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, March 13, 2017

Morning Sitting

Volume 43, Number 6

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

MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2017

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members’ Statements

B.C. TECH WEEK

S. Sullivan: Today I want to speak about something that’s very exciting, something that has a massive impact on British Columbia and also on my riding of Vancouver–False Creek. That is the technology world and the employment that is happening there. It’s a booming sector, a sector that now employs approximately 5 percent of B.C.’s workforce. It’s the third-largest tech workforce in Canada.

[1005]

The B.C. tech sector employs more people than the mining, oil and gas, and forestry sectors combined. Employment in the tech sector rose almost 3 percent in 2016. That is surpassing B.C.’s overall employment growth of 2.5 percent and the national tech sector employment growth of 1.1 percent. It’s a phenomenal industry, and it’s growing leaps and bounds.

Right now over 100,000 people earn a weekly average salary of $1,590. That’s 75 percent higher than the average wage in B.C. and higher than the Canadian tech sector average of $1,480 per week. So things are happening in a big way.

Right now, actually, in Vancouver, there is the B.C. Tech Summit. We have almost 5,000 people signed up — these are business leaders, tech companies, entrepreneurs, academics, students and government officials — to discuss the most important topics impacting business-technology decisions today. Last year was the inaugural B.C. Tech Summit. It was held in partnership with the B.C. Innovation Council on January 18 and 19.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

It brought together 3,500 participants, so you can see that it is growing as well — 5,000 people getting together in the next few days.

I want to speak a little bit about the way that government is supporting this sector. We have #BCTECH strategy. It was fully released in January 2016 at the summit, at that time. It’s a multi-year strategy that will support growth in B.C.’s vibrant technology sector and strengthen British Columbia’s diverse knowledge-based economy.

It focuses on three key pillars: access to capital for promising companies, talent development and market access. It includes a $100 million B.C. tech fund for promising companies, coding and new curriculum initiatives from K to 12, and a commitment to tech skills and training through to university graduation. British Columbia is providing the background, the essential elements, to making this tech sector not only as successful as it is but into the future as well.

As part of the #BCTECH strategy, the $100 million B.C. tech fund is aimed at helping small and medium-sized tech companies access capital funding to grow their business. It’s an investment to stimulate economic growth.

A public procurement process selected Kensington Capital Partners as the fund manager for the B.C. tech fund. Kensington has invested in a number of B.C.-based companies — including Mojio and a B.C.-based fund, Vanedge Capital — to help them access the early-stage funding they need to grow their businesses and create jobs.

In January 2017, the UBC president, Prof. Santa Ono, was tasked with creating an innovation network to ensure continued growth among innovation industries and ensure that our post-secondary training lines up with sector needs.

The B.C. government invested $45 million in a new energy systems engineering building at Simon Fraser University, matching $45 million from the feds and a total of $126 million from other donors. The building will accommodate proposed new degree programs in energy systems.

The government announced up to $11.8 million for the new UBC undergraduate life sciences teaching laboratories, $12 million to the school of design at Kwantlen Polytechnic University for a new program in technical apparel, and a new wood innovation research lab at UNBC in Prince George, funded by $2.62 million, to be completed in 2018.

In 2015-2016, the government provided a total of $500,000 to nine public post-secondary institutions to support short-term coding pilot programs tailored to meet local tech industry needs.

[1010]

Through the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint, the government has been realigning seats at post-secondary institutions with in-demand jobs. So far, $130 million has been realigned. Over 1,000 student spaces have been secured in tech-related programming, and government made a $600,000 investment in the sector labour market partnership project to gain a better understanding of the current and future needs. Through the B.C. knowledge development fund, government has invested more than $57 million in public post-secondary institutions, and a total of $6 million, as well, for related programs.

I’d like to also speak a little bit about B.C.’s tech works program. The province, through BCIC, provided $6 million over two years in targeted funding to deliver the
[ Page 14252 ]
BCIC tech works program. It works in collaboration with other technology programs.

We have a number of other initiatives that are supporting this. As part of our B.C. tech strategy, our government recognizes the importance of improving high-speed Internet access across the province. High-speed Internet provides British Columbians in rural and remote communities with better opportunities to learn, to do business and to access services. We continue to work with other levels of government and the private sector toward our goal of 100 percent access for all British Columbians. The ten-year connecting British Columbia agreements….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. Member.

B. Ralston: It’s a pleasure to follow my colleague, the member for Vancouver–False Creek.

Talking about the tech sector, I think it’s important to have a brief thumbnail history of what happened. In 2011, the Premier became the Premier and embarked upon her pursuit of her LNG strategy. In 2012, I met with a number of tech companies in the sector, broadly speaking. They were deeply frustrated. They couldn’t get the attention of the government on anything, because everything was being devoted to LNG.

After 2013, there was some recognition of the technology sector in that the name was attached to a ministry, the Ministry of Technology, but there was no funding that flowed. The LNG dream continued to be chased. It was only in 2016, as the member pointed out, last year, that a conference on tech was pulled together at very short notice when it became apparent from world markets that the LNG promises of the Premier would never be realized. That’s the background.

The member speaks of the importance of the tech sector; no one disputes that. But it has grown organically without much assistance or acknowledgment from the government until very recently, now that we are faced with the election in a very short period of time. And significantly, while one speaks of the importance of the technology sector and the domestic technology sector, the companies in British Columbia which are innovative and expanding, most of the government’s spend on information technology is spent on contracts with foreign multinationals, for the most part.

Core government ministries will spend $636 million, or 14 percent of their total budget, on IT operating and capital expenditures this year, according to government announcements. Wider government, such as health authorities and crown corporations like B.C. Hydro and ICBC, spent $668 million and an unknown amount in operating funds in the 2014-15 fiscal year.

Out of the total government outsourcing of IT of just under $700 million in 2014-15, less than $50 million was spent on local vendors. The rest went to multinationals like HP advanced systems, Maximus, IBM and Deloitte. HPAS alone takes in over three times what every local IT services firm in the province bills. So big talk about the domestic tech industry but relatively very little spent on actually buying their services for use by the B.C. government.

[1015]

And yes, even though the government has spent money on those contracts, it’s arguably not money well spent. The 2005 contract with Maximus was a ten-year contract. It was said at the time to be a fixed-fee value of $324 million, but actual payments to Maximus over the period were $489 million, an increase of 50 percent. Maximus didn’t even create all the new tracking software system it said it would but kept on using some of the old systems. Despite all this, the government renewed the contract for another five years and a 40 percent increased annual cost over the original contract.

Not only is the government merely talking about using local firms in developing the local tech sector, but their IT spend — the amount of money they spend on information technology to companies like Maximus — is dramatically bigger than the total spending on all of the domestic firms here. That is something that could be corrected. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition will be speaking about that very shortly today.

I think something else we probably need to focus on too is the demand in the technology sector for skilled labour. A further matching is required. One of the singular high-agenda, high-priority items that one hears about when talking to technology CEOs and others knowledgable about the industry is the requirement to attract talent to undertake some of the work that’s done.

Unfortunately, my time is up. I could speak much longer.

S. Sullivan: I would respectfully disagree with the hon. member that the tech industry has just suddenly appeared in the last couple years to be the number one growth industry in the province. Our government has been very active in supporting this sector. I might note the number of companies that have moved to British Columbia recently — actually, over the last number of years. Microsoft Sony, Amazon, Electronic Arts, Disney, Animal Logic — they’ve all opened offices in B.C. over the last number of years. That, of course, is added to our homegrown success stories like Hootsuite and Global Relay, Slack, Westport, Stemcell, and I could go on and on. These are the kinds of companies that are driving our economy forward.

I’ll even note the ten-year effort with Telus that began in 2011 which supports access to Internet services in rural remote areas and note that Telus has provided additional coverage as part of our non-monetary agreement, including over 1,700 kilometres of new cell coverage along unconnected primary and secondary highway segments — 159 kilometres of cell coverage between Prince Rupert and Prince George. And 375 schools have been
[ Page 14253 ]
upgraded to high-speed fibre connections. This didn’t happen just in the last couple of years.

There are a number of other programs helping to make sure that these benefits don’t just go to the urban centres but across the province. I attended an event that was focused on the rural aboriginal tech sector. That is growing leaps and bounds and has some wonderful success stories. Connecting B.C. is a $10 million grant program administered by Northern Development Initiative Trust to expand and upgrade broadband connections, and $8.5 million was awarded to help expand access in over 200 communities.

We also have a procurement initiative that is opening up the public markets. We are making it easier to access new markets by continuing to simplify government procurement, to create opportunities to share ideas and to encourage business growth. We have introduced a simplified short-form request for proposal and made the standard RFP application easier to use. Up to three years’ advance notice is now publicly available to inform vendors about hundreds of potential upcoming contract opportunities.

[1020]

OUR COAST IS WORTH DEFENDING

D. Eby: If you ask most people what they think about when they think about British Columbia, they probably mention the mountains and the beautiful water and the beaches and the amazing shoreline. That applies both to people who have decided to make B.C. their home but also to the people who visit and contribute literally hundreds of millions — billions — of dollars to our economy every year through tourism.

