British Columbia Hansard — 20150219pm Hansard v19n11

20150219pm-Hansard-v19n11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709- 1281 (Print) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Th ursday, February 19, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Volume 19, Number 11

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Judith Guichon, OBC Fourth Session, 40th Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Linda Reid EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council .............................................................................................................. Hon. Christy Clark Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Gas Development and Minister Responsible for Housing ......................Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon. John Rustad Minister of Advanced Education ............................................................................................................................... Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Minister of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................................ Hon.

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development ........................................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Education ..................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review .....................................................................Hon. Bill Bennett Minister of Environment ..........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Mary Polak Minister of Finance .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations......................................................................................Hon. Steve Th omson Minister of Health ............................................................................................................................................................... Hon. Dr. Terry Lake Minister of International Trade and Minister Responsible for Asia Pacifi c Strategy and Multiculturalism ..................Hon.

Teresa Wat Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of State for Tourism and Small Business ....................................................................................................Hon. Naomi Y amamoto Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon. Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon.

Todd Stone LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Offi cial Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................Douglas Horne Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ............................................................................................................................................ Pat Pimm Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ................................................................................................................................................... Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees .................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sessional Law Clerk ...................................................................................................................................................Roderick MacArthur, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Anton, Hon. Suzanne (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Fraserview Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal).....................................................................Penticton Austin, Robin (NDP) ................................................................................ Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP) ....................................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ............................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Bennett, Hon.

Bill (BC Liberal) ...................................................Kootenay East Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) ................................................... Peace River South Bing, Dr. Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Bond, Hon. Shirley (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Valemount Cadieux, Hon. Stephanie (BC Liberal) ................................Surrey-Cloverdale Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .................................Vancouver–West End Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................

Burnaby-Edmonds Clark, Hon. Christy (BC Liberal) ........................................ Westside-Kelowna Coleman, Hon. Rich (BC Liberal) ...........................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .............................................................. Kootenay West Corrigan, Kathy (NDP) ..................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Dalton, Marc (Ind.) ......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Darcy, Judy (NDP) ..................................................................New Westminster de Jong, Hon.

Michael, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Abbotsford West Dix, Adrian (NDP)............................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Doug (NDP) ......................................................................... Stikine Eby, David (NDP) ..........................................................Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP) ................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ............................................................ Port Coquitlam Fassbender, Hon.

Peter (BC Liberal) ................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacifi c Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm.

Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Heyman, George (NDP) .................................................... Vancouver-Fairview Hogg, Gordon (BC Liberal) ............................................... Surrey–White Rock Holman, Gary (NDP) .......................................Saanich North and the Islands Horgan, John (NDP) .......................................................................

Juan de Fuca Horne, Douglas (BC Liberal) ..............................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) .............................................................

Nanaimo Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr. Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Th ompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon.

Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon.

Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon. Mary (BC Liberal) .............................................................. Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon.

Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................ Port Moody–Coquitlam Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ........................................................................North Coast Robinson, Selina (NDP) .............................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Routley, Bill (NDP) .................................................................. Cowichan Valley Routley, Doug (NDP) ............................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, Hon.

John (BC Liberal) ................................................ Nechako Lakes Shin, Jane Jae Kyung (NDP) ...............................................Burnaby-Lougheed Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Shane (NDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-Hastings Stilwell, Hon. Michelle (BC Liberal)............................... Parksville-Qualicum Stilwell, Dr. Moira (BC Liberal) ........................................ Vancouver-Langara Stone, Hon. Todd (BC Liberal) .........................

Kamloops–South Th ompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal) ..................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal) ...........................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ..................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ............................................................Fraser-Nicola Th omson, Hon. Steve (BC Liberal) .......................................Kelowna-Mission Th ornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ..........................

North Vancouver–Seymour Th roness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Hon. Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon.

Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacifi c Rim ..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North .............................................................................. Richard T.

Lee Cariboo-Chilcotin ........................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................... Hon. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ......................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Hope ....................................................................... Laurie Th roness Columbia River–Revelstoke ..................................................

Norm Macdonald Comox Valley.....................................................................................Don McRae Coquitlam–Burke Mountain .....................................................Douglas Horne Coquitlam-Maillardville........................................................... Selina Robinson Cowichan Valley ................................................................................ Bill Routley Delta North .........................................................................Wm.

Scott Hamilton Delta South...............................................................................Vicki Huntington Esquimalt–Royal Roads .....................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ...................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Fraser-Nicola.................................................................................... Jackie Tegart Juan de Fuca .....................................................................................John Horgan Kamloops–North Th ompson ............................................ Hon. Dr.

Terry Lake Kamloops–South Th ompson ..................................................Hon. Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country ..................................................... Hon. Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission .............................................................. Hon. Steve Th omson Kootenay East .......................................................................... Hon. Bill Bennett Kootenay West ............................................................................ Katrine Conroy Langley.......................................................................................Hon.

Mary Polak Maple Ridge–Mission ..................................................................... Marc Dalton Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................ Dr. Doug Bing Nanaimo ........................................................................... Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan ......................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ........................................................................ Hon.

John Rustad Nelson-Creston ........................................................................Michelle Mungall New Westminster ............................................................................... Judy Darcy North Coast......................................................................................Jennifer Rice North Island .................................................................................. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ........................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto North Vancouver–Seymour ..................................................Jane Th ornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ...................................................... Dr. Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .......................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................ Pat Pimm Peace River South ............................................................................Mike Bernier Penticton............................................................................................

Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam ..........................................................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam ................................................................Linda Reimer Powell River–Sunshine Coast ................................................. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ............................................................. Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ................................................... Hon. Shirley Bond Richmond Centre ......................................................................Hon.

Teresa Wat Richmond East ..........................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .................................................... Gary Holman Saanich South ................................................................................

Lana Popham Shuswap ................................................................................................Greg Kyllo Skeena .............................................................................................. Robin Austin Stikine ....................................................................................... Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ....................................................... Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Fleetwood ........................................................... Hon.

Peter Fassbender Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton ................................................................................. Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ........................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Tynehead ......................................................................Hon. Amrik Virk Surrey-Whalley..............................................................................

Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ....................................................................... Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Fairview ..................................................................George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek ................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview ......................................................Hon.

Suzanne Anton Vancouver-Hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington .................................................................Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .................................................................Dr. Moira Stilwell Vancouver–Mount Pleasant .........................................

Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ...............................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill .......................................................................Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.........................................................................Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano ............................................................. Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..........................................................Jordan Sturdy Westside-Kelowna ................................................................

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 34; Independent 3

CONTENTS Th ursday, February 19, 2015 Aft ernoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members ..................................................................................................................................................... 5929 Orders of the Day Budget Debate (continued) ..................................................................................................................................................... 5929 B. Ralston R. Sultan S. Simpson J. Martin R. Fleming Hon. A. Virk M. Elmore J. Th ornthwaite R. Austin Hon. B. Bennett

THURSDAY , FEBRUARY 19, 2015 Th e House met at 1:31 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members N. Simons: I’ d just like to take this opportunity to say hello to a…. Interjections. N. Simons: Hello to my colleagues in this House. But if they allow me, to also recognize a stalwart British Columbian and volunteer in our offi ce in Powell River, which serves everyone in the community. She’s battling pneumonia right now, but Sharon Sawyer is a tough per- son, a sensitive and compassionate person.

I’m looking forward to her coming back to my offi ce to continue to help the constituents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast. Orders of the Day Hon. A. Wilkinson: Calling continued debate on the budget, please. Budget Debate (continued) B. Ralston: I’ d like to resume. I understand, given ad- vice from the Chair, that the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper will not add to my time, so therefore, I would like to move it now. [D.

Horne in the chair.] It reads as follows: [Be it resolved that the motion “Th at the Speaker do now leave the Chair” for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the following: “Th at the government report in the third quarter of this fi scal year on progress towards their commitment to have one LNG plant and processing facility up and running by 2015; to open eight new mines by 2015; and their commitment to ensure every British Columbian has access to a general practitioner by 2015; and that the government maintain the personal income tax re- gime for individuals earning over $150,000 per year. ”] With that, if I could speak to the amendment, then.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed. On the amendment. B. Ralston: I want to talk a little bit further about the comments made by the former Liberal Finance Minister, Carole Taylor. I think she really sums up what a lot of people in the middle of the political spectrum, who aren’t quite as isolated from reality as perhaps members of the executive council are…. I think she really, in what she said, expressed the sentiments of a broad cross-section of public opinion in British Columbia. [1335] She also had a warning, I think, for the business com- munity. She speaks with some authority on this matter.

She’s now a director for some major Canadian corpora- tions: Bell Canada Enterprises, Toronto-Dominion Bank, CP Rail, Canfor and Fairmont Hotels. I’m quoting her: “Th ere’s a growing disconnect. People say: ‘Why should I care about business doing well? Why should I care about a strong economy if I’m not feeling any of the eff ects?’” She said that without that feeling of connection and benefi t from economic growth, the business people in the room would fail to win the social licence they need for the projects to move ahead. “Th ere has to be a solid line between those two things. ” So what she says is….

I’m quoting from this

article but not from her: “Despite lower taxes and modest gains in disposable income, Canadians are carrying high debt loads, the cost of living is rising, job security is rife, and many are uncertain about retire- ment…. 'Y ou’ve got this sense of dis-ease. ’” I think that really sums up the public mood in many respects and explains why the Liberal budget — particu- larly the most symbolic part of it, which is to remove the 2-percent surcharge on income earners above $150,000 — strikes people as being so wrong at this particular time.

It’s in that context of concerns about retirement, concerns about job insecurity, concerns about their children’s fu- ture, concerns about their own high debt loads that many Canadians, and many British Columbians, fi nd themselves. In a broader context of a national debate — and, in- deed, perhaps a global debate in the western world — about growing income inequality between the rich- est in our society and those who have a lot less, British Columbia really doesn’t have a great record there. Within Canada, B.C. and Alberta are the most unequal when comparing aft er-tax household income.

B.C. ’s inequality has outstripped Canada’s as a whole every year since 2001. Th e child poverty report card, which the advocacy group First Call puts forward, found in their 2013 report that B.C. once again had the highest child poverty rate in Canada based on 2011 statistics. We know that the federal government, federal Tories, have hampered the collection of statistics by eliminating the long-form census — decried by social analysts and business analysts.

