Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), 2017.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2017

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 7, the Supply Act, be read a second time now.

Existing appropriations provided by Supply Act, 2017 — that was the first bill introduced, you’ll remember, in February — are expected to be exhausted by September 30, 2017. Consistent with past practice, Bill 7 extends interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations beyond that provided by Supply Act (No. 1), 2017, in order to ensure the continuation of government services as the House completes our estimates debate.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Bill 7 extends ministry operation allocations for approximately three months by increasing the 6/12 authorization provided by Supply Act (No. 1), 2017, to 9/12 of voted amounts included in the estimates that were tabled on September 11.

[11:00 a.m.]

Bill 7 also provides 9/12 of the combined vote amounts in schedules C and D of the estimates that were tabled on September 11 for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financial requirements, and an increase from the two-thirds authorization which was provided in Supply Act (No. 1), 2017. Final supply will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects all of the sums that are voted on appropriations to be given to government in the current fiscal year.

That ends my comments on second reading.

S. Bond: I thank the minister for her comments and an explanation of the process. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, ever so briefly, on Bill 7, entitled the Supply Act.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this many members in the House for the Supply Act, because it’s a pretty routine thing. So it’s great to see you all here for this, for what is pretty much a routine bill. I think the minister will be relieved to know that I don’t intend to extend the discussion about this bill for a lengthy period of time. But I think it is important for British Columbians to actually understand the process. Often either members that are new here or people in the general public don’t necessarily understand the budget process and what happens.

On budget day, obviously, the focus is often on the budget speech itself, but the minister at that time tables the estimates for the coming year. Those estimates contain the fiscal plan and the priorities of the government — including this new government. The members of the Legislature then have a chance to review those estimates and to ask those questions during Committee of Supply. It’s a very important accountability process, and it is important for members of the official opposition to be able to ask questions about the plans and the proposed spending of the government.

Certainly, as a member who has been on the other side answering questions for a long period of time, I know that people work very hard to bring relevant, important questions. I know that sometimes there’s the attempt to do the gotcha thing with the minister. I’ve been there, done that. But interim supply actually does matter. It is a serious matter. It is about authorizing the government to continue supporting programs and services while the estimates are debated. Basically, it’s to make sure that people can be paid, that the work that government does can continue.

This bill will provide the government with authority to withdraw, from the consolidated revenue fund, the amount necessary to cover the costs and expenses incurred by the public service, pending the completion of our estimates process, for the fiscal year ending March 31. Yesterday we saw the budget pass. I know that for the minister, it will not come as a surprise to her — she is a seasoned veteran in this place — that the official opposition and many British Columbians do have questions about the plans and the priorities that are contained in the budget update.

We know that this government did inherit one of the strongest economies in the country and a track record of five balanced budgets in a row. They also inherited a $2.7 billion surplus. That was confirmed by the Auditor General. So you can imagine our concerns about the fact that the first act this government took, in order to pay for the campaign promises that are included in the budget update, was to raise taxes. We can only speculate at this point that the new government may well be forced to increase income taxes once again in February’s full budget. But this time, who knows who that will impact?

I know that the minister knows and will be prepared. The official opposition will certainly bring a great deal of vigour to the estimates process, and we’ll be looking at the budget update with a significant degree of scrutiny.

Yesterday the minister, in her closing remarks before the passing of her first budget in this House, remarked on the fact that opposition members were pointing out two things. The minister saw them as contrary to one another, and I disagree with that. I just wanted to reflect on the fact that the minister pointed out that our members had brought, to their remarks, comments about aggressive spending and then about promises missing from the budget update. She questioned how those two things aligned.

[11:05 a.m.]

Well, here’s how. In essence, the concern is that the very first budget update — while we see some of the key promises made by the new government; they are captured in that budget — is built on the legacy of a multi-billion-dollar surplus that is not guaranteed to continue in the future. So we have aggressive spending, very little additional fiscal room left for any other spending, and increased taxes to pay for those initiatives. Add to that the other side of the equation: promises made to British Columbians about key programs and service enhancements. No sight of them in the budget.

While I’m sure the minister knows we will be supporting the interim supply bill that’s before the House today so that government can continue to operate, we are very much looking forward to some vigorous discussion during the actual estimates process to pursue some of those important questions.

Thank you to the minister. With that, I will end my remarks with the support of this bill.

