to the public interest.

This budget has been described as the forget-everything budget. I think: “Well, what do they want us to forget?” Well, the billion-dollar tax cut for the top 2 percent, for millionaires in this province, might be a place to start. That might be one of the things they’re hoping that British Columbians will forget with this budget. That might be one of the things that this government might even regret, given the political blowback.

They want you to forget that the Premier was taking a second salary from her big corporate donors. They want you to forget that over $300,000 was taken in by the Premier from doing expensive fundraisers with corporate donors.
[ Page 13869 ]

They want you to forget the ad spending that I just spoke about — doubling political ad spending at the public expense.

They want us to forget that the Premier has spent half a million dollars on private jets, half a million dollars to jet the Premier around from photo op to photo op. Photos taken by another person the B.C. Liberals would like us to forget about — or people. Those are the photographers that the B.C. Liberals spent $1 million having follow around the Premier in order to promote her and her party.

It amounts to $3,500 a week — more than $500 a day — at a time when the B.C. Liberals have clawed back bus passes, have refused to increase support for people living with disabilities, have refused to invest in housing, have refused to take care of seniors in care. All this while they spend $1 million on photographers so that the Premier can smile.

[1525]

There’s been a 50 percent increase in the spin doctors of government. In the government’s public engagement unit, we’ve seen a 50 percent increase in spending. It now costs the people $38 million per year — 200 people at $38 million per year telling you, British Columbians, what you should think.

Yes, it’s sad. This really is about choices. This government wants you to forget that they spent millions fighting the teachers of the province, millions fighting the effects and the consequences of their illegal action in tearing up the contracts of teachers, spending 14 years in the courts, spending more public millions fighting against public school teachers.

Then, finally, when the Supreme Court orders the government to put some of the money back, the Premier has the gall to stand in front of the cameras and express how thankful she is to finally be able to invest in education. It’s absolutely pathetic. I know the government counts on apathy in order to survive, and they count on the disengagement of people, but this is ridiculous. It’s a government that has put eight rocks in your shoes, and it’s come to take two out. “Why don’t you thank us? Aren’t you going to pat us on the back?” That’s the message from the B.C. Liberal government.

We see an overdose and addiction crisis in this province that is costing lives and that this government refused to deal with. The B.C. NDP offered a private member’s bill to ban pill presses. This government refused to even debate it, said it wasn’t a problem and then, a year later, criticized and identified the job to be the job of the federal government. “The federal government should do that.” Well, we’re glad the federal government is going to ban pill presses — a step that this government refused to do a year earlier. We see children dying on the streets. We see people who are recreational users and long-term addicts dying because of the fentanyl crisis. And what have we seen? We’ve seen from a slow to no reaction from the B.C. Liberal government.

We have the highest poverty rates in Canada in British Columbia, and it’s one of the most expensive places to live. We had the Housing Minister stand up and tell British Columbians they should be happy if they’re living on a disability pension because they get twice as much as a person living in Nicaragua. Well, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain pointed out that, in fact, a person in Nicaragua pays about an average of $200 per month in rent. So perhaps a person in Nicaragua with half the income of a person with disabilities in B.C. is actually doing better. But for the Housing Minister to stand and tell people in British Columbia that they should be happy about that is unbelievable.

He did a few things. In this presentation that he just made — this is the Housing Minister — he said that this budget is an example of the government giving back.

Are they going to give back the 35,000 jobs that were lost to their forest industry deregulation — jobs that were lost before the 2008 financial crisis and during the largest housing boom since World War II in the United States? Are they going to give those back?

Are they going to give back to teachers all the money that they put into their classrooms, an average of $1,100 per year per teacher? Will they be giving that back?

Will they be giving back the jobs that were taken from HEU members when they tore up those contracts, which led to the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history? Will they be giving those jobs back?

I think the minister might be on to something — that they do need to give back. It’s just that this budget doesn’t do that. It’s eight rocks in your shoes. “We put them there. We’ll take two out now. Why aren’t you thanking us?”

[1530]

It’s absolutely unbelievable. They want people to forget their own experience. They want people to forget if their senior parent was in care and didn’t get a bath for weeks and weeks. They want the family of Bill Cross, from my community, who went 104 days without a bath because of underservice by this B.C. Liberal government, to forget that.

They’d like all the families who come through the door to my office, begging me to help them get support for children with special needs in our classrooms…. Years and years of underservice of children with special needs. Are they going to give back those years? Is that what the Housing Minister meant when he said they’re giving back?

He brags about shelter beds. This is a province where, in the Lower Mainland in the last several years, we’ve seen a 25 percent increase in homelessness per year. People should be thankful, I suppose. When we see this massive increase in poverty in the province, a massive increase in homelessness in the province, the government’s answer to that is a shelter bed. And the minister stands up and wants us to praise him for that.
[ Page 13870 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It’s an absolute disgrace in a province as rich as ours, in a province with the human resources and the natural resources of British Columbia. It is absolutely a crime that people should be living the way they are forced to by the policies of this government. We’ve seen all of these increases in peoples’ costs of living. We’ve seen the loss of so many jobs. Are these the things the Housing Minister meant when he said that this budget is giving back, or are those the things that this government wants you to forget?

They want the people of Mount Polley to forget that they failed to defend their community. They want the people of Mount Polley to forget that their lax standards led to that disaster, and they want the people of Mount Polley to forget that the Premier was absent without leave and that the Premier has abandoned those communities, just as they want the people of Burns Lake and Prince George to forget what happened in the mills. They had been constantly warned about the conditions that led to those disasters. That’s the B.C. Liberal government’s way.

They count on you forgetting. They count on the people of Nanaimo forgetting that they have closed our schools. They’ve ended the busing for many of the areas of the districts I represent. Children are being forced not to choose the school that was most suitable for them, as this government bragged it was doing several years ago. They’re forced to go to a school because there isn’t busing to the school that they have always gone to.

They want us to forget that they rammed down the throats of doctors, nurses and patients at Nanaimo Regional Hospital the failed IT system that has put lives at risk and caused injury to people. That’s what they want us to forget in Nanaimo.

They want us to forget that child care costs are, for most people, the second-highest cost after mortgages. They would like the people of Nanaimo and the Cowichan Valley and Ladysmith and Chemainus to forget that.

They would like all of us on the islands to forget that they’ve driven up ferry costs by over 80 percent on the main routes, over 100 percent on the smaller routes, several of which I represent, that they have essentially landlocked the struggling people of Penelakut to their island. It’s a disgrace.

The people of Nanaimo, the people of Chemainus, the people of Ladysmith, the people of the Cowichan Valley, North Cowichan — I don’t think they’re forgetting anytime soon. I don’t think they could forget, because so many people have been impacted by the policies of this government in a way that they will never forget.

We’ve had 16 years of increasing the burden on working people — shifting the tax burden, shifting fees, shifting increased costs onto working people and passing huge benefits to their friends and donors. It’s like a Ponzi scheme, this government. But really, more than Ponzi, it’s another Enron, absolutely. Enron accounting — off-balance-sheet accounting.

[1535]

When they took power, the provincial debt was $34 billion. The debt at the end of next year will be $78 billion. They’ve more than doubled the debt. But more than that, when they took power, contractual obligations…. These are, in effect, the equivalent of debt, such as power purchase agreements from B.C. Hydro that are massively overpriced and that we are committed to. Those are debts. That was zero when they took power.

Contractual obligations as a form of debt in this province was zero when this government took power. Guess what it is. It’s over $100 billion now — $100 billion. They’ve taken the debt of British Columbia, effectively, from $34 billion to $170 billion.

The member from Saanich North points out that they need a new phrase for their bus, their “Debt-free B.C.” bus. He suggested “Debt-spree B.C.” It’s absolutely appropriate because that is, in fact, exactly what they’ve done. They’ve massively increased the debt since they’ve taken power.

The government members didn’t like hearing that. They didn’t like hearing reports on contractual obligation from Auditors General, and they don’t like hearing it from the opposition. They don’t like hearing anything that’s contrary to their message, which is: “Forget everything. Forget it all.”

One of the ministers is talking about facts, and here we’ve got a budget that in fact was balanced on the backs of ratepayers by a government that stole that money from B.C. Hydro and ICBC, from ratepayers’ massive increases in fees. Yeah, tax-free B.C. — sure thing.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Fact-free B.C. — absolutely. Fact-free B.C. is a B.C. where the government’s campaign bus says “Debt-free B.C.,” while in fact they drive up the debt at a faster rate than any time in the history of the province, an $11 billion increase in debt in the past four years. It’s extraordinary.

How do we pay for that? How are we going to pay for that? They’ll say: “It’s okay. This massive debt increase is okay, because as a percentage of GDP, it is still stable.”

What if GDP declines? What if the softwood lumber agreement causes an economic impact in B.C. that equates to a decline in GDP or a slowing in GDP growth? What happens to the debt then? What happens to the debt when Moody’s and other rating agencies finally recognize the hazards of $100 billion in contractual obligations?

Deputy Speaker: Member, hold on.

Minister, any comment must be made from your chair, please.

The member will continue.
[ Page 13871 ]

D. Routley: The people of Nanaimo are not going to forget this. They won’t forget the pitched battles over the school closures. They won’t forget the HST. I’m bargaining that a whole bunch of them won’t even forget B.C. Rail, a $1 billion heist by the B.C. Liberal government. They won’t forget that MSP premiums have doubled. They won’t forget that their child’s school has closed. They won’t forget being told by the government that we would have 100,000 jobs in LNG. They won’t forget that the government said that we would have a $100 billion prosperity fund. And they won’t forget that we were guaranteed one operational LNG plant by 2015, and 17 in total. They’re not going to forget.

This government made LNG almost the sole phrase in its throne speech a couple of years ago. After being warned repeatedly that their projections for LNG prices were not accurate, that prices were likely to plummet, how did they respond? Well, they took two years to put together a tax-and-royalty scheme, while the window for the opportunity closed.

[1540]

If you didn’t say LNG before any sentence in British Columbia, the government wasn’t listening. And now suddenly, LNG is barely mentioned. LNG is not a factor for the future.

The prosperity fund? It’s there, I guess. It’s a fantasy fund. It’s a fantasy fund created out of the back pockets of British Columbians. Rather than LNG benefits flowing into a fund for the future benefit of British Columbians, which was actually going to get rid of the sales tax, instead this government — in one of the greatest displays of its cynicism, its absolute capacity for cynical behavior — took $100 million out of taxpayers’ pockets and created their phoney prosperity fund.

You know, we won’t forget that. When the Minister of Housing says this budget is about this government paying British Columbians back, are you going to pay that back? To the government: are you going to pay back those tax dollars that filled up that phoney fund? I don’t think so. I mean, it would be a really wonderful thing to see it happen, but it ain’t going to happen.

This is what British Columbians face. They face a government that has ignored their needs for a decade and a half, has put seniors in inappropriate circumstances, underserved for a decade and a half. People die. They’ve have left children in care without support, and the consequences we read on the front pages.

None of this is ever accepted by this government as its responsibility. It’s always someone else’s fault. And now weeks before an election, the government that has barely kept a promise made in 16 years, wants you, British Columbians, to believe that they’re paying you back. Well, I just don’t see the people who come through the doors of my office, the people I represent, the people I talk to on the doorstep, the people who tell me about the struggles they face…. I don’t think they’re going to forget a thing.

I think they’re going to hold this government responsible and deliver to British Columbians, on May 9, my birthday, a government that British Columbians truly deserve — one that serves them first, one that does not load their lives with burden, one that protects the public interest, one that takes care of children in care, one that cares about British Columbians. Not this government.

I look forward to that day. It’s sad to have to speak to another budget that’s so inadequate to the needs of British Columbians.

Hon. S. Bond: As always, I’m very honoured to be able to stand in the House and speak on a regular basis but particularly today, as we talk about the budget that was tabled in the Legislature last week.

It’s always an important week for British Columbians when governments lay out the course of their plan through, first of all, the throne speech and then, in essence, by showing the specific details about how those visions, those goals, those plans are going to be realized within a government’s mandate. So I’m very appreciative.

One of the things from my time here, which has been many years…. I’m always appreciative of the people who work to put the budget together. The staff in the Ministry of Finance spend countless hours making sure that all of the work gets done so that we can stand and actually have the opportunity to have a debate like this in the Legislature.

While I am very respectful and I know that things get heated at times in this chamber, I certainly want to reflect just for a couple of minutes about some of the comments that the member opposite spent his time here in the Legislature making. I think one of the most difficult things, when you listen to remarks like some of those that were made, is the sense that there is a particular monopoly on caring, on respect, on listening.

[1545]

I want to assure the member opposite, who finished his remarks previous to mine, that I have been a member of this Legislative Assembly for almost 16 years. And one of the things that I think is important is that when people come here, pretty much people on both sides of the House want to make sure that British Columbia is a better place for everyone. To suggest that members on this side of the House don’t care about seniors? Well, for the record, I lived through what it was like to watch two aging parents pass away and deal with the health care system in British Columbia. And if the member opposite doesn’t think that that compelled me to want to come to this chamber and continue my work, in elected office, to try to improve the circumstances for seniors….

We actually had a member on the other side of the House who suggested the word “seniors” wasn’t reflected in the budget. Well, I don’t know how many times we can count the words and also the actions in that budget which are meant to benefit seniors.
[ Page 13872 ]

The member took quite a lengthy period of time to talk about the information that we’re sharing on television. Well, I don’t want to harken back to the days when members on the other side of the House were in government. We could do that. We could walk through the list of what was spent and when. But I can tell you this.

The seniors advocate of British Columbia pointed out that there are a large number of seniors today not taking advantage of their ability to have reduced MSP premiums. And what was her recommendation? It was that we actually need to get information out there, because even today, before the budget was announced, there are people in British Columbia who don’t know that they can get help. Or maybe it’s the opioid crisis which we’re talking about, where parents are desperately seeking avenues of support and help. Maybe we shouldn’t talk about that either.

We should be clear that, as we laid out a budget for British Columbians, we laid out the choices that we made. And budgets are all about choices. They’re about making sure that there is, first of all, a look across a number of important issues, like health care, education, policing, public safety — all of the things that matter.