In a world where data is becoming in- creasingly important, they’ve managed to hamper one of the important mechanisms for determining markets, the composition of markets and many important social indices, but that’s an aside. So 153,000 kids, based on that statistic from 2011. It’s in that context that the B.C. Liberals have put forward 5929

British Columbia Debates5930 Thursday, February 19, 2015 this budget taking off that surcharge on those earning $150,000 net taxable income. Th at opportunity to ex- tend, as took place in other parts of the budget, simply was not taken. Th ere are others who know and have some sense of the public mood on this issue. I would travel no further than the report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Eight government MLAs and seven opposition MLAs.

Th e members on the government side — the Chair, the member for Penticton; the member for Vernon- Monashee; the member for Abbotsford-Mission; the member for Delta North; the member for Surrey- Panorama; the member for Prince George–Mackenzie; the member for Fraser-Nicola; and the member for Richmond-Steveston. Th ose are the government MLAs. Th at’s a pretty broad cross-section of the Liberal caucus. Th ey are not in cab- inet but form a part of the Liberal majority here in the Legislature. [1340] In their recommendations, significantly, they rec- ommended…. I go to recommendation 37.

This is a unanimous recommendation of the committee. “Th e Committee recommends to the Legislative Assembly that the provincial government introduce a comprehen- sive poverty reduction plan and review income assistance rates, the minimum wage and the clawback of child sup- port payments. ” Now, it’s evident, perhaps, that the Minister of Finance or his offi cials, in preparing the budget, did listen to one small part of that recommendation, the clawback of child support payments. Th at is a victory for those parents who were having that child support payment clawed back from their social assistance payment.

But the rest of the proposal, the poverty reduction plan — a broad cross-

section of the Liberal caucus supported that — was not listened to by the Finance Minister. He doesn’t listen to former Liberal Finance Minister Carole Taylor. He’s not prepared to listen to his own cau- cus, apparently. One wonders, and it’s no surprise, that this budget is being received very poorly by many, many British Columbians outside the very loyal…. Th ere are some determined and loyal supporters of the government who will, I suppose — fortunately for them, and the government would gratefully receive that support — support the government no matter what.

But I think the people in the middle, the people who are the ones who are considering their own personal economic situation, are certainly not taken with this budget. Indeed, it creates a certain amount of ire and outrage at the deci- sion to continue to give tax relief to those earning over $150,000 net taxable.

Th at is, I suppose, not too surprising, but I think it shows the degree to which the Finance Minister and the executive council are out of tune — out of tune with their own members and former senior cabinet ministers, out of tune with their own caucus and yet here in the Legislature, pounding away on the desks enthusiastically in support of this budget.

Sometimes we hear — I think the Minister of Education was the most recent to mention it — “Well, back in 2013 you voted against the budget. ” I would cite no less an au- thority in the Liberal cosmos than Gordon Campbell, who said that a vote against the budget is a matter of con- fi dence. It’s a well-recognized parliamentary tradition, existing for hundreds of years. If a vote against the budget is a vote of a lack of confi dence in the government, it’s not a vote on an individual measure within the budget. Th at specious argument is oft en raised by members opposite, but, really, they should know better.

Maybe it’s their speechwriters. If they’re listening — the 220 people in the public aff airs bureau, whoever is responsible for monitoring me — perhaps they could make a note and pass this on, include this in future speech notes for other cabinet ministers. I think that would be appreciated. As I say, I am citing that oracle in the Liberal cosmos, Gordon Campbell, so I think that’s pretty good authority for someone on that side of the House.

Th e other area in my amendment that I want to focus upon are some of the statements — made largely by the Premier, but a supporting cast was also playing in that particular drama — about the LNG opportunity. Now we hear, particularly in the Speech from the Th rone and to some degree in the budget, a real absence of any dis- cussion of LNG. I noticed that the Deputy Minister of Finance, in pur- suit of his statutory obligation to look at prospective revenue, says clearly at the front of the budget that the budget does not include any revenue in the three-year fi scal plan from LNG.

Given that discharge of his statu- tory duty, the Finance Minister, I suppose, was really left with no room other than to follow that direction and, I think, state the obvious in the budget, that there’s no rev- enue from LNG coming. We hear the members opposite now resiling, aban- doning their position. It’s a sort of selective amnesia about what was said about LNG. [1345] Let me refresh their memory. Let me quote the Premier.

Th is is a speech she made May 22, 2014, so less than a year ago. “We do know what we can do today, and that is to make sure that as a government we look at every decision we make through the lens of whether or not it furthers our purpose in creating an LNG industry here in B.C. Th is is our central preoccupation. So I personally chair a special cabinet” — I think it should say commit- tee — “devoted to making sure we coordinate our decisions across government with the view to moving as nimbly as we can to create an LNG business here. LNG is what we ran on in the last election.

It is what we were elected to do, it is a promise that we made to the people of British Columbia, and it is a promise I intend to keep. ” “Central preoccupation, ” “chairs a special commit- tee, ” “we look at every decision of government through

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5931 the lens of what we can do, whether or not it furthers our purposes of creating an LNG…. ” One has to marvel at the — how shall we say? — fl exibility of government members when they now talk about a diversifi ed econ- omy. Certainly, as recently as ten months ago the Premier, the leader of the Liberal Party, was not talking about that at all publicly. It was the central preoccupation, the lens through which every decision of government was viewed. One can only expect — or, I think, divine or conclude — that the B.C.

Liberals were forced to recognize that talking about a diversifi ed economy was certainly over- due in their view of the B.C. economy, and they were forced to it. I can’t resist; I’ve got another quote from the Premier at the same time, a cabinet announcement May 14, 2013 — a little bit earlier. “We were elected in large part on the promise to build a brand-new industry here in B.C. It’s how we’re going to make B.C. debt-free in 15 years.

It’s how we’re going to grow 100,000 jobs, so we’re going to give it absolute laser focus. ” A laser , as we know , is a very concentrated beam of light that hones in on a very, very small area, emphasiz- ing the point that this is the unique focus, the central preoccupation, the lens through which every decision is viewed — not a diversifi ed economy. Oh no, no. All of the resources of government to be poured into it. Industry analysts, and the LNG industry itself, were never as optimistic — or, one arguably might say, unreal- istic — about the prospects of creating an LNG industry here in British Columbia.

It’s something that may very well happen. But the issue for those of us on this side of the House is the degree to which the laser-like focus, the central preoccupation of the Premier and her direction to the government bureaucracy wiped away any concern, any issue about a diversifi ed economy, any input from in- dustry stakeholders, any meetings or basically any initia- tives that those who weren’t in the LNG and its ancillary support industries could bring to government. Th at has changed out of necessity, but that’s the point that I think we seek to meet.

Clearly, the amendment that I propose asks the government to report on having a pro- cessing facility up and running by 2015. “Up and running” is a direct quotation from the Premier. Up and running is not something by 2015. “Up and running by 2015” is a direct quote from the Premier, and, clearly, it doesn’t look like that’s going to take place by 2015. It may come to pass. I know that the Minister of Natural Gas Development is optimistic. He never relents in his optimism. I suppose that’s a good thing for a per- son doing that job.

But we shall see. [1350] Th e global market for LNG has taken some shocks as a result of the decline in the oil price. Even companies like BG Gas, which has put its proposal in Prince Rupert on hold, are now, I’m told, thinking…. Th ey have other pro- posals in the Gulf Coast, where there are brownfi eld sites that have a developed port, are connected to the natural gas pipeline network in North America and are zoned for industrial development. Even those projects are being re- considered as to whether they will go forward. It’s a diffi cult economic environment for an LNG pro- ject to go forward.

I don’t particularly blame the govern- ment for that fact. I’m just astonished and continue to be astonished at the Premier’s rhetoric and the way in which she distorted the economic reality of creating an LNG industry, much to the detriment of other parts of the economy. I also want to talk a little bit more about some of the other aspects of Liberal promises that I’ve mentioned in the amendment in the time that is allocated to me. One of the singular promises of the Liberals…. Th is is an im- portant promise.

For most people, their contact with the health care system is through their family physician, through him or her. Th at’s usually their fi rst gateway to health care. Particularly for those women in child-bearing years, when you’re having children, as I experienced in my family, there are obvious reasons why you need a family physician if you’re giving birth and raising young chil- dren. Th at’s well known. And particularly as you get older, your needs for health care sometimes increase, some- times drastically if your health is not good or if you’re particularly unfortunate. Now, what the B.C.

Liberals announced in 2010…. Th ey announced a $132 million campaign called A GP for Me, a general practitioner for me — I suppose not everyone would know what a GP is — promising that everyone would be attached to a general physician by 2015. Th at was repeated in 2013. In 2013 over 600,000 British Columbians didn’t have a family doctor. The Minister of Health in 2014 said, when asked about the target: “Well, we’ll have to wait and see. We still have al- most two years to achieve that. ” He said that almost a year ago. So by his own calculation, he’s, I suppose, running out of time in 2015.

Th ere are shortages of doctors, but that’s well known. I think, particularly in northern locations, recruiting phys- icians has been a challenge, and that’s well recognized. I think the government has taken some measures there. But we’re talking about a number of over 600,000. So that’s the case not only in remote locations or northern locations but also in metropolitan areas of the province.

Th e really striking thing about this promise is that it was made so casually, apparently, that the Auditor General found in the February 2014 report that the Ministry of Health has failed to monitor British Columbians’ access to physicians despite announcing the program back in 2010. Th e report states: “We, therefore, expected the ministry to be actively monitoring access to physicians, facility-based and community-based. Th is is not happening. In 2010 the minister announced a commitment to provide by 2015 a physician for every British Columbian who wishes one — the A GP for Me initiative.

However, we found that

British Columbia Debates5932 Thursday, February 19, 2015 the ministry is not actively tracking its progress in meeting this goal. Th e ministry has only estimated the number of unattached patients prior to the initiative’s launch and plans to use the same estimation process in 2015 to look at the change. ” Th e Auditor General is an independent offi cer of the Legislature, has no political axe to grind and is simply looking at the reports, the promise, the public statements and analyzing it and coming forward with the report to the Public Accounts Committee. [1355] Th at’s really striking.

If you don’t monitor your progress on a promise, can one then reasonably conclude that the government is sincere when they made that promise or that they are sincere about keeping it or that the promise has any value — other than, perhaps, some added value in some government advertising in the run-up to the election? I don’t think so. Th at’s a very striking omission, and it’s, I think, a rath- er damning report by the Auditor General on this topic. One hopes that the government makes some progress on that. As I say, that’s the primary avenue, for many people, through which they receive health care.