A. Weaver: As designated…. Oh, I’m not party status, yes.

I know members opposite are looking forward to a long and vigorous debate about the Supply Act. I rise just briefly, obviously in support of the Supply Act, to point out that, really, we shouldn’t have to be doing this.

One of the problems with our system here in British Columbia is that we go into an election after we have not passed a budget. So were we to have elections in the fall, there would be no need for interim supply acts to be brought to this Legislature for debate. We could go into election campaigns with a full budget, the Supply Act in place, with the people of British Columbia knowing what the books actually are, not what opposition or what government say they would be.

So while I do support this and my colleagues and I will vote in favour of this, it is troubling that we continue to have our elections in the spring, bringing the need for such supply acts time and time again. And I look forward, hopefully, sometime in the near future, for us discussing and debating moving our fixed election date to the fall, as was promised by the government.

With that, I won’t take up further debate time. Although a full half-hour might be…. It’s hard to even think what to say, apart from….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: More? My friends and colleagues would like me to speak more to the Supply Act, but I’m at a loss for words.

With that, thank you very much.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister to conclude debate.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to members from the opposition and from the third party for your comments. I, as well, look forward to a vigorous debate at estimates.

Those people who have watched question period…. There are those who think question period is the best part of the Legislature. I’m one of those people who actually enjoy the estimates debate. I think it is an opportunity for real questions and real answers to actually occur in a very respectful approach. And it’s an opportunity to be able to make sure the information is available for not only the opposition, who has to hold government to account, but in fact for the public, which is the reason we’re all here.

I think this bill moves us into the estimates process. It gives the opportunity for members of the opposition and the third party to be able to ask the questions that they want and for ministers to be accountable for their spending, as we should be. I think that’s a very important process.

Just to touch on the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head’s comments about the change in date for the election — I look forward to a future discussion on that issue as well. I think there are certainly many people who feel that summer budgets and preparing budgets in the summer when that occurs in an election year doesn’t provide the kind of accountability that’s needed to be there. So I look forward to that future conversation as well.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 7, the Supply Act (No. 2), 2017.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: By leave, I move that Bill 7 be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.

Leave granted.

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2017

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

Hon. C. James: I’d just like to introduce my staff, who are here for this brief discussion that will occur. David Galbraith, the secretary to Treasury Board, and Chris Skillings, the executive director in fiscal planning and estimates. I look forward to any questions that may come forward from the member across.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:11 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 2017

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 2), 2017, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Dix: I call continued debate on the Speech from the Throne.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

M. Polak: It’s a pleasure to rise in this House and respond to the Speech from the Throne. I ask the forgiveness of all members in this House for the fact that I just gave my budget response yesterday afternoon. There may be some repetition that happens, but I’ll try to keep it interesting — not that we ever repeat things in this House ever. I’m going to try. I’ll do my best.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Maybe we’ll start here. I guess I look at this throne speech as one that has a lot of potential, but a lot of missing pieces. In some cases, those missing pieces leave me to speculate as to what might be the underlying intent. What is it that we’re trying to get at? Where are we trying to get to? That’s a bit of what I want to explore as I discuss the throne speech that was delivered.

First, all the talk about affordability. Everybody these days talks about affordability. My daughter just turned 30. She lives in downtown Vancouver in a nice little apartment. But boy, oh boy, when she had to go and look and find that, affordability was certainly a big topic.

[11:15 a.m.]

Affordability is a topic when you live south of the Fraser and have to determine how you’re going to travel, whether it’s transit or vehicles. Affordability is an issue for everyone. It’s an issue for government and certainly one that we all heard loud and clear during the campaign leading up to this past election.

There are two sides to affordability, in terms of how government can respond. One is to spend the taxpayers’ money to try to relieve some of those costs for families, for individuals. But the second piece is missing, and the second piece is equally important. That is: how do you generate the revenues so that you can then spend them to help with those very real affordability issues?

I would argue that that’s really the fundamental question that faces all governments all the time on every single issue. Every government wants to be popular. Everyone knows that to be popular you give people the things that they want. Nothing wrong with that. I mean, that’s part of democracy — people sharing their ideas and seeing if they are popular enough to get them elected.