I’ll tell you one thing. Bond-rating agencies don’t hand out triple-A credit ratings to jurisdictions who can’t manage their finances. In fact, this….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Bond: One of the members mutters: “Yeah, right.” Well, the fact of the matter is that bond-rating agencies look at your fiscal circumstances and determine whether or not you have adequate fiscal discipline to receive a particular credit rating. So we should point out that British Columbia today is the only jurisdiction, the only province that has a triple-A credit rating.

That may not matter to the members opposite, because that may not sound like something that’s important. Here’s why it matters. It means we’re spending billions of dollars less on interest payments.

One of the things that compelled me to run in the very first place was the embarrassment I felt, as a British Columbian, when B.C. had to receive transfer payments. We were considered a have-not province. Well, how different it looks today.

I’d like to counter the member opposite’s point of view that it’s all about us patting ourselves on the back. Nothing could be further from the truth. We want to pat British Columbians on the back, saying thank you for the hard work, thank you for being a small business owner who has worked so hard to make sure that they’re adding jobs and that they’re looking at how they can invest in this province.

This isn’t about government making those choices or decisions. It’s about hard-working men and women in this province who have stepped up. Our economy has grown. And the facts…. We keep talking about facts. Let’s look at some of those facts.

Budgets are about choices. Our path in these last years has been about choices. So let’s talk about what we’re seeing in British Columbia today. Members opposite are using the mantra that we want people to forget. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[1550]

We want people to remember what British Columbia came from. I will remind the members opposite that when you look back at where we were, we have moved this province to a place that now has the leading economy in Canada. That’s not something we want people to forget. We have the best employment rates in the country, the lowest unemployment rates, a triple-A credit rating. All of those things matter. They matter because it gives us the ability to make choices about how British Columbians will benefit from that, and the budget laid those out clearly.

The other thing. We sit in the House, and we listen to people guffaw about the fact that a government saw an opportunity for this province to seize a new industry. You know, we don’t regret that for one minute, not one minute.

I think British Columbians are smarter than that. I think British Columbians know that if there is even the slightest possibility that we can bring a new industry to this province that will create thousands of well-paying, family-supporting jobs, of course they expect us to work as hard as we can to bring those benefits to British Columbians so that we can say yes to more investment in health care, yes to more investment in education.

The members opposite talk all day long about how they are going to pay for it. I’d be very interested to know, and so would British Columbians, how the members on the other side of the House are going to pay for every single multi-million-billion-dollar promise they have made, because the choices are pretty slim.

If you continue to say no to investment and growing the economy in this province, no to every project that has the possibility of being started in this province, there are only one or two places you can get it. You can either take funds that are in other programs and move them to pay for them, or you can go right back to taxpayers and you can say: “We expect you to pay for our promises.” I can hardly wait, as can British Columbians, for the day when the members opposite lay out their plan.

Ours is here, and we will stand on our record as we go through these next few months. Our priority is to grow the economy, and we want to do that so we can make sure that we’re providing the supports that British Columbians deserve, whether you are a single parent who needs that little bit of extra help, whether you are a senior who needs to be cared for with respect and dignity.

Every member of this House believes that. There’s not a monopoly on caring. People come here and are elected
[ Page 13873 ]
for the right reasons, I believe, because they want to make British Columbia a better place.

What we did is we decided in 2011 that we needed to lay out a plan that would position our province for successes in the short term and over the longer term. That’s exactly what we did. We laid it out for British Columbians. In fact, we set very aggressive targets.

We’ve been clear about the fact that we didn’t meet every target. We’re not asking British Columbians to forget that. In fact, we want them to hold us accountable, to look at the plan, to look at the successes in the areas where we weren’t quite as successful as we had hoped to be. But to stand in this Legislature and suggest that we do not have a diversified economy and nothing has been paid attention to other than liquefied natural gas is simply not true.

Let’s walk through, and maybe in the next few minutes, I can walk through some of the sectors that we actually had in the jobs plan, which we released in 2011. I’m very pleased that we were able to put out a five-year update just a few weeks ago to lay out the course of the work that’s been done on the jobs plan.

I very much want to thank the MLA for Shuswap, who has done a tremendous job as parliamentary secretary, my partner in terms of the work we have done. He has done a fantastic job, and I am very appreciative of that.

Let’s talk a little bit about the jobs plan. It’s about actually having a plan, having the courage to detail what it is you want to do, what you want to accomplish, sharing the successes when you have them and, yes, telling British Columbians when you didn’t meet all the targets. That’s exactly what we should be doing, and that’s exactly what we have done.

[1555]

Let’s look at some of the facts. In 2011, we were third in Canada in economic growth. Today we lead the country. In 2011, we ranked ninth in Canada for job creation. Today we lead the country, with over 200,000 jobs created, 89 percent of which are full-time jobs. In 2011, we had the fourth-lowest unemployment rate. Now we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, at 5.8 percent.

I do want to reflect on something that also is incredibly important. Again, it’s not about forgetting; in fact, it’s about seizing the opportunity.

We recognize and have said clearly…. We understand that the benefits of those jobs haven’t been felt evenly or equally all across British Columbia. We know that, and we readily admit that there is more work to be done. But for the member opposite, who spoke previous to me, to stand up and make comments about communities like Prince George…. I’d like to know the last time he’s been there. I live there, and every day I work hard to listen to my constituents, to make sure that we’re doing everything possible to bring benefits to every corner of this province.

Let’s be clear. There’s more work to be done. That’s why we’ve laid out a jobs plan. That’s why we have a minister that is responsible for rural economic development. That’s why we listen to people in budget sessions across the province. That’s exactly what we intend to do: look at how we can come alongside those parts of the province. What more can we do to be helpful, to make sure that we are bringing as many supports as possible so that the benefits are felt more broadly across the province?

We had a decisive plan, and we stuck to it. Those benefits now put us in the position of being able to return some of those benefits to British Columbians.

As I said, we’re not done yet. The latest five-year update of the jobs plan points out that we have 25 new targets. Unlike how the members opposite would like to portray us, perhaps they’d like to read some of the targets we’ve set, because for me, one of the absolutely most critical targets is the one that says we are going to strive to be the most diversified economy in Canada by 2022. That matters.

We live in a province that is very graciously blessed with natural resources. Our greatest natural resource is the people who live here. But there are going to be times, now and in the future, where there are ups and downs in the resource cycle. We know that, so it’s our responsibility to diversify that economy, to work to add new sectors; yes, to strive after liquefied natural gas. To suggest there has been no benefit as a result of liquefied natural gas, again, is just plain wrong — $20 billion of investment in this province by proponents and others who are interested and supportive of a liquefied natural gas industry in this province.

Maybe the members opposite, when they want to talk about LNG being just a dream of this government…. I can tell you again: just plain wrong. Go and ask some of the First Nations, where the possibilities of liquefied natural gas mean a better future for their kids, a chance to take their rightful place in partnership with government and with proponents.

We’re not going to apologize. We’re not asking British Columbians to forget, I can assure you. We’re going to continue to work hard every day to look for ways to diversify the economy, including with liquefied natural gas in the province.

Let’s talk about a couple of other sectors. Let’s talk about tourism. No, we’re not just talking about it now because we’re two months from an election. In 2011, we put tourism in our jobs plan as a critical part of a diversified economy. How’s that been going? Well, B.C.’s tourism industry, frankly, is a multi-billion-dollar economic giant in our province. They generated $15.7 billion of revenue in 2015, and they currently employ 127,000 people.

I’m pleased to be able to tell you that’s up 6.8 percent in the last five years. It’s hardly ignoring other sectors of the economy when we can see how well tourism is doing, and this budget actually has some important components that will benefit the tourism sector.

[1600]

The numbers for 2016 are out. I was very pleased to share them recently at the tourism industry conference. We had 5.5 million international visitors come in 2016. That’s an increase of over 12 percent compared to the year before.

In Budget 2017, we’ve included investments that will benefit the tourism sector — $36 million for the B.C. Parks future strategy, a cut to the small business tax rate from 2.5 to 2 percent. While we’re busy talking about how there are no benefits, in fact small businesses are the economic engine of British Columbia, and 98 percent of businesses are considered small. When you make the conscious decision to say, “We’re going to lower your taxes,” that’s a huge benefit for that sector as well.

Here’s one. Maybe the connection hasn’t been made by a number of people, but when you reduce and eventually eliminate PST on electricity, some of the biggest benefits will go to small business owners. For example, PST alone cost the accommodation and food services sector $11 million in 2015-2016. When you add up those kinds of things, those kinds of initiatives, they help support small businesses and grow the tourism industry.

I’m very excited to say that today is the beginning of Creative Industries Week in the province — another sector. Again, members on the opposite side would suggest that we don’t pay attention to anything but liquefied natural gas. Well, again, absolutely wrong.

B.C.’s creative sector — which of course includes film, television, interactive media, music, magazine and book publishing — is a major contributor to our province’s economy, and they are job creators. Our creative industries are responsible for 85,000 jobs and over $4 billion in GDP per year. In fact, as I said, today marks the beginning of Creative Industries Week. I know that members on both sides of the House will enjoy the events that are coming both later this evening and tomorrow as we celebrate the incredible successes of our artists and the industry that supports them.

We have 297 film and television productions in the province. With direct spending of $2 billion in 2015-2016, B.C. is one of the top motion picture production centres in North America. In fact, we’ve been called Hollywood North. Our music industry is equally as impressive. It contributes over $400 million in revenue to the provincial economy. Our growing digital media community generates annual revenues of $1.2 billion to the province, and we are very proud to support that industry.

When Budget 2017 was prepared, we saw B.C. creative businesses participating in the small business venture capital program become eligible for the interactive digital media tax credit. We also made a commitment to book publishers in the province to continue that important tax credit, which allows those very important small business owners to continue their work.

We’ve talked about the creative industries. We’ve talked about tourism. Let’s talk about technology. Technology was also another key element of the jobs plan that we laid out in 2011. As we continue to diversify the economy, we know that technology and innovation have become incredible and important sectors and have gained international recognition here in the province. This sector employs more than 100,000 people, and it generates $26.2 billion in revenue — again, a 26 percent increase since 2011.

Budget 2017 earmarked $87 million for an enhanced technology strategy, and we are going to have a fantastic second Tech Summit in just the next few weeks. It was absolutely astounding last year, as we saw tech companies and people coming from around the world to learn from B.C. companies. They’re going to be on display, and we’re going to be unveiling our tech strategy, supported by the funding that’s provided in the budget.

[1605]

Agrifoods. Another one of the key sectors that we included in the jobs plan is the agrifoods industry. The industry employs over 62,000 people, accounting for $13 billion in revenue — again, an 18 percent increase from 2011. That’s a very strong indicator that the sector is strong, and it will continue to grow. The reduction of electricity costs through the PST elimination will no doubt help this sector even further. In addition, $6 million was set aside in the budget to continue the Buy Local program, and that will continue government’s support of B.C. agriculture.

Let’s talk about forestry. I can tell you that where I live and represent, forestry has been the absolute foundation of many of our communities, has been the employment of choice for literally generations of northern British Columbians. And there is no doubt that while the sector has gone through a very difficult period of time, there is something that I am very proud of.

You know, we sit in the House every day and listen to all the things that are going wrong, from the member opposite’s perspective. You’d think there would be some things we could celebrate together.

This sector has been extraordinary in its ability to innovate, in its ability to actually look at niche markets. What can we do for those very difficult times when challenges face us in the forest industry? I can tell you that today the discussion about softwood lumber is absolutely critical, and I am grateful for the leadership of both the Premier and the Minister of Forests and the partnership we have with the federal government, now the ambassador and, obviously, our envoy, David Emerson. They are doing an incredibly important job as we deal with the softwood lumber industry, the softwood lumber decision that we need to be working so hard on.

But forestry will continue to be a pillar of British Columbia’s economy. Nearly 60,000 people work in this industry, and that’s 13 percent more than it was in 2011.

Just recently we were able to announce $150 million — that’s, obviously, in the budget as well — for the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. to continue important forest
[ Page 13875 ]
rehabilitation initiatives. We want to make sure that our industry continues to be a world leader in terms of innovation and forest production but also climate management.

We know that one of the critical initiatives that this budget contains is the opportunity to invest in the health care system. Again, we hear over and over again that we have failed to invest in health care. Well, I don’t know in what mathematical system anyone can look at a $4.2 billion increase over the fiscal plan as anything but a significant investment, ongoing investment, in health care.

I can remember when the health care budget in British Columbia was less than $10 billion. By the end of this fiscal plan, the health care budget in British Columbia will near $20 billion. I’m not sure how anyone could suggest that isn’t an increase.

Now, do we need to continue to look at ways to improve the quality of care, making sure that there are services provided in all parts of the province that meet the needs of British Columbians? Of course. But to suggest that there has not been investment in health care in this budget and all of the previous ones — again, just plain wrong.

When we look at the other key initiatives in the budget, the reduction of MSP premiums is obviously an important step, but we’ve also been clear to say that it is a first step toward the complete elimination of the MSP premium. I think it’s responsible to actually say: “Here’s what we can afford to do today.” Families have to make those decisions all the time: “Here are the kinds of things we can afford to do today.”

But as our circumstances improve, as the economy grows, it is our intention to completely eliminate the MSP premium. Again, it comes back to choices. It comes back to principles.

The member previous to me, again, spoke about principles of this government. Well, we have a pretty clear principle. We believe that you have to manage well. You have to be fiscally responsible. You have to drive for investment. You have to look at job creation. You have to look at how you generate revenue so that you can pay for the services that British Columbians want and deserve.

[1610]

That’s a clear principle that we’ve laid out. This budget builds on that practice, and we intend to continue to do that.

I also wanted to take a moment just to, ever so briefly, look at the issue of rural economic development. I know that there is more to come from our minister. I have said in this House before, and I’ll say it again, that I’m very, very pleased that we have a colleague from rural British Columbia at the cabinet table to help lead the work that will lay out a plan that will look at the fact that we need to do more work in rural B.C.

While British Columbia is leading the country — it is the leading economy in Canada, and I’ve listed all of the statistics — not everyone feels that benefit. We know that. We’re not asking people to forget that. We’re not asking people to think we don’t pay attention to that. We’re actually going to lay out a strategy which will, I hope, reflect some of the concerns that rural British Columbians are feeling.

