2016 Legislative Session: Fifth 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)

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

On the amendment (continued)

C. James

Hon. J. Rustad

A. Weaver

On the subamendment

A. Weaver

Hon. T. Wat

On the amendment (continued)

H. Bains

J. Yap

J. Darcy

Hon. S. Anton

M. Elmore

Hon. A. Virk

J. Shin

On the main motion

J. Shin

[ Page 10617 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Allow me to warmly welcome June Draude, visiting from Kelvington-Wadena in Saskatchewan and a member of the Saskatchewan Legislature for more than 21 years. Please make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. Rustad: I call the continued debate on the amendment to the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

C. James: I rise to speak in support of the amendment to the budget. I think it’s probably a very good thing that we had a lunch hour between the closing of the remarks by the Minister of Natural Gas and for Housing and my response, because I have to say I think I probably would have got myself into trouble. So I think it’s best that there was a break and time to take a walk around the block and think about the words that had been said by the minister.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I start that way not because I get upset at the other side insulting us or our policies. We are all fair game. We are all in here as politicians. We are all in here making a decision about issues. We have a right to have that debate and that divide and that difference of opinion. But I have to say that what upsets me is the lack of respect and the lack of regard for differences of opinion or for the reality that people are facing in British Columbia. That, I have to say, from the minister in particular, was very hard to take, and it makes this amendment even more critical.

I just want, for those who are listening, to just read the amendment again. This is a proposed amendment to Budget 2016. The amendment says: “That the government recognize the cumulative effect of the increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families.”

So why is this amendment important? Why do I believe it’s important, and why do I believe this is an amendment that should be supported? Why would this amendment come forward? Why would we, on this side of the House, bring this amendment forward?

[1335]

Well, I think listening to the minister before lunch make his comments pointed out to me how critical it is to bring an amendment like this forward to ensure that the voices of British Columbians that have been forgotten by this government are heard in this Legislature — that they have a right to have their views clearly pointed out, a right to have the reality that they are living each and every day on the record in this Legislature, and that should be recognized as part of Budget 2016.

This is a voice that it’s clear from the budget is not being listened to, has not been listened to and certainly now is not being listened to.

You know what? I heard members on the other side, and I’ve heard members during the budget debate, stand up and talk about the strong economy we have in British Columbia. I heard a member on the other side the other day talk about B.C. being the envy of Canada. Well, a budget exists and a strong economy exists, from my point of view, to benefit all British Columbians. That’s why you have a strong economy.

I hope that our economy in British Columbia continues to grow. I hope our economy is strong. I hope we have diversity. I hope that industries will continue to build and to grow. But as they do, that should benefit all British Columbians. As we point out in this amendment, it’s clear that that’s not being recognized by this government. It’s clear that this amendment is critically important to be able to really point out the pressures that families are facing.

This government has done more than simply ignore the pressures that families are facing. They’ve actually made that pressure worse. The families that I talk to each and every day in my own community, whether it’s simply being in the community, grocery shopping, out for a walk, or whether it’s people who come to my constituency office…. It is not the issue for families that they expect government to solve all their problems. They don’t.

In fact, the people that come to me are usually reluctant to come to their MLA. It’s an avenue of last resort. They’ve tried to fix challenges and problems themselves. People are proud. They’re working hard, they’re trying to get by, and they’re trying to manage. When they come to talk to their MLA, they’re usually, as I said, at the end of their rope. They’re not wanting government to fix everything. But they certainly don’t expect their government to make their life tougher. They don’t expect their government to make it more difficult for them to get by.

As this amendment speaks to, the cumulative effect of the increases to a range of taxes since this government has come in, in 2001, has made life tougher for British Columbians. Whether families or seniors, whether singles, whether young people, people are struggling to get by.

[ Page 10618 ]

When they hear the government stand up and talk about taxes being low, about everything being the best in British Columbia, it’s insulting to those individuals who are doing everything right, who are trying to get by, often working two jobs, often juggling and trying to manage child care and manage their rent. They know that things haven’t gotten better. They know that it’s difficult.

I want to take just a minute, as we’ve done in our amendment, to talk a little bit about what those areas are, where the difficulties for families are coming from, where the difficulties for adults and children and seniors are coming from. It’s very clear that although the government can call them fees, call them increases, call them whatever they want, these are taxes, plain and simple.

In fact, the Premier, before she was elected Premier, actually said that herself. She said herself that you actually have to include all of the cumulative costs on families to really know the burden that people are facing. It’s ridiculous to think that you wouldn’t include the cost of MSP taxes, that you wouldn’t include the cost of hydro rates, that you wouldn’t include those costs that families have to pay for, because that adds to their burden. They are taxes.

Let’s start off with hydro rates. Hydro rates not only have increased over the last number of years but, in fact, are going to continue to increase for the next years, as the government has identified, all the way through to 2018, under this government.

[1340]

We’ve seen, since 2001, a 74 percent increase in hydro rates, and this year, 2016, we’re going to see a 4 percent increase in hydro rates. In 2017, we’re going to see a 3.5 percent increase in hydro rates, and in 2018, a 3 percent increase in hydro rates. That’s an average of more than $300 for a family. That’s a lot of money for a family that is struggling to get by.

Hydro isn’t one of those optional things. It’s not one of those areas where you can say: “Well, I just won’t take hydro. I won’t worry about it. I don’t have to have the increases.” People need hydro. They need their lights on. Often, in many places, hydro is heat for families. They’re having to make very tough decisions and tough choices to try and manage this kind of bill by the end of the year.

I think the other impact on hydro rates that is important to recognize…. In fact, even the government acknowledged that it’s a problem in an announcement that they made a few weeks ago. Hydro and competitive hydro rates was always one of the real advantages to British Columbia. It was one of the areas when businesses — whether it was mining, manufacturing or other businesses — were looking to British Columbia to invest…. Those competitive hydro rates provided us with a great opportunity to be able to attract investors. Clean energy and competitive rates were a great opportunity to bring that investment here to British Columbia.

Now, with the rates going up, we’re losing our competitive edge. We’re losing the ability to be able to attract investment because of those competitive rates.

You saw it in the government’s announcement. They’ve said to mining: “We’re going to defer, for now, your hydro rates.” Well, that’s a pretty clear statement that they know that it’s a problem. They know those hydro rates are a problem.

Yet what does this government do? Well, a whole range of things, including continuing to take a dividend from hydro into government coffers, which could go back into supporting, again, competitive rates, supporting families, as we point out in our amendment, supporting hard-working British Columbians. But no, that’s not the direction the government decided to take.

What about the medical services premium tax? This tax, again…. I heard the minister before lunch stand up and say that it was important to have a medical services premium tax because that made sure that people understood that health care costs them money.

That’s the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard. I’ve heard a lot of arguments coming on issues, but that is a ridiculous argument — to say that the public doesn’t understand that health care costs and to say that the public doesn’t understand that their taxes and MSP don’t, in fact, cover health care costs.

The public knows that health care has a cost to it. The public knows that we have to contribute. But why would we contribute through a regressive tax system like the MSP where if you’re making $50,000 a year or you’re making $1 million a year as a family, you pay the same amount in MSP taxes? How does that provide fairness for British Columbians? How does that support our health care system or any other system? It doesn’t.

It fits along with the other promise that the government made long ago when they said that you were going to see medical services premium taxes raised with the increase in the health care budget, that as the health care budget was increased by a percentage, you’d see the medical services tax increase by a percentage. Well, that went out the window as well.

You’ve seen a 108 percent increase in medical services premium taxes since 2001, and you will see, all families will see, a 4 percent increase this year and next year under this government. That’s incredible, when you take a look at the pressure that that adds for families — $1,797 a year, more than doubling the income tax that the family pays.

Again, when the government says, “We keep taxes low,” well, you add on the amount — or more — that they’re already paying in income tax in medical services tax. I’ll come back to the budget itself and the specifics that were in the budget around the medical services tax as well.

The government admitted in this budget that the medical services tax is not fair. They tinkered around the edges. I’ll speak a little bit more about that as I go along.

Why they didn’t just make a commitment that they were going to begin the work to get rid of the medical services premium tax…. I think the public is scratch-

[ Page 10619 ]

ing their heads, trying to figure out why the government, once again, decided to ignore the pressure that families and British Columbians are facing.

[1345]

What about ICBC rates? Well, yes, we saw those rates go up as well. Basic rates have increased 48 percent since 2001. In 2016, they’re expected to go up between 4 and 7 percent this year. Again, taking a look at the amendment, how can the government say that they’ve taken into account what families are facing if they haven’t looked at the cumulative impact of all of these taxes and additional fees and services that the public is now paying?

For those people who have to go back and forth on the ferry…. Obviously, I’m a Vancouver Island MLA, and many of my colleagues are. But there are also many people who travel back and forth for business, for family, from the Lower Mainland to the Island. What about ferry fares? Ferry fares have increased 77 percent since 2001. That’s for a family of four going between Vancouver and Victoria.

If you were travelling on the smaller routes — between Nanaimo and Gabriola, for example — that’s gone up 100 percent under this government. It will continue to go up 1.9 percent each year for the next four years. Again, coming back to the amendment, the cumulative impact on families, on British Columbians, is very clear when you take a look at all of these fees and services.

Similar to hydro rates, ferry fare increases don’t simply impact families and people living on Vancouver Island. It has a huge impact on the economy of Vancouver Island. It has a huge impact on economic growth on Vancouver Island — the costs, of course, of goods and services coming back and forth. The cost of doing business back and forth increases.

There was a wonderful report done by the Vancouver Island municipal association a couple of years ago that was brought to the minister at the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting to talk about those pressures, to try and have the minister recognize the real difficulty that it causes us on Vancouver Island. And yet, again, that was ignored. The fees and services continued to grow.

Post-secondary education. All those people who are working hard, working that second job, trying to put a little bit aside to be able to send their child to university or to college or to a training program…. Tuition has more than doubled under this government.

Even seniors aren’t exempt. Long-term-care for seniors rates have increased — in 2003, 2010, 2011 — by 93 percent, so at an incredibly vulnerable time for families, looking at a family member moving into long-term care and having to make those tough decisions, having to look at the economics of being able to support that as a family. And does this government make it easier for them? No. This government makes it tougher by again increasing the cost.

I haven’t even mentioned a whole range of fees and services, including park fees that the government decided to raise again this year, as they did in 2015, as they did in 2010, 2008, 2005 and 2003. Even that little bit of vacation that many families look at as “perhaps that’ll be affordable” has continued to increase.

It’s not simply anecdotal to take a look at the impact that this is having on families. The statistics show that as well. The statistics show that it’s harder and harder for families to get by.

One of the statistics that I think really points that out is the fact that B.C.’s consumer debt is the highest in the country. It’s a report by the B.C. Chartered Professional Accountants. It’s not the New Democrats saying that. It’s the chartered accountants saying that per-capita debt — every adult and child in British Columbia — was $10,000 higher than the national average, $58,621. That’s huge.

That’s a huge pressure for families that they’re facing, a huge difficulty for them. The people that I know that go into debt only do it for the necessities and then worry and worry about how they’re ever going to get themselves out of that. How are they going to be able to put a little bit aside?

