2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 27, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 42, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill M224 — Endangered Species Act, 2017

A. Weaver

Bill 7 — Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act, 2017

Hon. N. Letnick

Bill M225 — Poverty Reduction and Economic Inclusion Act, 2017

M. Mungall

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SPCA Cupcake Day fundraiser and animal welfare advocacy

J. Thornthwaite

Marilyn Smith

L. Krog

Sea to Sky area tourism and environmental management

J. Sturdy

Jim Taylor and University Neighbourhoods Association

D. Eby

Dave Holmberg

S. Gibson

Gitanmaax Career Fair

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

Funding for Maple Ridge youth shelter

C. James

Hon. R. Coleman

M. Mungall

Homelessness in Metro Vancouver

G. Heyman

Hon. R. Coleman

Provincewide homelessness count

S. Robinson

Hon. R. Coleman

Public access to back-country areas on Vancouver Island

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Thomson

Video recording of NDP youth event

D. Eby

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Petitions

S. Fraser

M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

G. Holman

Hon. R. Coleman

D. Routley

Hon. S. Bond

K. Conroy

S. Hamilton

S. Robinson

R. Sultan

D. Eby

Hon. S. Cadieux

[ Page 13851 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13852 ]

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

[1340]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M224 — ENDANGERED

SPECIES ACT, 2017

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

Of note is the addition of a

section that changes how exemptions are made. Instead of being left to the discretion of the minister, under this new

section if government or industry want to take actions that will result in a species going extinct, it is required to go through an independent publicly disclosed board review.

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

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

[1345]

BILL 7 — PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO

ANIMALS AMENDMENT ACT, 2017

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

[ Page 13853 ]

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

BILL M225 — POVERTY REDUCTION AND

ECONOMIC INCLUSION ACT, 2017

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

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

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SPCA CUPCAKE DAY FUNDRAISER

AND ANIMAL WELFARE ADVOCACY

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

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

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

I want to thank the members of the SPCA, veterinarians, responsible breeders, the Canadian Kennel Club and the Canadian Cat Association for their input in developing this legislation and their tireless advocacy for animal welfare. I also want to encourage my fellow members to buy a cupcake and contribute what they can on National Cupcake Day. Together, we can bake a dif-

[ Page 13854 ]

ference and improve the lives of animals who need our help the most.

[1350]

MARILYN SMITH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEA TO SKY AREA TOURISM AND

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

JIM TAYLOR AND UNIVERSITY

NEIGHBOURHOODS ASSOCIATION

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

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

[1355]

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

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

[ Page 13855 ]

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

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

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

DAVE HOLMBERG

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

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

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

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

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

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

GITANMAAX CAREER FAIR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1400]

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR

MAPLE RIDGE YOUTH SHELTER

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

My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Where was the minister and where were the two

[ Page 13856 ]

local MLAs two years ago when this homeless shelter shut down?

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

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

They made that announcement to the community, but they also announced

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

Madame Speaker: Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1405]

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, Members.

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

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

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

[ Page 13857 ]

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

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

HOMELESSNESS IN METRO VANCOUVER

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

Interjections.

[1410]

Madame Speaker: Members.

Just wait.

Members, the Chair will hear the question.

Please continue.

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

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: There are 27,555 households in the city of Vancouver that receive assistance from this government every month in operating funds. Just in the city of Vancouver, we spend over $200 million a year in operating costs for people who are homeless — mental health, addicted and needing supports — across the community

[ Page 13858 ]

for housing. In addition to that, we’ve added shelter space, and I can tell you what it was: 720 spaces in 2001. Over 2,000 24-hour spaces in Vancouver today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

[1415]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

PROVINCEWIDE HOMELESSNESS COUNT

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

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

[ Page 13859 ]

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

Minister.

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

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

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

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

[1420]

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

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

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Minister, just wait.

Please continue.

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

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

[ Page 13860 ]

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC ACCESS TO BACK-COUNTRY

AREAS ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

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

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

[1425]

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

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

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

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13861 ]

protection of the values in those areas — and mostly, public safety.

VIDEO RECORDING OF NDP YOUTH EVENT

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

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

[1430]

At a minimum, this violates

part 3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It violated the privacy rights of these youth.

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

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

[End of question period.]