As we look at some of the significant accomplishments there, we have looked at some areas where there are additional challenges. Budget 2017 specifically supports Vancouver Island, with an additional $10 million, for example, to the Island Coastal Economic Trust. We’re going to work to grow the economy. We look at the important work that’s being done at the Nanaimo Port Cruise Ship Facility. We’re not asking British Columbians to forget that. We’re asking them to look at the plan that we’ve laid out and make their decision based on what they see.

In conclusion, Budget 2017 speaks to the importance of spending well, of being fiscally responsible and prudent and of earning British Columbia’s place back at the top of the class. I said earlier that one of the things that compelled me to run was the fact that the British Columbia that I love and that I am so proud of had been relegated to have-not status. Today British Columbia leads the class. While there’s more work to be done right across the province of British Columbia, it demonstrates for British Columbians what you can do with discipline, fiscal prudence and a drive to make this province a better place — yes, for seniors, for single parents.

Our government understands that. We all live in and represent communities. Seniors matter. Young people matter. We have new programs for single parents. The single-parent initiative is making a difference in the lives of single parents every single day. We’re spending more on health care, more on infrastructure, more on education, more on children and families, more on housing, more on the environment. We want British Columbians to be cared for and to be treated with respect and with the dignity that they deserve. We believe that our budget lays out a principled, reasonable fiscal plan in order to ensure that we can care for British Columbians the way that they deserve to be cared for.

K. Conroy: I’m honoured to stand in this chamber and respond to the budget speech that was delivered last week.

First of all, before I get into that, I just want to take a moment to thank all the staff who work for the NDP caucus in this building — the people that work in communications, research, our legislative assistants. They all work so hard every day. It’s such a great and amazing team, and they do really good work. So I want to thank every one of them. A lot of them help me out. They help us all out. There are too many to mention individually, but I just wanted to make sure that I acknowledge all the good work they do.

I listened to the throne speech, and I listened to the budget speech. Both times I thought: “What is actually in either the throne speech or the budget speech that would be of some real benefit to rural B.C.?”
[ Page 13876 ]

I will give credit where credit is due. I was really happy to hear that the government has announced that they would stop loansharking loans to students in this province and that they’d actually give lower rates. They would lower the interest rates for students. They would take it down to prime. I think it was at prime plus 3 or prime plus 2. This will certainly help students in this province because we have some of the highest student debt in the entire country.

[1615]

I know that I’ve been talking to students, and they’re struggling. A lot of students say they have to get jobs in order to make ends meet. They have to extend their studies. They can’t do their diploma in the number of years they want to do it in. They have to extend it because they have to go back to work. This will, hopefully, help somewhat.

We really should be supporting our young people to attend post-secondary education. We should make it easier and not make it more difficult. I think it’s wonderful that that has happened, and I will acknowledge that. I think it’s great.

It is too bad, though, and I’m sure the minister will agree with me, that they didn’t reinstate the support to adult basic education. That just wasn’t done, and it’s really unfortunate because we all know how incredibly beneficial adult basic education courses are to the people who take them. The majority of the people taking those courses are actually women. Most of them have children, one or two children. There is a large number of people taking ABE that are First Nations. The studies show that when you go and do your ABE, you get your upgrading, the majority of those students go on to take other courses. They get their diplomas, their degrees, and it is such a huge benefit.

I know that in Selkirk College, the oldest community college in the province — we celebrated 50 years of providing services last year; a wonderful organization, a wonderful institution — quite a number of the students that take the ABE go on to carry on with their studies. So it’s really unfortunate. I know I talked last week in my throne speech about how Selkirk is looking at grants to try to help people, but because of cuts from the ministry, they might have to not carry on with those supports, which could be a real detriment to people wanting to take those courses. Hopefully, the minister might rethink that somewhere down the line.

There also wasn’t any major announcement for much, much needed repairs to Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital. I need to point out once again that Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital, which provides services to 80,000 people in the West Kootenays as well as providing services to people in the East Kootenays…. The regional kidney services are all based out of Kootenay Boundary for the entire Kootenays. But once again, there was no announcement of any major upgrades to this hospital, and it is the only hospital in the entire Interior Health Authority that has not got any major upgrades.

I want to read a release that was done by one of the doctors in Trail. He talks about how we remain the only regional hospital that hasn’t experienced any major project to help improve the delivery of care of the ambulatory and emergent patient. Patients and staff accessing Kootenay Boundary have not experienced a major redesign since Interior Health came into existence in 2002. The existing ambulatory care area, emergency department and pharmacy, along with rehab medicine, laboratory, diagnostic imaging and health information systems have all been identified as not meeting many current standards regarding functional health care delivery, safety, infection prevention and controlled measures.

You know, over $1.3 billion has been invested since 2002 in other new projects across the health authority. What Dr. Cameron is asking, on behalf of all patients and staff who access and work at Kootenay Boundary, is that they need this upgrading. We need this upgrading at Kootenay Boundary, and did we hear that in the budget? No. We didn’t hear anything. We heard it about other places — conveniently, for those communities — but certainly not for Kootenay Boundary. Am I saying other places shouldn’t get the upgrading? No. I’m saying that Kootenay Boundary, the people that live there, the 80,000 people that access that service…. It’s Boundary country as well — Boundary, West Kootenay and people from the East Kootenays. They deserve better care.

We toured the laboratory. They’re putting together solutions for people that are getting chemotherapy. It has to be highly sterilized, and they’re doing that in a situation that is not the best that it should be. The staff are really worried about it, and they provide excellent care in spite of the facility that they’re working under.

I just wanted to read that and make sure that I get that in Hansard because I think it’s really critical that all people in this province should get access to high-quality health care, and we shouldn’t be any different in the West Kootenays.

[1620]

I actually wonder if the funds that are announced for health care — that there were actually funds or if they’re just going to deal with the cost of providing the health care, that there is actually not going to be much new. But is it going to deal with the wait-lists? We have incredible wait-lists in this province, especially in our area. The wait-lists for MRIs are going up, as well as surgeries.

Then just a few weeks ago we had to have a whole series of surgeries cancelled because there weren’t enough beds. Why did they have to cancel those surgeries? Because we have seniors who are waiting for placement in an acute care facility and have been for quite some time, sitting in an acute care facility, which is not the appropriate place for seniors. They should be in care homes where they should be getting appropriate care.
[ Page 13877 ]

Any of us that go into the hospital…. I’ve been in for a number of reasons, with family members over the years. I’ve been in Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital quite a few times. You see seniors sitting there not getting the proper care they should have because they’re in an acute care facility. And there are beds available in our region. If the ministry funded IHA appropriately, those beds could be covered and those seniors could actually be in beds in seniors facilities. We wouldn’t be looking at surgeries being cancelled.

I started asking around: how many people had their surgeries cancelled? What kinds of surgeries were they, and how long had people waited for those surgeries? You’d talk to people, and you’d say: “My gosh, how long did you have to wait?” You finally got your surgery date, you’re finally going to get your surgery, and it gets cancelled because there are no beds in a hospital. Like, how ironic is that? I mean, the hypocrisy.

Are we going to see more funding so that this never has to happen again? Are we going to see funding that will actually ensure that the beds in our region can be utilized for acute care for people that have actually had surgery and not for residents, or for seniors?

I know that the minister speaking prior to me mentioned that she doesn’t like the fact that we’re talking about the fact that this is a fact. I didn’t hear the word “seniors” mentioned in the budget. How many times do we have to say that? Everybody listened hard. How much funding was actually dedicated to seniors?

We know that there are some issues. There are some real issues. I mean, let’s look at this Premier’s record on seniors. Here I’ll give another kudos. I know the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and I introduced a bill in this House. I don’t know how many times we introduced it. I think she introduced it twice. I introduced it twice. I think that between the two of us and another member who introduced it, we must have introduced the bill to bring a seniors advocate to this province four or five times. The government finally listened and brought in a seniors advocate.

I’ve got to commend Isobel Mackenzie. She is doing amazing work. She is doing excellent work and showing what things need to be done in this province. The information we’re getting is that seniors aren’t getting the care that they deserve.

When 91 percent of all residential care homes that receive public funding in this province are not meeting the benchmark for staffing levels, leaving our seniors without the care they deserve, how does that make sense? It was an excellent report that she put out there, and it said we need to have some standards. I’m from the early childhood sector. We have standards. The hospital should have standards. Health care for seniors should have standards. Housing for seniors should have standards.

One of the other reports she did was on home support and the lack of home support in this province. I talk to numerous seniors who say that if they only had a little bit more support at home, they could stay home longer and they wouldn’t have to end up in a long-term-care facility. As wonderful as long-term-care facilities are, I haven’t met too many seniors who say they can’t wait to get into one. They usually want to stay in their own home as long as they possibly can.

If we had a little bit more support in home support, they could stay home. And not home support that they have to pay for. I talk to seniors who can’t afford it. They can’t afford the Better at Home program. It doesn’t work for them. It just doesn’t work.

Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic in the country. When you think that 25 percent of the population by 2036 will be seniors — many, many of us in this room — we need to make sure that we have the systems in place that are going to support people, whether they be preventative…. But they need to be sustainable. They need to make sure that the seniors are getting the care they deserve.

The B.C. Ombudsperson’s report was in 2012. That was five years ago. The Best of Care: Getting it right for Seniors in British Columbia was published by the Ombudsperson five years ago, and there are still recommendations in that report that have yet to be addressed.

[1625]

The report was really well done, very serious. It talked about the issues around seniors care in a number of different areas. And still today, to this day, those issues are not addressed. We need to be looking at that and making sure that we’re looking at supports for seniors, looking at and ensuring that they’re there.

I, too, have spent time with aging parents. My father is the exact opposite of that; I think he gets younger as he grows older. But my mother just passed away this year, and I watched how difficult it was trying to get supports for her and my father as he took care of her. It was difficult.

We need to do better for seniors. I see that every day. Every week in my office, there’s an issue about seniors care in our region and across the province. We just have to do better. I think there is so much more that we can do. I didn’t hear it in this budget. I didn’t see it in this budget. Let’s just hope that it’s there somewhere.

When we’re talking about health care, people are just waiting too long, as I said, for surgeries in this province. We have some of the longest wait-lists in the country. Why? The former member said it’s about making commitments for different spending, but it’s also about political will. It’s also about saying that this is something that we have to deal with. People should not have to wait this long for surgeries. I mean, we have the second-worst record in the country for people waiting too long for knee and hip replacements.

All of us got the information from physio saying they could help reduce that by actually doing more physio so that you don’t have to go for surgery, which makes sense.
[ Page 13878 ]
I know it can work. But we’ve cut back the support to physio so that people can’t afford to go get physio. They’d rather get surgery than go to physio, which is much less invasive. It just doesn’t make sense. We should be looking more at preventative health care, as opposed to surgery.

When you look, there are other things. The government has not lived up to expectations; that’s for sure. We talk about what’s happening with kids in this province. There are so many ways we can talk about the issues with kids.

I look at the fact that the Premier now was Education Minister in 2002, when this government began its cuts to children in the education system. We looked at the number of schools that have been closed. It seemed like every other…. For a while there, there were constant protests about schools being closed, about overcrowded classrooms, not the appropriate supports in those classrooms, the mix of kids in those classroom. I talked to teachers who said they’ve had four or five children with high levels of special needs, with absolutely no support.

School districts — talking to school boards that are just struggling to try to make sure they’re providing the best education possible without the appropriate levels of funding. You look at the people that run to be a school board trustee. They care about kids. Most of them are either parents or grandparents. They care about the kids in the system. Then they’re struggling to try to make sure that they can provide the best education possible with some of the worst funding, and not having the ability to ensure is that there are the appropriate supports in the classroom.

Our daughter is a teacher assistant, and she works really hard trying to make sure that they provide the care that’s needed. She said they need more.

So let’s hope, after all these years, after 15 years of fighting with the teachers, that this government and this Premier has finally got the message: we need to ensure that not only do we have the appropriate funding; we need to ensure that we have the appropriate staffing. We need to ensure that the kids in the classrooms have the support they need so that they can thrive.

We’ve had 15 years of kids going through a system where they haven’t got the appropriate supports in the classrooms that they should have. You talk to parents who tell you how their kids weren’t assessed. They didn’t get diagnosed with what some of their issues are. And then you don’t get the proper teaching so that you can learn in spite of a disability. You know, this has to change. I just hope that this budget will actually look at supporting kids.

[1630]

It was almost like…. The hypocrisy of the Premier, to say, “Oh, isn’t this wonderful. The Supreme Court has told us we can now spend money on education,” when it was her and her government that has been challenging the Supreme Court, challenging the teachers all these years. And millions and millions of dollars went into the law system, into courts, fighting teachers, instead of into ensuring that kids are getting the education they should be getting. Let’s just hope that this budget has somewhere in there so that kids can finally start to get the care.

Everyone is concerned about the opioid crisis, but this government cut treatment beds for youth. Even the B.C. Representative for Children and Youth warned that the wait times for youth substance abuse services were just too long.

We recently went and toured the Downtown Eastside. We went and toured Insite. They talked about the young people coming into the facility there and saying: “I’m ready. I need to get off this stuff. I’m ready. I need help. I need to go into detox. I need this now. I need treatment.” And they can’t access it. There are waiting lists.

Everybody knows that anybody who is going to get treatment, once they’ve made the decision…. We’re talking about young people here. Once you’ve made the decision to get treatment, you need it now. These young people were saying that they end up back on the street, using, because they don’t have the supports they need. So we need to make sure that these people have the support they need. I mean, it just doesn’t make sense.

I talked a bit about what was happening with post-secondary. I hope that, somewhere in this budget, there is actually support for people that are trying to get into programs, and they can’t because there are no spaces. I talk to people trying to get into engineering, sciences. These are all in demand for jobs of the future, and there are wait-lists. They can’t get in. So let’s hope that there is support in this budget somewhere, because we certainly didn’t hear it. We certainly know that people are paying more for services, and they’re getting less. It wasn’t there.

The members talk about jobs and like to talk about the numbers around jobs. One thing that we know is that B.C. has shifted faster than any other province towards an economy of low-wage jobs. There hasn’t been a real growth in high-wage jobs. This is not some socialist think tank that’s come up with this number. This is according to an analysis by CIBC Economics. It’s talking about the share of high- and low-wage jobs in Canadian provinces in the last 20 years. These are real numbers, real facts, on what’s happening.