So it’s terrible news, to say the least, that this government has decided to approve a pipeline through Metro Vancouver that’s going to result in a massive increase in heavy oil tanker traffic through Vancouver harbour — a move that threatens not just our coast but also our economy. The tankers filling up at the mouth of this pipeline will be filling up with a substance called bitumen, which is a toxic mixture of heavy oil and solvents that’s impossible to clean up. When it spills, it goes right to the bottom of the ocean floor.

Unfortunately, spills from pipelines and oil tankers are not uncommon in British Columbia. In fact, only ten years ago we saw a saw a significant spill from this very pipeline that is proposed to be massively expanded. In 2007, a backhoe operator punctured the pipeline and spilled 250,000 litres of crude oil. Now, I’m sure the members opposite remember that this environmental catastrophe resulted in 70,000 litres of that crude oil flowing into the Burrard Inlet. The operator of that pipeline pled guilty, in 2011, for the spill.

Unfortunately, since 2011, things haven’t gotten better. Spill response has been a major problem in British Columbia and in Vancouver harbour. Just last summer a cargo ship spilled 2,800 litres of bunker fuel into English Bay on a calm day. Despite the fact that this was a small spill on a calm day, it took 12 hours to notify the city that the spill had even taken place and six hours to get the booms out to try to contain it. In October of last year, we saw thousands of litres of diesel fuel spilling near Bella Bella. It proved impossible for existing response teams to contain, and a similarly slow spill-response fouled an extensive section of our pristine shoreline.

The risk of a major spill from this pipeline is obviously not speculation. Given the frequency and gravity of spills in the past, it seems more of an eventual inevitability. The Liberal government says: “Oh, spill response is better now.” But how can we know that? B.C.’s pipeline incidents reporting webpage, which reports location, frequency, causes and response to pipeline spills has been off line for more than eight months.

In 2015, the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission actually reported an increase in the number of crude oil pipeline spills, from three spills in 2011 to seven spills in 2015. But because the spill website went off line last summer, however, it’s unclear how many spills happened last year. According to the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission, the purpose of their website was to ensure that “companies respond effectively” to oil and gas spills and that “the interests of British Columbians are protected.” Without this service, how would we ever know whether or not our government is doing enough to prevent and manage spills?

Now, it’s fundamentally wrong to take away from this that the problem here is the failure to report in real time. The reality is that we don’t want the oil spills. They come with a sevenfold increase in tanker traffic. However, even this government’s most basic attempt at transparency is failing to just tell us about where the spills are, despite the fact that the commission had said it would be back on line by the end of last year.

British Columbians were told that this pipeline wouldn’t be approved unless we had “world-leading marine and terrestrial spill prevention and response.” No one ever said what that meant. We don’t even have access to information about the spills and response, and the evidence for the actual response to spills that we know about is dismal.

The Premier says that B.C. is willing to risk our tourism and clean-tech economy for a price. Her price? Between $25 million and $50 million per year for 20 years. It sounds like a lot of money. But a study prepared for the city of Vancouver in 2015 said that a major spill would cost approximately $1 billion to clean up. As I’ve already noted, you can’t clean it up. It’s just to mitigate the spill.

Because of the heavy nature of the sludge-like bitumen, attempts to clean up such a spill are unlikely to be successful. A spill also has the capacity to wreak further economic damage by risking our reputation as a world-class tourist destination. The expansion of this project
[ Page 14254 ]
has the potential to become both an environmental and economic blight for our province.

[1025]

On one hand, the Premier talks about leading the world in spill prevention and response. On the other hand, the one mechanism around transparency has been dismantled in the interim. The Premier talks about B.C. receiving what she calls a fair share of the economic benefits of the project, but at most, we may recover enough money to pay for the cleanup of the almost inevitable spill.

Not only is the risk of permanent damage from spills very worrying, but British Columbians must also consider the reality of carbon pollution caused from our continued extraction, transportation and burning of fossil fuels, which everyone, even Stephen Harper, knew that we have to move away from using.

By agreeing to the expansion of a massive, massive project to expand carbon pollution, responsible for dangerous climate change, ocean acidification, the pine beetle epidemic and damage to major aquaculture projects in B.C., like shellfish farms…. Instead of lowering our collective carbon footprint, this government has done the opposite. In fact, carbon emissions in B.C. have gone up every single year under the B.C. Liberals since 2012.

Not only that, this government used to have standards around carbon pollution, but then they abandoned them. They used to have standards for 2020. They said now: “If you want to look for reductions in carbon emissions, just wait until 2050.”

We’re at a pivotal moment in our history, and the government of this province needs to actually reduce carbon pollution in order to protect British Columbians into the future and in order to protect our children. Relying on carbon-heavy, polluting fuel is no longer an option we can afford. Fifteen of the last 16 years have been the warmest ever recorded in human history. A massive expansion of carbon-polluting infrastructure should not be a legacy this province leaves for future generations.

This pipeline is not a risk worth taking — for our city, for Metro Vancouver, for British Columbia or for the world, frankly. In Metro Vancouver, our future is in technology, clean energy, tourism and education.

Interjection.

D. Eby: I’m glad to hear that at least one member on that side of the House understands that. Our future is not in shipping unrefined, toxic bitumen to a low-wage, low-environmental-standard jurisdiction for refining, while risking the viable and sustainable economy we already have in place in Metro Vancouver.

D. McRae: When I saw the topic that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey put forward, which is “Our Coast is Worth Defending,” I was wondering many things.

I was wondering if the member was going to talk about the forest industry — perhaps the truck loggers, who are basically existing on Vancouver Island in communities large and small — providing employment opportunities. Was he going to talk about the commercial fishing industry to protect our coast? Maybe people like the halibut fishers or the people who harvest geoduck, or the processing opportunities that go with them? But he didn’t.

Was he going to talk about the aquaculture sector? Perhaps the salmon farmers who provide thousands of jobs, not only on Vancouver Island but also in the Lower Mainland. Or in my community, the shellfish sector is sort of the centre of shellfish and oyster growing in British Columbia, providing millions and millions of dollars of investment, of dollars coming in? He didn’t talk about that.

Perhaps he was going to talk about B.C. Ferries. I was wondering if he was going to talk about the labour peace we’ve experienced over the last 15 years. It wasn’t like that when I was a young man. It was a different time with….

Interjection.

D. McRae: I was a young man once. Yes, I was.

Was he going to talk about the increased ridership that Vancouver Island saw this past summer, with the increased tourism and people travelling? Perhaps it was the ship investment, which allows people to move and goods to move on and off Vancouver Island. In fact, my riding will be receiving a new vessel, replacing a 60-year-old B.C. ferry that currently plies the water.

It must have been that maybe he was going to talk about investments in infrastructure, perhaps investments like in B.C. Hydro on the north Island — not even in my own riding — where we’ve seen a $1 billion investment by that company to make sure that power is going to be supplied more on Vancouver Island than ever before… [Applause.]

Thank you.

…taking aging infrastructure and replacing it with new investment, which is absolutely essential.

Perhaps it’s new hospitals allowing communities to thrive, not only the residents who live there but the people who visit. Perhaps he’s talking about the $300 million hospital in Campbell River or the $300 million hospital in Comox Valley, which are absolutely essential to the lifeblood of communities. Perhaps it’s road infrastructure, but I don’t think he talked about that either. He didn’t talk about the $85 million investment on McKenzie interchange, which will make a huge impact.

Was he going to talk — and I wondered about this — about the recent approval for Kinder Morgan by the federal government? I wondered if he was going to actually compliment the B.C. government on its principled and consistent five conditions. Was he going to say that things like the creation of the $1.5 billion world-leading oil spill
[ Page 14255 ]
response project was actually money well spent? Perhaps providing more resources stationed on the Pacific coast was going to be a bad thing. I thought he was going to say this was a good investment by the federal government, but he didn’t say that.

[1030]

Was he going to provide support for the improved research and emergency response that has been committed to this plan? No, that didn’t come up. How about, perhaps, support for the polluter-pay model, which was absolutely essential to make sure that this goes forward? No, he didn’t bring that up. Or perhaps using new radar navigation systems to ensure ship safety not just for those moving petroleum products but all ships on the coast. Maybe that was what the compliment was going to be, but I didn’t hear about that defending our coast. Or perhaps it was upgrading the Coast Guard station that is actually in the member’s riding, that our Premier supported and the federal government supported because they realized how important it was. But no, that didn’t come up as well.

I know that the member opposite, who has lived a long time in British Columbia, does know that petroleum products have been moving to our coast and from our coast for over a hundred years. When they use the word sevenfold…. Yes, that sounds horrible, but they also don’t actually acknowledge right now that seven ships a month are leaving the Lower Mainland with petroleum product, and this would increase to about 30 at the maximum, going forward. But sevenfold sounds much more politically expedient.

We are moving ships more and more in British Columbia than ever. In fact, if you fly into Vancouver, you can look over to Nanaimo and see cargo ships in Nanaimo Harbour waiting to go to Vancouver. If you fly into Victoria, you can see ships waiting in our harbour, not to unload in Victoria but to get to Vancouver docks and harbours to make sure they unload and take product off there.