[1350]

The other statistic that really pointed that out is the use of payday loans. Vancity did a report around the use of payday loans in British Columbia between 2012 and 2014, right in that time period when we saw the government and all of their budgets increasing fees and services and costs to British Columbians.

What did they find when they did this survey? They found out there’s been a 58 percent growth in the use of payday loans — higher than anywhere else across the country — right here in British Columbia. They did a survey of individuals who were using payday loans to talk to them about what they were using payday loans for. I think sometimes people imagine that someone’s going to a payday loan for a vacation or for something extra. Well, in fact, what they found is that people are using payday loans for necessities because they’re not able to manage to pay their rent and their hydro bill and their MSP bill.

These are not extras we’re talking about. These are the basics that families are struggling with.

Again, when you look at the next statistic, I think it’s no surprise to anybody. If you look at wage growth in British Columbia — which, again, is a very important indicator around the strength of a province; is the economy benefiting everyone, which it should be — B.C. is ninth compared to anywhere else in the country. I think it’s no surprise when you look at the poverty rates, when you look at one in five children living in poverty in British Columbia, when you look at the fact that we once again have the highest child poverty rate in this country — right here in British Columbia.

It’s a shameful statistic that all of us should be driving and working towards ending, that all of us should be making a commitment in this Legislature.

In fact, we have tried. We have come up with ideas for poverty reduction plans. We put legislation forward over

[ Page 10620 ]

the number of years — certainly, since I was elected in 2005. We’ve tabled that legislation every year since. And we are the only province left now in this entire country that doesn’t have a child poverty reduction strategy — the only province. We stand alone. Yes, we’re number one. We’re number one at not having a child poverty reduction plan.

That’s not something I hear the government members standing up and being proud of. That needs to be fixed. That needs to be changed. That is a statistic that we should all be working towards eliminating. It shows why this amendment is so important because the government often likes to pretend that life is just fine for everybody in British Columbia, and it’s not.

Just think what it might look like if a government actually passed this amendment and actually recognized the cumulative impacts of increases in MSP premiums, increases in that unfair tax; increases in hydro rates; increases in ICBC premiums; and all the other fees and hidden taxes on British Columbians. Step 1 might be that hard-working British Columbians actually become first on the priority list by this government. That might happen if we actually looked at the cumulative impact. I always like to hope. I always like to be an optimist.

But if we look at Budget 2016, that’s not what we saw. In fact — I think this is what angers people — when the government says that a budget is about choices and they’ve made choices…. Last year we heard the Finance Minister say it was time for everybody to tighten their belt. It was time for everyone to recognize that the economy was still fragile. We all had to be cautious when it comes to spending. Yet while the government says that on one hand, on the other hand, they do actually find resources in the budget. They did actually find $230 million, and they decided to use that $230 million to give the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia a tax break.

At a time when families are struggling, at a time when the cumulative impact — as our amendment shows — has a real impact on how people are getting by, the government says: “Oh, but we can find $230 million. We can put that aside for millionaires in B.C. They don’t need to wait for anything. We’ll give them a break.”

That was in last year’s budget. That’s again in this year’s budget. I would imagine that even the members on the other side would understand how that might make someone angry — someone who is just trying to get by, who isn’t able to put anything away, paycheque to paycheque, who lives in fear that their secondhand car is going to break down and of how they are going to manage to get to work.

[1355]

Or what if their child needs dental work, and they don’t have any money put aside? Or what if an emergency happens, and they have to miss a day of work because their child is sick and they need to come home? There isn’t any extra. There isn’t any give for so many families in British Columbia.

I hear those stories in my office. I see those people in tears who aren’t able to save, who are trying to do everything right. And government just makes it tougher and tougher and tougher for them.

Those are the people who look and say: “You know, I get that times are tough. I get that we all have to be cautious with spending. But when the government can find $230 million and they can put it aside for the top 2 percent income earners, I think they probably could have managed for a while. I think they probably could have gotten by while we help the people who need it the most.”

That’s the difference in choices. That is the difference in philosophy. And that wasn’t the only thing. Budget 2016 actually made another choice by this government. They made another decision to find dollars.

The public will remember that the Premier has been talking about LNG and her laser focus on this industry and that there was going to be a prosperity fund, and the prosperity fund was going to solve all of the world’s problems. We were going to have no sales tax. We’re going to have debt-free B.C. You name it, and I think the Premier has listed it at one time or another as something that was going to be solved by the prosperity fund.

Yet here we are in 2016 — no LNG plant, as the Premier promised would happen, so no revenue coming in from LNG. Yet the Premier decides that in this budget, in 2016, she’ll take $100 million and put it aside and put it in this fantasy fund. That’s $100 million not from increased revenue from an imaginary industry that the Premier talks about and hopes might arrive some day. It’s $100 million of taxpayer money that has gone into the Premier’s fantasy fund so she can save herself embarrassment by saying money is in that fund.

I’m sorry. The public sees through that. They see the pressures every single day that they’re facing. They know the struggles that they have paycheque to paycheque. They know that this government made a choice to take that money, to take that money away from offering any kind of relief or any kind of support to them and their family.

As I have said, and as we’ve said in our amendment, there are many choices that the Premier could have made. Did the Premier decide that she’d deal with increasing hydro rates for the families or ICBC premiums or tuition or ICBC rates?

Now, I mentioned tinkering around MSP. Yes, this government did say in this budget that they’re going to make some changes to MSP. They’ve admitted that it’s a bad tax. They’ve admitted it’s an unfair tax. Well, if a tax is unfair, you address it. The government didn’t address it. They said: “Yes, some people will get a break. But by the way, even those people who will get a break don’t get a break until January.”

The Premier didn’t wait to give a tax break to millionaires. She didn’t say to them: “Oh, you’ve got to hang on.

[ Page 10621 ]

We don’t quite have enough money yet.” The Premier didn’t wait to put $100 million in her fantasy fund and say: “Oh no, no. I think I’ll wait and see if the industry actually happens.”

But to hard-working British Columbians, to children, to others who are going to get the little bit of a break that the government offers in the budget? “Oh, you have to wait until January. And by the way, some of you actually will have to pay more after January. We’ll give some people a break, but others will actually have to pay more.”

The government is going to continue to collect more revenue from the medical services premium tax, more revenue in this budget. Don’t forget, in addition to all of this, your MSP premiums are going up 4 percent this year and 4 percent next year.

So even on the MSP tax, the public has to wait. The Premier makes her choices, once again, pretty clear for British Columbians. “You’re at the bottom of the list. You don’t come first. I’ll take care of my fantasy fund. I’ll take care of my embarrassment and not getting the industry to be here. I’ll take care of the top 2 percent in British Columbia, but you as families? No, sorry, you’re either out of luck, or the few of you that we’re going to provide support to, you’re going to have to wait.”

[1400]

I think nothing speaks more clearly to this than the issue of bus passes for disabilities. Again, when we’re taking a look at the government’s budget, they say to people with disabilities, “You’re going to get an increase every month, but by the way, we’re taking away the yearly bus pass, so now you’re going to have to pay for it every month,” and pretend that people should be grateful for that.

Well, I’ve been on the phone with people over the last couple of weeks, and I can tell you: they are not grateful. They are not grateful at all. They are angry, for good reason. That is the worst of the worst when it comes to politics, for a government to pretend: “Here, we’re giving you some great support, and you should be proud and pleased and happy about it,” and instead, sneakily, quietly: “We’re taking away your annual bus pass that used to cost $45 a year. And by the way, now you’re going to have to pay $52 a month for your bus pass.”

The poor individuals who have received this news are worried about how they’re going to manage things, who thought they were getting an increase and now find out they’re not. Or the increase is so small, it’s not going to make a difference for them.

That, again, speaks to the character of this Premier and this government, speaks to what the public has had to put up with over the last number of years, and speaks to the importance of this amendment, the importance of recognizing the pressures that people are facing — not pretending that everything’s fine, not pretending and telling families: “Don’t worry. Everything’s great in British Columbia. Everything’s rosy. Not sure why you’re complaining. If you’re complaining, I guess you’re part of that ragtag group of people that I’ve already called out as a Premier.” Unbelievable.

For those families who are struggling, who are trying to get by, and for those families with the highest increase in debt in this country, what did the government offer them?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Members, order.

C. James: They offered them an insult, and that’s what we see so often from this government.

I would encourage members to go back and take a look at the amendment again, to ask what the harm is in collecting the cumulative impact of all the fees and services and hidden taxes that this government has put on families. Why would you be against actually looking at the reality that families are facing? I guess the government would be against that, because they haven’t done anything to help families. In fact, they’ve made it worse. With that, I’ll take my seat.

Hon. J. Rustad: I’m pleased to have an opportunity to join this debate, speaking against the amendment but in favour of the budget. As always, it is a tremendous pleasure to have the honour and opportunity to be able to speak in this Legislature on behalf of my constituents in Nechako Lakes and to have a chance to also be able to be involved in a government that is making a such a real and positive change for the people in British Columbia.

I want to start, of course, with recognizing we’re on the traditional territory of the Lekwungen people but also to take a moment to recognize the hard-working people that are in my office. In my constituent office up in Vanderhoof, with Nadine Frenkel and Lori Derkson, they do great work on behalf of me, for my constituents and within the riding. We often don’t get to have as much time in our riding as we’d like. I just want to thank them for the work they’re doing.

I also, of course, want to recognize the people in my ministerial office, here in Victoria: Cameron Ehl, who’s my chief of staff; as well as Ed Sem, who is my executive assistant; Connie Roberts and Rani Sketchley — all of them do great jobs — and, of course, Lisa Leslie, in communications.

But I think probably the one thing I really want to say is to thank my lovely wife, Kim, and my family. Without their support, without their care and love, there’s no way I would be able to have an opportunity to do this in the first place.

Before I go into my remarks on this, I do want to just maybe make reference to the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill in terms of some of the comments she just made.

[1405]

[ Page 10622 ]

I don’t know whether to use the phrase from the member for Cowichan Valley and talk about jiggery-pokery or to perhaps talk about fertilizer, but whichever case it may be, there’s a lot of misinformation that I’d like to be able to correct. In particular, I find it very interesting…. The member opposite was talking about hydro rates, and I’m talking about the challenge around losing competitive rates and losing competitive challenges. We are the third most competitive regime in North America. We remain that.

But, unlike in the 1990s, we’re actually seeing over $2 billion a year investment in infrastructure, badly needed investment that meets not only the needs of the day but the needs for our future.

But what I find most interesting is, when the member talks about it, hidden behind there seems to be an implied policy — that, for something, perhaps they would like to see ratepayers’ increase on rates, or taxpayers in particular, to be able to compensate what rates would be. I wonder if the member opposite would care to talk about raising taxes to offset hydro rates, if that seems to be what they’re planning to do.

On MSP, we have done an incredible thing here in this budget in the changes that are happening. There are approximately now two million people in British Columbia that will no longer be paying MSP — two million people. Think about that. It’s quite remarkable, in terms of what those changes will do and what the benefits will be for those people that will no longer have to be paying MSP or will be paying those reduced rates.