You only have to talk to people out in rural B.C. about what’s happening with jobs to know that the unemployment rate is really high in the interior of our province. It might be low down in the Lower Mainland. The northeast had a 9.8 percent unemployment rate in January, just this January, and Nechako — 7 percent. In the Cariboo, 10.8 percent. Unemployment rates — some of the highest in the country. But they crow about…. They said that they know that there’s something wrong.

There might be jobs down in the Lower Mainland, but we’re not all going to move to the Lower Mainland. People want to live in rural B.C. We love our lifestyle in rural B.C. But they want jobs. They don’t want to have to….
[ Page 13879 ]

I’ve raised this before, but let’s just raise this again. In my own family…. How many times does my own family…? I have two nephews, millwrights, working in Fort McMurray. I have a brother, a plumber-pipefitter, working in Fort McMurray. I have a son who’s a millwright working in Fort McMurray. I have a son-in-law who works in northern Manitoba, a carpenter.

[1635]

They want to live in Castlegar. They want to live where their family is, especially our son-in-law. He’s got five kids. He wants to be at home every night with his kids. But can he? No. This government has not….

Let’s look at the unemployment rate. Okay, in the Kootenays, northeast — 9.8 percent. I mean, it’s high — 8.9 percent in the Kootenays.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: East Kootenay is part of the Kootenays, Minister.

So it is high. The number of people that I know…. My nephew works with quite a number of people from the Cranbrook area up in Fort McMurray, where they have jobs, where the jobs are going up, up there. We don’t have jobs here, and it’s this government. It’s this government that’s created that.

They’re stifling good jobs. There are a lot of low-wage jobs but not high-wage jobs, and a lot of part-time jobs. The number of people I talk to who are working two, three part-time jobs to make ends meet, because they can’t afford one job, and the couples who are struggling to make ends meet….

The minister talked about forestry. Let’s talk about forestry — 30,000 forestry jobs lost under these people’s watch.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: It’s not mechanization. And it’s hit smaller communities, not large communities. We have to have policies that don’t guarantee B.C. jobs will get sent overseas. Like, why not have a policy that puts…? If a log can be utilized in B.C., then why the heck wouldn’t we utilize it in B.C. and create jobs in B.C.? If it can’t be utilized here, fine. Send it somewhere else to be utilized. But if can be utilized here, let’s utilize it here.

I mean, 30,000 jobs.

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Yeah, let’s talk about building ferries in B.C. I mean, that seems like a pretty smart thing to do. How many hundreds of jobs….?

Interjections.

K. Conroy: Novel, novel. Yeah. Oh my god. Yeah, let’s see how many jobs….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

The member for Kootenay West has the floor.

K. Conroy: Sore point with them.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue, please.

K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I touched a sore note there.

Yeah, 89 percent of the job growth in B.C. has been in Metro Vancouver, so in the rest of the province, people are struggling, and that needs to be recognized. You know, that needs to be recognized, and it’s….

This government has been doing something for 16 years, but it hasn’t created jobs for rural B.C. I don’t think people are going to forget that.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It’s time that we looked at what we are going to do for people. Half of British Columbians are now living paycheque to paycheque; 53 percent of British Columbians are living paycheque to paycheque. And 49 percent say they can’t save money, and they have to spend all of their net pay in order to make ends meet. This isn’t, again, some left-leaning think tank. This is the Canadian Payroll Association. Forty-seven percent of British Columbians say they’re within $200 a month of being unable to pay their bills.

Now, let’s equate that with a Premier who makes — what? — $197,000 a year, plus she was making $50,000 a year for extras. Most people, a lot of people in this province don’t even make $50,000 total. She was getting $50,000 a year from her private donors. You know, $300,000 — that’s a lot of money. And people cannot…. They’re looking at their paycheques and thinking that $200 might just be…. “I’ll be unable to pay my bills.”

Then they’re looking at their ICBC going up. They look at their hydro going up. Their MSP was going up, and it just went up again in January. If this government gets its way, it wouldn’t go lower until next year. So where’s the commitment? And can you believe them? I mean, when they promise all kinds of stuff before an election and then don’t deliver, you’ve really got to…. It’s a little suspect.

We have the highest household debt in B.C. Another outfit that people might not agree with: this is the Chartered Professional Accountants of B.C.
[ Page 13880 ]

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Those accountants. I know. You just can’t…. Those accountants.

Over $60,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in this province. It’s one of the highest household debts in the country in B.C. How’s that helping them out? And some of the highest rates of working poverty. Like I said, I know people with two, three jobs, trying to make ends meet. Or a mom and dad working. One works during the day, and one works at night, because they can’t afford child care.

[1640]

That’s the other thing that you need to have a political will for. We are going to have a child care program that provides accountable, affordable, good-quality child care for people, and it’s going to be a program that is going to fund itself. Every economist knows that.

Okay, here’s another left-leaning outfit. Vancouver Board of Trade, Surrey Board of Trade — they all support the $10-a-day child care program, as do a large majority of municipalities in this province. They see how cost-effective, in the long run, good-quality child care is for families, for the economy. It’s got nothing to do with going back to the taxpayers, like this government has done time after time when they jack up fees again and again.

Child care is a plan that works. It works for the economy.

Interjections.

K. Conroy: It creates real jobs, not virtual jobs like this minister talks about — real jobs. It has been proven again and again by economists from across the country that this program pays for itself. They don’t like hearing the reality with child care. For some reason, they are against child care.

This is a program that creates jobs and is good for the economy, and it’s been proven by so many different groups that support it. And they’re not low-quality jobs; they’re good-quality jobs.

More people in this province are relying on payday loans and food banks than ever before. That is just so wrong. The number of food banks…. Over 103,000 people every month….

Interjection.

K. Conroy: Oh, she’s sick of that stat, she says. Oh my goodness. I’m sorry that….

You know, 103,000 people monthly are using food banks in this province. Close to 7,000 seniors rely on food banks in this province. Every month over 5,000 new individuals are helped for the first time. In a province as resource-rich as this one, these are stats we shouldn’t have, and people will not forget.

People should not forget how much this government has cost them in the last 16 years, what it has cost their kids, what it has cost them in their pocketbook — how much more with the MSP, how much more with insurance. And the insurance is going up again. We all know that. We saw that leaked document from the ministry. You know, 49 percent. It’s going to go up again, your ICBC, if this government has its way.

Can we believe what they’re saying with this budget? Every time we look, we see more and more of the costs are going to go up. How is it going to benefit rural B.C.? I want to know. How are we going to go from some of the highest unemployment in the country? We’re going to do it with a government that actually cares about rural B.C., a government that looks at B.C. and says that we need to invest in B.C.

We need to ensure we have good-paying, family-supporting jobs in B.C. We need to ensure we look at all of our resources — forestry, mining, all of them — to make sure that we are actually creating jobs for people in B.C. to stay in B.C., live in B.C. and not have to go across the country to get good family-supporting jobs but actually do it here at home — be able to come home to their kids at night, and do that in rural B.C.

S. Hamilton: It certainly is an honour to rise in this place again to speak in support of our most recent budget. This side of the House has said again and again — and I guess it’s worthy of repeating — if people on the other side of the House would take the time to support some investment projects, some capital projects, building the infrastructure we want to build…. We’re creating the jobs. We want to see LNG succeed. We want to build the Site C dam. Every step of the way, lockstep, the other side of the House condemns it.

Anyway, I’d like to acknowledge all the hard work and consultation that went into formulating balanced budget 2017 — not just the work done this year and in the immediate lead-up to this week but the many years of prudent fiscal planning and management that have also allowed us to get to the point of presenting the fifth consecutive balanced budget in a row.

I was proud to witness some of this year’s planning in advance of the budget and to participate in the prebudget consultations with British Columbians, along with fellow members of the Finance Committee. In my role as Chair of the Finance Committee, these consultations are one of the most interesting parts of my year, when we’re able to engage British Columbians from across the province and hear about their priorities.

[1645]

As the hon. Minister of Finance mentioned in his speech last Tuesday, we had a great conversation with British Columbians this year. It was indeed a conversation that reflected the extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in, one that centred on what to do with our budgetary surplus. We heard a strong voice coming from British Columbians asking us to take less out of
[ Page 13881 ]
their pockets and put some of what we’ve already taken back where it belongs — with them. We listened, and the result is Budget 2017.

This is a budget that takes the dividends of many years of fiscal prudence and careful planning and delivers those dividends back to British Columbians whose hard work was so instrumental in creating them in the first place. It’s a budget that delivers on our promises.

In my first year with this government, in 2013, we promised to eliminate the deficit and reduce operating debt. We promised to keep spending growth in check. We promised we’d grow and diversify the economy. We promised we’d invest in infrastructure.

This year, when we look at the budget, we see the lowest level of operating debt since fiscal year 1982-83 and a clear path to eliminating the operating debt entirely for the first time in 45 years. We see provincial spending growth, which was at 6 percent per year between 2005 and 2008, now scaled back to 1.8 percent over the last four years, with priority programs still intact, and forecast to average only 1.7 percent in growth for the next three years.

When it comes to the economy, we see British Columbia is forecast to be leading the country for the second year in a row in 2016 and expected to rank highly for 2017 as well.

We’ve also developed our trade diversity. In fact, while Alberta and Ontario still rely on trade with the United States for 86.3 and 80.9 percent respectively, here in B.C., we’ve reduced that reliance to 53.9 percent. We have a diversified economy and a trade portfolio that’s the envy of all the other provinces and territories in Canada.

We make those landmark investments in schools, roads, health facilities and many other important infrastructure projects. With each of these areas then eliminating the deficit, reducing operating debt, reining in spending growth, growing and diversifying the economy and investing in infrastructure, we see promises made and promises kept.

With this budget, we see benefits delivered for British Columbians. We see the big issues that face British Columbians being addressed: taxes, affordability, housing, education and jobs. When it comes to provincial personal income tax, people earning $125,000 per year or less here in British Columbia pay less than Canadians in any other province in the country.

With the ongoing reduction of the operating debt, we’re also saving taxpayers more than half a billion dollars in interest costs in the three years covered by this fiscal period, so we can ensure that British Columbians can keep having the lightest tax burden in Canada.

As the Finance Minister pointed out, the most common challenge in our lower taxes here is MSP premiums. I think British Columbians across the province are excited to see the plan we lay out in this budget to eliminate these premiums entirely while also keeping their taxes to the lowest in the country.

It’s a shame that not everyone in this House can recognize a great thing for British Columbians when they see it. The Leader of the Opposition says he would make different choices, while the member for Victoria–Swan Lake…. Well, in response to the idea that our government would introduce a fresh round of tax cuts, this member said: “The NDP are going to have to fight that too.”

Not only that, but the Leader of the Opposition actually admits that his ill-advised daycare scheme starts with a tax investment. I’m not quite sure what a tax investment is, but I think it’s a tricky turn of phrase that British Columbians can see for what it really means: higher taxes and less money in their pockets.

I’m proud of the fact that our government is able to present a fiscal plan that includes a plan to eliminate MSP premiums which starts with cutting them by 50 percent without having to increase taxes in any other areas — in fact, while reducing taxes in other areas. We’re able to do this because we have Canada’s strongest economy, because British Columbians are working hard and because we’ve worked hard to achieve budget surpluses.

Our initial reductions this year will see nearly $1 billion going back to B.C. families. Starting January 1, 2018, a family with a net income of up to $120,000 who are paying full premiums will save $900 every year. A single parent of two children with an income of up to $40,000 would see their monthly premiums drop from $46 to $23, and then, as we know, eliminated completely.

[1650]

A family of four with a net income of less than $35,000 will pay no premiums at all and so join the ranks of approximately two million British Columbians who already pay no premiums, thanks to improvements we’ve already made.

When we talk about making life more affordable for British Columbians, it’s real-life, dollar-specific savings like these that we’re talking about.

Another affordability issue that we’re addressing is housing affordability. We’re coming at this with a balanced approach, investing in the construction of new affordable housing and stimulating supply while also helping homebuyers who want to get into the market. We made history with our housing investments, committing $920 million this past year alone to support almost 5,300 new affordable housing units across B.C. We’re helping approximately 42,000 first-time homebuyers get into their new home through the B.C. HOME partnership program.

I can’t stress enough that we’re able to make investments like this thanks to the hard work of British Columbians. We have more British Columbians working today than ever before in our province — 2.4 million people working. This means that even while we have the lowest taxes in the province, we have more people paying taxes here than ever before. Because we’re respecting these tax dollars and being careful with govern-
[ Page 13882 ]
ment finances, we have the ability to give back to British Columbians to make life more affordable and to invest in the future.

For British Columbia, the future is bright. We’re not only seeing continued surpluses forecast, but our economy is also forecast to deliver nearly one million job openings by 2025. Those job openings represent great opportunities, and we want to make sure that British Columbians are ready to be first in line to capitalize on those opportunities. Given that eight out of ten of these job openings will require post-secondary education or trades training, a big part of preparing to take advantage of these opportunities is, obviously, investing in education.

First, we have to ensure we lay a strong foundation by investing in K-to-12 education, which we’re doing in spades. This year’s budget includes an investment of a record $5.9 billion for education.

Second, and importantly, when it comes to preparing our students for the job market, we need to make sure our advanced education is ready to deliver first-rate post-secondary education and jobs training. Budget 2017 is doing that by allocating $3 million a year for three years to upgrade Internet connectivity to post-secondary institutions across the province and by allocating $2.6 billion in capital spending for new buildings and infrastructure renewals at post-secondary institutions.

We also need to support our students when it comes to transitioning out of education and into the jobs. That’s why Budget 2017 also includes a reduction in the interest rate on student loans, from prime plus 2.5 percent down to just prime, as of August 1, 2017. So if you’re currently paying off a B.C. student loan, your payments will go down as of August 1. All told, that reduction will save people in repayment $11.3 million this year and $17 million in each of the next two years. That’s what I call a great way to help British Columbians keep more of their hard-earned paycheques.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, there are more people earning paycheques in B.C. than ever before, and our economy has forecast almost a million job openings in eight years’ time, by 2025. That positive forecast comes as a result of our commitment to job creation and economic growth. We’ve been working hard to diversify our markets and promote the trade and investment that drives economic growth and creates jobs. Budget 2017 takes this work forward with a $1.7 million annual investment to support a new trade office in Malaysia and continued operation of our other two offices in Southeast Asia.