There are more ships in British Columbia waters, moving all goods, than I’ve ever seen in my entire lifetime, because Vancouver Port is the most important port in Canada and provides jobs and opportunity for coastal resources, for mainland resources, for Interior resources and the Prairies. Why? Because that kind of movement allows our economies to thrive.

Now, if the member opposite is saying that “protecting our coast” is code for not supporting the forest industry, just say so. How about not supporting the wild and commercial fishery? This is absolutely essential. This is what MLAs in this chamber stand and do. We make sure that we look after the coastal resources that are absolutely important. In fact, even today, I have helped facilitate a meeting with government officials to help support the wild fishery industry in this province. Why? It is important to the coast. It defends jobs. It brings opportunity to young people. It keeps young people living in British Columbia, in coastal communities where jobs are absolutely so important.

If defending our coast is also for not supporting investment in B.C. Ferries or not supporting those health care investments and hydro investments which I mentioned earlier, please just say so. But you know what? It’s so important to make sure that this government stands in a principled approach to grow the economy and make sure that this coast is defended for future generations.

D. Eby: These members on this side of the House and that member that advocates for this project will not be standing at the press conference when the spill happens. When the last spill happened, where was this government? When the last spill happened, when a backhoe punched through that pipeline and spilled hundreds of thousands of litres into our harbour, where was the photo op?

Let’s ask the question. The member says they support this project. Oh, did he say that? I couldn’t tell from his speech. Do they support this project? He wanted to be complimented.

Interjection.

D. Eby: That’s absolutely right I don’t, and it’s on the record that I don’t, and it’ll be on the record that I don’t support this project when the spill happens. So why did this government support this project, even though the member wouldn’t go on the record saying that he supports this project?

In January, two non-profit societies sued this government in B.C. Supreme Court, saying that they approved this project on the grounds that the approval of this pipeline project was because money was donated by Kinder Morgan and its affiliates — the company shipping money through the pipelines to the B.C. Liberal party — and that influenced….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

D. Eby: I’m the one out of line, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Member, private members’ time should be non-partisan.

D. Eby: Hon. Speaker, that’s interesting. Thank you. I will keep that in mind.

The petition alleges that six years preceding this pipeline approval, the Liberal party was paid $560,000 by Kinder Morgan and the company shipping oil bitumen through this pipeline. Half a million dollars in political donations — and the government was sued. So when people ask themselves: why did they approve this pipeline…? Why is the government so angry that I’m saying this? Why are they so loud? Because they know it’s true. These are facts.
[ Page 14256 ]

Interjection.

[1035]

D. Eby: The member is very proud that her government is disclosing that they’ve been bought and sold by Kinder Morgan and the affiliates.

Now, I’ve asked this House before….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

D. Eby: Yes, Mr. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind all the members that statements should be non-partisan.

D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll keep that in mind.

I’ve asked in this House before: what price could be paid for a pipeline that is high enough to justify risking Metro Vancouver’s economy and our city’s international tourism reputation? Well, I say that no price is high enough, although we know what price has been paid for this pipeline project.

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

J. Tegart: Rural communities across British Columbia are facing a number of challenges today. As the MLA and advocate for the rural riding of Fraser-Nicola, I stand today to speak to something extremely important to residents in rural communities: rural economic development.

British Columbia leads all Canadian provinces in job creation, with 2.4 million British Columbians working across the province in urban and rural communities. Every community in British Columbia benefits when our rural communities are strong.

Building on our rural advantages, B.C.’s rural economic development strategy details our government’s long-term vision to ensure that British Columbians in all regions of the province have the opportunity for well-paying jobs and a high quality of life in their own communities.

This strategy was developed because our government is listening to the people of British Columbia. We understand the need for focused investments that respond to the unique challenges and opportunities facing rural communities such as those in Fraser-Nicola. This strategy is a key commitment to our government’s five-year jobs plan update, which recognizes the need for focused action to support rural communities.

In addition to the job creating and capital investment we’re seeing by working towards saying yes to major projects and investments in infrastructure, we are fulfilling our obligation to help rural communities reinvigorate and diversify their economies. It ensures that British Columbians in all regions of the province have the opportunity for a well-paying job and a high quality of life.

The strategy outlines a three-pronged approach that builds, strengthens and diversifies rural communities. The investments we are making will support up to 26,600 direct and indirect jobs, with an overall impact of $2.8 billion to the provincial GDP.

We are listening to British Columbians, and we recognize that rural B.C. presents us with unique challenges. But it also presents us with incredible opportunity. We know that a job that pays well and a high quality of life is something that people living in all regions of B.C. should have access to. We’re investing in our rural communities so that this may become a reality.

There is a $10 million support to new land management initiatives across B.C. and in my riding of Fraser-Nicola. This includes range fencing repairs and multi-year invasive plant management projects across my riding.

We’re making a $79.6 million investment over the next two years to expand and update post-secondary campuses throughout the province, including the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, in Merritt. And $15 million over three years for trades equipment in B.C.’s secondary schools will allow students to explore trades earlier in their education.

We’re investing $2 million in a provincial rapid response fund. This fund helped connect workers in Merritt affected by the Tolko sawmill closure with $165,000 in training opportunities at the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology.

[1040]

There is over $500,000 invested under the rural dividend fund for seven projects in my riding, including $100,000 to support development in the city of Merritt’s economic action plan, $100,000 to develop and upgrade off-road vehicle trails in Logan Lake and $100,000 for the town of Princeton to create a one-stop centre for business development and support for entrepreneurs.

Our government is investing $60 million in funding for a long-term solution on Highway 99 northeast of Lillooet. This will ensure that local aboriginal communities, like the Xaxli’p community, and the travelling public will have reliable access to services and to safe roads.

Provincial investments in infrastructure, information technology and housing are the building blocks for long-term prosperity in rural B.C. Investments that build capacity in rural communities are the foundation for future growth, opportunity and economic stability for all British Columbians.

We are looking to strengthen rural B.C.’s opportunities. We know that for government policies to work, they must take into account the unique challenges facing rural B.C. We’re taking action to strengthen skills training and employment services through our programs that prepare rural British Columbians to be first in line for job opportunities in their communities.
[ Page 14257 ]

B.C. will also continue to partner with First Nations and aboriginal peoples to ensure full access to development and growth opportunities. This will provide greater prosperity and economic stability in rural areas.

Rural communities are on the front lines, providing significant contributions to B.C.’s economy in the natural resource sector. We have diverse and growing industries in forestry, agriculture, tourism, mining, and oil and gas, thanks in a large part to the hard-working residents of small communities. By leveraging their strengths, we can continue to help keep B.C. as a leader in job creation.

Our rural strategy is rooted in a commitment to create sustainable growth and new jobs in rural B.C., especially in regions that are more directly dependent on natural resource development for their livelihood.

We’re committed to improving British Columbia’s business-friendly climate by cutting red tape, attracting new investment, making it easier to start and grow small businesses and working with local government and aboriginal communities to ensure full access to development and growth opportunities.

I am pleased that we have committed to invest $3.6 billion in economic development strategies targeted at rural communities.

K. Conroy: I’m pleased to respond to the member for Fraser-Nicola. It’s great to finally hear an interest in rural B.C. It’s just two months prior to May 9.

Let’s look at what’s happened in the forest industry in B.C. We’re looking at about 30,000 jobs that have been lost, in the forest industry alone, and over 100 mills have been closed.

What has happened in Merritt recently is interesting. Tolko Industries announced it would shut down its Nicola Valley sawmill, a mill that employed 203 people. The mill’s last day was December 16. How sad for that community and for the people, especially the people who worked in the mill — and their families — in those good supporting jobs.

Some of the highest unemployment statistics are in the rural parts of B.C., not in the Lower Mainland. Mind you, B.C. does go beyond Hope. People in rural B.C. deserve good-paying jobs as well.

Let’s look at those unemployment numbers: North Coast-Nechako, 7.5 percent; northeast, 10.5 percent; Cariboo, 8.8 percent; Thompson-Okanagan, 8.6 percent; and even the Kootenays, 7.7 percent — appalling numbers in a province as resource-rich as ours. What does that mean? Families struggling to make ends meet, working two or three part-time jobs, juggling family time with work, with child care. Things shouldn’t be that tough in a province like ours.

I’m glad the members asked. I want to talk about some good news for British Columbians, how we can ensure a future and hope for rural B.C. That is PowerBC, a real rural economic development strategy. PowerBC is a bold, progressive plan for the future of B.C. energy, with a strong focus on jobs and a very real commitment from our leader. Through conservation, investment and innovation, PowerBC will protect B.C. Hydro customers from runaway bills….

Interjections.

[1045]

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order in the House.

K. Conroy: I think I’ve hit a sore spot.

It will produce good-paying jobs close to home in every community in B.C.; protect our farmland and natural environment; respect First Nations’ land title; launch careers in clean energy and retrofit construction, maintenance, manufacturing and high-tech; and ensure that B.C. has access to clean and affordable electricity for generations to come.

PowerBC has four components. We will retrofit public buildings. PowerBC will create jobs with a bold new program of energy efficiency retrofits to public buildings, such as schools and hospitals. Energy efficiency retrofits create twice as many jobs as building a new dam, and the jobs are long-lasting, good-paying and close to home in every community across B.C.