But the balance also goes directly to affordability. If one takes the foundations around affordability — as the throne speech describes these initiatives — spending more taxpayers’ money to help people out with respect to affordability, and doesn’t put in the second piece — generating revenues, controlling spending, spending enough to help people but not so much that you go into the hole…. If government doesn’t do the second thing, pretty soon there’s another affordability issue, and that’s taxes.

There is no escaping this equation. It faces all governments all the time on every issue. The first missing piece that I noticed in the throne speech is that with all of the grand intentions that are outlined, there isn’t an offsetting effort to talk about how spending will be managed so that it doesn’t, in and of itself, become an affordability issue for people.

Next, in terms of foundations, the throne speech talks about the very important relationship with our First Nations. In fact, in the throne speech, it is spoken of as a partnership. I’m always glad to hear governments of any stripe speak this way about First Nations. I spent time as a Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and over the course of other ministries in which I served, I developed very strong and long-lasting personal relationships with many First Nations leaders.

I walked with them at ceremonies that tore my heart out — stories of what had happened in First Nations families and in communities, the destruction of their society. To hear that governments of any stripe are willing and wanting to create that real relationship, create that partnership, I applaud that. I always will. Again, another missing piece. It is one thing to have those personal relationships, those firm beliefs that we, as government, have to act differently with First Nations and that we, as a whole, in our society have to treat First Nations differently. It’s quite another to be able to accomplish it if what you are also doing is creating the kind of uncertainty in our economy that sees investment flee.

When you travel around and talk to First Nations leaders, what they will tell you is that they’re tired of managing poverty — that what their people need are good-paying jobs. What their people need is training so that they can go to those jobs. All of this is dependent on making sure that the British Columbia economy continues to thrive.

[11:20 a.m.]

Even if you train a wonderful First Nations young woman, like the one I met in Prince Rupert when I travelled there…. You train her to be a heavy-equipment operator. If mines are shutting down and if forestry is having troubles and if oil and gas is not there to produce those kinds of jobs, she will sit, with her training certificate, and not be able to support her young family. Again, a missing piece. The intention is there; I applaud the intention. But without the ability to provide jobs for these people and an economy in their often small, rural communities, that promise, I fear, will go unfulfilled.

One of the areas where this is most apparent is in the missing piece around the move on carbon tax. Yesterday in my budget response, I spoke about the problematic nature of removing the revenue-neutrality piece and the potential which that had to being a risk to the economy. But I want to go deeper into another element of this, and that is that there is a plan to raise it, without an accompanying plan to ensure that emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries are somehow protected from the impact.

We think about the types of high-paying jobs that can be available in small, rural First Nations communities around our province. What are they? Well, guess what. For the most part, they are emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries. The climate leadership team — not the previous government but the climate leadership team, in its recommendations, which the current government claims to endorse wholeheartedly — made it very clear that after a tremendous amount of analysis that they had undertaken….

Remember, these were people advocating for a lift to the carbon tax. They wanted to see the carbon tax rise. They, in their report, cautioned that the carbon tax should not rise unless there was a plan to help support emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries.

What did they predict? They predicted that if government raised the carbon tax without doing that, those industries — those very ones we’ve been talking about: mining, forestry, oil and gas — would be hard hit. Those industries would see their costs rise. In some cases, especially when you look at some of the commodity prices that industries like mining are struggling with, it wouldn’t just raise their costs; it would put them out of business, at a time when our industries are struggling.

Here’s another missing piece — one that they were told very clearly about and one, if the government is to believed, they have read over and over again. They’ve clearly adopted and studied the recommendations of the climate leadership team, yet a missing piece in this throne speech.

Consultation is a regular feature of the budget process in British Columbia. I have served on many committees in this House. I’ve been fortunate, or unfortunate, not to serve on the Finance and Government Services Committee. I say that only because there is a tremendous amount of travel involved, and those who have served on that committee over the years are certainly to be commended for their stamina.

I know it’s a really, really tough job. But I also know that as the committee travels around the province, they are going to hear far more requests for funding than the government budget, any government budget, could ever afford. It’s the nature of things. People come to that committee, and they tell that committee what it is they want. Of course they do. We expect them to.

In this throne speech, much is made of the consultation, the listening — and then moving into: “We will take that. We will find solutions.” While I don’t see evidence of it, as I spoke of earlier, in the throne speech, I hope that the current government has the stamina to be able to evaluate the requests and be ready to say no to some of them, be ready to tell people the truth when it’s something that government can’t afford to do. Affordability, as I’ve said, is an issue for government as well. I fear, however, that there is an appetite for more spending that isn’t offset by increasing revenues.