It all includes some great measures to support B.C. businesses. We’re lowering the small business tax rate again from 2.5 percent to 2 percent, making it the second lowest in the country, and allowing small businesses to keep the $213 million over the next three years that they otherwise would have had to pay in taxes. We’re also getting rid of the PST on electricity with a phase-out process starting October 1 this year. Within the scope of this fiscal plan, by April 1, 2019, there will no longer be any PST charged on electricity.

[1655]

The results of that will be huge, especially for the electricity-intensive industries like mining. Catalyst Paper — I met with those folks not too long ago, and the kind of money they spend on electricity alone is overwhelming. It is really a detriment to them moving forward and growing their company. As a result, the $160 million that this tax would have delivered to the government coffers will be able to stay within the businesses so that they can reinvest, expand and, obviously, create more jobs.

Addressing these important issues — from taxes to affordability and housing, from education to job creation and leveraging strong financial management in order to deliver benefits back to British Columbians — is really what Budget 2017 is all about. I’m proud to support this budget because it will benefit British Columbians across the province but also, and really most importantly, because of how much it will benefit my constituents. Our government’s careful fiscal planning has allowed for a great deal of investment in my own community.

This investment on the whole, which is really many significant individual investments, is doing great things for Delta North by responding to local priorities and addressing the issues we face on a daily basis. I’d like to take a few minutes and go over some of the projects and investments we’ve seen delivered to Delta North and the surrounding communities in the last year, many of which received funding for their completion in Budget 2017.

In my riding, the biggest issue we face is transportation. It’s our highways. We are a transportation corridor. We are at the end of a funnel, with a very vibrant port which functions not too far away from our neighbours’ doors. Whether we’re talking about daily life for people in Delta or the smooth functioning of our economy, the most important challenge we face is making sure that traffic keeps moving — moving people and moving goods.

Of course, we currently have the dubious distinction of being home to the biggest bottleneck in our province, the George Massey Tunnel. Addressing this bottleneck by replacing the tunnel is another thing our government promised it was going to do and now is delivering on.

The contracts for preliminary construction work went to tender in January, and we received the environmental assessment certificate earlier this month. I think a lot of people in Delta and, again, the surrounding communities are also looking forward to seeing construction start on the tunnel replacement project — everyone, it seems, but the opposition members in this House, who seem determined to oppose the benefits that it will bring to the entire region. Thankfully, however, Budget 2017 includes the continued funding of the project, which will continue to move forward this year.

Another exciting transportation improvement we’re seeing funded in Budget 2017 is the addition of a seventh
[ Page 13883 ]
lane to the Alex Fraser Bridge, which is a joint federal-provincial project. We’re going to narrow the six existing lanes slightly — very slightly; it’s not going to take much — and remove the shoulders to accommodate the extra lane. This project is great news for Delta commuters who are expecting to shave time off their commutes both to and from work every day.

M. Hunt: And Surrey commuters.

S. Hamilton: And Surrey commuters. Thank you, Surrey-Panorama.

Once completed in the spring of 2018, the bridge will feature a movable barrier, which can be moved like a zipper, to speed up rush hour. Whichever direction has the heaviest traffic volume at any given time of the day can be accommodated with that fourth lane.

We’re also hoping to reduce commute times with another big project in partnership with the federal government, the Highway 91 interchange project, which has a projected completion date of December 2018. This will replace the last remaining set of lights on Highway 91 at 72nd Avenue with a half-diamond interchange.

I moved to my community 30 years ago, and I love telling this story. I’ll never forget the first day I commuted over the Alex Fraser Bridge and hit a traffic light. You had to wait for the oncoming traffic before you could turn left to go down toward Westminster Highway. The East-West Connector hadn’t been completed yet. You hit one traffic light after another. This is the last piece of the puzzle, and it can’t come fast enough for me or the people of my community.

This interchange will make the intersection safer and go a long way towards addressing the congestion issues that we’ve always had there over the years. By making Highway 91 a more efficient route, this improvement will set us up to be a preferred cross-border, north-south route for commercial vehicles, which is great, also, for our economy. In Delta, we see every day just how much our provincial economy relies on the movement of goods by truck.

I think our experience living in a transportation corridor gives the people of Delta a strong understanding of the complexities of transporting goods and the need to support the men and women who work in our transportation industry. Part of this is making sure that our truckers have a safe place to take a break from long hours on the road. In November, I was pleased to open up a new overnight truck parking facility at Nordel Way at Highway 91 that allows truck drivers passing through Delta the ability to do just that.

[1700]

It gives those in need of a break a safe, convenient alternative to parking on our local streets, leaving our local traffic more room to manoeuvre and making it easier for truck drivers to take the rest that they need in order to stay safe on our roads and keep B.C.’s economy going strong. It additionally provides an alternative overnight parking and storage facility for people so that they’re literally not parking those big rigs in their driveways or on their residential streets.

Recent investments in Highway 10 were also directed at improving safety on our roads. Last April we completed the installation of a concrete median dividing the four lanes of Highway 10 between Scott Road and Highway 91. We made this investment to increase driver safety on this busy stretch — especially during bad weather or at night, when crossover incidents are more likely to occur. This was a priority for people of Delta, an important investment in their safety, and I was glad to see it delivered.

Of course, while highways may be our biggest regional issue, there’s also more to transportation in Delta than our highways. Our regional airports play an important role in our economy around the province and in connecting British Columbians. That’s why I was so glad to see our government provide support to our Boundary Bay Airport through the B.C. air access program.

We also receive significant support for skills training here in Delta this year. I spoke earlier of education. An exciting investment of more than $1.5 million in the UA Piping Industry College of B.C. will open up 205 trades-training seats on four of their campuses, including the Delta campus, for groups that are under-represented in the trades. That’s in addition to the 451 seats in high-priority trades at the UA Piping Industry College of B.C. which we announced last fall.

Working through the Industry Training Authority, we also funded 52 pile driver and bridge worker seats for the Pile Drivers, Divers, Bridge, Dock and Wharf Builders union Local 2404. We opened 32 heavy-duty mechanical trade seats at the Motive Power Centre on Annacis Island with an investment in Vancouver Community College and BCIT.

The Motive Power Centre of Excellence is a great trades-training resource in Delta, purpose-built in 2014 with an investment from the province. It’s been making a big difference when it comes to our capacity to train our next generation of highly skilled tradespeople.

With resources like the Motive Power Centre and ongoing investments in skills training, Delta is currently doing our part — in fact, we’re punching above our weight — to train tomorrow’s workforce. It’s a wonderful thing in our province that many British Columbians, including many people in Delta, are fortunate enough to take for granted the opportunity to get an advanced education or to get skills training. But as a government — and, of course, as a society — we also need to be thinking about how to help those who can’t take anything for granted.

I spoke earlier this morning about the single-parent employment initiative, and I’d like to spend just a little bit more time speaking about it again. This budget has a great many investments in supporting British
[ Page 13884 ]
Columbians who need it most, with $796 million for programs that support families, individuals and children in need. But now I’m going to focus again on the SPEI. It’s a great program that we’ve invested in which is helping single moms and dads who need a hand up to get the training so that they can improve their employment prospects while raising their kids.

We know that the most effective way for a parent to provide for their children is through a good job that provides a steady income and that there are some parents who face greater challenges and needs. They need a little extra support in building the lives they want for themselves and their children. That’s what the single-parent employment initiative is all about: giving these parents the support they need to transition into the workforce. This means funding training, allowing parents to stay on income or disability assistance while they train, covering their transportation costs to and from school and covering child care costs.

The freedom and opportunity this program provides has made a difference in so many lives. I mentioned these numbers earlier today, and I’m going to say them again. Since its September 2015 launch, 4,419 people have signed up for this program. Of these, 845 have successfully achieved employment.

I can’t say enough good things about the program and the potential that it unlocks for British Columbians. It is a true indication of what people can accomplish when they’re given the helping hand they need, and it’s a great indication of targeted investment making a maximum impact for those who need it the most.

I’d like to finish now with a few words about another important area of investment, our health care system. As a province, we spend just over $4,000 per person, on average, each year. Here in Delta, we’re fortunate to have excellent access to health care. Our hospital is a centre of excellence in many ways, especially when it comes to laboratory diagnostics, and we’ve been working toward making it even better.

[1705]

With the generous donation of $2.5 million from Delta’s Toigo family and a further $7.5 million from the Delta Hospital Foundation, the project to expand, enhance and relocate the medical imaging and lab services department into a single facility continues to make good progress. We expect to see this work fully complete in 2018.

We’re also strengthening the surgical services at our hospital with enhancements like a new pre-admissions clinic for patient screening and assessment and the establishment of a new short-stay observation surgical area for enhanced care for day-surgery patients. As our population grows and ages along with the provincial population, our government is ensuring that we get the investments we need to continue to offer first-class health care in my riding.

As the Chair of the Finance and Government Services Committee, it’s been a privilege to have a front-row seat in the development of this budget. The investments included in balanced budget 2017 are going to improve the lives of British Columbians across the province, as well as in my own home constituency of Delta North.

To be able to make these significant investments while also putting more money back in the pockets of British Columbians and ensuring that they see the benefits of our strong economy and careful financial management — this is an accomplishment worth celebrating. It’s an accomplishment that has my full support.

S. Robinson: I am pleased to rise to my feet today to speak to the 2017 budget, also known more colloquially as the forget-everything budget. It is sprinkled with a handful of election goodies just weeks before the election, but my constituents in Coquitlam-Maillardville actually see right through it. They know that this is a pre-election budget crafted specifically for the few weeks before the election and designed to get people to forget what life has been like for them under this B.C. Liberal government.

The number one issue that I have been hearing consistently on the doorstep over these last four years that I have been a member of this Legislature is that affordability has been a very significant issue. I’ve been on the doorstep every few weeks for the last four years, and time and time and time again on the doorstep, people talked about their concerns about affordability in this province.

This budget is designed to encourage British Columbians to actually forget how this government has made life more unaffordable for you and your families. Since I was elected — and I’ve been on the doorstep, I mentioned earlier — I’ve heard from constituents who would talk about just how expensive life was for them. They were working harder and harder, and they could not get ahead at all. They found that wages were flat and government fees were going up. People were really, really worried for their future.

On the doorstep this fall, I heard from different groups of people. They each had slightly different concerns related to affordability. In order to really capture what their experience has been under this government, I think it’s important to describe what those groups talked about and what they complained about, because they’re not represented in this budget at all.

I heard from families who were talking about how much harder it was to pay for all the things that they were expected to pay for — increases in school fees, increases in MSP, increases in ICBC and increases in Hydro. They were finding that while they were working — they had jobs — they were picking up extra shifts.

Extra shifts — you know what that means for them? It means for them that they are spending less time with their families, less time with their children. They found that child care costs were just outrageous. They were find-
[ Page 13885 ]
ing that now they had to pay a toll to go across the bridge into Surrey, that that was adding to their costs.

The other group that I heard from were single young adults. I’d be knocking in Maillardville, and we have quite a collection of basement suites in that community. There were lots of people, sometimes young, sometimes older — but often single people or people living with friends. I asked them about what life has been like for them under this government, and they talked about housing affordability.

Typically, they would have low-paying jobs. They all had jobs, but they had low-paying jobs, perhaps minimum wage. They were having a real hard time finding a place to live, so they had to take in a roommate — it might be a one-room basement suite, but there were two or three people living in it — in order to make ends meet. They were finding that rents were so expensive that on these very flat wages, they could not make ends meet.

[1710]

The possibility of home ownership, the possibility of ever having enough money to put down a down payment, was impossible. There was just no way they were going to be able to do that. They didn’t know how they were going to get ahead. They didn’t know how they were going to move forward with their lives.

Now, the third group that I heard from that had concerns about affordability were seniors. These are people who have spent their entire lives working hard, raising their children. They’ve been living, often, in the same home for 30 or 40 years. They were just finding that their ability to keep up with the expenses was next to impossible. Increased hydro rates, increased ICBC rates and paying for all of their medications were becoming a challenge — so much so that there were some seniors who were choosing to not fill all of their prescriptions that the doctor gave them, or they were making their own medical choices of skipping their medications and only going to every other day to take them, because they felt like they just couldn’t afford them. They just couldn’t keep up.

What frustrates me about this budget is that I think of those people. I think of those people that I talked to, because those are my constituents. That’s who I represent here when I’m in this House. I listened to the budget, and I’ve read through the budget documents. All I can say is that this government wants you to forget a whole bunch of things. They want you to forget that this government, under this Premier, has actually doubled the Medical Services Plan fees.

Just last year the Premier told British Columbians that the reason she valued the MSP was to remind British Columbians that medical services in this province aren’t free, suggesting that MSP fees actually went to pay for direct medical costs. This year she is telling British Columbians that these fees actually don’t go to pay for health care — everybody knows that — and that she never really liked these fees anyway. So which is it? She wants to remind everybody that they’re an important part of paying for our medical services and that she wants to keep them. Or maybe this year she doesn’t want to keep them.

This Premier wants you to forget that just last year, when she was explaining yet another increase to MSP premiums, she told us that it was for our own good and we should remember that this fee serves as a good reminder that health care isn’t free. This year, just weeks before an election, she wants us to forget that patronizing and disrespectful excuse for making British Columbians pay more.

This year the Premier suddenly realizes — perhaps it was a poll paid for by her well-connected friends and insiders — that British Columbians don’t need a reminder that health care isn’t free. This year this Premier is pretending that her increases to this flat tax have never even been a problem for British Columbians. She wants you to forget that she has made life more unaffordable for you.

It’s not just increases in the MSP that have contributed to the affordability crisis. She wants you to forget that your hydro bills and your car insurance keep going up, and since the MLA from Kelowna became Premier, she wants you to forget that families are paying more than $1,000 more each and every year in increased MSP premiums, ICBC rates and hydro rates. When I think of those families, when I think of those seniors and when I think of those young adults, they’re not making that up. They have been paying more every year, and it’s this Premier who wants those people to forget.

Hydro rates alone will have gone up by 60 percent by the end of March 2019 since 2011, when the member from Kelowna became Premier. Under this Premier’s watch, those rates have gone up 60 percent. So while life is getting more and more unaffordable under this government, it’s only in the weeks before an election that the Premier thinks it’s time for this “Forget how we made life more difficult for you” budget.