Conserving energy is the most efficient way to meet B.C.’s energy needs, and B.C.’s public buildings need upgrading. We will combine energy efficiency upgrades to our schools and hospitals with much-needed seismic upgrades. We will retrofit homes and businesses. PowerBC will protect families and businesses from runaway bills with energy efficiency retrofits in industrial and commercial buildings and private homes. These retrofits are needed in communities all across B.C.

Energy efficiency retrofits to private buildings are a win-win. They reduce your energy bills, create good-paying jobs and spur economic activity close to home, making buildings more energy-efficient. They will also meet B.C.’s climate change goals.

We will maximize existing hydroelectric dams. PowerBC will upgrade existing B.C. Hydro infrastructure, such as Revelstoke dam — which I’m glad the current government has finally announced, after we announced we were going to do it almost a year ago. Across B.C., many hydroelectric dams are operating 1950s-era machinery. They need to be upgraded. By upgrading turbines and transformers with modern, high-efficiency technology, we can increase output while protecting our farms, protecting our natural environment, our wildlife, and respecting First Nations’ land title.

We will invest in clean energy. We will come into the 21st century. PowerBC will capture our wind and solar potential by making smart decisions now, freeing B.C. Hydro to pursue wind, solar, battery technology and other renewable energy sources as costs fall and these technologies prove themselves.
[ Page 14258 ]

B.C. can become a world leader in clean energy and join a global clean energy technology market, with jurisdictions like California, Germany and the U.K. We need to think big. We need to look to the future and allow B.C. Hydro the flexibility to pursue these projects incrementally to meet our energy needs, in partnership with First Nations and clean energy providers.

PowerBC will position British Columbia as a clean energy champion and a world leader in new and emerging technologies. Our plan, as our leader says, is to look forwards, not backwards. And this is for all B.C., including rural B.C. — a real rural economic strategy.

J. Tegart: Thank you, Member, for that response. I can assure you that I live above Hope, not beyond hope.

In balanced budget 2017, we were able to announce some exciting things for rural communities: extending the $25 million rural dividend fund for a fourth year to support the strength and sustainability of small rural communities; $150 million for the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. to plant tens of millions more trees, which will help fight climate change and create over 3,000 jobs in rural B.C.; beginning to phase out provincial sales tax on electricity purchases by reducing it to 3.5 percent on October 1, 2017, and elimination of it altogether by April 1, 2019. This will improve business competitiveness and economic performance, especially for resource industries that are key to rural B.C.

Reducing the small business tax rate to 2 percent from 2.5 percent, effective April 2017, means that B.C. will have the second-lowest small business tax in Canada. A significant $40 million investment will extend high-speed Internet infrastructure to rural and remote communities in British Columbia. Faster broadband speeds will enable us to create new economic opportunities and lay the foundation for new investments in B.C.’s burgeoning tech industry.

[1050]

Rural communities will also benefit from investments into programs such as the youth trades capital equipment program, the B.C. side-roads program, connecting B.C. grant funding and the Canada-B.C. job grant.

Our long-term action plan that has been laid out will build on the economic benefits that we will get when we say yes to projects in B.C. Our plan sees big investments to rural infrastructure, thanks to sound economic development strategy. Our plan supports creating jobs for the hard-working families that make up the backbone of rural British Columbia.

WOMEN’S RIGHT TO SAFETY

J. Wickens: Every person has a right to live violence-free. Every person has a human right to grow, learn, love and live in safety. I believe that we have an obligation, as privileged elected officials, to create public policy that will ensure those things. I also believe that we have a duty to continue to fight against violence every chance that we get.

We know that women experience violence much more often than men. Over half of the women in B.C. have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 16. That’s more than one million women in our province.

Every year in British Columbia, there are over 60,000 physical or sexual assaults against women. That translates into 1,000 physical or sexual assaults against women every single week, almost all of them committed by men. We know that only 12 percent of sexual assaults against women are reported to the police, according to Stats Canada. One in three women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

As of 2010, there were 582 known reports of missing or murdered aboriginal women in Canada, with B.C. recording more than any other province. As shocking as all of these statistics are, research shows that the victimization rates are much higher among aboriginal than non-aboriginal women.

We have a problem in British Columbia. B.C. once played a leadership role in Canada in addressing violence against women, but after a decade of cuts and a failure to keep up with increased need, B.C. has fallen behind in responding effectively to this crisis. This has a domino effect in mental health, in addictions and in so many other areas.

Domestic violence homicides are up in British Columbia. According to the B.C. Coroners Service, from January 2010 to December 2016, 100 women lost their lives to what is considered the most preventable of all homicides. Sexual assaults are increasing, and in the face of these ever-increasing rates of sexual assaults, the thing that this government has done is cut funding to B.C.’s sexual assault centres.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that as we see life getting harder and harder for British Columbians, we see increases in violence. The people who are hit hardest by this are women and children. Furthermore, when women do not have economic stability, they are more likely to experience violence and stay in violent relationships.

Women make up 70 percent of the minimum-wage earners between the ages of 20 and 54. And in the middle of a housing affordability crisis, we have a child care crisis where child care costs are out of reach, and affordability in B.C. has completely become out of control.

It’s no wonder that women are stuck. We have a government that is more concerned with paying for commercials before an election than making sure that we have the comprehensive services necessary to prevent, combat and react to violence against women.

[1055]

We desperately, in this province, need a restart and a commitment to actively bring violence-against-women statistics down. They’re going up right now, and they need to go down.
[ Page 14259 ]

Since this government is always talking about costs and the economy, I would like to say once again that it makes more economic sense to prevent and treat violence than to ignore it. When a woman is raped and does not get the treatment she needs, it can manifest into addiction, mental health issues, and so much more. When women and children are stuck in abusive situations, every single person in that family has challenges for the rest of their life, and that causes other challenges in society.

We need to work towards making sure that every woman’s right to safety means that violence against women is decreasing in the province of British Columbia. We need to do better.

I am proud to stand with a leader and a caucus that is committed to making some very necessary changes, some that cost money and some that don’t. Our team will take action on the urgent call to more effectively respond to prevent violence against women and protect women and children. We need to make changes in existing crime prevention budgets that make sure dollars go to deliver much-needed services and more women are safe. We need to do a review of the social impact of public policy, much like we do in environmental assessment, with the goal of improving safety of women and children.

We need to direct more funding to provincial and community-based programs that directly serve women and children. We need to increase funding to be shared between the government and the victims of crime surcharge account for violence prevention programs. I was actually shocked to find out that we have money from crime sitting in the victims of crime account, currently at a surplus. We should not have a surplus of funds that come from crime padding the government’s bottom line. Those dollars should go towards keeping women and children safe.

After years of neglect, it’s time for a restart — to choose safety over inaction, to provide support in all of our communities so that women and children across B.C. are safer. It’s 2017, and I want my daughter and my daughter’s daughter to live their lives never experiencing some of the things that previous generations have. We do that by working to make life better, by investing in child care and in a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. We do that by making sure that women and children have access to the services they need when they need it.

L. Larson: I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the statements. After recognizing International Women’s Day just last week, it is an important time to raise the fact that violence disproportionately affects women and disproportionately affects aboriginal women, who are three more times likely to experience domestic violence than non-aboriginal women in B.C.

It’s important to continue our work to change this unacceptable reality. Violence against women is an issue that our government takes very, very seriously. It is an issue that we are continually working to address, and the investments that we make are a reflection of that.

The provincial domestic violence plan is the result of public and anti-violence stakeholder consultations and, since its inception, has led to a $5.5 million investment in the development of over 50 Integrated Case Assessment Teams, ICATs, which share information among agencies that respond to “high risk of domestic violence” cases. That’s through coordinated risk identification, management, and safety planning; programs and supports for perpetrators and survivors of domestic violence in aboriginal communities; direct services for perpetrators; and improved access to services and social housing for survivors in rural and remote communities.

Each year, we commit more than $70 million to prevention and intervention programs and services to support victims of domestic violence and other crimes. And $34.6 million of this funding goes toward transition house services, providing more than 830 transition house spaces and 250 short-term shelter spaces.

[1100]

These supports helped shelter more than 12,300 women and children fleeing violence last year, and we’re working to expand these services to serve even more at-risk women and children. Earlier this year, we partnered with the Comox Valley Transition Society on Vancouver Island to open a four-unit, second-stage-housing project in Courtenay, one of the projects supported by September’s announcement of a $500 million investment in affordable housing.

Second-stage housing supports women who have left an abusive relationship. Women and their children are able to stay for six to 18 months while they prepare to live independently. Just a couple of weeks ago, our government announced we purchased a property in Delta that will become the community’s first transition house. Following renovations, the house will provide safe shelter for eight women and their children.

Funding also supports over 160 police-based and community-based victim services programs, as well as approximately 250 programs that provide counselling and outreach to women affected by domestic violence. We’ve created nine domestic violence units across the province, integrated teams of police, community-based victim services and, sometimes, child protection workers that respond to high-risk domestic violence situations.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

In 2012, we also opened the provincial office of domestic violence, or PODV. PODV is responsible for improving policies and services for children and families affected by domestic violence. In the five years since its establishment, this office has already taken a number of steps to make a tangible difference in the lives of these families and children.
[ Page 14260 ]

In my own riding of Boundary-Similkameen, I’m proud to see new investments that help support local women. Last August we invested $1 million to replace a six-bed transition house in Grand Forks.