[11:25 a.m.]

In my budget speech, I talked a little bit about what’s happening on the Port Mann Bridge. I won’t go into it in detail here, but it’s another area where there’s a missing piece. The missing piece is: when you remove all the tolls from the Port Mann Bridge, where is the plan for demand management? The project, as it was originally constructed, didn’t just have tolls on it in order to pay for the mortgage, if you will, on the bridge. That wasn’t the only reason. There was a tremendous amount of analysis done that showed that if you did not have a toll in place, some kind of a price on it….

Certainly, our position had been to create a cap to ensure that those who were travelling that route a lot were not overburdened. But the analysis showed if you didn’t have some sort of toll on that bridge, you would not accomplish demand management and, indeed, what would happen is that in a few short years, you would be back to the same kind of traffic snarls that you had before the new bridge was built. It’s inescapable. It’s in all the reports.

The missing piece here is that while they have given with one hand in terms of removing all the tolls, I can tell you, from hearing from constituents in my riding and experiencing it myself, the moment that toll came off, the world changed on the Port Mann Bridge. No longer could you be pretty much assured of a 40- or 45-minute trip from Langley to downtown. Those days are gone, and it’s going to get worse. I’m not saying that. The analysis says that — that it’s going to get worse. I know it’s one of the reasons that the members of the Green Party were not supportive of removing those tolls.

I hope that they find a way to fill that missing piece and determine a method. Obviously, they’re not interested in putting a toll on. But they’re going to have to think of a plan for demand management, because pretty soon those commuters who were excited about having the toll taken off are going to be calling their offices to tell them how long their commute is now. Then I think their joy will be short-lived.

Very quickly, as we evaluate the missing pieces, it becomes apparent that the economy that the government wants to work for everyone is potentially turning into an economy in which everyone pays through the nose.

After the reannouncements and the potential for uncontrolled spending, come some of what I call the spectres of things to come. Throughout the throne speech, it is referred to as a foundation, and I understand that. It’s a very short time period since the election. We’re at a point where there isn’t a full budget. There’s a budget update. I understand that, that this is a foundation and there are plans for further things to come. That makes sense. However, we also see, if we take them at their word that this is a foundation, some hints — I admit I’m speculating, but I think I’m speculating on pretty safe ground and some pretty good information — of what may be the future of this government’s activities.

Now, usually in the House, we’re the ones who bring up the 1990s. That’s kind of the way of things here. So I was surprised when there were things mentioned in the government’s throne speech that hinted back at the 1990s.

The first one I noticed was the fair wage commission. Why? Not because there was a fair wage commission before or anything like that, but because it reminded me of something else that perhaps this is the precursor to. It reminded me of the fair wage policy.

The fair wage policy, for people who don’t recall, was a policy that extended to all government capital projects and required that the workers be paid at a certain rate, no matter what that contractor said they could do it for. It was an arbitrary setting of what rates should be paid.

[11:30 a.m.]

The analysis at the time indicated that the policy arbitrarily increased the cost of those projects — all the public-infrastructure-type projects, schools, hospitals, roads and bridges — by 22 percent. I don’t know if that’s what they’re planning to do, but it was interesting to me to see those phrases come back. It makes me wonder. If this is a foundation, what are they going to build on it, and what will it mean? What it meant, back when it was brought in, was that everything went up so much in cost that, in spite of some very ambitious capital plans that the then government had, they ran out of money. They ran out of money.

That was evidenced by the fact that they had to put in place a full capital freeze — a stop on every single government project that was under construction, and even some that were in the midst of construction. I remember seeing the equipment and machinery stop in mid-build at a renovation at Queen Elizabeth Secondary School in Surrey. It wasn’t just that they froze new projects going out the door. There were projects being built and they had to stop, because they ran out of money.

I hope that this isn’t a foreshadowing of yet another method by which they will increase costs and, in spite of the best of intentions, put themselves in a position where they have to do that kind of thing again.

We know, as well, that the minimum wage is an area that the fair wages commission will look at. We know that there’s a commitment on the part of this government to get to a $15-an-hour minimum wage. There again, the missing pieces.