On post-secondary education. The member talked about our rates going up, yet she will stand and vote against the budget. She stood and voted against having the education savings account created for students to help offset some of those costs of post-secondary education.

The one that I find perhaps most rich is when the members opposite talk about child poverty and child poverty rates. So let’s talk about that. After a 38 percent increase in the 1980s in child poverty rates, what happened in the 1990s when the NDP were in power? The rates went up. Child poverty rates went up by 42 percent.

Those numbers are verifiable. Any stats will show it. And yet, since we’ve been in power, child poverty rates have dropped greater than any other jurisdiction, any other government in British Columbia’s history, to levels not seen since the 1980s. That’s a remarkable improvement that we’re proud of. We are making significant improvement on those issues.

I do want to get an opportunity to talk a little bit about the things that are in the budget and, of course, why I oppose this amendment and support the budget. Doing a budget, going through this process, is about making hard choices. It’s about finding balance, and it’s about taking all things into consideration.

Now, I know that the members opposite would just love to raise taxes or, perhaps, just put a massive deficit on the future children that somebody else would have to pay for. I get that. That’s why we have reduced our operating debt to the point now where, within a few short years, we’ll actually have eliminated our operating debt.

That’s the debt on groceries that has accumulated since the 1970s. Today we are now at a point where that has been reduced down to the point, once again, back to the early 1980s. But what this also does — the fiscal responsibility in being able to do this — is it allows us to be able to invest. It allows us to be able to do the kinds of things that the people in British Columbia would like us to see happen.

And whether that is the type of changes that we have been able to do to MSP, whether it’s the $3 billion we’re adding to health care, whether it’s the other $1.5 billion we’re adding to government spending, which includes about $670 million through support in MCFD or in other…. I can’t remember the number. Was it two-hundred-and-some-odd million dollars, I believe, for social development, in terms of the work? All of this is because we have had fiscal discipline, and we’ve been able to do those kinds of investments.

The member opposite talked about bus passes. The increase that we have to the rates for people with disabilities is the most significant increase we’ve seen in quite some time. The members opposite, in their own budget plan, in their own platform, ran on a platform that, over two years, they’d add ten bucks a year. More than that will go to every single person with disabilities — plus flexibility to be able to make choices around transportation.

[1410]

One of the other pieces in the budget that I’m quite proud about is the $75 million that is there now for a rural dividend that will go to communities under 25,000 in the province. Rural communities drive a lot of economic development and a lot of what we want to see in terms of prosperity in this province. This is a way to be able to return a dividend of some of that activity back to those communities for the types of activities, the types of investments, that they want to see within their community.

In addition, the other things that I think are great. The farmers food donation tax credit. It’s a great initiative. I’ve got people in my riding and people in Burns Lake that want to be able to donate some of the vegetables that they grow to the food bank and get a credit for it. What a great idea. It’s a way to be able to help people and, at the same time, be able to help our agriculture industry.

Investing, of course, in transit. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation for the strategic investment, earlier this year, along Highway 16. That’ll help my communities. It’s a great investment and great dollars. That comes from fiscal discipline, from being able to do the right thing so that we can make those kinds of investments.

The $85 million to help establish the enhancement on forestry that we need to do. On top of that, the additional $10 million for strategic future wildfire prevention.

[ Page 10623 ]

Enhancement for property tax relief for tourism accommodation. The rural B.C. connectivity initiative. As well, the $19 million we’re putting in to help improve the way we do permitting and, hopefully, reduce some of those burdens that are on that. All of these, once again, are all about making choices and being able to do investments.

Support for the mining sector, which we announced earlier this year, is in this budget, as well, of course, as the prosperity fund. All of these things they’re going to vote against, and they’re going to vote against strictly on ideology. Not because we’re doing the right thing, or they say we’re doing the wrong thing, but because it’s ideology. They actually don’t want to see us making these kinds of investments, and that’s sad.

I want to tell you that under our government and our work with the federal government, there’s been a number of things that have been happening in and around my riding, things that I’m proud of that we’re able to invest in.

For example, in our partnership with the federal government, we’re investing $1.28 million into basic trades-training programs. In addition to that, through work we’re doing with First Nations, there’s significantly more investment in training that is going in through the area.

The village of Granisle, for the first time, will actually be able to have high-speed Internet and cell coverage. That’s an initiative that has came in for that community. Of course, we are partnering with various governments on things like lighting improvements for the Nechako Valley Sporting Association’s ski trails.

All of these things are about seeing improvements within the communities and making those investments that come from prudent fiscal management.

On the capital side, we’ve got new passing lanes going in on Highway 16. We’ve seen resurfacing, safety improvements, lighting, other types of things along the highway. All of these things, as well as on the side roads, are about making sure that the important transportation corridors help to develop our economy and help to make sure our economy stays as strong as can be. More importantly, they make it safe for people that are travelling those roads. They’re critical for what we need to see from my riding.

Overall, though, the budget, in making choices, also helps us to be able to do the types of things that I’m doing within my ministry. Under the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, we do see a small uplift in the budget that’ll give us that opportunity to be able to do continued and further engagement with First Nations.

What we’re doing, and all the types of agreements and things that we’ve entered into — we’ve now entered into over 400 economic and reconciliation agreements with First Nations — have helped to drive entrepreneurialism. We’re now at a place where there are more than 1,200 private companies founded by aboriginal entrepreneurs that are making a difference for their families and their communities. These companies are helping to build that prosperity and drive the economy — the things that we are all here and want to see happen that can bring about real change.

The agreements that we have completed, in terms of government to government, have been based on fairness, trust and respect. They create the certainty that we do want to see. More importantly, though, they work in partnership. As we go forward and do these things, we don’t do them in isolation. We work with the nations. We’re invited in, and we do this kind of work.

I want to point out in a short bit here where there’s a stark difference for the opposition in their approach with our aboriginal people.

Like I say, we’ve increased the budget. We’ve got improvement, more money coming in, in terms of the First Nations clean energy business fund. We expect to see that.

[1415]

There are additional resources that are going out to First Nations through these agreements, through the revenue-sharing side. All of this, once again, is changing lives.

I’ve had First Nations chiefs that we’ve signed agreements with, with tears in their eyes because they know the difference being able to do this and build these partnerships will make for those First Nations.

Along those lines, one of the things we’re very proud about is the work we’re doing with liquefied natural gas. We have been out engaging with nations right across the north. We’ve been out talking about the things that they want to see happening, the way that they want to see priorities come forward for their people and how to do these types of projects respectfully and in partnership with nations.

We now have, across the north, at least one pipeline agreement with virtually every nation. More than 62 pipeline benefits agreements have been signed with First Nations, all of this around making sure that as activity happens on the land base, they are receiving revenues from that activity and benefiting from the activities on their traditional territories.

In addition to that, we’ve got agreements in terms of site locations. We’ve got additional agreements upstream in terms of where the gas is being extracted. We’ve layered on an environmental stewardship initiative, which drives positive environmental legacies by First Nations for First Nations and for all of us here in British Columbia.

On the training side, we’ve got agreements in place where we’ve seen the first batch of students that came in. There are more than 1,000 now, but in the first program that came in under this, 115 students went in, and every last one of them is working. The average salary is, I think, around $19.50 an hour. About $3.5 million in wages have been paid over the last year to those individuals. That is life-changing for those people, for their families and what that will do for their communities. We’re proud of this kind of work, being able to reach out and build this.

[ Page 10624 ]

I have to tell you. As we build this and we talk about this, there is a stark contrast in the actions we’re seeing from the opposition versus what we’re doing in reaching out. In particular, I want to point out the members from Stikine and Skeena and Prince Rupert. I know their passion and their opposition to seeing things happen. What I find most interesting is….

If, on the government side, we were to go out and have a group of people go out and go onto somebody’s territory, oppose a project or create some sort of statement, what do you think the reaction would be from the opposition? Do you think they would be somewhat indignant if they weren’t invited? Do you think they might be in the halls or in the House asking questions?

Yet this is exactly what we’ve seen the opposition do. They have a double standard in this. When they go forward in opposition to projects in the northwest, they really should take into account and do so in a respectful manner, respecting the First Nations, respecting rights and title, respecting the governance of those nations.

I want to read you a statement that was made from the Tsimshian leaders concerning the proposed project at Lelu Island. This was from November 9, 2015, and it reads:

“In Prince Rupert, there are five Tsimshian nations who assert their aboriginal rights and title over this area. It is those Tsimshian nations who the Crown and the proponent have the obligation to consult and resolve any adverse environmental and economic impacts of their major developments. It is the Tsimshian nations that will determine what is in the best interest, while respecting the interests of our neighbours.

“We are equally concerned about the potential impacts of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project on the Skeena River fishery. The Tsimshian Environmental Stewardship Authority is protecting Tsimshian interests in the federal environmental process. We ensured that the environmental process was put on hold in order to better understand the research and impacts on Flora Bank. Additional scientific work is near completion, and TESA” — the Tsimshian Environmental Stewardship Authority — “is conducting its own independent review of the work. When we have all the evidence and answers to our questions, only then will we decide.

“We are perplexed that those opposing the project are coming to conclusions before key evidence is heard and finalized.

[1420]

“We expect respectful consultation and engagement, not media pressure tactics. We are very disappointed the outside interests that have signed a joint letter opposing the project have not consulted with our nations nor waited for all the evidence.”

That, from November 9, was signed by a number of the chiefs of the Tsimshian nation as a letter in regards to actions that the members opposite actually took, disrespectfully, on their traditional territory.

Today, now that we have the environmental assessment work that has been completed…. And the member for Skeena earlier in his speech said the federal scientists back in 1972 said the project shouldn’t go forward. He respected the work of the federal scientists back then. Yet what did the federal scientists say today that he ignores? They say today that there is no significant impact on the Skeena from this project.

I want to provide some additional quotes with regards to the CEA findings. This is from Don Roberts, the Chief of Kitsumkalum First Nation — once again, from February 15, 2016. “As we review CEA’s findings, and we have the assurances that the project will not impact the Skeena fishery, it enables us to consider social and economic benefits for our members like training of our younger generation.”

From Chief Joe Bevan, the chief councillor of Kitselas — also from February 15, 2016. He says: “All of our leaders and people have been weighing the benefits against the potential impacts through multiple public meetings. We are encouraged that the proponent has undertaken significant additional work to address concerns and that the independent scientists at CEA have validated this work.”

It’s one thing to stand up against a project. I understand the role of opposition to oppose, but it’s another thing to do things disrespectfully, and it is certainly another thing to deny opportunities that First Nations are thirsty for which build communities and support families right throughout the north and especially in the northwest, where it is most needed.

I think the members opposite should really think twice when they are trying to address these types of things and really consider what they are actually standing and opposing. It’s not about politics; it’s about people. It’s about the environment, and it’s about building positive futures.

Here’s another quote from the Terrace Standard on January 26, 2016. “The chiefs are extremely disappointed that the local Member of Parliament, Skeena NDP MP Nathan Cullen, who attended the summit, and provincial NDP MLAs would choose to sign and comment on a project without any prior consultation and involvement in Tsimshian communities.” Is this the policy of the NDP in their approach with First Nations? I wonder.