We’re also investing in important programs like the healing and rebuilding project in the South Okanagan that’s in my riding. This collaborative project between the South Okanagan Integrated Community Services Society and the Osoyoos Indian Band provides education and awareness around violence against aboriginal women, helping ensure better community support for women who have faced violence. Government provided nearly $20,000 in civil forfeiture funding towards this very worthwhile program.

Another example of a great local project that government supports is the youth crime prevention project, administered by the Boundary Women’s Coalition. Through the civil forfeiture program, we’ve provided a $20,000 grant for this program that supports youth between the ages of 13 and 18 potentially at risk of sexual exploitation, helping prevent future violence in the community.

While we’ve come a long way, there’s still more to be done. Gender-based violence still occurs in society, and no amount is acceptable. I have three daughters and two granddaughters. It matters to me and to this government. But if we continue to work together, we can build a safer, more inclusive province, country and world.

J. Wickens: I appreciate the member’s response. But with all due respect, what people in our field, people on the front lines, are saying is that we’re not doing better — that violence against women is increasing, that sexual assault against women is increasing.

This government has not invested in a comprehensive plan in which numbers will go down, and that is what we need in the province of British Columbia. This government is playing Whac-a-Mole before an election because we have a crisis. When you act when there’s a crisis, it costs more and is not as effective.

I want to talk a little bit about rape kits. It astonishes me that we have women in this province who experience one of the worst things that they will ever go through and then they go to a hospital — they have the courage to go to a hospital — get to that hospital, and then that hospital says to them: “We cannot do for you what you need. You need to get in a cab, you need to get on a bus, you need to call someone else, and you need to travel somewhere else in the province to get the medical attention that you need and require.”

To me, in 2017 in a province like British Columbia, that is completely unacceptable. This government has every ability to act on that, to change that and ensure every hospital in the province of British Columbia has the ability to give the attention and care to women that they need. I don’t understand where the humanity is in cutting funds to sexual assault centres. I don’t understand that.

[1105]

Imagine going to the hospital with a broken leg and the doctor telling you: “Come back in four weeks, and we will set it and fix it for you.” That’s exactly what happens to women in this province when they can’t get counselling services, when they can’t get the help that they need when they’ve experienced a sexual assault, when they go and they’re told: “We don’t have the ability to help you.” It happens all of the time.

We wonder why we have increase in addictions. We wonder why we have increase in mental health challenges.

The people in the field are saying that funding has not kept up. We aren’t doing what we need to address these issues. We need to focus on what will make the lives of women and children better. We need a comprehensive plan in this province, British Columbia, and I’m proud to stand with a team that understands that.

Hon. M. Polak: I call Motion 7.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 7 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Private Members’ Motions

MOTION 7 — MEDICAL SERVICES
PLAN PREMIUMS

M. Hunt: I stand today to move the following motion:

[Be it resolved that this House supports the elimination of MSP premiums, and not replacing them with increased taxes in other areas.]

When government collects more money than it needs, the money should be returned back to hard-working taxpayers. That’s why our government recently announced that we’ll be reducing MSP premiums by 50 percent for British Columbian households with annual family net incomes of less than $120,000 a year. We’re able to make these tax cuts because, despite what my friends in the opposition might claim, British Columbia has the best-performing economy in the country.

Because our government has said yes to responsible economic development and has kept taxes low, small businesses are succeeding. In fact, just last Friday, updated labour statistics from Stats Canada showed that last month B.C. added 19,000 jobs, resulting in our unemployment rate dropping to 5.1 percent, the lowest in the country. Anticipating the groans from the opposition, I would point out that most of those job gains were, in fact, full-time employment.

The fact that we have the strongest economy in the country means we can leave more tax dollars where they belong: in the pockets of B.C. families. Our MSP reduc-
[ Page 14261 ]
tion means a typical family of four, paying full premiums, will save $900 a year. That means $900 in the pockets of B.C. families, $900 more for British Columbians to be able to choose to spend however they see fit. Most importantly, we’re making these reductions without raising other taxes so that British Columbians will see real savings.

The opposition, on the other hand…. Their scheme is to offer imaginary savings to British Columbians. They will hide the MSP premiums in increases to other taxes. In January, during an interview with the media, the Leader of the Opposition admitted that his plan for MSP premiums will mean a tax hike on the middle class. He said that he would focus tax increases on middle-class wage earners, saying that the disposable income of those middle-class folks you know at the age of, say, 35 to 54…. They are at their highest-earning period.

We don’t think it’s fair to decrease taxes in one place and then just increase them somewhere else. Our plan is to lead to the eventual elimination of MSP premiums. What the members opposite don’t tell you is that they’re hopelessly addicted to tax increases. They think the way to solve every problem is some big government scheme drowning in red tape.

When our government announced that this year’s budget would include tax relief to British Columbians, the member for Victoria–Swan Lake actually said that the NDP would fight those tax cuts, saying: “We’ll see what the budget is like on Tuesday, but her big idea in the throne speech was a fresh round of tax cuts, and we’re going to fight that too.”

[1110]

“We’re going to have to fight that too.” We’re going to have to fight against tax cuts to the middle-class British Columbians. That’s ridiculous, but really, would we expect anything less? The last time the NDP were in government, their record on taxes was crystal-clear. Despite promising to raise taxes by just $250 million when campaigning, their first two years in government saw tax increases of over $1.5 billion. By the time they were done, the voters had finally had enough and reduced them to two seats in this chamber, and they had increased the tax burden on families by over $2 billion.

Now we find that the Green Party wants to have term limits, so no member in this House would have been here through the 1990s and seen that reckless spending. Now, is there a reason that the Green Party wants B.C. to forget the 1990s?

Well, what British Columbians can trust is that our government will continue to find ways to keep taxes low and keep B.C. prosperous.

C. James: I would say to the member that the members on this side of the House do not believe an economy is strong when the most vulnerable are struggling, do not believe an economy is strong when children are going to bed hungry, do not believe an economy is strong when seniors are having to choose between medication and food. We do not believe an economy is strong when children in care are struggling and dying in this province. That does not make an economy strong.

Now I want to come to the motion: “Be it resolved that this House supports the elimination of MSP….” What a difference an election makes. What a difference an election makes. This is the government and these are the members who stood up over and over and over again to say that we were not going to eliminate MSP. It was not something we were going to consider. In fact, this government, the B.C. Liberals, used the MSP system to gouge British Columbians over and over and over again. This government, in fact, has taken from British Columbians over and over and over again.

I just want to read a couple of quotes that I think are important for everyone to listen to. The first one is from the Premier herself, in January of 2016. “One of the reasons British Columbia has an MSP system, and has had it for a long, long time, has been to remind people that health care is not a free service in our province.” Well, I don’t know about other provinces that don’t have MSP. I think it’s interesting, considering that British Columbia is the only province left that still has MSP premiums.

I think it’s important to note and to recognize that the public understands completely that health care costs. The public understands completely what this government has used MSP for, and that’s to bring in money from them in an unfair way and unjust way.

The Finance Minister in February 2015 said: “It’s publicly funded health care; it ain’t free.” Well, again, the public certainly understands that clearly. In February 2016, the Finance Minister said that it’s politically very attractive to come here and say we are eliminating MSP premiums and that the informed among us will know well that that has to come from somewhere. I might encourage the member who put the motion forward, and perhaps other members, to go and spend some time with the Finance Minister, since the Finance Minister certainly understands that the money has to come from somewhere.

This government’s MSP promise and this motion are simply, from my perspective, another illusion at election time by this government — a long list in the illusions that this government brings forward. For 16 years, they have taken from British Columbians. How much have they taken? Well, I think it’s interesting to take a look at what they’ve done with MSP.

Premiums have gone up 108 percent since the Liberals came to power. That means $933 more per year for a family. And since the Premier herself was elected, they’ve gone up 24 percent. This government now takes in more from MSP than they collect in property taxes, the carbon tax and all the combined natural resources revenue. It’s extraordinary.

For a government that talks about red tape, take a look at the MSP system itself and the collection of MSP
[ Page 14262 ]
— again, an issue that could have been money saved that wouldn’t have been gouging British Columbians. Instead, this government has ignored that.

[1115]

We see people in all of our offices, and I know the members on the other side get it as well — seniors who are in tears because collection agencies are coming after them for their MSP, how they can’t get through. It’s a tough system to be able to navigate. Now the government, when it’s an election coming up, expects us to understand that now they’ve seen the light and that now MSP premiums should be gone. “We promised.” And I heard the member say: “It’s going lead to the eventual elimination.”

Well, I’m sorry. We’ve heard promises from this government before. We’ve heard: “Debt-free B.C.” We have heard this government make promises before about no increases to hydro rates. We’ve heard this government before talk about affordability and low taxes, when in fact it’s just the opposite for families, families who have struggled and are struggling with affordability because of this government’s direction.

If the government had cared, they would have eliminated the MSP premiums a long time ago. They make hollow commitments at election time, and that’s not the direction. The public sees through it, and they know what this government is doing.