One oft en hears complaints or concerns that people go directly to emergency wards and jam them up for rela- tively minor ailments — although they may be perceived as major health problems by the people concerned. Partly, that’s because they don’t have access to their own doctor. Th ey’re not on a list. Some of the walk-in clinics run out of their numbers by the middle of the day. So they wind up at the emergency ward. Obviously this is — as the Minister of Health, I’m sure, would say — a large and complicated problem.

But if you’ve announced it now fi ve years ago and you’re not monitoring the results of your commitment, then that’s something to be troubled by. Th e other area that I want to touch on in the time that I have…. I’m not sure how much time I have left . Very little time, apparently. I do want to talk about the com- mitment that was made by the government on opening eight new mines. In fact, fi ve mines have closed — four mines near Tumbler Ridge, plus Mount Polley — since 2011. Th ree new mines have opened, and two brownfi eld mines have been reopened. Almost 1,500 miners, since 2011, are out of work.

Again, that’s partly the reason why I’ve included that particular statistic. We hear rather endlessly from those opposite about the mining industry. But the mining in- dustry hasn’t done as well as the B.C. Liberals say. It hasn’t done as well as they promised.

Th at’s at least in part due to the fact that the “central preoccupation, ” the “laser- like focus” of the “lens through which we view every de- cision” — I’m quoting the Premier again; that’s all about LNG — has meant that mining, an important industry — metropolitan Vancouver is a global mining hub; it’s an important industry in British Columbia — hasn’t had the attention that it deserves. And the results speak for themselves. I moved that amendment because I really hope that we will hear back from the government on these im- portant measures of economic success. Th at’s not just idle chatter.

Th at’s because, as Carole Taylor has said, British Columbians are feeling insecure about their fu- ture. Th ey’re worried about their pensions. Th ey’re wor- ried about the insecure job market. Th ey’re worried about their debt load. Th ey’re worried about whether they’ll have a pension, whether they can retire or not. In that context, this budget fails absolutely and utterly. Th at’s why I’ve moved the amendment. Th at’s why, when the time comes, I will be voting against the budget as a measure of my lack of confi dence in this government.

I hope the Minister of Education will remember that when he quotes from this speech. Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, just to provide clarity to members, although the member for Surrey- Whalley has moved an amendment to the motion to move to Committee of Supply, members are welcome to speak both to the amendment and to the main motion as we continue. R.

Sultan: With respect to the motion by the member for Surrey-Whalley, I don’t believe that this would be in the best interests of British Columbians, and I won’t be supporting it. [1400] I would also point out that on Tuesday our Finance Minister informed the House that our British Columbia government has accomplished what, in these times, no other federal or provincial government in Canada could accomplish but has been accomplished here — balance its budget for a third consecutive time.

As governments around the world fl ounder in red ink, they could ask, or they should ask: “How do they do that over there in British Columbia?” Well, one thing we can say is that it wasn’t accom- plished by imposing high taxes. As the minister told the House on Wednesday, British Columbia has the most competitive income tax structure in Canada for families of higher income, families of average income and, yes, families of lower income as well.

Furthermore, on the business side, KPMG, the global accounting and fi nancial fi rm, in their global survey of tax rates around the world, describes us, all taxes com- bined, as having just about the most competitive business tax environment in the world. Among nations, they say, Canada has the lowest tax burden. Of major cities around the world, Toronto ranks lowest of all, with Vancouver a close second. For those of you contemplating a move to Paris, France, you might want to take into account that, as estimated by KPMG, their total tax burden for enjoy- ing the Champs Elysées is three times higher than ours.

Th is is a low-tax environment, and yet we have bal- anced the books. Our astonishing fi scal performance is

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5933 not based on magic or accounting sleight of hand.It’s, in fact, based on disciplined expenditures, smart program choices and competent administration, year aft er year aft er year. To give credit where credit is due, this present government has performed admirably. But it benefi ts from a foundation of laws, values and practices created by provincial administrations here in B.C. over the past dozen years. Th e budget refl ects more than mere tough-minded bean-counting as well.

In an evolving world it also re- fl ects stimulus and innovations in encouraging key new areas of business. I would like to devote most of my remarks this aft er- noon to one new development which an old banker like me fi nds particularly exciting. I refer to the budget meas- ures which will facilitate the creation of a renminbi trad- ing hub here on the west coast. What is a renminbi? Well, it’s the offi cial currency of the People’s Republic of China. We are probably more familiar with the basic unit of the renminbi, which is the yuan.

Renminbi is the currency, like sterling, and yuan is the unit of measure, like pound, to use the U.K. analogy. Th e currency is issued by the People’s Bank of China, their monetary authority. China is now the second-largest economy in the world, and the largest trading nation. Th e renminbi — or RMB, in the acronym — is now the fi ft h-largest global currency in terms of the value of settlement payments. When busi- nesses trade internationally, the currencies involved must be converted to execute the transactions. Traditionally, the renminbi has not been easily or freely convertible to other currencies.

For Canadian businesses, for example, paying for im- ports of goods from China, Canadian dollars have been usually converted into U.S. dollars and then U.S. dollars are converted into renminbi. For exports, of course, it’s the other way around. [1405] Each currency transaction exacts its commission cost. One commission is cheaper than two. Th us, businesses in Canada and potentially right across North America will benefi t from our new renminbi hub, the fi rst of its kind in the Americas.

Th e hub is a fi nancial centre sanctioned by China and their central bank to clear and settle transactions in the Chinese currency directly, making it easier and less expensive for people here to do business with China. Th e Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimates that direct trade in renminbi could boost the value of B.C. exports by $9.4 billion over ten years.

Th e lion’s share of those estimated export gains are expected to be in the for- estry sector, because it’s an industry with highly competi- tive prices in which the use of the renminbi could make a signifi cant diff erence in competitive bidding situations. Th e government of British Columbia has declared its intention to work closely with partners such as Advantage B.C., a non-profi t coalition of trade- and fi nance-oriented businesses in this province, which benefits from tax measures by this government.

Th e government in this budget indicates it will contribute modest funds to en- sure that B.C. businesses are equipped to understand this new tool and put it to work on behalf of their businesses and their employees. A bit of history. I happened to be present at the birth of the antecedent organization of Advantage B.C. back in Montreal during the 1970s, if you can believe it. In those days it was called the International Financial Centre, or IFC. It operated as a federal tax–driven institution aimed at making Quebec fi nancial institutions more competi- tive in the Atlantic sphere.

Now, under the leadership of such British Columbia business leaders as Bruce Flexman and, now, Colin Hansen, we have seen its evolution as a west coast, provincial government tax–driven and –as- sisted, Pacifi c-oriented cooperative coalition. Four months ago on November 8, 2014, a memoran- dum of understanding between the Bank of Canada and the People’s Bank of China was signed which will establish Canada as North America’s fi rst off shore ren- minbi hub. Th e agreement has the full support of the governments of British Columbia and Ontario.

Th e hub will off er opportunities for businesses across Canada to undertake renminbi-denominated bonds and equities from mainland China. Exchanging one currency for another is a huge busi- ness opportunity for British Columbia. Global currency trading volume is estimated at about $5 trillion a day, iIn a world GDP of around U.S. $75 trillion, estimated in nominal terms. In other words, as a crude estimate, every 15 days, foreign exchange trading volume equals annual GDP volume. Th ere’s a lot of trading going on out there. China’s GDP is approaching $10 trillion. Canada is not much more than $1½ trillion.

Th e potential trillions of trading volumes in prospect for a renminbi hub can challenge our ability to keep track of the zeros as we do the estimates. FX, foreign exchange, can be very profi table. I refer again to my career at Canada’s largest bank in the 1970s and early 80s, when I was amazed to learn that FX, for- eign exchange, trading accounted for a quarter to a third of our total earnings.

I was fl abbergasted. [1410] More recently, in 2014, fi rst-quarter Royal Bank of Canada Capital Markets earnings were half a billion dollars, about one-quarter of its total earnings and up 8 percent on the quarter, primarily due to fi xed income, commodity and foreign exchange trading activities, plus higher M and A — merger and acquisition — fees. Notice that FX trading is lumped in with a lot of other trading. Th e trading desks are adjacent. Th e days, which I recall, when FX was a separate department are long gone. Th us our opportunity to trade profi tably the renmin- bi from a base in Canada is tremendous.

It is far bigger than our Euro trade. It is also a unique opportunity for

British Columbia Debates5934 Thursday, February 19, 2015 Vancouver to put additional vigour back into a downtown corporate sector which has languished, to be perfectly blunt. Are we content to be viewed by some internation- ally as merely a beautiful place to park one’s capital, or do we aspire to rebuild a serious business headquarters town and fi nancial centre? Even setting aside the LNG opportunity, which now, it seems clear, may move along more slowly than we had hoped in these choppy energy supply-and-demand times, the British Columbia numbers are still compelling.

To quote the recent IFC working group — that is to say, the old name of Advantage B.C. — report on international fi nancial services for B.C.:” Canada exports $20 billion annually to China and imports over $50 billion. ” Seventy percent of China-Canada commodity trades and letters of credit transactions are being handled in Vancouver.

Vancouver has experienced a significant expansion of Asian financial institutions, with three of the largest banks in the world — the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the Agricultural Bank of China, and the Bank of China — as well as HSBC, the Hong Kong and Shanghai bank of Canada, being estab- lished here for many, many years. China is B.C. ’s second-largest export customer, ac- counting for almost 20 percent of trade, up from only 4 percent a decade ago, making British Columbia the Canadian province least reliant on the large and fast- growing American market.

While the American opportunity will always be large and appealing and, obviously, one that we are enviably positioned to benefi t from, we have also learned, to our disappointment, the perils of Canadian-American trade and investment arrangements, whether that be impedi- ments imposed on soft wood lumber, the Keystone XL pipeline saga or bridges across the Detroit River. It’s also notable that B.C. was the fi rst foreign govern- ment in the world to issue bonds denominated in ren- minbi — the fi rst foreign government in the world.

And we have now issued a renminbi 3 billion note, which was quickly oversubscribed. Th ese innovations do not go unnoticed in China or in capital markets elsewhere. Th erefore, the creation of a renminbi hub in Canada is a natural step in our many ties with this huge and fast- growing country of China. I personally would argue that Vancouver be the logic- al Canadian renminbi trading hub. I would refer to fi ve factors. Our Pacifi c trade traditions, stretching back in his- tory to the CPR’s fl eet of White Empress ships coming through the First Narrows plying the China trade.