When I think about what LNG will be and the differences it will make, this is why we set up things like a prosperity fund. There’s approximately $20 billion that has been invested in British Columbia today by companies that are pursuing liquefied natural gas. We have decided to take a small portion to set the prosperity fund up, to get it in place and put the rules around how we will manage dollars that come in to that prosperity fund and our ability to be able to build it over time as liquefied natural gas develops here in British Columbia.

It’s an important part about how we build our future. It’s an important part about how we leave a legacy for generations to come. It’s something I think everyone in this province should be proud of — that we’ve set this up and we’re actually looking at trying to find a way to save dollars, to pay down debt and to make that difference for future generations. Unlike the members opposite that seem to…. All they want to do is borrow from the future or tax the people today beyond their ability to be able to pay.

[ Page 10625 ]

As we go forward, within my ministry, we will continue this good work that we’re doing with nations: the work that we’re doing with the Tsilhqot’in in respecting the Supreme Court decision, working through title issues; the work that we’re doing with nations right across the province and the agreements we’re entering; whether it’s skills training, whether it’s the clean energy funding and the types of projects that we want to do through clean energy; whether it is the myriad of other types of agreements, the work we’re doing on treaty and working with our partners on that, finding ways to reach long-term reconciliation.

[1425]

More importantly for the people in my riding, it’s how we find ways to be able to build a future that people can be optimistic about. One of the key things that this budget talks about and that we have continued to talk about for years is the fact we have a triple-A credit rating. The people in my riding are proud of this. They are happy that we have this kind of a rating.

What it shows, ultimately, is the report card on the way British Columbia operates — not downgrades that we saw in the ’90s under the NDP, but triple-A and stable at a time when no other jurisdiction in Canada can say that — balancing the budget, moving forward and having surpluses, building those opportunities for the future, and making sure that we aren’t paying excessive amounts of interest and that we are able to afford making the type of capital and strategic investments we need within British Columbia.

Throughout our time — what this budget talks about, which, quite frankly, is in direct opposition to what the amendment talks about — we have found a balance. We’ve been able to make strategic investments. We’ve been able to make operational investments. We’ve been able to reach relationships with First Nations and develop the kinds of things that we want to see in this province.

We’ve been able to do all these things because of fiscal management, because of a budget that is in place that sets a proper road, sets a good road that allows us, as British Columbia, to be able to dream, to be able to help develop things like liquefied natural gas, to be able to provide supports for mining, to be able to support our forest industry and the rest of our resource industries, find support for rural B.C., communities like mine that I represent. Most importantly, it shows how we can be respectful to taxpayers while at the same time providing the supports that they want to see.

Over this next year, we will continue to engage in our agreements with nations. We’ll continue to work with communities like mine in how we try to develop the economy.

I very much look forward to the work that is coming over the course of this next year, particularly on liquefied natural gas. I know what it can mean for so many people. I know what it will do for this economy and its future. Projects like Site C — where we had, in Prince George, 1,000 people come out for a jobs fair. Up in the Peace country, 3,000 people came out for it — not people in protest but people looking to build their futures.

As a government, it’s incumbent upon us to find those opportunities so that the people of this province can build their positive futures, can seek the type of work and opportunities they want, support their families and, ultimately, so that British Columbia will continue to lead all of Canada.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the motion put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston and seconded by the member for Port Coquitlam: “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following, ‘That the government recognize the cumulative effect of the increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families.’”

I rise in support of this for numerous reasons. The first, of course, is that this government is proud of its triple-A credit rating and its balanced budget. I am proud of the balanced budget. However, the choices this government has made are such that it is those who can least afford it who are the ones paying the costs of balancing the budget.

It’s a biased budget, one that puts the poor, those with disabilities, those who can barely make ends meet and families second. It puts vested interests, the development industry, first and foremost.

This government touts the fact, through self-congratulatory rhetoric, that it is fiscally responsible. Let me be very clear: this government is fiscally reckless.

Take Site C, for example — the biggest item by far in the budget that is not being addressed in detail, an item with an $8.7 billion price tag that will almost certainly come around $12 billion to $13 billion when all is said and done. It’s a project that received virtually no attention in this budget and only had one line item to it. That’s Site C, as mentioned previously, by the minister before me.

[1430]

The Premier recently stated that she wanted to move this project “past the point of no return.” But in her haste to get to yes, she is throwing fiscal caution to the wind. The government is pushing forward with a massive pet project that was created for a yet-to-materialize LNG industry — a project that has seen numerous cost overruns already, and yet it has barely started.

This government is plowing forward with a substantial risk that is borne on the backs of B.C. taxpayers — those who are not only paying the price through increases in MSP premiums, through increases in hydro rates, through increases in ICBC premiums, but who are also being burdened with debt for years to come for a yet-to-materialize LNG industry, a project that has seen, as I mentioned, numerous cost overruns.

[ Page 10626 ]

The government wants to appear to be fiscally responsible, but it’s gambling with our tax dollars. Why are we pushing ahead with a project that is riddled with legal challenges and massive environmental consequences? Why is the government not taking a step back and putting the interests of regular working people first and foremost — the British Columbians who actually vote the MLAs in here? Why are they not putting their interests first?

Why is this government not taking that step back? British Columbians want this government to wait for the report from the Auditor General, who is currently examining the Site C project, and learn whether this project is actually fiscally sound. Frankly, to push ahead is simply reckless.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

With Site C, it’s easy to see we’re going into a big debt for a project we don’t need, and in doing so, we are flooding our energy market with taxpayer dollars that are actually driving investment out of our province. And again, to make ends meet, we increase MSP rates, we increase hydro rates and on and on and on.

Just two weeks ago the Canadian Wind Energy Association announced that it was closing its office and leaving B.C. because the government and B.C. Hydro are just not interested. Last year we saw the same thing with EDP Renewables — no interest from the government for a roughly $1 billion wind power investment off southern Vancouver Island. That company has walked as well.

Despite the potential in this province, clean energy investment is leaving British Columbia in droves. The B.C. Liberals’ dream — they continue to dream — of LNG has not materialized, but they’re still using billions of taxpayer money to gamble on projects designed to support it. They’re pushing risky projects past the point of no return and, in so doing, clean tech investment out of our province.

Let’s take a look at these LNG figures that the Minister of Environment has presented in the budget, figures that were supposed to help fuel a prosperity fund instead of it being fuelled through MSP premium increases and so forth, which this amendment is attempting to address.

I love talking about LNG. I love talking about it, just like I loved talking about the tooth fairy when I was a little child. Those of us outside the government’s self-congratulatory circle of hyperbola know that they had….

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Hyperbole. “Hyperbola” is a mathematics term.

A. Weaver: Hyperbole. Thank you to the Minister of Advanced Education for pointing out that hyperbola is a mathematical term.

Those of us outside of government’s self-congratulatory circle of hyperbole already know that they have no hope of tapping into an LNG market in the short term, no hope whatsoever. No amount of tax cuts, no amount of subsidies to the industry, no amount of praying to the LNG god…. We just know it’s not going to happen. They’ve tried and failed.

This year’s budget shifted the LNG story to a future supply-demand gap slotted to emerge ten years from now. Uh-oh. Never mind the “unforeseen global conditions.” So how are we going to make ends meet? We’re going to tax those who are least able to afford it through increases in MSPs, increases in hydro rates and so forth, which is exactly what this amendment is trying to quantify and recognize.

[1435]

Now we’re talking about LNG in, say, the mid-2020s, something that I’ve been saying for quite some time. Yet the government’s track record of repeatedly failing to predict the LNG future even months in advance does not instil me, let alone British Columbians, with any confidence as to what their projected supply and demand will be like in 2030.

On the demand side, there are challenges as well. While the increasing competitiveness of the renewables, as recently highlighted by Brattle economists, it seems unlikely that demand projections, illustrated by the curious unlabelled graph in the 2016 budget document, will be accurate either. Simply making up numbers. This government is chasing a falling market, in which it was a late player, and throwing good money after bad.

Let’s take a look at this prosperity fund in a little more detail. This is a fund that the government promised to implement through vast amounts of moneys coming from LNG revenues. Instead, we see increases to the MSP premium, hydro rates and so on, in order to fund the prosperity fund on the backs of individual taxpayers.

I’ve always advocated that it’s our responsibility as legislators to not think merely of today’s British Columbians but also those of future generations who will follow us — though in a more responsible, realistic manner than the government’s “LNG for our grandchildren” rhetoric mantra.

Indeed, this is the main reason I chose to run for office in first place. But the fact is that if this government were serious about reducing the debt of this province, they would not grow the debt of this province each year. They would not create a loophole allowing them the ability to not pay down the debt with surplus revenues but in fact use taxpayer money for political posturing, which is what the prosperity fund is all about.

It gets worse. My fears were confirmed when I looked into the specifics of the prosperity fund being funded through taxes on those who can least afford it — the subject of the amendment before us. Let’s break it down. We have $100 million going into this prosperity fund this year and, according to this year’s budget, no further investments in our province’s savings account in any sub-

[ Page 10627 ]

sequent year. That’s hardly prudent fiscal planning. And curious, it’s in a year leading up to the election.

Of that $100 million, this government is putting a full half of it towards debt retirement. Hang on. That’s not $100 million. It’s $50 million in the prosperity fund. But then they actually say that only 25 percent of the $100 million will be saved, while the last 25 percent will go towards “government priorities.” Clearly, MSP premiums are not a government priority.

What is a government priority? Probably boutique handouts as we move into the election year in May of next year. In fact, when we tone down the self-congratulatory rhetoric that this government is issuing and tune into the actual numbers, we find that this government’s $100 million prosperity fund is actually a one-time investment of $25 million. This is a blatant misrepresentation of how tax dollars are being spent.

Also, the government can try to mislead the voters of B.C. that their empty promises are not actually empty. They’re doing this to create a potential political play to try and tempt the opposition to vote against prosperity. That’s shameful — nothing more than political posturing in the hope that they can turn around and say that the opposition votes against prosperity.

This opposition votes for prosperity. But prosperity is more than just the bottom line in the so-called prosperity fund. It’s prosperity in social prosperity. It’s environmental prosperity. It’s fiscal prosperity. It’s triple-bottom-line prosperity. For this government, prosperity simply means prosperity for those who happen to give them large donations to ensure that they remain in power. It is not a prosperity for all British Columbians. It is a very limited prosperity.

With that in mind, and in light of the fact that the motion to amend the statement “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” is before us, I will, at this time, introduce notice to subamend that motion with the idea of adding the following.

[1440]

I move the following subamendment:

[Be it resolved that the motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” be amended by adding the following:

“That the government recognize the cumulative effect of increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates and ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families,”

And in order to ease the burden facing these families, support rolling the currently regressive and unfair MSP premiums into the income tax system in a revenue neutral manner to create a progressive health care levy. ]

Deputy Speaker: So, Member, are you going to speak on the amendment to the amendment?

A. Weaver: Correct.

Deputy Speaker: Okay. Carry on.