D. Bing: I’m rising today on behalf of my constituents to support this motion. Today British Columbia is in a very strong fiscal position. Budget 2017 was our government’s fifth consecutive balanced budget.

This kind of progress does not happen on its own. It happens because of hard-working British Columbians, like those in my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. It happens because our government actually respects taxpayer money and makes prudent decisions. This is why we are leading the country in economic growth. This is why we are first in Canada, with the lowest unemployment rate. This is why there are more people working in our province than ever before.

Because we stuck to our plan, controlled spending and invested wisely in important programs, we can make sure that British Columbians across this province can keep more of their hard-earned money. The way we will do this is by reducing MSP premiums as a first step to total elimination.

Beginning January 1, 2018, MSP premiums will be reduced by 50 percent for households with an annual net income of up to $120,000. The province is also raising the income threshold below which households are fully exempt from MSP by $2,000. This means that in 2018, an individual earning up to $26,000 will pay no premiums and couples with two children earning up to $35,000 will pay no premiums.

A typical family of four paying full premiums will save $900 per year in 2018. A single parent earning up to $40,000 with two children will see their monthly premiums drop from $46 to $23. A family earning $35,000 with two children will see their monthly premiums eliminated. This is a great step in making life more affordable for B.C. families. More than two million British Columbians will pay no premiums, and a further two million will see a 50 percent reduction in their premiums.

Our government is following the plan we laid out to better the lives of B.C. families. To be clear, we are taking this step not by raising taxes elsewhere but by drawing upon the benefits of having Canada’s strongest economy and budget surpluses.

This is our direction. This is our vision of our government, a vision where we have a future that lessens the burden on B.C. families. When government has more money than it needs, we do not believe that government should keep that money. It belongs to British Columbians.

Sadly, this is not the vision of my colleagues across from me. The NDP have a different plan. The Leader of the Opposition has actually stated that he wants to hide MSP fees in the tax system instead of eliminating them. He’s said that middle-class families would have to pay more to finance this plan. This is not what British Columbians want. They want a government that makes life easier for them and their families, not harder.

The NDP have said time and time again that they would like to raise taxes on hard-working people. The member for Victoria–Swan Lake actually said that he wants to fight any kind of tax cut we give to British Columbians. This is absolutely ridiculous. The proposals and policies promoted on the other side of the House would take our province in the wrong direction.

I am proud to support this motion, because we must do what we promised for British Columbians. I’m proud to support Budget 2017 and all of the tax-saving measures it includes, including the reduction in MSP premiums.

[1120]

J. Rice: I’m glad to rise today to talk about eliminating the MSP here in British Columbia.

I just have to reflect back on some of the things I’ve heard thus far. I find it so ironic that we’re talking about taking the money of British Columbians and returning it back to them. Anyone who has watched TV or checked their Facebook in the last year will see that they’re being blitzed by a barrage of government advertising — British Columbian taxpayers’ dollars for government partisan advertising.

There’s nothing that this Premier likes more than spending taxpayers’ money telling taxpayers how great she is. We see ads during the hockey games, the football game and even during the Oscars. It seems this Premier will spend anything to make people forget that she raised B.C. Hydro, she raised ICBC, she raised B.C. Ferry fares, and she raised MSP premiums.

I don’t see any ads pointing out where the Premier’s 28 percent hydro rate hikes are being advertised. Where
[ Page 14263 ]
are those ads? Where are the ads that point out that under this Premier’s watch, ICBC went $1.5 billion in the hole and drivers will be having to make up the difference? Where’s the advertising letting drivers in British Columbia know that they’ll be paying for that boondoggle? Where are the ads pointing out how ferry fares have more than doubled under this government? Don’t see any of those advertisements.

MSP is an unfair flat tax. It makes life unaffordable for British Columbians. The Liberals have more than doubled it since 2001. Now they’re cutting it two months out from an election. The timing is so ironic. We believe it should be eliminated, and it should be rolled into the tax system.

For 15 years, the Liberal government has been increasing this unfair tax, and average people, working people, have had to pay for it. The average family has been paying $933 more per year. Now they’re cutting it in half, right before an election. That’s a half-measure, and it’s not good enough. This Premier has no plan to finish that job. She’s looking out for the people at the top while making it harder for the rest of us who are trying to make ends meet. She has increased MSP for hard-working families every single year since she became Premier. It’s more than doubled since the B.C. Liberals have been in power.

New Democrats believe MSP is unfair and unaffordable. It needs to be eliminated. Every other province in Canada uses the existing tax collection system to pay for health care. I would like to just point out, too, that premiums have gone up 108 percent. That’s $467 more per year for a single person and, as I said earlier, $933 for a family. MSP premiums now take more from B.C. families than the government collects from property tax, property transfer tax, the carbon tax and, sadly, all the natural resource revenue combined.

The separate MSP collection system is inefficient. It cost $80 million to collect it in the last year alone. That’s an increase of 30 percent over the previous year. As my colleague mentioned, the stress and strain on low-income, on seniors and on average people of trying to pay their MSP premiums, where the collection agency is calling them incessantly, multiple times a day and night….

Hundreds of thousands of MSP bills are believed to be at least a month overdue. That’s a total owing of nearly half a billion dollars. British Columbians face increased anxiety and potential legal costs when the government sends overdue payments to these collection agencies.

This Premier, this tax, is all about an election right now. This is about trying to make bad headlines go away — trying to make British Columbians forget how they’ve been gouged. In January of 2016, this Premier said: “One of the reasons British Columbia has an MSP system, and has had it for a long, long time, has been to remind people that health care isn’t a free service in our province”.

[1125]

Now, a year later, she’s saying: “Everybody knows MSP premiums don’t go to pay for health care.”

D. Plecas: Few governments are successful in balancing their budgets, and even fewer exercise good management of public funds. Our government, with five successive balanced budgets, has been praised widely by financial experts all across this country, but we’re not going to stop there. We’re going to go one step further. We’re going to do that by returning the rewards of a balanced budget directly back to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut. This is essentially what we’re doing through our medical services premiums.

More often than not, a government that finds itself generating a surplus has a tendency to hang onto the revenue, but not this government. This government is instead using that surplus for significant increases in health care, education, record investments in affordable rental housing and allocating $500 million to strengthening seniors care in this province. Again, we’re essentially providing a tax cut in the form of lower MSP premiums. Specifically, effective January 1, MSP premiums will be cut in half for British Columbians with an annual net income of $120,000 or less. As a result, some two million British Columbians will see their premiums reduced by half.

There are still another two million British Columbians. What about them? Well those are the two million who already don’t pay premiums at all.

For a family paying MSP premiums, this represents a savings of some $900 per year. Best of all, this is the first step to eliminating MSP premiums altogether. This is something quite different than sweeping MSP into an income tax system, as some would suggest. That would be tantamount to a tax increase, plain and simple.

By cutting MSP premiums in half for most British Columbians, we are basically leaving $1 billion in the pockets of British Columbians. When was the last time you heard of a government doing that? We believe that families will benefit, because we believe they know best how to spend their money. The provincial economy will also benefit, because people will have more money in their pockets to spend as they please. We will all benefit when government gets to the point when MSP premiums are history once and for all.

Again, it should be emphasized that this motion supports the elimination of MSP premiums and not replacing them with an increase in taxes in other areas. B.C. already has the lowest income tax burden in this whole country, and when MSP premiums are eliminated altogether, British Columbians will have even lower taxes. This is pretty significant, because a taxpayer in British Columbia earning $125,000 or less already pays much less tax than the rest of the country.

For example, in Ontario, where they do pay OHIP premiums on top of income tax, a taxpayer in a similar tax bracket pays a whopping $2,800 more per person than in British Columbia. In Quebec, the family tax bill comes in, if you can believe it, at $8,645 more than in British
[ Page 14264 ]
Columbia. That’s astonishing. No wonder that everybody wants to move to British Columbia.

On behalf of my constituents of Abbotsford South, I wholeheartedly support a motion to eliminate MSP premiums for the people in my riding and for all people in British Columbia.

G. Holman: I’m very pleased to speak to this motion. I do find it ironic for a member from Surrey to be making this motion, given the fact that the Surrey Board of Trade is actually proposing what the opposition is proposing. This is the Surrey Board of Trade — I believe the member opposite is familiar with them: “We’re asking for the current MSP premium system to be abolished and to implement a line item to the provincial income tax system.” That’s precisely what we’re proposing.

[1130]

Now, we have to consider: is this promise really credible? Again, the member from Surrey was speaking about his concern about people forgetting. I don’t think people have forgotten the litany of promises made by this government that have been broken.

Let’s just go down the list, very quickly. LNG — at least one LNG pipeline and three facilities in operation by 2020. Not a single one. Debt-free B.C. This Premier has added $22 billion in debt, the biggest increase in history. They promised to create the $100 billion prosperity fund — another absurd promise. Make 45 high-risk schools seismically safe by 2016. It’s now 2017, and 33 of those schools still don’t have their seismic upgrades. And it goes on and on.

I think the credibility in this province, coming just before an election, contradicting statements made just a few months ago by the Minister of Finance no less…. This is clearly an election ploy, and people will not forget that.