I ac- tually remember those wonderful steamships. Two, location, location, location on the Pacifi c Rim. Sorry, T oronto. Language, language, language, with one of the high- est concentrations of persons fl uent in Chinese on the continent. Fourthly, our large and sophisticated culture-profi cient, commerce-oriented, Chinese-Canadian population, many already engaged in transpacifi c enterprise. Finally, the solid groundwork already in place through the eff orts of Advantage B.C. [1415] It is also encouraging that B.C. export and import trade itself will be a major benefi ciary.

A recent study by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimated the dir- ect trade in the renminbi could save Canadian fi rms up to $6.2 billion over ten years, as indicated, by reducing transaction costs and increasing exports in the range of $21 billion to $32 billion. B.C. would share signifi cantly in these productivity and volume gains. Th e renminbi base of business will encompass far more than mere trade. It will also involve wealth management, where Advantage B.C. has a long history in this prov- ince. All that Asian wealth must be managed by some- body somewhere.

And where better than right here in Vancouver? However, let us also recognize some of the complica- tions. Th e political dimension will be critical. We should not be so naive to think the Americans will be pleased to see British Columbians working directly with Chinese fi nancial institutions that bypass some proportion of U.S. dollar transactions. And then we have Toronto — the supremely dominant fi nancial institution reality in Canada.

Given Toronto’s massive position in the fi nancial sector, it is probably in- evitable that Toronto will continue to receive — again, in my personal opinion — most-favoured-nation treat- ment when it goes to Ottawa. Th e concept of Vancouver complementing Toronto sounds nice, but how would that actually work out in practice? Bowing to reality, therefore, B.C. is committed to cooperating and helping in the evo- lution of a pan-Canadian hub involving both Vancouver and Toronto. Finally, let’s notice that Calgary will not be oblivious to these developments.

It will try to exploit its stature as now the major western Canadian fi nancial centre and will try to promote its head offi ce advantages over B.C. and Vancouver. However, I believe their U.S. bias and their oil industry dependency will be a disadvantage as they compete with British Columbia in fostering closer fi nancial ties with China. A fi nal complication. Regulation and transparency can also be a challenge. Canada’s federal government jeal- ously maintains its jurisdiction of banking.

Th ey prefer bankers who are familiar to them, fi rst-name basis, and they are; transparent — they know exactly what’s going on, and the reporting is frequent and generally accurate; and geographically convenient. In Montreal we could get in the car and be in Ottawa in a couple of hours. Let’s not forget that not many months ago, Mark Carney — formerly head of the Bank of Canada, now head of the Bank of England — fi red his chief foreign ex-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5935 change trader of the Bank of England for being secretive. Th is gives you some idea of the value system under which bankers, particularly central bankers, like to operate. So let us also not slip into the assumption that Vancouver’s physical proximity to Asia will guarantee a market position. Th at’s unlikely to be true. In today’s elec- tronic world, a trading desk can be virtually anywhere. Th ere’s also a big critical mass issue. Where trading oc- curs is, in the main, a banking decision.

It will be hard to reverse Canadian banks’ historical location choices, and in recent decades they have not particularly favoured Vancouver. But there’s a new kid in town: the Chinese banks. Th is is our opportunity. We should embrace that reality. It’s a golden opportunity to re-establish our once dominant western fi nancial presence in this country. [1420] To sum up. B.C. Budget 2015 sets the table for a huge opportunity, which we should choose.

Working hand in hand with Advantage B.C. and Toronto, we should aim to consolidate our attractiveness to Asian fi nancial insti- tutions and become the logical centre of FX trading for the renminbi in all of North America, not just in Canada. Let’s do it. S. Simpson: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on the budget and to get a chance to talk about where this government wants to take us over the next period of time. When we talk about budgets produced by govern- ments, they’re more than simply sets of numbers. Th ey’re more than a bottom line. Th ey really are about the vi- sion of government.

Th ey’re about government strategy. Th ey’re about how government intends to engage that vi- sion and that strategy and, in a programmatic way, what that starts to look like. Th ey are about how governments decide to create strategies that will create jobs and op- portunity for people — in this case, in British Columbia — and they are about how governments embrace fair- ness. Especially, that becomes true in tough times and in times when people are very pressured around money — times like today. Th at’s what we have to look at when we look at a budget.

I know that the government and the member previous- ly, who I always appreciate listening to, and other mem- bers have been pretty single-minded in terms of trying to embrace this because of a bottom-line number and saying that it’s a successful budget because of a bottom- line number.

Th at’s not the way that you measure budgets in terms of how the people in this province live their lives every day and in terms of the struggles and challenges they have and in terms of the responsibility and obligation of gov- ernment to help to ease that a little bit where they can; to create some opportunity where they can; to, in fact, be a partner with the people of the province when they can; to help people achieve better outcomes for themselves, for their children, for their family and their loved ones. Th e question becomes: has this budget taken us down the road to accomplish that?

Well, I think you look fi rst at some of those values. Y ou look at how some of those things are refl ected in the budget. I think one of the items, and the one that probably jumps out fi rst and foremost — it’s the one that’s become a topic across this province, and rightly so — is the decision of the government to ef- fect, essentially, a tax cut for the top 2 percent earners in this province, to eff ect a tax cut for those people who earn more than $150,000 a year. What that tax cut means…. Th at’s $236 million, that tax cut.

As an example, for somebody who has a million dollars a year, that means $17,000 more in their pocket. Th e contrast to that is that the government put in place fees in excess of $700 million that people will face in this province. Th at’s $700 million in the next year. We’ll talk a little bit more about that as we move forward. What that tax cut for the top 2 percent says, more than anything else, is: what are the values of the government? What is the vision of the government? How does the gov- ernment view what’s good for British Columbia?

I think it just speaks legions when you look at that — a tax cut for the top 2 percent earners. It just simply is not justifi ed in any way, shape or form, particularly at this time, and it’s a cut that we know nobody has been talking about. It’s a cut that none of those earners were talking about. Let’s talk about what the eff ects are and why that’s so problematic and why so many people in this province are angry at the government for making the decision to sup- port those who can aff ord to pay a little bit more, could aff ord what they were paying. Th ey’re not being asked to pay more.

Th ey’re just being asked to continue to pay what they were paying. [1425] What’s the problem here? Well, let’s look at some of these. We have a challenge with inequality in this prov- ince. We know the challenge is real. We know it’s a prob- lem. We know from Stats Canada numbers that British Columbia has the highest level of inequality in this coun- try among provinces: the diff erence, the spread, between the wealthiest 2 percent — probably the high end of the 2 percent — and the folks at the bottom end, the folks who will get a break because of the clawback.

Th ose folks versus the folks at the other end — we know that we have the highest levels of inequality in the province when it comes to that. We also know that we have the lowest wage growth, or some of the lowest wage growth, in the prov- ince as well — again, Stats Canada numbers. We have this situation. To put this in some kind of context, when you talk about poverty…. We’ve oft en in this place talked about poverty reduction. Now that Saskatchewan has adopted a poverty reduction plan, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has not seen poverty reduction as a priority that deserves

British Columbia Debates5936 Thursday, February 19, 2015 specifi c and direct attention, the only province in the country that has not embraced a plan that said: “We are going to put targets and timelines on this. We are going to focus some eff ort and initiative to drive poverty down, and we are going to look at the causes of poverty and see what we can do to drive those down. ” It’s a real problem in this province. We have about half a million people in British Columbia who live in poverty, based on Stats Canada numbers. Roughly a third of those are kids.

We have continued to have the worst numbers, or bordering on the worst numbers, of poverty in this country for over a decade. It’s challenging to get at that. It’s not easy to resolve, and it’s not cheap to resolve. But at least every other prov- ince in this country saw fi t to focus on making the eff ort. British Columbia is the only province that has not seen fi t to focus on an eff ort to try to address that issue — an eff ort that may have been successful, may not, but at least there would’ve been eff ort. Th ere has been no eff ort here in British Columbia and no eff ort from this government.

What the government has said about poverty when it’s been raised here is…. It’s talked about strong economies. It’s talked about jobs. So let’s talk about jobs. We have a jobs plan in British Columbia, a jobs plan that was adopted by this government in 2011. Now, what we’ve seen from the jobs plan is anemic performance at best. We currently have the lowest employment rate west of the Maritimes in the country. We’re doing better than folks in the Maritimes — I’ll give you that — but every- body else in the country not so much in terms of em- ployment growth.

We’ve seen our numbers that put us at about seventh place in growth — certainly, since the plan was adopted in 2011, sitting at about seventh place overall. We’ve seen a situation where we have had minimal growth, particu- larly in terms of high-income jobs. Th at’s been a part of the problem. Most of the job creation we’ve also seen has been low-income jobs and low-income growth. Th at may, in some ways, be some of the biggest challenge that we face, in fact: how we grow our jobs and the value of those jobs.

When you look at Stats Canada numbers and you adjust for infl ation based on Stats Canada numbers, it shows that B.C. wages between 2006 and 2012 actually fell in terms of their buying power by 2.4 percent, put- ting us in last place in real wage growth. [1430] Th is becomes a problem. It’s a problem not just for us, but it’s a problem that’s being recognized by business leaders across this province. Business leaders are talking about this challenge.

On January 22 in the Vancouver Sun, in response to an arti- cle about these issues of low wage growth, the following comment was made. “Income data released over several years ‘suggests our economy isn’t creating enough high- paying jobs, that there are relatively more low-paying jobs over time within the broader labour market and that policy-makers need to pay more attention to the problem of signifi cant numbers of employed people whose job- related earnings make it hard to support a household. ’” Th at was a comment by Jock Finlayson from the B.C. Business Council.

Th at was Jock Finlayson saying that policy-makers in this province need to pay more atten- tion to job growth and wage growth in this province and that we’re not getting it done. I had the opportunity to attend a Vancouver Board of Trade event looking at the state of the economy. One of the key speakers at that event was Tamara Vrooman, a well-known, well-respected business leader, president and CEO of Vancity Savings, past Deputy Minister of Finance here with this government. When she was asked what the most important issue facing British Columbia is today, she said low wage growth.