Let’s see what kind of goodies this Premier has, just hoping that you’ll forget. The only goody in this budget to ease the affordability issue is the suggestion that this government, at some time in the future, will perhaps reduce MSP premiums, but be sure, still, that you pay more for hydro and more for car insurance. But they are saying that their plan to actually reduce the MSP premiums won’t start till 2018. It’s kind of like promises of “A GP for Me,” “Debt-free B.C.” and LNG. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

[1715]

While the Premier wants you to forget how much tougher life is for you and your family under this government, she also wants you to forget that she took a second salary from the B.C. Liberal Party to top up her Premier’s salary. This Premier wants you to forget her private parties and pay-for-access events that not only contributed big bucks towards her re-election. She wants you to forget
[ Page 13886 ]
that she got paid for actually hosting these private events. The Premier wants you to forget how she gave a tax break to the wealthiest 2 percent of British Columbians back in 2013. She wants you to forget that while you paid more, her friends who were paying for her second salary were getting a tax break. Think about that. Her friends paid money for fundraisers for which the Premier collected a $50,000 annual salary, and she gave them a tax break. She wants you to forget how badly this stinks.

What else does this Premier want you to forget? Well, she certainly wants you to forget about the GP for Me promise that was supposed to ensure a GP for every British Columbian by 2015. Well, that didn’t materialize. This government has certainly dropped the promise and commitment to make sure that everyone actually does get a GP.

The Premier wants you to forget about the LNG promise. Remember that one, the one that we all heard about in the last election? LNG was going to be the saviour for all of us. We would have a prosperity fund that would take care of us. Our coffers would be overflowing with cash. It would even eliminate that sales tax.

Well, that didn’t materialize. There was barely a mention of LNG in this budget. What was once the opportunity of a lifetime, a generational opportunity, has been reduced to an insignificant mention in this budget.

There is no revenue from LNG. And the money that this government has used to line the prosperity fund — well, that’s your tax dollars. They’ve used your tax dollars to put money into an account that was supposed to be flush with money from LNG. The Premier wants you to forget that there is no money from LNG, so she took some of your tax dollars and put it in the prosperity fund, hoping you’ll forget where the money came from.

Remember the B.C. Liberal campaign bus from 2013, “Debt-free B.C.”? Well, the Premier now wants you to forget her record on that one too. Total debt is forecast to go up by $11 billion over the three-year fiscal plan — from $66.7 billion, as of March 31, to $77.7 billion, as of March 2020. Total government debt has doubled under this government, increasing by $32.9 billion since 2011.

In the last fiscal year of the NDP government, in the ’90s, the debt was $33.8 billion. Under this government, that debt has ballooned by 97 percent — to $66.7 billion. Now, just to be thorough on this debt issue, the Premier, from March 2011 to March 2017, has added $21.5 billion to the debt. That’s the biggest increase in debt in B.C.’s history.

Given this Premier’s track record on GP for Me and “Debt-free B.C.” and LNG, why would anyone believe that there might actually be any relief on MSP in 2018? They didn’t deliver on any of those other things. Why would anyone believe this one? Now, this Premier does say all kinds of things when it’s election time. But there’s a history of not delivering, and she wants you to forget that she just doesn’t deliver.

What else is in this budget that this Premier is trying to make you forget? Oh yes, her new-found commitment to public education — the one, you know, where the Supreme Court of Canada forced the Premier to properly fund public education in this province. Well, the Premier wants you to forget how public education has suffered under her leadership — first, as Minister of Education, back when she was first in government. She wants you to forget how, as Premier, years later, she then provoked the longest teachers strike in history.

Now that the Supreme Court of Canada, in less than 20 minutes, has told this Premier that she was actually acting illegally, she wants to turn around and just call it an “opportunity.” She wants you to forget that she spent millions and millions of tax dollars that could have gone to educating your children. She spent it, instead, on lawyers.

The Premier wants you to forget that she chose to purposefully underfund education. She chose to tie this issue up for years in the court system, and then, only when she ran out of options, did she turn around and call this decision to properly fund education an “opportunity.” She wants you to forget what she did to an entire generation of children.

[1720]

She also wants you to forget the incredibly long wait-lists to have children assessed for special needs over that generation. She wants you to forget how our schools had to make choices between music teachers, art teachers and teacher-librarians, not to say anything of speech-language pathologists, psychologists and others who make life richer for our children.

The Premier wants you to forget all the fundraising you had to do to replace outdated and broken computer equipment in our schools. The Premier wants you to forget that schools aren’t seismically upgraded yet. The Premier wants you to forget about all the reams of paper that you had to provide on that list of school supplies at the beginning of the school year because there was no budget to properly fund the necessary photocopying.

The Premier wants you to forget watching the principal clean up the vomit in the hallway because there were no funds to hire any custodians during the day to keep the hallways and classrooms clean. The Premier wants you to forget that your children had to share textbooks in the class, meaning that your child had to work more slowly until her classmates could catch up and before your child could actually turn the page to complete their work.

Now, the Premier doesn’t just want you to forget about her choices regarding public education. She wants you to forget what is happening to your parents and the seniors in our province. What surprised me was that there wasn’t any significant mention of seniors in this budget.

The seniors advocate had produced some very interesting research reports on housing, income supports, transportation and caregivers and the role that these important people play in supporting our seniors. The B.C.
[ Page 13887 ]
seniors advocate produced two significant reports looking at staffing for residential care, our really most vulnerable seniors. Last year the B.C. seniors advocate noted that over 80 percent of facilities did not meet the government’s own recommended guidelines of 3.36 hours of care per day per resident.

We were told that they would do better. The Ministry of Health said: “We’ll do better.” I heard that and would have imagined that they would do better. But we are to forget, I would imagine. This is what the Premier wants — that we would forget that here we are a year later, and the same report, a year later, notes that actually things have gotten worse and that 91 percent of care facilities in this province do not meet these recommended guidelines.

Now, the cynical part of me is asking: how is this possible? How is it possible that in an election year, this government wouldn’t say anything about seniors and residential care? These are scathing reports. Well, the first thing — that things have gotten worse…. How is that possible? And how could they not even mention it as a concern? I’m still a little bit puzzled by that.

Now, the cynical part of me wonders if the plan is to make some sort of special announcement as we get closer to the election as part of the strategy to try to make you forget how this government has failed to care for our most vulnerable citizens. Are we going to get some big splashy announcement in the days leading up to the election that says: “We’re going to take care of your parents, we’re going to just throw all this money in, and we’re going to make sure that they have every single resource that they need”?

In the days before the election, people are paying close attention. That is when people are most attuned. In this strategy to make people forget, I would imagine that maybe that’s part of the plan. The cynical part of me wonders if this absence of any significant mention of seniors is yet another ploy of this Premier to withhold funding until such time as she can maximize an announcement to her benefit, to meet her needs, to help her get elected.

There has been so much damage and neglect that this government wants you to forget. The Premier wants you to forget about the spiralling housing prices that put the idea of home ownership out of the realm of possibility for most young people just starting out. The Premier wants you to forget her government’s treatment of those with disabilities and the bus pass clawback — and the people who are just horrified that any government would do that to these citizens. The Premier wants you to forget the years of neglect for child and youth mental health that actually saw a reduction in youth substance abuse beds over time.

[1725]

The Premier wants you to forget that they are seven years into a ten-year mental health and addiction plan, a plan that has resulted in families remortgaging their homes so that they can send their children to treatment and support in the U.S. because they just couldn’t find it here. It just didn’t exist. Or the waits were so long.

These families are not going to forget. The families in my constituency are not going to forget. They are not going to forget how life has become more difficult and more unaffordable for them and their families. They’re not going to forget how their children have suffered — an entire generation of children has suffered — with chronic underfunding of education by this government.

Those living with mental illness or substance abuse disorder or those who have lost children to the opioid crisis — they’re not going to forget either. They’re going to remember when their children and their loved ones made phone calls looking for help, when they called to go to detox and were told it’s a three-week wait. They went to an addiction doctor and were told they were going to have to wait a month before they could see an addiction doctor.

When they got through treatment and were looking for a recovery house, they were told that there are no beds for recovery houses. When they got through detox and asked to go to a long-term treatment, there was a six-week wait for treatment. They’re not going to forget.

No one in British Columbia is going to forget how this government has neglected people. They’ve remembered their friends — they gave the top 2 percent a tax break — but they forgot the people of British Columbia. I will do everything in my power to help them remember what life has been like under this government.

R. Sultan: British Columbia is headed for its fifth balanced budget in a row. “Bravo,” I say. “Boring,” say many. “Who cares?” say others. It’s fair to ask why balanced budgets are such a big deal. Why should we celebrate their achievement, as I certainly do? Why should governments which borrow and borrow, flying now and paying later, be condemned? They usually are.

Beyond those who wonder whether balanced budgets are even worthwhile, there’s another group of people who wonder whether they’ve actually ever been achieved. Some in that group seem to believe that the numbers put out by government are strictly a charade or a fairy tale. The editorial cartoon of one journal of record which normally strives for truth and excellence compares our budget to a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale — just another piece of fake news, I suppose.

In the fake news epidemic of our times, I concede there can be wisdom in challenging what people say. A certain level of distrust can indeed be a healthy thing and occasionally justified. We’re reminded of the fudge-it budget of another decade. But that is not the case with Budget 2017.

I base that conclusion on my own personal experience. I’ve served on the Public Accounts Committee of this Legislature for well over a decade, chaired capably by a member of the opposition party. It’s strictly
[ Page 13888 ]
a private members show — no members of executive council allowed, thank you very much. The smart and experienced independent Auditor General and her eagle-eyed staff publicly pick holes in government plans, performance numbers and budgets — occasionally successfully. Fairy tales don’t survive for very long in that environment.

I would further contribute my own experience outside government. I have personally witnessed what is probably more than my fair share of accounting distortion, humbug and outright fabrication of numbers in organizations ranging from mining through venture capital and extending into financial institutions. Older and wiser now through these hard lessons of experience, I conclude that Budget 2017 is very real. It’s not a fairy tale.

[1730]

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the rating agencies. Here’s what Standard and Poor’s, which makes its living not by whitewashing but by finding faults and weaknesses, said about British Columbia’s Budget 2017: “transparent, comprehensive and timely.” Not much skepticism there. This organization puts its yardstick to the books of thousands of government organizations around the world, so they know what they are talking about.

Clearly, Standard and Poor’s has found here on the west coast a rather unexpected jewel — a government which consistently, year after year in recent times, in its financial reporting says what it intends to do over the next three years, tries to do it and explains clearly when it doesn’t and why, without obfuscation, excuses or delay. Extraordinary. By balancing its books, I believe British Columbia stands as virtually the only provincial, state or federal jurisdiction in North America that I can find which has been able to accomplish such a sustained feat of financial discipline — the only one.

Still unanswered is the question of why we should care if they do, whether they show a budget balance or not. Let’s turn to the second important issue — that issue — right now.

One measure of fiscal rectitude is the gap between income and spending over an extended period of time. For example, if a government collects $100 billion but spends $120 billion, we might say they have a 20 percent gap between revenue and expense. Gaps matter. For eye-popping examples of extreme government spending revenue gaps, we need look no further than the huge republic to our south. We find three American states — Illinois, Nevada, and New Jersey — at the top of the gap list, with gaps ranging from 37 percent to 45 percent. Illinois takes in 55 cents and spends a dollar.

Canadian provinces have gaps too, somewhat more modest. Currently Newfoundland and Labrador is the worst, with a revenue-versus-spending gap in the 22 percent range. It is somewhat surprising to see stable, conservative and always prudent Ontario with an average gap of 6½ percent over the past five years.

Well, so what. What difference does having a gap really make? Some believe if you run out of money, you can always put it on your credit card. Or if you’re a government, simply call up your underwriter and sell some more bonds. And politically, if voters become nervous about your bad fiscal behaviour, you can always pass a law outlawing deficits. We even passed such a law right here in this Legislature a number of years ago.

In the U.S.A, almost every state has balanced-budget laws and fulfils them. The way they do this is if they find spending is running ahead of revenue, they simply borrow to make up the difference, and that’s allowed. They’re in compliance.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Illinois, the state with the biggest spending revenue gap, is required by law to pass a balanced budget every single year under article 8, section 2, of their 1970 state constitution. But to quote one financial journalist: “Illinois is beyond broke.” Vendors of goods and services to the state must wait two years to be paid, and one projection suggests waiting time will soon extend to four years. Illinois bonds are only rated one notch above junk status. The government recently proposed halting all salary payments to state employees, but the Legislature, for some reason, wobbled on that one.

In Canada, consider Ontario, scarcely a few kilometres across the lake from Illinois. Ontario’s debt per capita, as projected by the economics department of the Royal Bank of Canada in their February 7, 2017, report — an exercise I initiated when I ran that shop decades ago — encumbers each of its citizens with a debt of $22,738, which is about $400 more than the debt burden imposed by free-spending Quebec right next door and $5,000 more than the debt burden imposed by the government of Canada on all of us.

[1735]

We hear the Ontario government claim that it is “investing” in its citizens. Now, that’s a useful rationale, but there’s a problem with the rationale. The problem is that program spending — which in Canada means, at the provincial government level, spending in particular on health care and education — is lower in Ontario than it is in British Columbia, however which way you measure it. Measured as a percent of GDP, in B.C., we have 18.6 percent of GDP taken up by the province, government spending, compared with only 15.9 percent for Ontario, according to the Royal Bank again. As measured in dollar terms, program spending is $9,600 per person for B.C. and only $8,900 for them.

So if Ontario’s explanation for its quite startling debt and deficit performance is their greater appetite for spending on programs such as health care and education, what they term “investments in their citizens,” the numbers don’t back them up. They spend less than we
[ Page 13889 ]
do, not more. They invest less in their citizens than does British Columbia.

To sum up, why are debt and deficits important? Because B.C. would rather spend money on programs such as health care and education than on interest payments to bondholders. It’s as simple as that. Ontario and Illinois, please note. It’s not hard to figure out, in fact, that borrowing to spend on programs now can be really bad news for program spending down the road.