Let’s consider what the Liberals have…. It has been mentioned before by a number of people. MSP premiums in this province have more than doubled since 2001. This Premier alone has increased premiums by 24 percent. It’s beyond belief — these crocodile tears about not increasing taxes in British Columbia. And it doesn’t stop with MSP.

Go down the list: tuition fees, ferry fares, hydro rates, ICBC rates. These increases have taken thousands of dollars per year out of family incomes. Not over a long period — per year. The members opposite expect us to believe that they don’t like tax increases or that they’re balancing their budgets based on prudent fiscal management. They’re balancing their budget based on stealth, based on taxes that they won’t admit are taxes and that are fixed, regressive and harm lower-income folks the most.

Let’s take the promise at face value. Even if we take it at face value, it’s a half-measure, a desperate attempt to make people forget about the huge increases they’ve imposed over the last number of years. Serious problems with the system? Complicated? You have to apply to get these MSP reductions, which means that, in fact, administrative costs, which are now already at $80 million, probably will go up. There is also the little question of the employers, whether or not the cost savings will be shared fairly between employees and employers.

Here’s the final thing. Essentially, what’s happening here…. This Liberal government, on the eve of an election, is essentially promising a $2 billion tax cut. We’ve seen this movie before. In 2001, these folks slashed taxes in British Columbia, slashed services that people depend on, creating a decade of negligence.

I would ask the member from Surrey: what services are you going to cut to make up for a $2.2 billion decrease in government revenue? What services are you going to cut, just like you cut them in 2001? It’s the same movie played all over again. They’re playing taxpayers for fools. This time, they will not forget.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, all comments through the Chair.

J. Thornthwaite: I rise today, on behalf of the constituents in North Vancouver–Seymour, in support of this motion. Budget 2017 is a budget that reflects what happens when you stick to the plan. This is our fifth consecutive balanced budget, and it shows that being fiscally responsible while investing in programs and services that mean so much to so many people secures the future for our children.

There is a lot to be proud of from Budget 2017: record levels of infrastructure investments, supporting more than 30,000 jobs, and funding new investments for classrooms, mental health services and other supports for families, children and those in need. But one of the measures that I think will make a huge impact, no matter where you live, are the changes our government is making to the MSP premium.

[1135]

MSP premiums will be cut in half for B.C. families with a net income of up to $120,000, effective January 1, 2018. This is the government’s first step in eliminating MSP premiums entirely. The changes mean annual savings up to $900 for families paying full premiums and up to $450 for individuals. This means that two million British Columbians, on top of the already two million who don’t pay MSP premiums at all, will see their premiums reduced by half. It means more money to spend on their priorities.

Our multi-phased plan to eliminate the MSP will make sure that we get rid of the premium in a way that is fiscally responsible.

The province is also raising the income threshold below which households are fully exempt from MSP by $2,000. For example, this means individuals with net in-
[ Page 14265 ]
come of up to $26,000 will pay no premiums, and couples with two children and family net income of up to $35,000 will pay no premiums at all.

Individuals and families will need to register to benefit from the 50 percent reduction. This will allow government to verify income information to determine eligibility. Those already receiving premium assistance will be automatically registered for the 50 percent premium reduction.

Over the coming weeks and months, more information will be available to help British Columbians through the registration process.

Most British Columbians will see significant premium reductions. A single adult with net income from $42,000 to $120,000 will save $450 per year, or $37.50 per month. A couple with family net income between $45,000 and $120,000 will save $900 per year, or $75 per month. A senior couple with net family income between $51,000 and $120,000 will save $900 per year, or $75 per month. And a single parent with two children, with net income between $48,000 and $120,000 will save $450 per year, or $37.50 per month.

As B.C. moves toward elimination of MSP premiums, the province will consult with British Columbians to determine the timing and structure of the change. This work continues, and details will be announced shortly.

First introduced in the 1960s, MSP premiums have historically become an important component of health care funding, raising about $2.5 billion in recent years, or 13 percent of total health spending. However, the MSP has evolved into a complex program that requires significant resources from individuals, governments and businesses. That’s why Budget 2017 changes to the MSP premiums build on actions the province has already taken to improve affordability and fairness, effective January 1, 2017. This includes eliminating MSP premiums for children, enhancing premium assistance for more than 300,000 adults and cancelling the planned 4 percent increase that would have taken effect later this year.

With our budget, we’ve taken clear action to reduce MSP premiums and put them on track to real elimination. I think the majority of British Columbians are with us.

S. Robinson: I’m pleased to take my place in this debate — that this House supports the elimination of MSP premiums.

I am always amazed at how an election sort of gets this government to change its tune. I think it’s about governing by poll. I believe, based on what we’ve heard, that they recognize that British Columbians are on to their game and on to the fact that they make these promises and then can’t deliver. Then they see a poll that says people actually do want the elimination of the MSP. They get that it’s an unfair tax.

Last year it was, “Oh, we absolutely must have to have it,” and the Premier going on about how people need to know that health care isn’t free. Now, this year, as we get close to an election, it’s like, “Well, gee, maybe we should do something about that,” because people don’t like it. They understand that it’s regressive tax.

In fact, I was at a high school just this last week giving a presentation about government. We were talking about the difference between regressive taxes and progressive taxes. The students in this grade 10 class clearly understood that MSP is a regressive, unfair tax. They understood that if you make $50,000 or $200,000 a year, you pay the same. That, for them, in their gut and in their heart and in their minds…. They know that it’s an unfair way to tax people.

[1140]

I got them to imagine, for a moment, that they made $200,000 a year. I told them that you have your house in the poshest part of town. It was paid off a number of years ago. Your every need is taken care of. You have investments that will permit you to retire comfortably. You have no significant financial worries for you or for your family or for your future. You manage to take some significant holidays each year, and you can send your children to the college of their choice without needing any student loans. If your car breaks down, you don’t have to worry about finding the money to get it fixed, and when the mileage on your vehicle starts to get on the high side, you can just buy another.

Lo and behold, these students understood what that was like — to imagine that life. Then I suggested to them that, even without asking, your provincial government decides to reduce your taxes. You didn’t ask for it, and your lifestyle certainly isn’t going to feel it. They know that’s exactly what this government did four years ago. They just made life easier for the wealthiest in our province, providing them with extra cash each year to take another holiday or perhaps to buy another luxury toy.

Then I had them imagine that in their life — with a partner or without a partner — they make about $50,000 a year, and they have children. Their oldest is just starting school, and they just received the list of school supplies, which includes a ream of paper because the school no longer has a photocopy budget due to cutbacks. You now find that you have to find the money in your very tight budget to pay for the photocopy paper.

You also discover that the mom of your child’s best friend down the street, who has been caring for your child part-time, has now decided to go back to work full-time. So now you have to find a daycare provider, and you know that that will eat into your overstretched budget, given that B.C. has the second-highest child care costs in the nation.

We can’t forget that hydro rates are going to get jacked up again on April 1, by 3.5 percent, an extra $45. And ICBC is going to cost you an additional $57 this year. In fact, when you look at how much more expensive life has gotten under this government, you can see that with
[ Page 14266 ]
the increased MSP, ICBC and hydro rates alone, you are paying $1,000 more a year, now, than you were just six years ago. You are stressed, doing your best and just not able to get ahead.

The students understood that this is real life for so many British Columbians, and the government insists on making it harder and harder for people. This government continues to care for their friends and insiders, by choosing to give them a tax break, and ignores the needs of the rest of the people in this province.

It’s interesting that, since 2001, this regressive MSP tax has been doubled — doubled under the leadership and the choices of this current government. And the students understood that. They know that it’s not only a regressive tax that’s increased under this government — that MSP is not the only one — but that ICBC and hydro rates have also ramped up.

They understand what it means to most British Columbians. It means that the cost of living is getting harder. Increasing bills are making it harder. Housing, child care — all those costs are making it difficult for British Columbians. And this government’s response is to say: “Well, sometime in the future, in 2018, we’ll look at doing this.”

These students understood that this government keeps making promises and not delivering. They were scoffing at the idea, when I told them that I would be speaking to this motion. They scoffed because they knew that this government has not lived up to its word. They scoffed because they know that they can’t count on this government’s promises — debt-free B.C., LNG. This government just can’t be trusted to follow through.

L. Throness: It’s a pleasure today to speak in support of the motion that says: “This House supports the elimination of MSP premiums, and not replacing them with increased taxes in other areas.” I want to start by quoting the Leader of the Opposition, who said on January 13: “I’m hopeful that they will completely review the MSP process, integrate it into the tax system as every other province has done.”

The leader of the NDP and his party have urged the government to get rid of MSP premiums, and the government has announced its intention to eliminate them. But contrary to my expectation, there was no support from the other side. There was no applause. I would have thought that they would have done that, since…. There’s even an on-line NDP petition on their own website to do what we have just said we are going to do.

The question is: why? Why wouldn’t the NDP agree with a policy that they have advocated for so long? Well, it’s because they don’t really intend to eliminate the premiums.

Let me explain by showing the stark contrast between the opposition plan and the government plan. The government is going cut the MSP in half. We’re going to leave that half in the pockets of British Columbians and return premiums to 1993 levels, very low. Later, we’re going to consult with British Columbians on how to get rid of the other half.