For her it was low wage growth and the impacts of low wage growth and what that does on spending and on business stimulus. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] We know that in this province — again, you can go back to Mr. Finlayson’s work, because he’s spoken about this on numerous occasions — the key drivers in this economy tend to be residential construction and con- sumer spending, and low wage growth becomes a signifi - cant problem on the consumer spending side. If people don’t have money in their pockets, they don’t spend the money.

Th at comes back to the challenges of over $700 million of additional fees/taxes, call it what you may, this year in this budget. So we have this situation where we have the challenge around jobs, around wage growth, around an- emic job growth in the province, and, as I said before, we have a signifi cant challenge around fees. I spoke a minute ago about the situation with the tax cut for the top 2 percent — a $236 million tax cut — and we have to contrast that with those additional fees.

Revenue anticipated from tax hikes — call it fees; call it taxes; call it what you will — Hydro, $286 million in ’15- 16; MSP , $93 million; ICBC, $206 million; ferries, $61 million; tuition, $62 million; adjustments to the home- owner grant threshold, $6 million. Th at’s $714 million of new fees and costs, with very, very little relief in this budget. Very little relief in this budget. How did we get here, what is the response, and how does the government deal with this? Well, we know the response up until budget day, up until this budget, to pretty much any question related to the anemic state of the economy.

To be clear — I’ll echo the comments of my colleague from Surrey-Whalley here a little bit — it’s been a challenging time in the economy everywhere, and we all know that. But the response has been LNG. Th ere has been no response other than LNG when it has come to this province’s and this government’s response and,

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5937 primarily, the Premier’s response. It has certainly been echoed by her colleagues in the executive council. Y ou know, the Premier told us…. She called LNG her government’s central preoccupation, and her laser focus promised one LNG terminal would be on line by 2015 and three would be on line by 2020. Th ose numbers have bounced around a lot, but that was the claim. [1435] Th e result of the claims that the Premier made about LNG, she was pretty specifi c about. Th e Premier wasn’t vague.

She was pretty specifi c about the value for British Columbians of LNG. She promised a windfall from LNG that would wipe out British Columbia’s debt, would reduce or eliminate the sales tax, would fund enhanced government programs, generate $1 trillion of economic activity, fi ll a $100 bil- lion prosperity fund and create as many as 100,000 jobs. Apparently it’s not a windfall anymore. It’s aspiration- al now. Th at’s the diff erence. It’s now become aspiration- al and not a windfall. It’s a chance that we’ll get this. It wasn’t a chance when the Premier started talking about this.

It wasn’t a chance when the government set every- thing else aside to focus on this, the central preoccupa- tion of this government, as the Premier has said — the central preoccupation. Well, we all know that none of that has been accom- plished. None of that has been accomplished. Th ere’s an argument today that the price of oil has exacerbated the challenge of accomplishing that, and I think there’s some truth to that. I certainly believe there’s some truth to that, but let’s be clear.

We have some idea of the amount of ac- tual work that needs to be done to get to that point where we could open the door for LNG. Th e Premier talked about a plant in 2015; we have to remember that. Y et none of the steps that had to be taken were taken until last fall — around taxes, around environment, around any of those issues. If the government was that slow off the mark to ac- complish those things, how on earth would it even have been possible to be talking about a 2015 plant? Th at’s be- cause we mostly saw rhetoric.

Th e government’s rhetoric is very good, and the Premier’s rhetoric is excellent, but that’s mostly what we saw. Unfortunately, we’ve created a situation now where people are frustrated because of the promises that were never kept — the promises that were so defi nitive, so matter-of-fact from this Premier, and not kept. Th at’s a problem. Th at’s the situation that we face today. How do we respond to this in this budget? Well, one of the things government has done — and governments of all stripes do this, and it is not a bad thing — is invest in capital spending, another $4½ billion.

Th at will take us up to record levels of over $70 billion of debt, primar- ily on capital spending. It’s not a bad thing on its own, by any means. Y ou need to determine those projects — which projects make sense, and which projects don’t make sense — set the priorities for those projects, and move ahead. Now here is the challenge, though, that we’ve seen with this government on these projects. Th e government has had a habit of having dramatic cost overruns. It has been the government’s habit on major capital projects.

On project aft er project we have seen major capital and cost overruns, cost overruns that add to those billions of dollars, hopefully some of it being well spent on things that we need, whether it’s new schools, new health care facilities, roads, infrastructure — all important. But what do we know when we look back? Just to look at fi ve of the major projects that this gov- ernment has produced over the last number of years…. Th e northwest transmission line — $342 million over budget. Th at’s 85 percent. Th e South Fraser Perimeter Road — $464 million over budget, 58 percent.

Th e Port Mann/Highway 1 — $1.8 billion over budget, 120 percent. Th e Vancouver Convention Centre — $341 million over budget, 68 percent. Th e B.C. Place roof — $149 million, or 41 percent. For fi ve projects, $3.1 billion over budget. Th ink about what we could have done with that money if the government had simply managed those projects properly. Th ink about what we could have done with that money — over $3 billion. [1440] Th at’s part of the problem we have here in relation to how we deal with that. What do we need to do here?

Well, we would start with the need to really talk about economic development in ways that are jobs-driven and about high, good-paying jobs. Economic development that’s about good-paying jobs. Th at was part of the challenge, as we know, with the LNG initiatives as it became clearer and clearer that memorandums of agreement were being signed with nations of origin or with some of the major companies that made it clear that signifi cant numbers, if not a ma- jority, of temporary foreign workers would be accepted as part of the mix. We all know temporary foreign workers add little value for British Columbia.

Now, workers who come to this country with a path to citizenship and the opportun- ity to set down roots here and make Canada and British Columbia their home — they add real value. But that’s not what we’re talking about in this instance. We need to have a B.C.-fi rst plan here. We’ve heard the rhetoric about B.C. fi rst. Th at rhetoric has to be realized in terms of actual programs. I don’t think we’ve seen that. We need to have real investment in education. Real in- vestment in education doesn’t mean cutting the budget for post-secondary.

Real investment in education doesn’t mean nickel-and-diming school boards once again. It means putting money in and seeing education truly as an investment and not as an expense. We need to do more of that. And there needs to be a clear strategy about how we

British Columbia Debates5938 Thursday, February 19, 2015 strengthen the middle class in this province, how we strengthen middle-class and working people. We know — all of the literature will tell you — that if you want to reduce inequality, one of the cornerstones of reducing in- equality is strengthening the middle class. Th at’s the key to the success of reducing inequality. We’re not doing that in British Columbia right now, and it’s a problem. We need to reinforce that and fi nd ways to do that. Th is budget didn’t take us there. It comes back, I guess, to the comment that I made at the beginning.

I understand the government is pleased with the bottom line of this budget, and I get that. Everybody likes to have budgets that stay in the black. But government budgets are about much, much more than that. Th ey are about a plan. Th ey are about a strategy. Th ey are about a vision. Th ey are about fairness and bal- ance.

Th ey are about embracing the people that we rep- resent and making sure they have opportunities — that we’re giving them the tools to ensure their kids have op- portunities, that we’re taking care of seniors, that we’re taking care of those people who face the biggest chal- lenges and are the most vulnerable in our society. All of that is part of where a budget has to go. When you balance the budget, you want to balance the numbers but you have to balance those other val- ues and other needs as well.

If you can’t accomplish that, then your budget is not a success and your budget hasn’t worked and your budget has not taken us where we need to go. Th is budget has not accomplished those things. It hasn’t accomplished them in any way, shape or form. I know how much this frustrates the other side, but it probably is the biggest symbol of this, of where those misplaced priorities are: top 2 percent earners, $236 mil- lion of tax cuts. Everybody else, $700 million of addition- al fees. Th at’s what we have.

How that makes sense, how that’s fair, how that’s balanced and how that helps this province move forward are questions that have not been answered by that side in any way. [1445] What I expect we will see bear itself out over the next couple of years is that this budget has come up terribly short in terms of meeting the needs and aspirations of the vast majority of people in this province — meeting the needs and aspirations of our kids, our seniors, the people who are looking forward to some hope. If you can’t create hope, you have to ask yourself what you’re doing.

If you can’t create opportunity, you have to ask yourself what you’re doing. To the Premier, it has to be more than empty rhetor- ic. It has to be substantive. We have now seen, based on the evidence, years and years where this simply has not been substantive. Th is is another example where it’s not substantive. J. Martin: It is a privilege to rise in this House to rep- resent my constituents in Chilliwack and to address the 2015 budget in the fourth session of the 40th parlia- ment.

It’s not only an honour to represent the people of Chilliwack, but I also take great pride in this budget be- cause we have delivered on a key election promise, that being another balanced budget — not once, not twice but three times, three times, three times. I very much look forward, 12 months from now, to being able to speak to a fourth consecutive budget. British Columbia is the only province in Canada to currently post a balanced budget. We are the envy of the country. We are the envy of the international commun- ity. What we are doing in B.C. is working.

I think it’s also noteworthy that we have eliminated the defi cit without reducing services to British Columbians, and we have done so without drastic cuts to public ser- vice, as was done in other eras. As a matter of fact, we have our hard-working public servants and the unions that represent them to thank for being such a big

part in this process. Approximately two-thirds of the B.C. pub- lic servants have already agreed to a fi ve-year contract. Furthermore, under the new mandate, public servants will benefi t as the economy continues to grow. Now, I know some of the opposition members ques- tion the importance of balancing the budget and paying off the public debt. Th e reason is simple: it makes great sense to get our fi nancial house in order so that we can focus precious tax dollars on things that matter to British Columbians. Th ings such as health care.

A balanced budget means we can aff ord a $3 billion increase to the health care budget over the next three years. Th ings like education. Because of a balanced budget, we are able to provide additional funding — $106.5 mil- lion in the next fi scal year, an additional $200 million the following year and another $257.5 million the year aft er that. Th is is very predictable funding that the school boards across the country can count on.

In total, we are spending an extra $3.7 billion on health care and education in the next three years, because we have balanced the books and have done so without rais- ing personal income taxes. As a matter of fact, British Columbians enjoy the lowest personal income taxes in the country, and they do so because we have balanced the budget. And we are committed to continue doing so. Furthermore, we are competitive in markets internation- ally because we also have some of the lowest corporate income taxes.