On the subamendment.

A. Weaver: On the subamendment, I have but one statement. I am going to quote Tom Fletcher from Black Press, president of the legislative press gallery. The quote is this: “Green leader…has it right.”

Hon. T. Wat: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of balanced budget 2016. But first of all….

Point of Order

A. Weaver: Point of order.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a point of order.

A. Weaver: On a point of order, the subamendment is before the House, and I’m wondering if the minister is speaking to the subamendment or not.

Hon. T. Wat: I would like to speak against the member’s amendment and to speak in support of balanced budget 2016.

Deputy Speaker: But the minister is speaking on the amendment to the amendment.

Carry on.

Debate Continued

Hon. T. Wat: First of all, I would like to take this special moment to recognize some of the people whose help and support are very important to me.

First, to my parents, who are in their 90s: Mom and Dad, thank you for always supporting me throughout the years.

To my daughter, Tin: I take so much pride in calling you my daughter.

I would also like to give special thanks to my colleagues, all my hard-working and very capable and dedicated staff. My chief of staff, Jay Denney; administrative coordinator, Angela Jones; executive assistant, Jessica Faddegon; administrative assistant, Heather Doerksen; and my constituency assistants, Regina Tsui, Stephanie Fraser and Trix Chan. The team sacrifices their time because they believe in me and they believe in this government.

Each year I look forward to this opportunity to talk about my portfolio and the excellent work the Ministry of International Trade is doing to grow and diversify B.C.’s economy to create well-paying jobs for British Columbians and help B.C. businesses reach new priority markets overseas.

This is the fourth balanced budget we have delivered. It hasn’t been easy. We have had to make tough decisions and choices along the way, but we have always stayed

[ Page 10628 ]

focused on living within our means, growing our economy and investing in the shared priorities of all British Columbians.

It is because of this disciplined approach that we find ourselves on solid financial footing, and this is what enables us to invest in key economic sectors and the important public services B.C. families depend on.

I came to this province some 26 years ago with my husband and my daughter. We chose British Columbia because of its diversity, its natural beauty, and the opportunities to succeed. Like other British Columbian families, we understood the importance of hard work, determination and living within our means. Those are universal values.

Balanced budget 2016 encompasses and protects these values for British Columbians, making life a little bit easier for families and providing B.C. businesses with the support to grow and flourish.

It is clear that diversifying B.C.’s economy and supporting B.C. businesses are key priorities of this budget. I am proud that my ministry’s efforts will play an important role in supporting these priorities, including strengthening ties and promoting a strong B.C. brand in India, investing in small businesses through an increase to the small business venture capital tax credit and supporting B.C.’s shipping industry through efforts to attract international companies to the province.

[1445]

I will have more to say about these areas in a few moments, but let me first explain how this budget fits with the important work underway at the Ministry of International Trade.

My ministry has two primary focuses: to promote trade and attract investment, and to champion the benefits of diversity and foster participation of all British Columbians in our multicultural society. On a daily basis, I’m inspired by the work of the dedicated public servants whose efforts are making a real difference.

To put it into perspective, the total value of investments influenced by my ministry programs was $3.6 billion last year, well exceeding our original target of $800 million. During that time, 271 international business agreements were reached, valued at $312 million. These investments and business agreements are what allow B.C. companies to grow and, in turn, create new jobs and support strong local communities.

Despite an uncertain global economy, the strong global demand for B.C. products and services diversifies our export market and has played a major role in this. Ten years ago 65 percent of all B.C. exports went to the United States,

whereas last year exports to the States made up less than 52 percent of total exports while nearly 38 percent of our exports went to Pacific Rim markets. B.C.’s top exports are currently pulp, lumber and copper, and we are seeing positive trends in seafood, agrifood and machinery exports.

One of the ways to attract investment to B.C. is for us to meet face to face with stakeholders in key markets. That is why we are committed to expanding and diversifying our markets through overseas trade missions, growing our trade and investment network and working on new partnerships and MOUs.

Since we launched the B.C. jobs plan in 2011, my ministry has supported over 560 inbound and outbound trade missions, including six missions by the Premier to major Asian markets. Trade missions attract investment in British Columbia’s priority markets and are a cost-effective way for companies to get a foothold in targeted export markets.

At the same time, we have more than doubled the number of international trade representatives abroad. We now have over 60 representatives based in priority markets across Asia, Europe and the United States. We are expanding our reach into key Asian markets this year with a new trade office in the Philippines.

Innovation and entrepreneurship create jobs, diversify economic activity and help keep British Columbia globally competitive. One of the ways we know we can foster this economic activity is through the provincial venture capital. One sector that particularly benefits from venture capital is the technology industry. This sector is the fastest-growing in B.C., employing more than 86,000 British Columbians.

We want to ensure that these high-potential companies, especially those in the critical development stages, have access to the capital they need to grow. That’s why we have announced the creation of a $100 million B.C. tech fund. The B.C. tech fund is a key component of our technology strategy, a comprehensive plan that will support this promising sector throughout B.C.

This budget also provides an additional $5 million for the venture capital tax credit, which is administered by my ministry. The tax credit helps small businesses access early-stage venture capital to help commercialize ideas, attract and retain employees, expand operations and bring the ideas to global markets.

It provides a 30 percent tax credit to B.C. resident investors who invest directly into companies or in managed funds. It is unique in Canada, because it also allows individuals and corporations to invest capital directly into eligible small business and offers strategic expertise to accelerate company growth.

For the second year in a row, balanced budget 2016 provides $1 million to the Vancouver International Maritime Centre. This funding will help attract more international shipping companies to British Columbia.

[1450]

In 2015, B.C. welcomed the first shipping company, Singapore-based AAL, to open a new office in Vancouver. By establishing a new office, it sends a message to the international shipping community that Vancouver is the place to be.

[ Page 10629 ]

Forestry is a key industry for British Columbia. For the thousands of men and women whose families depend on it, we are committed to making B.C. more globally competitive and resilient to market shifts by diversifying our economy. As part of the B.C. jobs plan, we have increased our efforts and funding in priority markets.

India is among the international markets we view as critical to B.C.’s future economic goals and prosperity. As such, $5 million over three years is being provided to Forestry Innovation Investment Ltd. to support B.C.’s wood-first initiative and trade with India. This funding will help advance B.C.’s strong Canadian wood brand and clean-technology sector in India.

British Columbia was an active participant in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, negotiations last year. This month, B.C.’s efforts were rewarded when Canada signed the agreement in New Zealand along with the original signatories. Although signing does not guarantee ratification, it is a welcome first step.

As Canada’s Pacific Gateway, B.C. stands to benefit from better access to key Pacific Rim markets like Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

As the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, one of my roles is to create an environment in B.C. where an inclusive and diverse population supports our shared communities. Cultural diversity and increased participation by all cultures is vitally important to the creation of a strong social and economic future for B.C.

This year, about $1.7 million will be spent on programs that promote multiculturalism, address racism and build inclusive community in British Columbia.

The B.C. Multicultural Awards hosted by my ministry celebrate those working for B.C. to promote multiculturalism and the Chinese legacy project of delivering on government’s promise to the Chinese-Canadian community and all British Columbians to leave a lasting legacy of the historic contribution of early Chinese settlers.

As British Columbians, we can all be proud of the role we play in honouring the diversity in B.C. today and the historical contribution of immigrants from all over the world to the foundation of our province.

Talking about multiculturalism, I’m privileged to represent the constituents of Richmond Centre, the most diverse riding in North America. The city of Richmond is a vibrant, diverse community, projecting a population growth to over 260,000 by 2036, with more than half of the growth accounted for in Richmond Centre.

Richmond is a great city to live and work in, and it was an exciting year for Richmond residents for the last year. Industry chooses Richmond as its base. We are home to five of the ten biggest software companies in British Columbia.

On the retail front, the SmartCentres along Garden City Road and Alderbridge has already started construction in Richmond. Many megastores, such as Walmart, will continue to strengthen their expansion into British Columbia.

B.C.’s first luxury outlet mall, the McArthurGlen Designer Outlet, was opened at a 30-acre site on Sea Island near the Vancouver International Airport last year. It currently has 46 retailers, over 240,000 square feet. A phase 2 plan to open in 2017 will expand the mall to 400,000 square feet and up to 150 retailers. This mall has created 600 jobs in phase 1 and another 400 jobs in phase 2.

Near the outlet, the British Columbia Institute of Technology’s Aerospace Technology campus offers programs to more than 1,000 students each year. Students can choose training programs for all areas of aircraft maintenance, engineering and flight training. Richmond’s aerospace and aviation sector is made up of small, family-run businesses to global, publically traded corporations.

[1455]

New in Richmond Centre is the City Centre Community Centre. This is Richmond’s first urban community centre, and it’s located in the heart of the ever-growing city. It provides a range of recreation programs and services tailored to residents of all ages. In fact, on Sunday, I’m proud to hold my Chinese New Year celebration at this beautiful urban community centre.

The City Centre area is being developed to maximize use of the Canada Line and to be bike- and pedestrian-friendly. And in City Centre, one should visit the new campus of Trinity Western University. This modern space is the new home for students that are engaged in bachelor’s degree and master’s degree programs.

Also new in my beautiful riding of Richmond Centre is the Kiwanis Towers, a two-tower affordable housing development for seniors funded by our government. The 294-unit development replaces an old 122-unit complex. Many seniors have already moved into the first tower.

A major new capital building program in the Minoru civic precinct was also launched last year to address current and future recreation, sports, cultural, social and community wellness needs. The program includes a new aquatic centre, new older adult centre and also space for other recreation and community needs.

We should be proud of Richmond Hospital, which is a vital part of our community. It is a large community hospital serving the needs of residents in Richmond, Delta, as well as travellers using the Vancouver International Airport and B.C. Ferries. Fifty years of service, and it celebrates its anniversary this Friday.

I would like to conclude by saying that, as we continue to grow the economy, we should remember that it took many hands to build this province, the most ethnically diverse province in Canada. It is B.C.’s multicultural society that gives us a competitive advantage and an important bridge across the Pacific.

Today British Columbia and Canada are proof that people from different cultures and traditions can build vibrant, thriving communities, sustain our economy in times of economic upheaval and support B.C.’s efforts to

[ Page 10630 ]

diversify trade and trade investment through business and family relationships overseas.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of balanced budget 2016.

[1500-1505]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Subamendment negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 30

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Dix

Ralston

Corrigan

Fleming

Popham

Conroy

Austin

Chandra Herbert

Fraser

Eby

Mungall

Mark

Bains

Elmore

Wickens

Shin

Heyman

Darcy

Krog

D. Routley

Weaver

Chouhan

Rice

Holman

B. Routley

NAYS — 43

Lee

Sturdy

Bing

Yamamoto

Michelle Stilwell

Stone

Fassbender

Oakes

Wat

Thomson

Virk

Rustad

Wilkinson

Morris

Pimm

Sultan

Hamilton

Reimer

Ashton

Hunt

Sullivan

Cadieux

Lake

de Jong

Coleman

Anton

Bond

Bennett

Letnick

Bernier

Barnett

Yap

Thornthwaite

McRae

Plecas

Kyllo

Tegart

Throness

Martin

Larson

Foster

Dalton

Gibson

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the amendment (continued) .