You can talk about raising a minimum wage as though it’s an idea out there. In fact, surprising to me, when I talk to constituents, there are a lot of people who think that the minimum wage is somehow paid for by government or something like that. You have people…. If they’re not part of a small business, if they’re not part of that world — understanding how those things operate — some people actually don’t even realize that a minimum wage rise affects the ability of small businesses to manage their costs.

Now, it’s not that it shouldn’t be raised. But how fast? How much? My fear, of course, is that — as a foundation in this document and judging by the pressure coming from so many groups that are affiliated with the government’s position — the commission will recommend that this move take place much too quickly for small businesses to absorb.

Why is that important? Of course, it’s important for the businesses. We want our small businesses to thrive. We want them to help maintain this strong economy. It’s important for that reason. It’s also important for this reason: a small business owner has only certain levers that they can control so that they can manage their costs. If government raises the minimum wage too rapidly, too high, that small business owner has only very few choices to cut costs in other places.

We know from other jurisdictions that when the minimum wage is raised too quickly and too high, it means job losses on the low end. It means the very people that government is intending to help are often the ones who suffer. They are the ones who end up getting put out of work, because it raises the cost of employment all through the different pay scales.

So I hope that the thoughtful approach is maintained, where there is a gradual rise that businesses are able to absorb without having to put people out of work.

Another kind of — I don’t know, I guess — blast from the past that occurred to me, listening to the throne speech, was all the language about post-secondary and affordability. I hope it’s not true, but I fear…. When the throne speech talks about doing more things — beyond what they’ve already begun — to make advanced education affordable, I fear they may go back to an old script. They may go back to the old script of a tuition freeze.

[11:35 a.m.]

What a tuition freeze meant was that institutions were starved for funding. That had an impact on costs for students, because students had to take, most often, an additional year to complete their degrees — and that was if they could get a course. Tuition is a natural part of funding advanced education. Now, perhaps, they would do that and then inject more taxpayers’ money, from government, into advanced education to offset that, but they didn’t last time. I hope that that isn’t the foundation that they’re building here, with respect to advanced education. It was not pleasant the first time around, and I hope it’s not where they’re headed.

Transit is another theme that the current government is interested in pursuing. Having been Transportation Minister, I wish them all the best. It is a very complicated matter to deal with, especially with the interests of the Mayors Council and the kind of transit infrastructure that they want to see, and all the questions around how to pay for it. Even the public has mixed views as to how one ought to pay for transit.

But there is a question that the minister and the government are going to have to deal with fairly quickly, and it’s based on this foundation that they’ve talked about. They have talked about fully endorsing the Mayors Council’s plans. There’s certainly a lot of spending there that’s going to be involved. They have been on record in the past as supporting the idea of the provincial government kicking in more money for transit in order to accomplish those goals and, certainly, have not been supportive of some of the efforts that the previous government took to try and achieve funding from the mayors in those communities, or their communities themselves.

So here’s the inevitable brick wall that the minister will run into, that the government will run into, and I’m concerned about how they might address it. It’s an area of fairness and equity. It’s one that I hope they are going to take very seriously. Currently, outside of Metro Vancouver, communities pay for a third of their transit and they pay 40 percent in a hospital capital tax for health care facilities that are built in their area.

Now, why does this come about here? Why is it important to me now? Well, another trip down memory lane. There were people who are here now, in this House, who were part of the grand bargain that was struck with municipalities in what is now Metro Vancouver. That grand bargain was that they would be given a break. They wouldn’t have to pay. Their communities would not have to pay the 40 percent of hospital capital tax on health care facilities in their area if they would pay their share of transit out of property taxes.

It wasn’t a bad idea, I guess. Sometimes you guys have good ideas. That was to leave room in the property tax space for them to charge property taxes to pay for transit.

What happened? Well, they kind of used up that room with other stuff. That’s fine. They make choices. They’re elected. They make choices. But now, as we move forward, if that bargain, if that deal no longer functions, if that doesn’t work anymore, that’s fine. I can accept that. But what do you say then to communities outside of the Lower Mainland when you let the Lower Mainland communities off the hook for that? I’m not sure what you say to them.

Now, maybe there’s something else to construct. I think there are other ways to do it, but you’re going to have to square that circle some way. Either it means that when you give the additional provincial moneys to Metro Vancouver, you’re going to tell them: “Well, okay. We’re giving you this money, but now you’re going to have to pay for your 40 percent hospital capital tax.” Or you’re going to have to have a pretty serious conversation with the rural communities to explain how you’re going to make it fair for them.