When we talk about a balanced budget, we’re not just talking about fi scal prudence; we’re talking about a so- cial balance too. I know the opposition members like to portray themselves as members of the only party with a social conscience, but I can assure you that is not the case. We have balanced the books, and we are now in a position to help those British Columbians most in need. As of September 1, 2015, single parents receiving in- come assistance will now be able to receive child support

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5939 payments from non-custodial parents without exemp- tion from their monthly supplement. This means an additional $32 million over three years for some of the neediest children and families in British Columbia. Now, one might expect the government to be con- gratulated by the opposition for taking steps to spend a portion of the very slim surplus on those most in need, but all we really hear is a clamour of confused and un- coordinated policies from the opposition that just tend to make no sense.

One of the most curious policy initiatives announced in advance of the budget is a proposal to change the provincial electoral system. Well, this is bizarre. Th is is the member for Saanich North and the Islands pledging that if the NDP is elected government, it would pursue some form of proportional representation. But they don’t quite know what form. [1450] Now, it’s not clear why the NDP feel this is a top pri- ority in British Columbia, especially since the idea was soundly rejected by voters — not just once, in 2005, but a second time, in 2009.

I can appreciate the frustration that opposition members must experience, with a record of three and 21 in elections. No doubt the Toronto Maple Leafs would probably like to see some rule changes right now too. But that’s not really the way that it should work. What is even more curious is the apparent fl ip-fl op on the part of the NDP on proportional representation.

Speaking on the concept of the so-called single transfer- able vote, the hon. member for Port Coquitlam told the newspaper Coquitlam Now in a 2008 interview: “None of the surveys that I’ve sent out have come back with residents saying that this is a pressing issue. I don’t hear about it from anybody.

I’ve been more focused on issues that my constituents are talking about. ” How about the Leader of the Opposition, who told the Vancouver Sun in 2008: “Could it not be argued that it’s a bit of a waste of money and resources and energy to put forward a question again with a supermajority that wasn’t achieved at the height of discussion on electoral reform?” How about the former member for Fraser-Nicola, who told the Ashcroft -Cache Creek Journal in 2009: “It’s okay for urban centres.

It’s a recipe for disaster in rural B.C. ” Well, it sounds to me that maybe the opposition should consult each other about this a little bit before they take it to the province. What are the real priorities for British Columbians? Well, we think it’s about balancing the budget, paying down the debt and addressing real-life… Interjections. J. Martin: Hold that thought for a moment. …social and economic needs in this province. I just don’t think that British Columbians are staying up late at night thinking about some European theoretical mod- el of electoral reform that really isn’t working very well.

May I suggest that the real discussion perhaps should be about things that matter to people, things like $3.7 billion in additional funding for health care and educa- tion over the next three years, things like $31 million in measures to strengthen economic growth and job cre- ation, $150 million to make life a little easier for families and those in need. British Columbians elected a government the old- fashioned way, in the democratic process. In doing so, they voted for a party that promised to balance the budget.

As a matter of fact, while the opposition has called the budget and the Speech from the Th rone boring, I invite them to take a good, hard look at other countries around the world that are reeling from plunging oil prices and populations facing severe austerity measures as a result. Y ou can call that boring if you want. I call it stable. In fact, British Columbia is a port of stability in a sea of uncer- tainty right now. We are the envy. Th e truth is that members of the opposition are keenly aware that our government is following a well-conceived plan that was laid out before the last election.

Th e NDP resents the fact that we’ve had discipline to carry it out. During the last election, British Columbians realized the NDP was making it up on the go. Th ey were winging it, making up policy as they went along. Th eir leader cast caution to the wind and began making up pronounce- ments on the fl y that didn’t make any sense. No one in the party had a clue that any of that was coming. It was clear the NDP had no intention of sticking to any semblance of an economic plan.

Eager to grab the keys to the treasury, they forgot one basic obligation to the voting public, and that is simple respect for the tax- payer. If that’s boring, so be it. Sometimes it all comes down to owning up to our mis- takes. I’ve made my share of mine. I’m sure I’ve eaten as much crow as anybody in this House in the last couple of years. Th at’s really not such a bad thing. Y ou brine it with some apple juice and a little bit of kosher salt, some 16-mesh ground pepper, and aft er a while, a little humil- ity is not such a bad thing.

Well, before the last election the NDP was adamant that our budget was not going to be balanced. “It was trickery. It was a mirage. It wasn’t a balanced budget. It was creative accounting, ” they said. Well, maybe I’m just too much of a Mr. Nice Guy. I’m going to give the oppos- ition the benefi t of the doubt. [1455] Let’s say that they actually did honestly believe that that budget was not balanced. Maybe that’s the informa- tion they got from the NDP war room. We all know that there’s a little bit maybe suspect in that particular quar- ter. But let’s say they did believe that that budget was not balanced.

Fair enough. We know how the NDP campaigned. They talked about the Liberal defi cit. Nine days into the election,

British Columbia Debates5940 Thursday, February 19, 2015 when they fi nally got around to putting out their plat- form, it called for four consecutive defi cit budgets. I guar- antee you that’s one promise the NDP would have kept if they’ d formed government. At the end of the day, though, it was balanced. Every single economic measure confi rms that it was a balanced budget. So what about a little humility? What about one single member of the opposition saying, “Y ou know what, Mr. Finance Minister? Y ou know what, Madam Premier? Y ou were right. Y ou did present a balanced budget.

I re- gret my suggestion otherwise”? Just one person. Th at’s all it would take. It’s not a bad thing to be wrong and to admit it. Th ree years later, mind you, but that would still be better than what we have right now. Okay, let’s review the NDP track record when they’re in government — eight defi cit budgets in a row, six con- secutive credit downgrades, the highest income taxes in Canada. We became a have-not province. We lined up behind Quebec, cap in hand, begging for handouts from provinces that had the good fortune not to be governed by the NDP .

Th is government came out and said exactly what they were going to do in terms of getting our fi nancial house in order, balancing the books and delivering a balanced budget. We did that. It behooves the question: what does the NDP believe in? We know what they’re against. Th ey’re against balanced budgets, against triple-A credit ratings, against controlling spending, against low income taxes. What else are they against? An Hon. Member: Unicorns. Butterfl ies. J. Martin: LNG? Fracking? Site C? Northwest trans- mission line? Pipelines? I could go on, and noting the hour, I think I’ll do that exactly.

Th ey’re against the Port Mann Bridge, against the Trade and Convention Centre, against B.C. Place, against the South Fraser Perimeter Road. An Hon. Member: Replacement of the Massey Tunnel. J. Martin: Ye a h . Against the Olympics, against Expo 86. If they’ d been around at the time, I’m sure they’ d have been against the fur trade. I’m sure, if they were around at the time, they would have wanted to send Jacques Cartier packing be- cause he was a temporary foreign worker. Th is government committed to getting B.C. ’s fi nancial house in order.

I’m very, very happy to be part of today’s discussion confi rming that we have a balanced budget. We’ll be on track for another one in 2014. J. Darcy: Could I have leave to make an introduc- tion, please? Leave granted. Introductions by Members J. Darcy: I introduced this morning the fi rst group of students from Lord Tweedsmuir school who were vis- iting. In the galleries now we have the second group of students who are visiting. Th ey are smart; they are eager; they are curious. When we talked beforehand, they know what budgets are. Th ey know what taxes are. Th ey even know what fl avoured tobacco is.

Please make these stu- dents feel very, very welcome in the Legislature. J. Shin: I also would like to seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. J. Shin: Today in the gallery, I’m also joined by two groups from a school in my riding, the Stoney Creek Community School. I would like the House to please welcome the group of young students and their teachers that are joining us in the House today. I just want to put in a comment that we absolutely love happiness and unicorns and fl owers and butterfl ies on this side of the House. Debate Continued R.

Fleming: It’s a pleasure to take my place in this de- bate this aft ernoon. I certainly have enjoyed some of the views espoused by members of both sides of the House, believe it or not. [1500] I want to speak a little bit, in particular, about educa- tion, because I serve my caucus as spokesperson on the K-to-12 ministry. But I think I will begin my overview of Budget 2015 where others have rightly done so as well — to look at really what was the main highlight of this budget, to look at what was the largest spend in Budget 2015.

Th at is what, over three years, will amount to three-quarters of a billion dollars — $230 million a year — on a tax cut for the top 2 percent of income-tax-fi lers in British Columbia. To the extent that British Columbians are talking about this budget at all, this is what they’re talking about. Th is is the big spend, the big priority revealed by this govern- ment that they’re talking about at the water coolers in British Columbia. It is a head scratcher, to be certain. It is something that nobody asked for.

Th ere are members on both sides of the House who I would thank for their service on the Standing Committee on Finance, who travelled right across British Columbia in every region — dozens and dozens of towns — and heard from those who wished to come and testify and share ideas about creating jobs, about public services, where improvements should be, about reducing inequal-

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5941 ity, about helping vulnerable people, about working to- wards reconciliation with First Nations and a host of other topics. I went through some of the transcripts of those meet- ings in the time that I had to prepare for this debate. I didn’t fi nd one presenter anywhere in British Columbia that made a presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance saying: “Y ou know what British Columbia should do to increase its prosperity and grow its econ- omy? Give the top 2 percent of income tax–filers a whopping tax cut. ” It didn’t happen.

But that’s what this government’s number one priority is. Y ou know what? I want to thank both Liberal and New Democrat members, independent members of the Finance Committee for the work they did because they did put some thoughtfulness into the recommendations that were made to the House. Th at again, I think, is some- thing that you have to look at when you analyze this budget. None of those good ideas — and some of them have not appeared for the fi rst time but several years in a row…. Th ey were ignored once again. Clearly, aft er the throne speech that we saw a couple of weeks ago….

I think one pundit said that on this day in history — February 10, 2015 — it will mark the day that this government ran out of ideas. Clearly, this is a govern- ment in search of ideas, and they can fi nd them from the Standing Committee on Finance in this place, our own Legislative Assembly. But it was not to be. Y ou know what’s interesting at this stage in debate?

Th ough we’ve heard from several members on either side making some very good points, I have not heard one member of the government side, not even the Finance Minister at this stage of debate, stand up and explain why a $230 million tax cut for the top 2 percent is a good thing for British Columbia. No one has linked this to an economic outcome or a plan. Nobody on the government side has said that this is a specifi c initiative to grow the import car dealers’ sector of our economy, or the luxury food or the fi ve-star hotel sector of our economy. Nobody has even off ered a fl imsy, ridiculous excuse like that.