H. Bains: It is a pleasure. It’s my honour to speak in favour of the amendment that was put in place to say: “Be it resolved that the motion ‘That the Speaker do now leave the Chair’ for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: ‘That the government recognize the cumulative effect of the increases in MSP taxes, hydro rates, ICBC premiums, and other fees and hidden taxes, on British Columbia families.’”

I think it’s a very good amendment, and I think it’s worth spending some time speaking about this. We have talked about — when we were speaking about the budget speeches, in response to the budget — how ordinary families are being burdened with tax over tax over tax by this government and, in the meantime, how the people of the top 2 percent continue to get tax breaks from this government.

I think it’s a good amendment, and I think the government should consider this, government members should consider this. The effect it is leaving, the cumulative effect, is devastating, not only just on individuals and families but also on institutions that depend on government taxes and the funding that comes from the government.

[1510]

I’ll talk about a meeting we had with the district parent advisory council in Surrey and a meeting with the Surrey school board officials. They’ll tell you the effect these taxes, whether they’re MSP, B.C. Hydro, leave on their operating capacity to run those schools — the largest school district in the province, with over 71,000 students and more coming every year.

It’s not that this news was brought to this government out of the blue and no one knew that Surrey and the south of the Fraser was expanding and that they were growing faster than any other community in B.C., perhaps in Canada. In Surrey alone, 1,000 new citizens are moving in every month, and that has been the trend for the last ten, 15, 20 years. What you’re looking at is 12,000 new citizens moving in. That’s like an equivalent to a small town in British Columbia every year that is being added.

When you look at Metro Vancouver forecasting what kind of population growth there will be in the Lower Mainland, one million new citizens will be moving into the Lower Mainland by 2040. Most of them will be establishing themselves south of the Fraser and Tri-Cities area. So you’re looking at almost another Surrey moving into south of the Fraser.

We don’t have services thanks to this government’s downloading of all these taxes that I mentioned in the amendment — downloading onto the local governments, school boards. So they have to take that money out of their operation fund. The operation fund is the one they need to run the schools to provide the in-class education to the students, provide support to the teachers and pay the bills on those buildings.

When you download…. It’s easy for them to stand here and make an order-in-council and make the announcement that the ICBC rate will go up. Now the school board or the city or other institutions who depend on government funding have to pay higher taxes, whether it’s ICBC for the vehicles that they utilize or MSP premiums they pay on behalf of their employees. So now, that money has to come from somewhere.

Then B.C. Hydro, in order to warm and cool those buildings where the students go and get their education…. There’s a whole slew of other buildings and other institutions and infrastructure they have. Every increase

[ Page 10631 ]

in these areas that will be downloaded onto them, they have to find that money somewhere else because the government does not fund that.

Teachers. You will hear the minister stand up here: “We negotiated the teachers contract.” If you really look at it, yes, they negotiated a collective agreement. But all the costs that were attached to signing that agreement…. Local governments weren’t funded for that. Then they had to scrounge around and find some money so that they could keep the students in the classroom and provide them in-class education. That is not the way to run the government.

When you talk to the Surrey school board, they are, I would say, the most efficient school board in B.C. There’s no more low-hanging fruit left out there, and the government continues to ask them to find more efficiencies. They’re saying they’ve done everything “You come and tell us where to find more money.” They’ve got nothing to go to.

So where will the money come from now? The money will come from in-class education of the students. Whether it’s in portables…. The portables cost about $4.5 million a year, money that comes out of the in-class education of our students. No other school board has to do that.

That is the extra burden placed on the Surrey school board. That money comes out of in-class classrooms, which means that the students aren’t getting the support and the resources that they need and the teachers aren’t getting the support to the tune of $4.5 million. That is equivalent to about 40 new teachers that they can hire every year. So the money is just thrown away.

[1515]

If the government, as requested by the ad hoc committee that was placed by the locals…. The Surrey school board was made aware of that. We had teachers. We had the Surrey Board of Trade, the city council, the parents, the students. They were all on that ad hoc committee, and they all worked so hard — consulting, talking to many people and talking to the government, trying to bring it to their attention. Minister after minister after minister they met, and they got nowhere.

Finally, thanks to their efforts, some money was released for the first time since 2006,when George Abbott was Minister of Education and announced that there would be some money towards capital improvement in Surrey. But when you really look at it, it’s about one-third of what they need, and the student education continues to grow. That’s the issue here. The government doesn’t get it.

They tell me that they have talked to their local MLAs. They all got letters. I’ve got those letters. The Liberal MLAs got the letters from Surrey. The minister got those letters from those parents, and they have made it clear how they’re nickeled and dimed when their children go to school, when it comes to providing them resources. The very basic needs of the students they have to fundraise for. The teachers have to pay money out of their own pockets.

This government brags about balancing the budget. It means on the backs of those students and those parents. That’s what they’re doing. That’s not called efficiency and an efficient way of running the government. Anybody can do it if that’s the way they want to balance the budget.

If you just take a look…. In population, K to 12 continues to go up. K to 7 continues to go up. Portables projected by the ad hoc committee and the Surrey school board by 2015 — 300. By 2022, they’ll go to 360. You know what? When the minister — who’s from Surrey, who’s the minister for TransLink now…. When we had that debate here, when he was the Minister of Education, his response was: “What’s wrong with those portables?” That was his response.

With that kind of attitude, no wonder nothing gets done. No wonder no one is championing the cause on the Liberal side, on behalf of the Liberal MLAs there, on behalf of the parents there. That’s the attitude that they have. “What’s wrong with the portables?” they say. Well, $4.5 million, to begin with, that comes out of their in-class education — that’s what’s wrong with it. That money isn’t anywhere to be seen because the money will continue to go away. It’s gone. Forty new teachers they could hire — 40 new teachers with that every year. So that’s one thing.

There are 148 of those portables at 40 elementary schools, 121 at 16 secondary schools and 16 at the learning centres. The cost for each one of them is $85,000 to $125,000. In addition to that, the installation cost is $25,000 to $75,000. The annual operating cost is about $15,000 for each one of them. So the total annual cost is over $4 million.

That’s money that’s gone down the drain. That’s basically what it is. There will be nothing to show for it when a government will come in who will decide to put children first, their education first, and start to build some real classrooms for those students. Then these portables will be no use to anybody. They’re basically wasted money.

So 2006 was the last time that they came and approved some capital funding. From 2006, when George Abbott made the announcement, to, I believe, 2012, for six years not a single penny in capital improvement was approved for the Surrey school board. That’s not the way to run the province.

[1520]

What they’re looking for, for the 2013-2017 capital plan — their top-ten projects will require about $111 million. In 2013, when they put that plan together, the total that they needed was $273 million. But that’s what we need today. It takes, for a new secondary school to be built, about four years. If you want to just add an addition to it, it’s still 31 months — an addition to an elementary school, 31 months. A new elementary school will take 43 months — 3½ years.

[ Page 10632 ]

As a result of that, the member for Surrey–White Rock and I were together on a picket line when the students at Earl Marriott walked out. Lord Tweedsmuir — they walked out. This is the first in a long time, which I can think of, that the high school students had to walk out of their classrooms to make a point and bring a point to this government. “We really need schools” — that’s what the students were saying. They should be in their classrooms, not walking out of their classrooms and trying to make a point to this government. That’s how bad the situation is.

You would think that anybody — from Surrey, at least — would stand up here and say: “Yes, my community has some of those issues.” Go to the cabinet table and say: “Yes, our community needs additional capital funding to build new schools.” I have seen no evidence of that so far — none. It’s such a serious issue. I hope that one day they will open up their ears and eyes and say: “Yes, we do have a responsibility to our youngsters, to our youth, to our students.” Their education should be the number one priority. Once that time is gone in their lifetime, it’s gone — never to come back. This is their opportunity.

I think that’s a very, very serious issue. I want to, perhaps, bring to your attention a letter that was written by Nicole Kaler. She’s on the district parent advisory committee. This is what she had to say, and I hope the ministers from Surrey are paying attention.

“On behalf of all the parents in Surrey, the Surrey DPAC would like to thank you for all joining us last night at our general meeting. We have been struggling with a crisis of space in Surrey for years, and your presence was important. As parents, we need to know that we have support in the Legislature and that our children and their struggles matter.”

No one from the Liberal Party showed up there — no one at that meeting. It just shows how out of touch they are. They simply don’t want to hear the truth from the real people, the parents and the students who have these concerns. This is what…. She finally had to write a letter to draw it to their attention.

“The education funding issues in our province are real for every school district. These are concerns that we want to address as well, but we cannot even begin those conversations.”

Pretty serious.

“Hopefully, it was clear to you last night that without dignified and appropriate space for our children to sit and be with their educators, it is difficult for us to even begin to address actual education issues — i.e., learning. Essentially, we are unable to focus on what is happening in our classrooms because we are so focused on actually having a classroom for all our kids.

“If a family with three kids moved to Surrey today and lived right across the street from an elementary school, it is probable that none of their children could attend that school due to lack of space. Furthermore, it is likely that all three kids would need to attend separate schools. I had a friend in this situation eight years ago, and considering that no new schools have been built in our area since that time, I’m sure that it would happen again today.

“With another election looming, we want to bring as much attention as we can to our unique and persistent challenges. I hope to participate in an on-air panel with the Global morning news on February 8. Once that is confirmed, I will let you know.

[1525]

“In addition, we hope to keep actively engaged with you all. It felt like an impossible challenge to make any meaningful changes in Surrey. Your presence really did create a sense of hope that we can be heard and that our situation matters. DPAC plans, using the momentum that you have helped us create last night, to make a real difference for our children.

“Again, our most sincere thanks. Nicole Kaler, Surrey DPAC VP.”

That’s how bad it is. It’s not coming from just the opposition or some politicians. It is coming from those people who are dealing with this issue day in and day out. That’s how bad this situation is. I hope that the minister from Surrey will pay attention to this.

Let’s talk about post-secondary education a bit. If it wasn’t so bad for…. Well, before I do that, I want to touch on a couple other areas in our K to 12 still.

Since the 1990s, we have had an introduction of Choice programs, the language programs, in Surrey. In ’94, the government at that time introduced legislation so that people can actually learn the language of their parents in their regular classrooms. There are about three elementary schools in Surrey right now that offer Punjabi classes. Most of them are located in the Newton area.

There’s a demand in many other areas for Punjabi classes. PLEA’s — the Punjabi Language Educators — Balwant Sanghera and others have been working hard with the Surrey school board, Mr. Tinney and with the colleges and universities to bring to their attention that there is a demand and a need for parents and their children to have those classes in place.

But when you talk to these school boards and others, what the real issue is behind that is, again, lack of resources. There’s no space. We can’t put our children in regular classrooms, as today they have 300 portables there. Where are we going to find additional classrooms for Punjabi classes or other classes that parents may want?