One piece of arithmetic offered in British Columbia’s Budget 2017 is the estimate that if our province had Ontario’s credit rating and Ontario’s debt ratios, British Columbia would have to spend an extra $2 billion a year just to service the debt.

I figure we could fulfil that extra $2 billion of annual obligation by (a) cutting our combined social assistance and children and families budgets in half; or (b) halting all funding of all the universities and colleges; or (c) completely shutting down three ministries — Environment, forests and lands, and transportation and highways; or (d) we could solve the cash flow problem by doubling the MSP premium instead of cutting it in half. Those of you who couldn’t care less about whether we balance our budget, please figure out how you’re going to explain all of these options to your voters.

I would like to conclude my remarks by reflecting on the trade-offs implicit in Budget 2017 between taxing and spending. Currently under this government, the province is on a roll: the highest employment numbers in the country; the highest economic growth rates in the country; superior health outcomes across a broad spectrum of indicators; and school performance which is the best in the world, as measured by the OECD, in English, and in the top ten among all nations in that broad OECD sample across the full range of subjects, including science and math.

These are the fruits of government prosperity and the spending it affords. They are the fruits of good administration. They are the fruits of excellent, professional delivery by those capable people on the front line, from schools to hospitals and beyond. Obviously, how well we fund them matters a great deal. Whether we can fund them at all matters too.

When people are working, they pay taxes. Governments have greater program spending flexibility when citizens and business prosper. This year, as has been the case for several years, our government has the luxury of growing fiscal capacity and has the freedom to decide how to allocate that growth in fiscal capacity between new program spending and the alternative of tax cuts.

[1740]

What is the proper balance between the two? What is the right recipe? And how much money do we have to play around with in the first place? Well, it’s buried there in the budget numbers, more or less. Looking forward three fiscal years in Budget 2017, Ministry of Finance forecasters and planners have implicitly estimated that we have around $6 billion to play around with on a cumulative three-year-total basis. Put another way, around $2 billion a year is somewhat discretionary, starting from today.

Now, being a hopefully optimistic guy and having looked at the numbers myself, I’d be tempted to forecast that the true number for our growth in fiscal capacity over a cumulative three-year period could even be higher, maybe even $8 billion or $9 billion. But the ministry is conservative, and they point out many risks. And we know of the unknowns, including Donald Trump’s possible shutting down of world trade; Brexit; British Columbia floods, fires and epidemics; and another global 2008-style financial market meltdown. Who knows? Anything is possible. So let us accept the ministry’s more cautious view.

Having determined that they have about $6 billion to play with, what did the government decide? They split the difference in Budget 2017. Half was devoted to cutting taxes. The other half has been allocated to increased program spending, particularly in housing, education and health. The Ministries of Social Development and Children and Families get a boost which is almost 10 percent over three years, and health sector spending, including seniors — a big slug for seniors — gets about 9 percent. I say good on them. Good on us.

Everybody will have their own alternative view of the proper balance. If you don’t like a 50-50 split between cutting taxes and more spending, how about spending all of it and tax cuts of zero? That seems to be the viewpoint of one of the frontbenchers opposite, who said recently: “The Premier’s last big idea was a fresh round of tax cuts. We’re going to have to fight that.” And another prominent frontbencher asserted: “The Premier is cutting taxes just to get re-elected.” Hmm.

On the basis of these penetrating insights, great contests for the public mind will be fought. Let’s do it.

D. Eby: It’s a pleasure to rise and respond to this budget today and speak to the Legislature about the priorities and concerns of my constituents in relation to the budget. Just to start with a bit of a reflection on the fact that this is year 4, four years as MLA in Vancouver–Point Grey, and it’s been a pleasure to be in this role and to hear from the community about concerns, including in relation to this budget.

If I have the opportunity to come back here, the reason will be simple. This budget, among others, has funded my community office and my staff there, who are amazing and exceptional, and I’d like to begin by thanking them for making my office such an amazing place for our community.

Gala, Chantille, Junie, Anna and Lucinda, you’ve done an amazing job staffing my office. It’s this talented and grossly overqualified team, funded by this budget, among others, that made it possible for us to do all the amaz-
[ Page 13890 ]
ing things we did in our constituency over the last four years — events, casework, helping people get issues resolved with this provincial government. I could not have done the job that I do without them, and I’d like to thank them for their outstanding work.

The budget also enabled, through my staff, volunteers to come to my office to help make our community better. There’s a particular volunteer I’d like to recognize, Mary Bennett, who connected my office with local artists throughout Vancouver–Point Grey who put their pottery, their paintings and their sculptures up in my office, making it an amazing place. I’d like to thank her, in particular, for her tireless efforts, and artist Glenda Leznoff, and Verity Livingstone, who’s the artist in our office right now.

[1745]

Now, Mary is just one of countless volunteers enabled by the staff, paid in part by provincial budgets. I’d like to thank a few of these volunteers by name for all of their work in my office: Niky Marwaha, Nadja Komnenic, Sarah Richardson, Michelle Tseng, Lyn Stewart, Lisl Baker, Kellan Higgins, Kethy Lin, Monica Martinez, Erin Prelypchan, Kailey Erickson, Susanna Miller, Eve Shamash, Ahmed Shahbaz, Jia Tsu Thompson, Rodger Ricker, Tony Puddicombe, Iva Jankovic, Jackie Conradi-Robertson and Kelly Douglas. You’ve done amazing work. Thank you.

There are a few issues that my constituents really care about, that they prioritize when they come to my office, when they speak with my staff. Whether we meet at the farmers market or at UBC kids gymnastics, these issues come up over and over again. Anybody looking at this budget would immediately be struck with a certain impression. That impression is that this government has tabled this budget in the hopes that British Columbians will forget about years of punishing fee increases — MSP increases, B.C. Hydro, ICBC, tuition increases, housing increases, the cost of rent, the cost of housing — and the reality that the vast majority of people in British Columbia can never dream of owning a home or a condo in Vancouver anymore, in the city where I live. In just four years, this government’s policies made that dream impossible.

Let’s start with public education. It’s hard to imagine that this budget would cause the parents advisory committee or any parent of a child at Bayview Elementary to forget that their kids have been going to a school that has needed seismic upgrades and that has desperately needed maintenance for way too long. The school board had to cut back on essential maintenance at this school because they were so short on operational funding that they had to decide on whether to do painting of the building or to put supports in the classroom.

Now, I want to note that this was the same school board that was fired for refusing to implement what it turns out was an illegal budget. This was a budget that the Supreme Court of Canada took 30 minutes to find was illegal and order the government back to the table to put in the supports that are necessary — that they agreed to, under contract, provide to children in our community. Now, they were fired for standing up for that.

It will be difficult for the parents at Bayview and at schools across my community to forget that they watched as parents across the province faced the closure of critical community schools, some of them their only schools, as desperate school boards tried to find ways to make sense of the budget that this government gave them. And 250 schools closed since 2002.

So no matter what is promised in this budget by this government in an election year, it’s going to be difficult for a generation of students who grew up with chronic underfunding in their schools, who watched their peers who struggled with learning disabilities or struggled with language challenges — or struggled with that themselves. Maybe they had a gift, whether it was music or athletics, or they were particularly gifted at academics. They watched them go without supports — because the supports were not there for them, the supports that were promised to be there — and watched them struggle to make a go of it anyway.

Our school board was looking at cutting a program before they were fired — before the Supreme Court of Canada said the budget they were fired over was an illegal budget under this government, underfunding what this government contractually promised to give to students in my community. They were looking at cutting a program that helps new-arrival parents settle into the community and get their kids to school with the language and cultural support that they needed to succeed. Can you imagine that, that they were looking at cutting that?

Athletic programs and music programs on the block. We’ve got some exceptional music and sports programs in my community. I don’t mind telling you that the Kitsilano basketball program…. The Byng basketball programs are outstanding. The Byng music program — second to none. Amazing talent in my community.

At University Hill Secondary — world champions at math, exceptional students. With a little bit more support, it’s hard to imagine what they couldn’t do.

But this government has to be taken to court and court-ordered to do the right thing. I don’t think any parent is going to forget that simply because of the budget, no matter what this government hopes.

[1750]

You may remember that in my community is the University of British Columbia Point Grey campus. It’s a very proud and storied institution. I think a lot of the members of this chamber have spent some time there. It’s going to be really difficult for the students who are there, and recent graduates from programs at UBC, to forget the experiences they’ve had, even just in this past year, under this government. Record-high student debt levels, the highest student debt levels in Canada.
[ Page 13891 ]

Now, these debts are taken on by students who aren’t even supported by this government in taking on a debt and being able to find housing. Ten thousand students on the UBC wait-list for housing — 10,000 students. They’re not likely to forget, because of this budget, the situation that they face — having to live so far away from campus. I’ve talked to students who live in Surrey, West Vancouver, and spend hours on the bus getting to campus. If they can get a bus, because pass-ups by buses are at a record high.

A pass-up — I didn’t even know what this term was. Although I’d experienced it, I didn’t know what it was until I was elected. A pass-up — it’s a technical term — means the bus is full and it passes you by. It just passes right on by. A record level of pass-ups. Why is that? Because the students who want to live on campus can’t, so they’re living somewhere else. They’re crowding onto buses to get to campus. It doesn’t make any sense.

This government wants those students to forget this ridiculous situation that they face because of an administrative issue that they refuse to address — the fact that colleges and universities are not allowed to borrow to build housing, even where the rents from the students will pay for the full cost of the borrowing.

The member from North Vancouver, who just finished speaking, has actually been quite a champion for Capilano University to be able to get this residence, and he can’t even convince his own government to fix this problem. Can you imagine that? So I’m not sure what luck I’ll have in this speech convincing this government to address the chronic shortage of student housing in this province if their own MLAs can’t convince them to do it. This budget is not going to cause people to forget that situation. I can assure you of that. Maybe in this election year this government will think about it — maybe.

You know, I think it’ll be difficult for transit users, generally. You’ll remember that I’m the critic for TransLink for the B.C. NDP. It’s going to be difficult for transit users to forget the mess that this government made of the transit system in the Lower Mainland. First of all, a very ill-advised referendum, which became a referendum about TransLink instead of a referendum about the desperate need for transit to build our communities, and absolutely no plan from this government about what to do when the vote failed.

This budget, if you can imagine, still fails to address the mayor’s ten-year plan. This plan is going to be ten years old before the ten-year plan really gets underway.

We’ve got the federal government standing at the border of British Columbia with a bag full of cash that they want to put into infrastructure in our province — specifically transit. They want to pay 50 percent of the cost, and this government can’t bring themselves to say yes to that plan. Can you imagine that? That they cannot find a way to get to yes on that? It’s astounding.

The Broadway subway, Surrey light rail — transformative projects that would be remarkable for so many communities and things that everyone agrees need to get done, not just for economic development, although that’s an important part of transit, but because….

I mean, I’ve heard a number of speeches this morning from the members on the other side that they recognize that climate change is real. That is a pleasant change from where we’ve been with some of the members in this chamber earlier in the session, when they didn’t even believe that climate change was real. Okay, so now they believe that climate change is real. That’s very good news. But what about investing in the transit that’s going to help people leave their cars at home and reduce their emissions? Where’s the priority for that?

This budget isn’t going to cause people to forget that this government has walked away from their own commitments around carbon pollution in our province. Nobody forced them to do this. They came up with their own numbers around how they were going to reduce carbon pollution in our province. They said they were going to do it by 2020.

[1755]

Well, they said the same thing about seismic upgrades for schools. Those got abandoned just as quickly.

They said that they would reduce carbon pollution and that their targets were 2020. The Premier flew off to Paris, brought her videographer with her, did a fun event out there and then said: “Actually, you know, we’re not going to hit our targets, but if you want to see us hit our targets — 2050.” We’re talking about electric flying cars here if we want to reduce emissions by 2050.

The fact that this government has completely abandoned their commitments around climate change will not be forgotten by people simply because of a single budget from this government.

Interjection.

D. Eby: The member laughs, but it was this government that approved a massive expansion of a heavy oil pipeline. It’s going to run right past a refinery, in order to export another raw resource to a low-wage, low-environmental-standard jurisdiction at high risk to our community. They’re going to increase the number of tankers outside the front doors of my constituents sevenfold.

These tankers are going to be filled with a toxic mixture called bitumen. That’s not hyperbole. It’s literally toxic. It will poison and kill you, and it’s impossible to clean up when it spills. It goes right to the bottom of the ocean floor. So this government thinks it’s just fine to increase the number of tankers seven times that does this, that brings this through Vancouver harbour.

The risk of a major spill isn’t speculation. We had a spill from this pipeline just ten years ago. In 2007, a backhoe….

Interjections.
[ Page 13892 ]

D. Eby: They get a little edgy around the fact that this pipeline has already spilled thousands of litres into Vancouver harbour. A backhoe operator broke the pipeline, spilling….

Interjection.

D. Eby: It wasn’t supposed to be there, unlike all the oil spills that were supposed to happen. It was an unplanned oil spill. It was an accident. That was the big problem with this oil spill. No one planned it. It’s the nature of an oil spill. It’s an accident.

The backhoe operator punches through the pipeline — 250,000 litres of crude oil. Seventy thousand litres spilled — 70,000 litres right into Burrard Inlet.

The operator pled guilty in 2011. So you’d think, 2011. What a wake-up call. What a wake-up call for this government. Let’s improve spill response. Let’s make sure that we have world-class spill response, to borrow a term.

So did we? Last summer a cargo ship in Vancouver harbour spilled 2,800 litres of bunker fuel into English Bay on a calm day in the summer — small spill, calm day. This toxic bunker fuel ended up on beaches 12 kilometres from the spill site. It took 12 hours to notify the city that there’d even been a spill and six hours to get the booms out to try to contain it. Six hours.

Coincidently, the Premier raises — what? — half a million dollars from the companies that are going to be shipping their products through these pipelines for her party. And now she says that spill response is better. Spill response is better in the province. We’ve got world-class spill response. A diesel spill in October near Bella Bella — impossible for existing response teams to contain. A similar slow spill response fouled an extensive section of pristine shoreline.

For those of us who have chosen to live in Vancouver or are fortunate enough to be able to live in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland, these are regional assets — these beautiful beaches, the tourism that it drives, the stunning pristine environment that we have. So what is the price? What is the price in the budget? What is the price to justify risking this international reputation? These amazing world-class beaches, this tourism industry — something that we would use to attract skilled workers from around the world to come and live here.