[11:40 a.m.]

Again, a missing piece — lots of money to put out the door from taxpayers from the provincial government, not a lot of answers about how all these other pieces are going to fit. We’re going to have to wait till February to hear how this story continues, what the next chapter will be. I’ve certainly outlined some of my concerns and some of the things that I think are missing from the throne speech.

I want to finish, though, with something that is related to both the budget and the throne speech. It was just a comment at the end of the comments of the Minister of Finance at the end of closing debate yesterday. It just struck me, and I got it pulled from Hansard, because I think it’s instructive as to how this government sees itself and its role.

She said the following. She talked about investments in the economy and jobs and how on our side, in discussing the budget, we had continued to say that they didn’t have plan for the economy and jobs. She pointed out that this was actually a difference between that side and this side. Here’s what she said. She said: “We will do that…by investing in the very citizens who helped build that strong economy.” It’s clear, if anybody wants to read the comments in full, that when she talks about investing in those very citizens, she’s talking about increased investment in programs and in services.

Well, I will end by saying that I think she’s right that this is the big difference. What we recognize on this side of the House is that in order to invest in the very citizens who helped build our strong economy, you actually have to take initiatives directly to build that economy and the jobs. That has to come before you have the funds to invest directly in services for people.

A. Weaver: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: I’d like to welcome 34 students from the University of Victoria’s Gustavson School of Business who are in the gallery today, along with their instructor, John Oldale, from the University of Victoria. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s a pleasure to be standing here and responding to the throne speech. I have to say, after 12 years and into my fourth term, it is a true pleasure, a real pleasure to be speaking about a platform, a plan, an agenda for people of B.C. — a plan that will really build a better B.C. for everyone.

It’s really exciting. I think it’s hard for people who haven’t been in here to quite gauge that sense of anticipation. To have heard the speech given by the Lieutenant-Governor — followed, a couple of days later, by the budget from the Minister of Finance…. It was a real joy and a privilege to hear the values and ideas that we, now on this side of the House, have cherished and continue to cherish and continue to work for, which is working for every single person in British Columbia — working on questions of affordability, on making sure that the services they expect are working for them, that the services provided by the government are there for them. Whether it is on the environment, whether it is on health care, whether it is education or whether it is post-secondary, it is there for people.

To make sure and to encourage a truly strong, sustainable economy, one that will take British Columbia not back in time, but will set us on a path for future development — it’s a joy to be able to talk about that.

Before I get into the details…. This is a debate, and I have to raise a couple of issues with the previous speaker, the member for Langley, who formerly had a fair number of roles when she was in government, including the job that I have at the moment: Minister of Transportation. She had Minister of Environment. She had a number of roles, so she understands quite a lot about what government is about. But she clearly doesn’t understand what the effects of 16 years of her government did to British Columbia. It is quite clear that she has…. I think this is true for everyone on that side of House. They haven’t actually realized yet the impact of 16 years of their government.

[11:45 a.m.]

I just wanted to pick up a couple of points that she raised — one about my ministry and our decision to make life affordable for people in the Lower Mainland by removing tolls for the Port Mann and the Golden Ears bridges, meaning that people can save about $1,500 a year for a family. Trucking companies can save more than $4,000 a year, which comes back to us, the consumers, the people of British Columbia, saving money.

What she forgot when she talked about how it might be something about demand management was the fact that we have the tolls to pay for the bridge, the bridge that was an extraordinarily inflated price thanks to, when they were in government, their gross mismanagement of the Port Mann project. It was a complete failure and ended up costing everyone a huge amount of money.

The other area that the former minister talked about that I would just like to pick up on is the investment in the economy. We are all committed to invest in our economy. What is different is that we are committed to invest in all our economy, right across the province — not just selected people, not just those who are friends of the government, but everyone.

So the member talked about wanting to provide jobs in small, rural communities. Well, as a result of the former government’s actions — 16 years of inaction in forestry — a small company, an important company in the North Island, has closed its doors after 90 years — 90 years, almost a century in business. W.D. Moore Logging had to shut up shop in Winter Harbour as a direct result of the actions and inactions of what that side of the House did, when they were in government, in our forestry sector.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This is why I’m so proud of what we’re going to be doing. We’re going to be working on behalf of everybody, whether they are a small logging contractor, whether they are somebody living in an urban environment, whether they are living in an island community or in the north of the province. We’re going to be working for everyone.