We’ve had nothing. Th ere’s nothing in the government’s so-called jobs plan that says that the areas where there are serious skills gaps that are opening up and have been present in our econ- omy for several years require to be addressed by a 2 per- cent tax cut for the top income fi lers in B.C. So it’s a very, very puzzling initiative, considering that this is the main- stay of the budget and what people are talking about in British Columbia.

Now, I’ d be curious to see if the Ministry of Finance gave the Treasury Board, the cabinet, even the Liberal caucus, an analysis — a neutral perspective from econo- mists that work hard for the people of British Columbia, information that said that this is a good idea. [1505] Did the Ministry of Finance provide advice to the min- ister and to the government that said: “Y ou know, what we should spend three-quarters of a billion dollars over the service plan of this budget on is a tax cut for the top 2 percent. ” I would put a freedom-of-information request in about this, and I’m sure I’ d get something back redacted, if there was any advice at all.

Th at probably wouldn’t glean any- thing. Perhaps if there was something redacted, as I’m sure it would be, it would be fi led under the “Crazy Bad Idea”

section of the Ministry of Finance. It would probably be in a manila envelope that said: “Don’t do this. ” Th ere is no progressive jurisdiction on this continent or others in the industrialized world that is saying that neoconservative fi scal policy is a good idea as a way to grow back growth rates and create employ- ment and sharing prosperity in a period where we have recovered from the 2009 recession. Nobody is saying that in the OECD. Even a group of millionaires in Davos, Switzerland, a month ago didn’t say that income tax cuts for the top 2 percent was the way forward.

Only in British Columbia, only in that cab- inet, are they saying the way forward to strengthen your economy is a tax cut for the top 2 percent. Th at’s how out to lunch they are. In fact, economic experts, elected offi cials and leaders in other parts of the world are focusing on exactly what was missed by this budget. Th ey are concerned about per- sistently low growth rates in this decade and projected into the future. Th ey are worried about a shrinking mid- dle class in their midst.

Th at’s a real issue here in British Columbia when we look at the income trends, particu- larly B.C. compared to other parts of Canada. Th e income trends in British Columbia are not good — take-home pay and the rising cost of living in this province.

Other jurisdictions are focused, rightly so, on how to stop the shrinking of the middle class and how to strengthen it; how to build up a consumer base; how to have more stable employment; how to increase growth rates so that instead of a future where people are losing hope in institutions like this one and feeling that no mat- ter how hard they work they can’t get ahead, they have a stake in an opportunity society. Th at’s what progressive jurisdictions are trying to fi gure out. Growing inequality is not something that just the NDP in Canada talks about.

We have people across the political spectrum who have recognized its detriment to Canada and provinces like British Columbia. We have a lot of examples where a shrinking middle class or a mid- dle class that is under assault leads to well-documented problems. Y ou lose social cohesion. Y ou have to work longer and harder to support your family, and it begins to feel unrewarded. Th is is a well-studied problem in the OECD. In fact, there was a report just last month, that I would recom- mend members of the government cabinet in particular read, by Larry Summers, the former treasury secre-

British Columbia Debates5942 Thursday, February 19, 2015 tary for the United States and the president emeritus of Harvard. He put his fi nger on the problem of inequality and the risks to jurisdictions that ignore it — the risks of jurisdictions that do not see the need to protect a pro- gressive element to their tax codes or create policies that focus on shared prosperity. Th is is a problem around income and middle-class anxiety in British Columbia.

Members of this House will know it, because they interact with their constituents all the time in the community, in their offi ces trying to help them with problems. I’m sure that people even on that side of the House can well understand…. By talking to any hard-working two- income family that’s trying to raise their kids in B.C. and pay B.C. ’s high housing costs — and, in many cases, who are now earning less on average than workers in other provinces make — you’ll soon see what the sources of that anxiety are.

Primary among them for many working families in B.C. is that parents don’t have enough to help their kids get the education they need beyond high school to be competitive, to be able to thrive, in the labour market. Th at’s because savings, in average households in Canada and B.C., are amongst the worst in the industrialized world. [1510] There is what the former Bank of Canada govern- or, Mark Carney, called a crisis of savings in our coun- try amongst middle-class people.

When parents in B.C. worry about whether they’ll be able to aff ord advanced education for their kids because they haven’t managed to create the kinds of savings that are needed to aff ord it, they look at this government. Th ey look at a government where the cost of post-secondary education has absolute- ly soared in their decade in offi ce. When they assumed offi ce, it cost under $2,000 a year for a year of university or for a career-training program. It now costs well over $5,000 a year — in a relatively short period of time.

Th ose people who have those worries about the future of their kids and whether they’re going to be able to af- ford to get them into university will now be looking at the priorities outlined in this budget. Th ey will see that their kids have gone from having to pay under 2 grand a year for university to over $5,000 a year.

Th ey will see that in this budget the top 2 percent are actually getting a break of $2,000 on their income taxes if they make $150,000 a year — a break that they won’t get, a break that will help the best-off 2 percent in this province aff ord things like advanced education that they’re increasingly feeling shut out for, for their own kids. Th at’s what they’ll realize. What is being rejected in most parts of the world is the idea that fl atter, more regressive tax regimes some- how work. I mean, this was ludicrous in the 1980s, when it was in vogue.

It’s even sillier in the 21st century, in the here and now, in 2015, because we know that it doesn’t work. We know that, because I’ve outlined the decline in the middle class. Others have outlined that. It’s happen- ing in British Columbia. We did go in a more regressive direction for many decades, and we’re paying the price for it now. It’s harder to look ahead and fi gure out how to have broader, more shared prosperity.

It takes more inten- tionality amongst government policy-makers to do that, because we’re dealing with a more regressive tax system in Canada and in British Columbia — especially British Columbia. Over the last decade it has become distinct- ly worse. Let’s look at somebody amongst the top 2 percent who did even better. It would not be an exaggeration to say that this is a millionaire’s budget, because if you make $1 million in British Columbia, you just got $17,000 back in your pocket. Th at’s a huge sum of money, not for a mil- lionaire, but for a working family. Th at is huge.

For citizens — hundreds of thousands of them in British Columbia — who need and require and want to be assured that public services are there for them, like health care or mental health services, education, ad- vanced education, transportation, $230 million spent on this particular regressive tax cut is huge. It is a lot of money, and that’s what people have noticed. In contrast to the quarter-billion-dollar tax cut for the top 2 percent, middle-class British Columbians in this budget, beginning in this year, are going to be hit with $714 million in new fees, otherwise known in the real world as tax hikes.

When you‘re talking about mandatory fee payment schemes like MSP , you’re talking about taxes. Th at’s what people call them. Th at’s how they feel them in their pocketbook. Th is government used to say there was one taxpayer. Th ey say something diff erent when it comes to introducing a budget that hikes MSP yet again. B.C. Hydro ratepayers in particular, which includes just about everyone in B.C., are going to pay, in this budget year, $286 million more out of their pocket — a 6 percent increase, $286 million more for every hydro rate- payer, a 2 percent tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent in B.C.

Y ou be the judge of that. British Columbians will be. Medical services premiums up 4 percent again. Th at’s $93 million out of their pocket, while the best-off 2 per- cent get $230 million in their pocket this year? [1515] Ferry fares. Could you believe it? Aft er all of the dis- cussion and frustration and ridiculous outcomes that we’ve seen over the ferry service over the last few years, where we actually have a curve that goes like this for ferry increases and a ridership curve that goes down like this…. We have hit a tipping point in terms of B.C. Ferries, where aff ordability is driving down service.

Less passen- gers means more ineffi ciency in the ferry service, and the government has done nothing about it. In fact, they’ve made it worse, because this budget includes a 3.9 per- cent hike to B.C. ferry fares yet again. Th eir own Ferry

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5943 Commissioner has told them not to do this, not just this year but the year before and the year before that. Th eir own board of directors has said, “We are tapped out, ” on going aft er B.C. ferry riders, and yet here’s a 3.9 percent hit in the pocket. Th ere is even, in a province that uniquely has serious home ownership aff ordability challenges, a $6 million hit to the homeowner grant threshold. Th at’s a hit on the middle class, not on the top 2 percent.

Th e Ministry of Health, interestingly enough, is going to see the lowest increase in funding in modern history, with a 2.9 percent rise. Interjection. R. Fleming: I’m quoting the Finance Minister. Th e Health Minister might have a diff erent number, but let’s go with the Finance Minister on this one. Now, that puts British Columbia at the bottom of all of the provinces in the country in terms of Health budgeting and the increase. Y et British Columbia has a more rapidly aging population than many parts of Canada.

We have rising care costs in a way that other provinces don’t have, and that is throughout the system. Another area of the budget that I hope will get more discussion is the Housing Ministry. We have seen a massive asset sale. Th e remarks of my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey covered this, so I’ll only briefl y touch upon it. Not only was there a massive asset sale; we’ve seen a fur- ther reduction in capital spending in the Housing Ministry from previous years. Now, what’s curious about this is that….

I mentioned all of the advice that people from every region of B.C. had provided to the Standing Committee on Finance that was ignored in compiling this budget. Another person who has, I think, on occasion been listened to by this government but whose advice was ig- nored is Jock Finlayson, the chief economist of the B.C. Business Council.

He argued, prior to the budget being tabled earlier this week, that this fi scal year, 2015-16, and the next fi s- cal year, given the signals that have been received by the Bank of Canada on interest rates, is perhaps the most op- portune time in B.C. ’s history, the cheapest time, to look at capital spending on assets and new infrastructure, to take advantage of these record low rates and, quite frank- ly, to pick up the slack in many parts of the economy where employment numbers are low, where the timelines for the LNG pipedream have not been realized and where labour is available. Th at advice was ignored.

Now, the problem with that is…. Y ou know, even in the U.S. Congress they’re talking about taking advan- tage of these historically cheap borrowing rates to look at infrastructure spending again. Th ey’re also looking at it in terms of the opportunity it provides to increase sluggish wage rates. If you create good-paying public projects for infra- structure that is needed — transportation infrastructure, for example — and that makes the movement of goods and services more effi cient and leads to economic out- comes, you actually create a good upward pressure on wage rates.

Y ou address the falling incomes that we’ve seen in British Columbia by creating greater employment numbers. Th at is an additional reason that Mr. Finlayson gave to take advantage of more borrowing. [1520] Y et in the Ministry of Education we actually see a re- duction, a slowdown, in capital spending. Th e cheapest time to borrow, a great opportunity to get rid of damp portables in districts like Surrey and other parts of B.C., where they’re far too preponderant.