What’s the price? Our Premier says the price is between $25 million and $50 million per year for 20 years. All right. That’s her price.

[1800]

A study prepared for the city of Vancouver in 2015 estimated that a major spill would cost Vancouver approximately $1 billion, and we would not be able to clean up all the bitumen that spilled — or clean up our international reputation. This is not a risk worth taking for our city. Our future is in technology, in clean technology and education, not in shipping unrefined bitumen to low-wage, low-environmental-standard jurisdictions for refining. This project is terrible for so many reasons.

This budget won’t cause people to forget that this government hid in the weeds and pretended they were waiting for conditions that never arrived, when they knew a long time ago they’d be approving the pipeline. After all, it’s how the Premier paid for a significant part of her election expenses.

Let me take a moment to reflect that this budget too won’t cause people to forget that B.C. made the New York Times. Why was it? Was it our leadership in some amazing area of innovation? No. It was because we are the Wild West of political donations and spending in Canada — no rules banning foreign donations, no limits on donations from individuals, corporations or unions.

In fact, until a few weeks ago, our Premier was helping herself to $50,000 a year from those political donations, to the tune of $300,000 since she became leader. A $190,000 salary and pension in this budget as Premier wasn’t enough. She had to take those political donations home too.

Then the public paid for a lawyer to defend her ability to do that. That came out of the budget too. That came from taxpayers too. She wants to take as much as she wants? Okay, well maybe the public will pay for a lawyer to defend her right to do it. All the while we have kids going to school hungry, the Premier’s got a lawyer to defend her right to take political donations home. This budget won’t cause people to forget that.

This is the budget that our famous Housing Minister…. He thinks Vancouver housing is actually pretty affordable, the same year we are the least affordable jurisdiction in the world, as assessed by an independent group called Demographia. He thinks poor people in B.C. are lucky, if you compare them to conditions in Nicaragua.

This is the budget that our Housing Minister hopes will cause voters to forget that we have more than 70 active tent cities, homeless encampments, in Metro Vancouver right now; that cities like Maple Ridge and Abbotsford saw tent cities for the first time under this government; that 4,000 people are homeless in Metro Vancouver right now, a number increasing by 26 percent every year since this Premier became Premier.

Businesses, neighbours and the people grappling with homelessness themselves will not forget this transformative change in the growth of homelessness under this government no matter what’s in this budget, no matter what the government says they’re going to do next year.

Thanks to this government’s inaction for years, people in my constituency won’t forget that because of this government, the average detached home in Vancouver went up $600,000 in just two years, the same time that the opposition was pushing this government to take action on the housing crisis. This government sat and waited and did nothing until it was too late.
[ Page 13893 ]

In this budget, did we see any evidence that the government was going to pursue the very reasonable proposal from the Sauder School of Business? It says: “Look, if you’re not paying your worldwide taxes in B.C., you’ve got to pay more property tax. You’ve got to pitch in. There’s a reason why you’re investing in property here. It’s because we’ve good public amenities paid for by taxes. If you’re not paying your worldwide income tax in B.C., pay more property tax.”

Where was that in this budget? What did we get instead? A tax on passports. “Don’t have the right passport? Got to pay the tax. We don’t care if you live here, work here, pay taxes here. We don’t like you — 15 percent.” Astounding.

[1805]

We’ve got record-high levels of debt across my community because of this government’s inaction, and parents and grandparents who don’t know whether their children or grandchildren will ever be able to live in the city they grew up in. What did they do? What’s in this budget?

Government sold off a major block of property in the middle of Vancouver, acres of property. You could have built an amazing mixed income community. They sold it off. They did not do what that notorious left-wing radical Stephen Harper did, which was to stay involved in the site to make sure that there was actually some affordability built into the site. Instead, they sold off the Jericho lands.

They sold it to a First Nation — okay. But when you take $150 million from a group of First Nations, they’ve got to recover that money from the sale of the property. So why wouldn’t you enter into a deal with the First Nations to make sure that there’s a mixed income community? Is that $150 million that this government got from the sale of that property worth pricing people out of being able to live on that site? I don’t know. It seems to be. If we want affordability on that site, how much money are we going to have to put in now to make sure that there is affordability there on the provincial share?

What a missed opportunity to do an amazing development in partnership with First Nations that actually houses people of all different income backgrounds. Now this province has checked out, sold the property — out, done. The federal government entered into exactly that partnership with the First Nations — exactly that partnership. Stephen Harper entered into that partnership with the First Nations. Too much to ask for this government. That’s this government’s approach to the housing crisis.

Despite red flag after red flag of money laundering, of tax evasion in our housing market, this government had a chronic shortage of auditors in the Ministry of Finance for the last three years. FICOM is the body that was supposed to oversee realtors, mortgage brokers, credit unions, the insurance industry, and the Auditor General was saying again and again: chronically short of auditors. This agency is actually funded by those industries. They give money to the government. “Please hire auditors. We want to make sure to get rid of the bad apples.”

What does the government do with that money? They claw it back in this budget, in the last budget into general revenue. They don’t hire the auditors. What happens when you do that? Well, we know what happens. At the biggest real estate firm in Vancouver, a principal is caught on tape explaining to realtors how to cheat customers — front page of the national newspaper. That’s what happens when you don’t hire the auditors that the industry asks you to hire. That is what happens.

The investigation into that incident — I’ll say alleged incident, even though the guy’s on tape — is now approaching its one-year anniversary. It must be a big whodunit. Despite public announcements to the contrary, still no accountability. Great press conferences — $1 million for the Premier’s videographers and photographers to show up and record her promising to crack down. Not so much, Mr. Speaker.

In this budget, the government wants us to forget that StatsCan has provided startling information: more than 20,000 vacant homes in Vancouver. This government — they moan and they groan. Where’s their study? City of Vancouver: one in five condos vacant. StatsCan: more than 20,000 vacant properties. My constituents come into my office saying there are vacant properties.

This government — the Finance Minister stands up: “I don’t believe it. We put those allegations to bed.” Well, where is their study? Why, in this budget, is there not money to link up our income tax system with property transfers to identify people who are buying property with no apparent source of legitimate income? Oh, what a crazy idea.

Transparency International says that of the 100 most expensive single-family residential properties in British Columbia, 40 percent were owned by shell companies, by trusts or by obvious nominees, not the true owners of the property.

[1810]

Why is this government so indifferent to this? Where is the money to look into money laundering and tax evasion? It won’t be forgotten by the people of Vancouver–Point Grey, because of this budget. The government continues…. They’ll say: “Oh, we release data. We’ll tell you who’s buying property with a foreign passport.” That doesn’t tell us anything. It doesn’t tell us if someone’s living and working and paying taxes in our communities. It tells you that someone’s got a foreign passport.

So the Iranian national who is a PhD engineer from UBC and who works for the government, B.C. Hydro, buys a small condo. He’s in these statistics. Not only is he in these statistics, but he had to pay a 15 percent tax on his property closing, a charge that he didn’t even know he’d have to pay because this government made it retroactive. This is a talented worker that we’re trying to recruit and keep in our community who was told he’d have
[ Page 13894 ]
to be paying an extra 15 percent. Hamed Ahmadi and his family will not forget what this government did to them. They won’t forget that, because of this budget.

I wanted to tell you about the poor and disabled seniors who live in my community and who can’t get home care anymore because the Better at Home program is so chronically underfunded and backlogged. I wanted to tell you about the University Endowment Lands. They asked for governance changes, and instead they got a survey that asked about everything except for governance changes. I wanted to tell you about the University Neighbourhoods Association and the brand-new secret fire tax this province brought in on them under a false premise and then, when it was shown to be false, pressed ahead with the tax increase anyway.

I wanted to tell you about the closure of the Pine free clinic in my community after 40 years of serving vulnerable youth. Governments of all stripes supported it — sexual health and mental health and addiction counselling. I wanted to tell you about the seniors at Steeves Manor, afraid to leave their homes because this government thought it would be cheaper to house people, without supports, with mental health and addiction issues in their building. What are they thinking?

I wanted to tell you about the tenants who faced fixed-term leases and the end of rent control, and this government shows total indifference. The many residents who face renovictions can’t return to their neighbourhoods, or they’re chased out. Landlords and tenants are now paying double to go to the residential tenancy branch, whose services were cut under this budget.

This government wants all of these people to forget about what they’ve done to them. Because of this budget, it won’t happen.

Hon. S. Cadieux: It’s my pleasure today to address the House in absolute, unequivocal, complete, total support of Budget 2017.

The opposition, member after member, stands up and suggests that we want British Columbians to forget about the last eight years. I can tell you that I have been here for the last eight years, and I don’t want them to forget any of it. In fact, I want them to remember it, because over the last eight years, I know all of the fantastic things that have happened in my community. I know all of the investments that this government has made on behalf of the people of British Columbia — the people that elect us to be here, the people that elect us to be stewards of their tax dollars and to make those investments in the communities as are necessary.

There’s $26 million in community gaming grants in my community; investments in hospice; hundreds of millions of dollars in new schools in our growing community; investments in housing and in transition housing and shelters, like the Bill Reid memorial shelter that is under construction today; over half a billion dollars in investment in Surrey Memorial Hospital; the hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in KPU and SFU in creating more seats, in buying equipment, and new facilities.

[1815]

There are new and affordable rental housing projects — innovative housing projects, like the Chorus project with Semiahmoo House; expansion of the Surrey courthouse; a new pretrial centre; and in my community alone, over 1,000 new child care spaces. I don’t want my voters to forget about those things. I want them to be proud of those things. Those are investments that are made on behalf of them and with their tax dollars.

Now, last week the Finance Minister presented British Columbia’s fifth consecutive balanced budget. It is a feat that is the envy of every other jurisdiction in Canada. It’s an achievement that didn’t happen on the eve of the budget. This government followed a plan, a long-term plan that kept B.C.’s finances on solid ground while global economic forces drove other economies down.

As the only province in Canada with a triple-A credit rating, B.C. has rightfully earned a reputation for strong fiscal planning and discipline. With Budget 2017, we have once again shown what hard work can accomplish. Our commitment to disciplined spending and to building and sustaining a strong and diverse economy has resulted in direct benefits for B.C.’s families, businesses and our most vulnerable citizens.

We know that we are extremely fortunate to live in a province with the resources and economy that we have. We all know that. As a result, Budget 2017 reflects our fortune. It cuts costs for middle-class families, it invests significantly in priority programs and services, and it continues to promote a competitive, job-creating economy.

In fact, through Budget 2017, we’re investing more than $3 billion over three years in competitiveness and affordability measures. We’re creating more than 30,000 jobs for British Columbians through record levels of infrastructure investment. We’ve made new investments for classrooms, mental health services and other supports for families, children and those most in need. Importantly for my ministry and the families that depend on us, we’ve invested almost $3 billion to enhance priority programs and services.

Our prosperity results not only in new program investments. It’s about making sure that B.C. families keep more of their dollars, the money they work hard every day to earn — more money that they are able to put towards the things they need most for their families, the things that give them a sense of security, a sense of family and a sense of community.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

That’s why we’ve cut Medical Services Plan premiums in half, paving the way to eliminate them, and it’s why we’ve raised the income threshold, below which house-
[ Page 13895 ]
holds are fully exempt. In 2018, a typical family of four earning below $120,000 will save $900 per year. British Columbians will continue to have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada.

We’re fortunate to be able to give an extra helping hand to those who need it most. I, for one, welcome the investments that I see in Budget 2017 for those British Columbians.

There are investments in Budget 2017 that directly affect the citizens in Surrey and in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. A new Grandview Heights secondary school, which is much needed and much anticipated, will provide 1,500 new student spaces and room for expansion. There are an additional 5,200 student seats in Surrey in this budget, with the investment of over $217 million over the next three years to address the substantial enrolment growth, primarily in Surrey-Cloverdale.

Construction of a new sustainable energy and environmental engineering building at SFU Surrey campus is a tremendous new investment in our future, in the education of students in post-secondary — of a new industry, really, that will expand research, foster innovation and create jobs.

[1820]

There are additional capital investments for health care — $4.3 billion. Now, only a portion of that is for Surrey, because, of course, we govern for the entire province. But more investment in Surrey Hospital’s emergency and critical care tower is important, it’s welcome, and I’m excited to see it proceed.

There is over $100 million more for mental health and substance abuse treatment in this budget. Those are dollars primarily focused on youth, which we know are needed and that every community in the province will benefit from, that families know are needed and that families are waiting for.

There is additional housing money in the budget to build housing for adults, for people in need and for youth. Again, investments that are vitally needed, some of which will be in Surrey. I know that our community welcomes that.

There is $6 million over three years to support the Buy Local program, because local demand of B.C. agrifood is just as important as international demand. There are so many farms in my community — Evergreen Herbs, Hazelmere Farms, M and M blueberry farms, Heppell’s Potato, Donia Farms and more — that will benefit from those investments, that welcome them and welcome this budget.

This budget includes $510 million in funding over three years to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to increase assistance rates for people with disabilities and to support those in need. That is welcome investment.

Budget 2017 will provide my ministry with a total of $332 million over three years — investment to reduce wait-lists and strengthen programs and services for the welfare of children and youth. Also, $120 million for family supports and reunification — culturally appropriate services that we know are so needed — and work that will happen within indigenous communities that will begin to address the recommendations of Grand Chief Ed John’s report on indigenous child welfare. Investments that are vitally needed, well thought-through and necessary.

Then $20 million in 2017-18 for child care, including the creation of up to 2,000, or maybe even more, new child care spaces in addition to the commitment we had previously made of creating 13,000 new spaces by 2020. And $45 million, as I mentioned a few moments ago, to provide additional resources for child and youth mental health counselling and treatment for children.

I’m proud to have been a part of building Budget 2017 with my colleagues as the Minister of Children and Families. The new funding this year alone represents the biggest lift for this ministry in more than a decade and, for me personally, caps off a lot of hard work over the past four and a half years as the Minister responsible for children and families.

I have a lot more to say about Budget 2017 and the impact on the Ministry of Children and Families. I will reserve my place to continue tomorrow.

Hon. S. Cadieux moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak 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 6:24 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