I’ve got to say that I find it very exciting, how much you can do in such a short time. We’ve been in government for just two months. The list of achievements is…. Really, I think if people stop to take it in, it surprises them. Everything from taking off the cost of adult basic education, which is going to have a huge impact…. We’re already seeing it in my constituency. In my community in Campbell River, the Robron Centre is now opening its doors and able to provide adult basic education free to people who need it, who need that upgrading so they can participate fully in our economy, in our society.

Whether it’s looking at — what for some reason has become a controversy this week — the fact that we are going to take big money out of politics…. We are banning corporate and union donations. We are going to make our democratic system, our parliamentary system, work for people, work for those people who rely on what we provide, by making it transparent, making it clear.

We have announced money going into housing — again, right across the province. My constituency…. Like everyone, I’m extraordinarily proud of my constituency and very humbled to be representing it and to have been elected for four terms now.

I look at my constituency as a sort of a microcosm of British Columbia, with Campbell River as the main centre. It’s a city of about 30,000 people, and it’s got a huge amount of good things. It has a new hospital that we are opening, and it has some industry — a lot less, thanks to 16 years of the B.C. Liberals in power. But it is a city that is changing its direction, changing its economic focus now. It has to, because it had two mills. Both have had to shut, since we’re still living with the impact of the forestry decisions by the former B.C. Liberal government.

Then we have large rural areas. They’ve got small communities. After Campbell River, there is no community with more than 5,000 population in my constituency, which is the top half of Vancouver Island. The islands that go up on the east side of Vancouver Island — that whole archipelago of the northern Discovery Islands, right up to Alert Bay — and then up into the mainland. In fact, if you look at a map, we actually have part of Tweedsmuir Park in my constituency. So up into the inlets, into the mainland where we have remote First Nations communities — Kingcome Inlet and others.

It’s a challenging riding. It’s obviously very exciting to travel around. It’s challenging, but it reflects what B.C. is like. It reflects the urban issues; it reflects the rural issues.

[11:50 a.m.]

As that, I can see the need that we have in our province, the need that has been neglected for 16 years and that this government is going to be acting on. We are looking at investing in our infrastructure. As the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, I’m extraordinarily pleased about this. We’ve already started acting on it. As I say, we’ve removed the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge and on the Golden Ears Bridge.

People in my own constituency look at me and say: “Yes, and? So what does that mean?” It means that if we can get people living and working in an affordable way, with services working in the Lower Mainland, it’s going to benefit the rest of the province. Likewise, getting people working in the rest of the province, making sure that our forest sector works, making sure that our communities are connected, is going to benefit everybody in the Lower Mainland.

We are a connected province. It is false and dangerous to create this urban-rural divide. I think that the opposition is trying very hard to make that a case. “Oh, you’re just urbanites. You have no sense of what rural life is. You really don’t know what rural people need.”

There are a number of members on this side of the House, on the government side of the House, who do represent rural areas, myself among them. I know the difficulties that people in rural communities face in trying to ensure that they are…. Dealing with distance from services, services that were taken out of their community by the B.C. Liberals when they were in government. The problems they have in accessing health care because health care was pulled back under that government. The problems their kids have in getting to university, getting a good quality education. That’s why I’m so proud of our government investing immediately in getting thousands of teachers back into the classroom.

Our government is just starting. We are anticipating four years of being able to chart a direction for everyone in British Columbia. A full budget will be coming next year. This is really just a highlight of what we can do, of the opportunities that we can give to people to make sure that their life is going to be affordable, that they can invest in their communities, that they….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Trevena: It’s very interesting. The opposition is heckling about actions that we’ve taken in just two months which are going to have more impact on the people of British Columbia and lay a better foundation for the future of everyone in British Columbia than the 16 years of the B.C. Liberals in charge.

I’m very proud that we are now government. The Premier has laid down a vision for the future. The Finance Minister has shown how we’re going to pay for it. We’ll continue to engage with people and make sure that we are delivering the services that people need, that people can live in an affordable way and get the services they need and that we do truly have a vibrant economy for the future.

Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place in the speaking order for when we resume the throne speech. I would like to adjourn debate.

Hon. C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.