French immersion is another issue. So I just want to touch on many of those areas. It is really, really hard for parents to have their children get the education and the language of their ancestors and of their parents. They deserve to have that language, because that’s what the law says. It’s been in the books since 1994.

I want to thank — there are many people who are working in that area — Mr. Gurginder Sekhon, Harpal Kang, Aman Sekhon, Navneet Kahlon, Kewel Taggar, Balwant Sanghera and Sadhu Binning. They all visited us and other MLAs, trying to make a case for Punjabi classes in Surrey schools. Again, it’s like hitting a brick wall. The school board, I know, wants to accommodate that, but they cannot because they have no resources.

Like I said, this is one opportunity for those students, those children, have to learn that language. But once that opportunity is gone, it’s gone. What they are told now is that if you live in the Fleetwood area, you have to drive all the way over to the Newton-Delta side. I mean, parents don’t those kinds of resources. Not all of them do.

There’s a serious issue in that, and I hope that the minister will pay attention to this and bring resources — not

[ Page 10633 ]

only capital improvement for our schools to build more schools but also to provide those resources that are needed for our students to deliver those Choice programs and education in their classrooms.

[1530]

Let’s talk about post-secondary education a bit. We had the opportunity….

Interjection.

H. Bains: I know that the minister will pay attention. I have seen the minister, seen that he does understand. At least, he does understand that when you look at the post-secondary education spaces in Surrey, south of the Fraser, we’re short. If you look at the numbers provided to us by Simon Fraser University, you are looking at about 12 seats, 12.5 spaces, compared to about 30 in the rest of B.C., for that reason.

Interjection.

H. Bains: I thought he understood, but I’m having my doubts now, because he’s starting to clack around now.

I think the issue here is to acknowledge that there is a problem. That’s the biggest problem that we have with this government — that they don’t acknowledge that there is a serious problem. I’m going to read…. This is from Simon Fraser University. “If you look at what the demographics are for post-secondary education, nearly half of the new undergraduates come from Surrey” — half of them, of all the graduates that come out of SFU. Over two-thirds come from south of the Fraser communities. The chart clearly shows 48.3 from Surrey and 66.2 from south of the Fraser. Clearly, there is a demand.

When you look at the spaces available to them, south of the Fraser is B.C.’s fastest-growing region. By 2036, the population is projected to surpass Vancouver’s. Surrey is home to B.C.’s future labour force. One of three Surrey residents is under 19, the largest of any municipality. And by 2016, the South Fraser will account for one-third of all B.C. high school graduates.

Surrey school district 36 is the largest in B.C., with 32 percent of the grade 12 enrolment. Vancouver has 19 percent. It has the largest population of aboriginal students in the Lower Mainland.

Here are the numbers that the minister, I hope, will pay attention to. Only 16 percent of Surrey residents hold a university degree. So 16 percent — less than half of the Vancouver average of 33 percent.

There’s a reason behind that. The reason is…. I’m going to just read the next. “Simon Fraser University Surrey and Kwantlen Polytechnic University offer only 12.7 post-secondary spaces for every hundred 18- to 24-year-olds in the region” — about one-third the average level of access for the rest of B.C.

Clearly, there’s a need. On top of that, when you look at what was promised…. Some 5,000 spaces were promised. What do we have in Surrey right now? The minister should know.

Interjection.

H. Bains: The minister should know. We have just around 3,000. What happened to that promise? Just like any other promise that they made in the last 15 years — promised everything before the election, and they do quite the opposite after the election.

Here’s another one. The Minister of Advanced Education, here is your opportunity, sir. Here’s your opportunity. There’s a way to leave a legacy behind. This is the highest population of 19-year-olds in the Lower Mainland. There is a future workforce. If all of them…. The government knows this. All future jobs, 80 percent of the future jobs, will require some sort of university degree or diploma. The minister knows that.

If you’re looking and you really have some vision for this province that five, ten, 20, 30 years down the road, somebody will be looking back…. “Who was the Minister of Advanced Education? What did he actually do?” Nothing.

Here’s an opportunity for the minister to leave that legacy, to say that despite what the government record was and despite what the rest of the government record was, he actually showed some leadership. He actually understood those issues, and he’s leaving a real, rich legacy behind of a highly skilled population who would be able to compete with the rest of the world. That’s the challenge.

Interjection.

[1535]

H. Bains: The Minister of Technology…. You know what? The Minister of Advanced Education made a lot more sense when he was clucking than what your thoughts are. So that’s where you fit in.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

H. Bains: If you really look at it, 5,000 were promised. We can use them now. They need space. They need resources. The need is there because the population continues to grow.

There is the case for the need and the case for the resources for post-secondary education spaces south of the Fraser. Like many other areas….

Interjection.

H. Bains: It is something that the minister must look at, and we will continue to talk about this. We were hoping that the Minister of Technology and the Minister

[ Page 10634 ]

for TransLink would make those cases. Obviously, they are not. We will continue to do that.

I just want to touch on something else — all the other cumulative effects that these MSP premiums and others are leaving here. The forest industry? Neglected again. So 31,000 fewer workers are working today than when this government took power — 31,000 — and 150 fewer sawmills. More sawmills are being built and purchased by the B.C. companies south of the border than here. Here, what does that mean? That the forest companies of British Columbia are fleeing B.C. under the leadership of this government. That clearly is the indication.

Then what they are doing? Nothing. Nothing comes out of these other than just yapping away and making all the political decisions rather than real policy decisions. That’s what government is all about — making real policy decisions so that people of today, tomorrow and the future can benefit from those. Those will be the legacies people of the future will be looking at when they are looking at this government. That’s the problem with this government.

I want to talk about crime again a little bit again. Yesterday the Solicitor General said that we should be supporting our RCMP. We certainly support our RCMP. Inspector Bhayani, Sergeant Prihar and all the front-line RCMP officers are doing a tremendous, an excellent job, trying to protect and do their job. But it's not the support that they're getting from this government. It's not the support that they need and deserve and that our people need and deserve from this government.

That’s where it’s falling short. It’s not the RCMP. It’s the government here who doesn’t come to the table from the province. B.C. Liberals — more photo ops, but not real delivery of all those goods.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: All right. Members. Members, one speech is over. We are starting the next one. Take your seats.

J. Yap: I am honoured and it’s my privilege to rise and join in this debate on behalf of the good people of the great riding of Richmond-Steveston and to speak against the amendment brought forward by the member for Nelson-Creston and in favour of the budget which the Minister of Finance tabled last week.

This is B.C.’s fourth consecutive balanced budget, a tremendous accomplishment for the people of this province. This puts us in a truly unique position, envied by others across the country and jurisdictions around the world. Here in British Columbia, we have accomplished a balanced budget and a strong economy which leads Canada and is projected to be the number one provincial economy this coming year.

This comes after a period of tough decision-making and fiscal financial prudence; controlling spending instead of spending beyond our means, something which I know is near and dear to the hearts of members opposite; and a continued sharp focus on building a diverse economy and creating jobs right here in British Columbia.

In 2015, more than 50,000 new jobs were created. This is a tremendous accomplishment at a time when the world economy and the Canadian economy have become fragile. We’re on track to eliminate the operating debt in just about four years and move towards a debt-free British Columbia.

[1540]

Our triple-A credit rating is another great source of pride, something all British Columbians should take pride in. This really means that our debt-servicing costs are among the lowest in Canada.

These savings can be invested in useful and important ways. It has been said before, but it’s so important that I’m going to talk about the comparison that would face British Columbia if we had a much higher debt-to-GDP level. Not to pick on a particular province, but if B.C. had the same level of debt in relation to size of economy as the province of Ontario, we would be, here in British Columbia, experiencing debt-servicing costs that would be about $2.5 billion higher compared to what we are paying because of our triple-A credit rating.

This credit rating serves as a signal of confidence to investors that our province is a great place to do business, a safe haven. Indeed, our economy is growing and is poised to grow further. That’s not only thanks to the focus of our government but a testament to the hard work, the innovation, the creativity of British Columbians, who are contributing so much to it.

We look, for example, to agrifoods. I know my good friend the Minister of Agriculture, with laser-like focus, is helping to grow the agrifood sector. This sector saw its highest-ever sales of B.C. food and beverage products, $12.3 billion.

More than 200 primary agriculture products and about 100 species of fish, shellfish and marine plants are produced in our province. I’m proud to say that one of the most delicious and visible of these, the cranberry, is proudly produced in my community, in Richmond. The autumn harvest of cranberries is a sight to behold.

We thank our local farm families and producers for the hard work they put into meeting the demand both here at home and abroad. Successes like these are some of the impressive numbers around total exports from B.C., total exports that are pegged at more than $35 billion per year. That’s an increase of 41 percent since 2009.

We also look at the booming film and television digital sector, which saw $1.45 billion in production spending by film and TV and creative product producers in fiscal 2014. This represents the shooting or completion of 248 projects in B.C. The motion picture industry spends approximately $1.16 billion per year on production activity

[ Page 10635 ]

in British Columbia. That’s responsible for about 20,000 direct and indirect jobs each year.

We see evidence of this in my community, in the village of Steveston, which has been transformed into the small town of Storybrooke, Maine, in the ABC hit TV series Once Upon a Time . Since 2011, film crews have been descending on our quaint fishing village. Since then, so, too, have many enthusiastic fans from around the country, who come to see where Storybrooke is.

It has become a wonderful tourism opportunity for our community, one that Tourism Richmond has recognized and embraced as part of the great work they do to promote our tourism offerings. Fans can pick up a free Once Upon a Time walking map at the Tourism Richmond Visitor Centre to take their self-guided tour of Steveston, a.k.a. Storybrooke. That, in turn, helps visitors discover the many other local gems that make Steveston and the greater Richmond area a great place to live, to work, to play and to raise a family.

We are proud to play a role in the 38 percent increase in tourism revenue we’ve seen provincially over the past decade, as reported in a recent study by B.C. Stats for Destination B.C. The findings prove that the tourism sector is a major economic driver for the province. Tourism contributed $7.1 billion to GDP in 2014, a 4.5 percent growth over the previous year.

With Richmond being home to Vancouver International Airport, YVR, we look forward to welcoming even more people to our great province to discover all that B.C. has to offer. From outstanding outdoor recreation opportunities and inspiring art offerings to world-class attractions, shopping, restaurants, accommodations — the list goes on.

[1545]

Speaking of hospitality, visitors and locals alike are enjoying modernized liquor regulations stemming from our government’s liquor policy review, which I was proud to lead in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary for Liquor Policy Reform. Beyond the conveniences of picking up B.C. wine at the grocery store or the farmers and artisans market or enjoying happy hour or including children with families visiting pubs, the modernized rules have had positive economic impacts for the hospitality, tourism and manufacturing sectors.

Government has cut red tape around licensing, making it easier and more cost-effective for places like golf courses and ski hills to expand their liquor licensed areas. They can now apply for a single licence endorsement that covers up to 26 events in a calendar year rather than having to apply and pay separately for each extension.

What’s more, liquor primary establishments can now offer more all-ages events, such as concerts and dances. The licence amendment fees were eliminated, and the approval process has been streamlined for applicants, cutting additional red tape for small businesses.