It’s a great way to invest in some of the additions that schools will need if they are to accommodate “the plan” — and I put that in quotations — around skills-training opportunities for young people, to make those kinds of capital investments and purchases. Y et the funding available is going to go down. Sixty dis- tricts will have to fi ght over fewer capital resources in the school system, not look forward to advancing the capital

schedule of doing more this year and the following year. Now, let me go to something that we canvassed a lit- tle bit this week around education that I think presents a unique challenge. We have been through an incred- ible period of strife, one that nobody would want to live through again, the longest period of school disruption in British Columbia’s history, not just one school year but two. Five weeks. Unbelievable. From May almost to October. Uncertainty and anxiety hanging over the fam- ilies of 550,000 school kids in our province.

Th e settlement that was eventually reached is not fully funded in this budget. How many times, how many umpteen times do we hear from the Premier and the Education Minister that the cost of the teachers con- tract will be fully funded by the province. I heard it time and time again on radio, on television — the Minister of Education saying: “We recognize that we’re provincially negotiating this, and we’ll cover the costs. ” Th ere was even a reference that when support staff ’s contract was settled in June, it was paid for entirely by school boards. Th e province said: “Y ou know what? We’ll step up.

We’ll get this one. We’ll cover the cost of teachers. ” “We realize” — the Premier said this — “that class size and composition issues are at the forefront of parents’ minds. Th ey are a challenge in our school system. ” She committed solemnly to address them. She said that was her number one priority too. Now we see that the education fund that was created, which was at the crux of achieving a settlement — $80 million — is not being fully funded by this government. At least $30 million of it this year and $80 million of it next year….

Over $100 million of cuts are going to have to be imposed by school boards to send the money back

British Columbia Debates5944 Thursday, February 19, 2015 to Victoria to get it back again to partially cover the costs of that negotiated settlement. I think every member who is familiar with the chal- lenges of their own school district here — and I hope they are — who has faced things like school closures in the past, who has listened to parents who are concerned that their son or daughter cannot get, for example, a learn- ing assessment for two or three years, unless they pay for it privately…. Th at costs thousands of dollars out of a middle-class income because that’s the kind of British Columbia we live in.

Anyone who has a concern about those kinds of issues — and there are many within public education — will know that when school districts deliberate on their budgets, having been forced to make cuts by this gov- ernment in this budget, bad things are likely to happen. We have lost thousands of teaching positions over the last decade. We are fi nally turning the demographic cor- ner around enrolment in public schools. Th ere are more students this year in the school system than there were last year. Th e kindergarten cohort for next year will go up again.

Th ere is more pressure on school resources, and it is falling on districts to try and fi nd a way to fi nance. Th e way that is going to be resolved, I fear, is that we will see a new round of school closures in places like Prince George or other communities around B.C. We will see it here on the Island. We will see it in Vancouver. We will see it in the Kootenays and those kinds of places. School closures have been an episodic and real prob- lem in B.C. Hundreds of them have occurred over the last six years. School districts turned the corner and said: “We’re not doing it anymore.

We will not hollow out our neighbourhoods. ” Y et they may have to face those kinds of diffi cult choices because this government broke its promise on fully funding the teachers contract. We’ll know a little more about this as the debate on the budget drags on. Quite frankly, trustees around B.C. right now are reel- ing from that broken commitment from the minister. Th ey are meeting with their school board offi cials to try and get a handle on what it means. [1525] What is causing some measure of panic amongst trust- ees is that the government has provided no details on that.

Th ey tabled a budget here saying, “Y ou will fi nd $30 million in savings this year” — and, I think, $115 mil- lion next year. On the basis of what? On the basis of a study that was done in 2012 by Deloitte, which the min- istry worked with school boards on identifying? Okay. Th at’s fi ne. Many of those recommendations have already been implemented. All of the tier 1 effi ciencies in that Deloitte report have been done. Now we’re digging into the next level, which may or may not even have savings attached to them.

Now, if you are a trustee or an administrator in, say, one of the top 20 most effi cient districts in the prov- ince, where you have the lowest administration over- head, you should be proud of that. Y ou’ve made eff orts to do it. What’s government’s instruction? Th ey’ve just told you to fi nd savings. Y ou’ve been working on that problem for years. What’s going to happen to the 20 districts that are struggling to fi nd effi ciencies? Is this going to be done equitably across the board? Or is it going to be done in conjunction with the ministry?

Do they actually have a plan where they’re going to look at real opportunities for savings? I think what’s going to happen is that the ministry is going to wash its hands of it and say: “Y ou’ve got to make it. Y ou’ve got to fi gure it out. It’s not our problem. It’s your problem now. ” Th at is aft er government said: “We have your back on funding the teachers contract. ” Now they’re saying something completely diff erent.

It’s going to come out of classroom resources and it’s going to hurt the learning opportunities of our kids, when government said that they were going to resolve those things aft er causing so much strife and turmoil in people’s lives over the last two school years. Th e worry, when the time for these cuts comes to be made in school districts, is…. Y ou have to take your hat off to some of the districts where people are dedicated to public education, where they are trying to strength- en confi dence in our public schools by off ering more choices.

Th ey’re even trying to interpret what the govern- ment wants by off ering career, trade and technical voca- tions in their districts. Th e funding formula that we have just gives you per- pupil funding. A math class with a chalkboard and a piece of chalk is a lot cheaper per pupil than an advanced tech- nical classroom setting or a science laboratory. Districts that want to create more choices for students are now go- ing to have to look at, potentially, restricting them.

Th ey can’t aff ord the kinds of things that retain and attract stu- dents who are looking for an individualized education that suits their needs. How does this square with the government’s own B.C. education plan, which says that it is all about moving to- ward 21st-century learning principles — moving to to- wards greater individualized learning, recognizing that the learning needs and the learning interests of students are uniquely diff erent — and which implies there will be resources for that? Th at was promised specifi cally by the Premier — that class composition will be addressed.

Now districts are going to have to rein in their ability to have things like special education programs, like career and vocational problems, like languages that they would off er, or the perennially under-threat music programs — all of those kinds of things that we think ought to be part of a comprehensive public education. Th ose are the kinds of things for the next two to three months that school districts are going to be wrestling

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 19, 2015 5945 with, because this government broke its promise to fully fund the contract that it negotiated with the province’s teachers. Th ose costs are uncontrollable. Th ey are not determined by school boards, but now it’s been made their problem. We will have, obviously, a lot more to say about that in the coming weeks. I note, in passing, just a fi nal refer- ence around the K-to-12 education budget.

It is curious that when spending is only going up by 1.8 percent, with all of the cost pressures from the teachers contract in this ministry, with the rate of infl ation, with unfunded MSP — all of those things…. Isn’t it interesting that 1.8 percent is the increase for public education, but for independent schools it will go up 10.8 percent this year. Th at’s not even tied to enrolment statistics. In fact, there’s a 33 percent increase over the next three years for independent schools and nothing of the sort for public schools. [1530] J. Shin: I would like to seek leave to make an intro- duction. Leave granted.

Introductions by Members J. Shin: We have a lot of visitors today. Joining us in the gallery again today is an intelligent, talented and hard- working UBC School of Social Work intern in my offi ce, Shila Avissa. She joined us last winter and has been doing some great work. With her is her partner, Anna Brisco, who is studying to become a dietitian. Would the House please make the two of them feel very welcome. Debate Continued Deputy Speaker: Minister of — I forgot — Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services. Hon. A. Virk: Y es, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a mouth- ful to have that

long title. Th ank you very much for the introduction. Colleagues, it’s indeed my pleasure to stand in this House and respond to the Speech from the Throne. Believe it or not, I have listened quite intently to the members from the opposite side in terms of the fear- mongering that I have seen for several days now, the mis- representation of the facts. Let me present the…. British Columbians are looking for a long, strong econ- omy. Th ey’re looking for a secure future for their chil- dren.

Th at’s why, when the shareholders of this province gather — as they have gathered every four years for the last 14 years, almost, now — they decide they want a gov- ernment that can ensure that there’s a secure future for their children, a future that is such that their children do not have to pay for the debts of their parents and their grandparents.

Budget 2015 continues to show that this government is charting the right course for that future that my chil- dren, the children of everybody in this room and the children of all those British Columbians’ grandchildren have that much more of a secure future and that much less debt as they grow. Th is budget provides the services the public needs, the public wants, while maintaining that very important…. Much like a family maintaining fi scal discipline, as we expect from ourselves, as we expect from our neigh- bours and that we certainly expect from all levels of gov- ernment.

It also shows that this government is willing to set out priorities and spend on those priorities by connecting British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, you will notice the additional $10 million for expanding rural internet ser- vice in the budget. It’s going to go a long way to our goal of providing 100 percent high-speed internet access to British Columbians, to those that choose to have it. Th is budget demonstrates the policies, that we want to pursue the balance, and they’re working.

Th ey’re actually working — a surplus in excess of $800 million and a com- mitment to a surplus of almost $300 million in 2015-16, almost $400 million in 2016-17 and almost $400 million in 2017-18. It is a balanced budget, and, some suggest, a boring budget — a balanced budget that is consistent. It’s on track, much like a family planning their future. Y ou know, we have to mark it piece by piece by piece. We’ve managed to achieve this collectively and through a great deal of hard work in the face of a global economy that is fragile today. As we watch the news articles from around the world, there’s fragility.

Th ere’s fragility in all parts of the world. Th ere’s fragility in Europe, fragilities in other continents and political uncertainty, as well, across the world. But in the face of global fragility and uncer- tainty, this government has been able to deliver a third balanced budget in a row. Aft er 26 years in the public sector before coming into the Legislature, I know the value of fi scal discipline and smart decisions. It’s so important to British Columbians. Th is budget is a foundation. It’s a foundation for job cre- ation.

It’s a foundation for a diversifying economy. [1535] While I’m on that subject, let’s talk about a diverse economy. In 2008 a recession hit that fl oored the disci- pline of governments across the country, across the globe. Th at didn’t deter this government from staying deter- mined and charting a long-term course — with an eye on a long-term goal — with British Columbians to en- sure that we were judici

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20150219pm-Hansard-v19n11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20150219pm Hansard v19n11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ffc62ca7b14a680007d66332771757e039cb07f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).