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

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Petitions

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

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

[1435]

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

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

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

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

This government has taken debt from about $34 or $35 billion, and at the end of the forecast period, that will be

[ Page 13862 ]

approximately doubled to about $78 billion. In the term of this Premier alone, she’s run up debt to the tune of $21 or $22 billion in a space of five or six years. That’s unprecedented in the history of British Columbia. That truly is a record — not one to necessarily be proud of.

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

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

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

[1440]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1445]

We moved into that home, and that home allowed us to build a little bit of equity and save some money. I bought

[ Page 13863 ]

a lot ten miles north of Brooks, Alberta, for $2,000 on a cul-de-sac. There I built our first home — our first home that wasn’t a manufactured home.

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

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

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

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

These are all people who are buying their first home, and they’ve been approved. They’ve been preapproved for their mortgage and their home, and they can go out and buy. It also includes places like Fort Nelson and Osoyoos and Okanagan Falls. As a matter of fact, if you go through the province of British Columbia, you actually find out new names of places where people are going to buy their home, like in Baldonnel, which is in the Peace River area, or Rolla and Pouce Coupe, and places like Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes as well.

Lillooet, Gibsons, Half Moon Bay, Madeira Park, Chase, and the list goes on and on. Today over 500 people have been approved to go buy their first home in just over a month since the program was launched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1450]

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

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

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

[ Page 13864 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1455]

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13865 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13866 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1505]

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

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

I know that the members opposite would like to just attack us on this issue.

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

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

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

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

The fact of the matter is there’s actually been about $20 billion invested in B.C. as a result of pursuing LNG. Just as a result of approving LNG, AltaGas recently announced its final investment decision to build a propane port in Prince Rupert.

The activity and the drilling that’s been taking place, for people to be prepared to prove out the resource for an LNG opportunity, has also brought on the fact that we’ve learned we have benzene, methane, propane — the liquids, they call it in natural gas, which are all the by-products — which now has proven to turn out that we in the northeast part of our province have one, if not the one, of the richest reserves in the world with regards to combination in natural gas.

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

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

I want to talk about First Nations for a minute. I was asked to go in by the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, as the Deputy Premier of the Premier, to be the government-to-government negotiator for the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council in British Columbia. The Carrier-Sekani Tribal

[ Page 13867 ]

Council is made up of seven First Nations groups. We negotiated a pipeline benefit agreement and some other agreements that led to agreement for pathways agreement on resource development, on forestry and on education.

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

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1515]

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

That’s what budgets are all about: they’re about choices, and they reflect principles — the choices made by a government and the choices made by a parent when they’re budgeting. If the parent decided that the new car in the driveway was more important than housing and clothing and food for the children, that would say something about their principles. And it says something about the principles of this government that it leaves children in

[ Page 13868 ]

care and seniors languishing without the attention, support and resources that they need, while they brag to British Columbians about a surplus that they extracted from the pockets of ratepayers.

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

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

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

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

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

[1520]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 13869 ]

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

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

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

[1525]

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

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

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

We see an overdose and addiction crisis in this province that is costing lives and that this government refused to deal with. The B.C. NDP offered a private member’s bill to ban pill presses. This government refused to even debate it, said it wasn’t a problem and then, a year later, criticized and identified the job to be the job of the federal government. “The federal government should do that.” Well, we’re glad the federal government is going to ban pill presses — a step that this government refused to do a year earlier. We see children dying on the streets.

We see people who are recreational users and long-term addicts dying because of the fentanyl crisis. And what have we seen? We’ve seen from a slow to no reaction from the B.C. Liberal government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1530]

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

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

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

[ Page 13870 ]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

Deputy Speaker: Member, hold on.

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

The member will continue.

[ Page 13871 ]

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

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

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

And if the member opposite doesn’t think that that compelled me to want to come to this chamber and continue my work, in elected office, to try to improve the circumstances for seniors….

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

[ Page 13872 ]

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every member of this House believes that. There’s not a monopoly on caring. People come here and are elected

[ Page 13873 ]

for the right reasons, I believe, because they want to make British Columbia a better place.

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

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

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

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

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

[1555]

Let’s look at some of the facts. In 2011, we were third in Canada in economic growth. Today we lead the country. In 2011, we ranked ninth in Canada for jo