These updated policies come straight from the tremendous feedback we received from industry and from British Columbians during the liquor policy review, which, I might add, was one of the most successful government public engagements ever undertaken. So, again, these improvements to our liquor laws are being enjoyed by industry and consumers, benefiting our economy. When customers are offered more options and more convenience, that’s good for business. When business is good and establishments and events are busier than ever, that’s good for local employment.

Looking ahead, there are no plans to sit on our laurels and simply enjoy the enviable position we’re in. As diligently as we worked to control government spending and achieve this fourth balanced budget, we maintain our strong focus on growing the economy even further — getting to yes on projects of significance for this province and creating even more good family-supporting jobs for British Columbians. As I’ve said, our economy stands out as the bright spot in all of Canada.

Let me just share a few direct quotes from business and corporate leaders and leaders in the community who have spoken about the budget that we’re debating today. For example, from Kevin Milligan, a professor at UBC’s Vancouver School of Economics: “Not only are both corporate income tax rates the lowest of any province, but the budget is also in surplus by $627 million, and accumulated debt, at 16 percent of GDP, is about one-third the size of Ontario or Quebec” — highlighting what I mentioned earlier regarding the prudent level of our debt and the fact that we will soon, in a few years, be in a position to eliminate the operating debt of the province.

Another quote, from Stan Vander Waal, B.C. Agriculture Council chair, from a B.C. Agriculture Council news release: “Investment in agriculture is a no-brainer.” We’re making those investments.

The strength of our economy and our balanced budget means we can start to make important investments that make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families. Currently, there’s about $12 billion in infrastructure investments in progress. In Richmond, one of the biggest projects we’re looking forward to is the replacement project for the aging George Massey Tunnel. Balanced Budget 2016 affirms our commitment to this significant and long-awaited project that will help move people and goods much faster.

Pending various approvals, construction is expected to begin in 2017, with the new bridge completed by 2022. Local motorists, commercial drivers as well as visitors using our ferry system certainly look forward to this new bridge.

We also welcome the announcement of $55 million in new emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives, such as upgrades to dikes and flood protection — an issue which I know is of interest to my constituents, where flooding is a concern. We know that prevention is key.

[1550]

People in my community will also be pleased to see some MSP relief that is in this budget. Whether it’s the

[ Page 10636 ]

removal of MSP premiums for children, benefiting single-parent families, or the enhanced premium assistance, helping more low-income families, seniors and individuals find relief, these savings will certainly be welcomed by my constituents. Overall, with these changes, about 2 million British Columbians will not pay MSP premiums. We believe that is important.

Meantime, Richmond, like other communities, has struggled with the issue of affordable housing. I’m pleased to see that balanced budget 2016 contains some measures to help homeowners. We heard that newly built homes up to $750,000 will be fully exempt from property transfer tax when purchased by Canadian citizens or permanent residents. That is good news, especially for first-time homebuyers. This could mean savings of up to $13,000 per purchase.

We’ve also increased the homeowner grant threshold to $1.2 million from $1.1 million for the 2016 tax year. We’re investing $355 million over five years for the construction or renovation of more than 2,000 affordable housing units in communities across the province — a great achievement. I’m grateful to my colleague the Minister Responsible for Housing for this great news. This means that more people in our province will have a safe and secure place to call home.

On the post-secondary front, balanced budget 2016 includes funding for the $36 million Chip and Shannon Wilson School of Design at Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Richmond campus, funded in three equal parts by government, by the university and by donors. This facility will help us train up-and-coming local talent in fields like fashion design, fashion marketing, graphic design and interior design — great opportunities for our youth.

These are just a few of the many initiatives in the budget that I am especially proud to share with my community in this House as I declare my support for the fourth consecutive balanced budget. Because of that balanced budget and the tough decisions that came before it, we can make investments that make life better for the people that live here and for the generations of British Columbians to come. That is why I disagree with the amendment and will be voting against it.

J. Darcy: I rise in support of this amendment, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to take my place in this debate. I think it’s critically important that we actually engage in a discussion in this House, both sides of the House, about the impact of rising fees, of the growing burden that exists for British Columbia families. That’s what this amendment attempts to do.

I’m certainly very disappointed that members on the other side of the House don’t see fit to support it, because it’s an absolutely critical discussion for us to have. Certainly, in my constituency, I hear about issues related to affordability of daily life every single day, many, many times a day. On the issue of MSP, in particular, I got 300 emails just yesterday, and I’ve received thousands in recent weeks. I know the Minister of Health and the Premier have as well.

My constituents — I’m sure they’re not different from people across this province — would very much like to know that those concerns are heard.

[1555]

I think the message that we’re getting from the government side is: “Things are just fine. Thinks are hunky-dory. We’re number one. We’re leading the pack. This conversation doesn’t even need to happen.”

I can’t help but think, when I listen to ministers and members opposite, when I hear them speak in this debate, it’s like a running infomercial about how wonderful everything is in life under the B.C. Liberal government. That says to me that the concerns of British Columbians, whether they’re residents in New Westminster or wherever they live across this province, are simply not being heard. The people I hear from….

We’re talking about some of the most vulnerable. We’re talking about low-income working people. We’re also talking about the middle class, because my constituency has people in all of those categories. They are all struggling. They’re all dealing with a crisis of affordability. They are all dealing with tremendous difficulty paying the fees and the rate hikes, costs that just keep going up and up.

Refusing to even have that conversation certainly sends an awful message. It either says that this government isn’t listening or that it just doesn’t care. Frankly, in my community, people are tired of hearing that same old B.C. Liberal infomercial that just keeps getting played over and over and over again. Part of that infomercial also is, if you disagree with this government in any way — if you disagree with their choices, with their priorities, with what they’ve decided matters most in the budget — then you’re simply a naysayer.

Effectively, what do we have? In the government’s mind, in B.C. Liberal minds, there are two types of British Columbians for this government. They’re their friends and supporters, and there’s everybody else. For their friends, for the wealthiest 2 percent of the province, we know what they got — a $230 million tax break. Add it up. Over four years, we’re talking almost a $1 billion tax break for people who need it the least. Talk about being there for your friends but not being there for people who need a break the most.

What do we have for everybody else? I will speak about some of these in more detail. We’ve got MSP hikes, where

[ Page 10637 ]

you give a break to some and then you take from a whole lot of other people. You have ferry fare hikes. You have Hydro hikes. You have parents having to pay more and more out of their own pocket for fees in their classrooms and in their kids’ schools.

With PharmaCare, we have a real crisis, and I am hearing from dozens of people in my community and across B.C. about their inability to pay for drugs.

The issue of tuition, the issue of access to post-secondary education, the cost of loans that people carry when they graduate from post-secondary education. ICBC premiums, 5.5 percent up this year and another hike next year. Child care costs haven’t entered this debate very much, but child care costs continue to go through the roof.

The list goes on. I hear about all of those issues on a regular basis, if not a weekly basis, in my community. I find it impossible to believe that the members opposite don’t hear those same concerns from their constituents in every corner of this province. Are they just not listening, or do they just not care?

If we are number one, as the Liberal infomercial likes to tell us, shouldn’t we also be striving to be number one in making life more affordable for families right across this province? Surely, if we’re number one, we should not be talking about some of the lowest levels of funding for K-to-12 education per student in the country. We ought to be number one in investing in our children and in our children’s future.

Let’s talk about class sizes.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Heckling, when we’re talking about our children’s education.

[1600]

I know in classrooms in New Westminster and in classrooms right across this province, we have special needs kids who aren’t getting the support they need in order to succeed.

These days, in addition to the challenges in the classroom and with learning, we see parents having more and more of the burden of things that, at some point, people didn’t have to fundraise for, now having to be something that they engage in fundraising campaigns for. In fact, they have to compete, one school against another, with some schools, some parents, having greater means to contribute than others.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

We’re not just talking about fundraising now or paying out of pocket for school trips. We’re not just talking about playgrounds, although surely play — in terms of physical activity and keeping our young people healthy and alert and therefore able to learn better — ought to be a priority. Aggressive fundraising is what parents have to engage in, in order to build playgrounds in schools, even for new schools.

One of the issues we’ve heard a lot about lately is parents actually having to fundraise or to contribute Xerox paper for photocopy machines in their schools.

Interjection.

J. Darcy: Well, let me…. The Minister of Advanced Education seems to have a lot to say on the topic of paying for basic supplies like paper for photocopy machines. Well, you know, it’s not surprising that he’s not hearing — or if he’s hearing, he’s not listening — to parents or students right across British Columbia when it comes to the cost of post-secondary education.

The minister has been quoted recently as saying he talks to people when he visits colleges and universities and that the people he talks to don’t think rising tuition costs and the cost of loans is an issue. I don’t know who he’s talking to. More importantly, I do know who he’s not listening to, and who he’s not listening to….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

J. Darcy: Obviously, he’s not listening to students at Douglas College or students at Simon Fraser University or UBC, who are carrying some of the biggest debt loads in the country when they graduate from colleges and from universities. Obviously, he’s not listening to students who have to pay some of the highest interest rates in the country when they graduate from college and university. He’s not talking to students who are having to set aside their post-secondary education because they simply can’t afford to shoulder any more debt.

While I’m on the topic of education, I just want to go back to K to 12 for a minute, because certainly, in this budget, I was hoping and the parents and the school district in New Westminster were hoping beyond hope that we might finally, after 20 years of pressing for it, have a new Westminster secondary school in our city. We have only one high school. It is 65 years old. The Education Minister toured it recently. He has agreed that this is his number one priority. We need to see it, and we need to see it soon.

The Minister of Education has seen for himself the state of sorry disrepair that that school is in. The infrastructure is literally crumbling. The minister saw for himself the rat droppings that existed inside some of the holes created by the crumbling infrastructure. I certain-

[ Page 10638 ]

ly hope that, even though it wasn’t in the budget, we do hear about it in the capital projects in the weeks to come.

[1605]

Again, I don’t know who this government is talking to when they don’t decide to take action in this budget to support more of those students so that they can learn the language and be fully proficient and be able to contribute the skills and the professions to our society and our economy that they absolutely want to and need to do. At the same time — I reiterate — a tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent, and yet costs and fees go up for just about everybody else.

A regional transportation plan. I was truly hoping to hear in this budget about a true regional transportation plan, not one-off projects — some of the Premier’s pet photo op projects. Everybody who listens to the traffic reports every single day in the Lower Mainland knows the urgency of replacing the Pattullo Bridge. Not a word in this budget about a regional transportation plan, much less a specific commitment for the Pattullo Bridge. I sincerely hope that we start hearing this government say yes to projects like the Pattullo Bridge and yes to a regional transportation plan.

Let’s hear this government saying yes to giving a break to students who are doing their best to learn skills and professions in colleges and universities so they can contribute what they want to contribute to the economy. Let’s say yes to that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. One speaker at a time. Thank you.

J. Darcy: When I encourage people on the government side to say yes, they shout me down with noes.

Let’s say yes to giving opportunities to every single child in our classrooms. Children learn differently. Children have different language skills, and they all need to have that opportunity. Let’s say yes to equal opportunity to qualit