[1145]

Now, there are a couple of options here. If everything goes well and if the economy continues to perform in a stellar way, as it has under the leadership of this government, we may simply be able to eliminate them by more tax relief — just leave all of the MSP premiums in British Columbians’ pockets. That’s exactly what I would like to do.

Another option is to fold the rest into the progressive tax system and eliminate them that way. But British Columbians are going to have their say. We’re going to consult with them before we make a decision in the future.

The reason the NDP disagrees with this approach is that they don’t intend to cut the total cost of Medical Services Plan premiums at all. They’re going to work a little NDP magic. Let me describe how this works. They’re going to drop the title “MSP premiums” and make them disappear by moving them over one column in the accounting ledger and putting them in the income tax column.

Let me repeat this contrast. We’re going to cut MSP taxes in half. We’re going to leave that money in people’s pockets. Then we’re going to eliminate the other half later. The NDP are going to stop taking premiums out of the MSP pocket, but they’re going to take the full amount instead out of a different pocket: the income tax pocket.

MSP premiums will not go away under the NDP. They’re just going to become invisible, and that’s why I call it NDP magic. Just wave a magic wand, and — poof! — the premiums disappear. But British Columbians will quickly learn, when it comes time to do their income tax, that there was no real magic; there was only sleight of hand. There’s no rabbit in the hat. There’s only a rotten tomato.

Those premiums had to go somewhere. That’s why the NDP budget for the upcoming fiscal year, if they had their way with the MSP, would necessarily be $845 million more than the government’s budget that’s before this House today. That’s nearly a 2 percent increase in the provincial budget. And when you add to that their plan for child care, another $1.5 billion, those two programs alone would increase the provincial budget by nearly 5 percent forever.

The difference between the NDP and the B.C. Liberals could not be clearer, and we’re going to make the distinction crystal-clear in the coming months. British Columbians are going to be consulted about our choice. They can choose to have their MSP premiums actually and really cut in half, under the government’s plan, or they can choose the NDP plan to have the full amount of the premiums simply be made invisible and charged to their income tax.

That way, the NDP can have what they always want — more tax dollars to build a bigger government, more ex-
[ Page 14267 ]
pensive programs, more government employees, more taxing and spending, more waste and mismanagement that goes with bigger government — and we will have everything except economic growth. The vicious economic spiral will begin, just as it did in the 1990s.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The bottom line is this. Under the NDP, British Columbians are going to be more and more heavily taxed. Under the B.C. Liberals, our tax burden will be lighter because we’re giving half the MSP in tax relief, leaving the money where it’s used best — by British Columbians making their own economic decisions with their own money. We’re looking forward to the day when we can set that choice before the voters of B.C.

B. Ralston: Well, the previous speaker is a skilled debater, and I certainly respect his ability, but what he is trying to defend is utterly indefensible. Unfortunately for him and for the Liberals opposite, the Minister of Finance has given his opinion on this very issue, on the public record, and members who know him will know that he parses his words very carefully. He’s very, very thoughtful about how he expresses his opinion on any given issue, given his experience as Minister of Finance.

Here’s what he said back at the peak of attention to the budget last year. This issue has been one that’s been debated in the province for some time now. I’m quoting the Minister of Finance. I think the members opposite might find it instructive. “It is politically very attractive to be able to come here one year and say we are eliminating MSP premiums. The informed among us will know well that that has to come from somewhere, that $2.4 billion. But I fear it creates the illusion or adds to the illusion that health care is free. It is not.”

The money has to come from somewhere. The member for Surrey-Panorama spoke of imaginary savings.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: Oh, they’re howling and baying. They don’t like to hear from the Minister of Finance, do they?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

B. Ralston: Thank you, Madame Speaker. Glad to have the floor, for a moment at least.

[1150]

Let’s again return to the Minister of Finance. Another quotation on this very topic, carefully stated. I think it really is instructive. When we consider some of the comments that have been made this morning by members opposite, they don’t appear to understand what their own Minister of Finance has said about this topic. “I can’t change the fact that it cost $19 billion to run our health care system. I can choose, and the government can choose, various ways to collect and pay for that. MSP premiums represent 14 percent. And we can choose whether or not we want to be open and honest about collecting that amount or hide it somewhere in the general income tax provisions. We have chosen the former.”

Now, apparently, they’ve chosen the latter. “Hide it somewhere in the general income tax provisions.” That’s what the Minister of Finance said — “Those are the two alternatives” — in a public interview on no less an authority than the Voice of B.C., publicly broadcast. The transcript is available for everyone. “Those are the two alternatives.” That’s what the Minister of Finance said.

Many of the comments here are simply politically motivated and ignore what the Minister of Finance describes as the reality.

Let’s look at the history of what this government has done. Sometimes you see in the mall, if you go around…. In January, there are sales, and sometimes as much as 50 percent off. But sometimes what merchants — some, not very many — do is they increase the price 100 percent and then offer a 50 percent reduction. That’s exactly what this government has done with MSP premiums — increased medical service premiums, over their time in office, 108 percent and now are purporting to offer a 50 percent reduction, not now but sometime in the future, after the Minister of Red Tape Reduction gets through vetting the laborious form that will be required of everyone who wants to apply for this. They will have to make that application.

Then they will perhaps, if the government has its way…. I’m sure there’ll be a lot of government ads that will assist people in this process. That may actually be the motivation for offering this tax break — simply to be able to tell people about it in a public campaign paid for by public dollars, just 45 days or 60 days before the next election.

But the Premier wants you to forget…. Let’s examine that promise. Why should one accept that promise that the members opposite are talking about? The people will not forget. They will not forget that their hydro rates have increased dramatically. There was a promise that they wouldn’t increase. They have increased dramatically. There was a promise, prior to the last election, that B.C. was on the path to being debt-free. Remember that one?

S. Hamilton: I’m pleased to rise and speak to this motion. I’m pleased to say that this government’s Budget 2017 cuts costs for middle-class B.C. families. It invests in priority programs and services by promoting a competitive, job-creating economy.

Under the plan presented in this budget, Medical Services Plan premiums, as we’ve heard, will be cut in
[ Page 14268 ]
half for British Columbian households with an annual family income of up to $120,000. As a result, premiums are reduced by half for two million British Columbians, in addition to the two million British Columbians who already don’t pay premiums at all.

It’s the first step to elimination, which is what this government is committed to. I want to speak to this last part a little bit — elimination — because there appears to be some divergent opinions in this place on what elimination actually means.

When we say we want to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate it, we mean it. We mean we don’t want British Columbians…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

S. Hamilton: …paying for it, not just under the name MSP but under any other name. It seems quite elementary, but I can’t help but feel that this clarification may be of some benefit to the members opposite. They like to grandstand, as certainly they’re entitled to, about how they, in the NDP, want to see the MSP eliminated. They say eliminated, as well. But their definition of eliminated is different than the definition you or I may have.

[1155]

You see, they want to make up for it with other taxes. When they say they want to eliminate it, it’s simply a ruse. Tell me…. I recall….

Let me quote for you the Leader of the Opposition just over a year ago. It was said in this House before, when he was discussing his grand plan to eliminate MSP. Just like the member for North Coast and just like the member from Saanich North a few moments ago in this House said, he said: “I’m hopeful that they will completely review the MSP process, integrate it into the tax system.” No doubt the member from Saanich North, no doubt the member for North Coast are singing from the same hymn book. How does that eliminate it?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

S. Hamilton: This is something he’s clearly thought through, because he extrapolated on the idea again just a few months ago in another interview. This time, as the member for Surrey-Panorama mentioned earlier, he made clear what he means about the tax system, clarifying that he wants to shift the tax draw squarely from middle-class British Columbians. “Those middle-class folks in the ages of, say, 35 to 54, they’re at their highest earning potential.”

Let me tell you something. I know plenty of British Columbians between the ages of 35 and 54, and here’s what they’re doing. They’re working to support their families. They’re working to meet their mortgage payments. They’re working to save for their own retirement. Here’s what they don’t need. They don’t need an NDP tax hike. In no uncertain terms, no one needs, no middle-class family needs an NDP tax hike.

But that’s exactly what the opposition’s dubious definition of “eliminate” actually is. It’s deliberately designed to deceive British Columbians because, inexplicably, the members opposite have some deep-seated ideological predilection to not let a single tax dollar be returned to British Columbians.

The fact is we’ve seen the Leader of the Opposition muse about this scheme in the past. For example, instead of allowing B.C. families to benefit from lower gas prices as a result of low oil prices and oil prices dropping, the opposition leader mused that government should have stepped in and used the opportunity to increase B.C.’s carbon tax and take that money away from B.C. families.

He said: “There’s been an opportunity, as oil prices have fallen and prices at the pump have gone down for consumers…. That was an ideal time to provide space for carbon pricing.”

There’s not a single tax-dollar opportunity that the members opposite want to let go of. It seems like they just can’t conceive of it. As soon as there’s any talk of British Columbians paying less taxes, the members opposite seem to start scheming about some mechanism or deviation to ensure that those tax dollars stay with government, and I think that’s wrong. That’s why I’m pleased to stand and support this motion and its intention.

Finally, I’ll close by reminding the members opposite and the people of this province where we’ve come from in the last eight years. I think everyone remembers.

S. Hamilton 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 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.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