2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Pink Shirt Day and prevention of bullying

L. Reimer

Friendship for children and booster bench initiative

C. James

Women’s participation in aerospace industry

J. Thornthwaite

Dementia

S. Robinson

Fraser River

S. Gibson

Bullying and politics

S. Chandra Herbert

Oral Questions

Premier’s response to Lelu Island declaration

J. Horgan

Hon. C. Clark

School anti-bullying policies for LGBT students

S. Chandra Herbert

Hon. M. Bernier

Government spending priorities and bus pass program changes

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

M. Karagianis

Hon. C. Clark

Compensation for forest workers in Maa-nulth treaty area

S. Fraser

Hon. S. Thomson

Release of government response to report on youth death case

C. James

Hon. C. Clark

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

J. Shin

D. Bing

C. Trevena

S. Hamilton

M. Mark

R. Sultan

S. Robinson

J. Thornthwaite

B. Ralston

Hon. S. Cadieux

A. Dix

S. Gibson

L. Krog

[ Page 10657 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

M. Farnworth: It’s not often I get to do two introductions in two days, but today I’d like to make an introduction of a former resident of Port Coquitlam who’s well known in the Tri-Cities. He’s very involved in our community. He emcees and helps organize the Terry Fox Run in Port Coquitlam. Plus he’s been involved in numerous charities throughout the Tri-Cities.

He’s known as Dave.ca on CKNW, he’s very fond of a dog named Winston, and he’s also a big fan of two individuals named Bert and Ernie. Anyway, I’d like the House to please welcome Dave.ca, otherwise known as Dave Teixeira, to the House to observe the proceedings today.

[1335]

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure for me to rise in the House this afternoon to introduce three people.

Firstly, my friend Nasima Nastoh is here for Pink Shirt Day. She has travelled here after having tragically lost her son Hamed to bullying. Travelling with her today is her friend Deborah Chisholm, a chartered professional accountant, who is looking forward to moving to the Island soon so that she can teach in her profession.

Also with us this afternoon, as the hon. member for Port Coquitlam mentioned, is my constituent — now living in Port Moody — Mr. Dave Teixeira. I can’t say enough about Dave, who’s been very involved in our Tri-Cities community, involved heavily in the Port Coquitlam Terry Fox Hometown Run. He’s represented Darcie Clarke and her family, and he’s worked incredibly hard for Pink Shirt Day. He’s also owner of Dave.ca Communications.

Would the House please make Nasima, Deborah and Dave very welcome.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, have two introductions today, the first going along with the theme of Pink Shirt Day. I’m pleased to introduce Dave’s friend up there, Tad Milmine. He’s the founder of Bullying Ends Here. Tad is a former B.C. RCMP officer and now works for the Calgary police department. Since 2015, he’s spoken to 90,000 people across Canada to help promote Bullying Ends Here. Would the House please make him feel welcome.

My other guest is Kirsten Brazier. She was here earlier on today talking to some of the MLAs about careers in aviation for women and girls. She’s been a pilot for the last 24 years. She says only 6 percent of the pilot population in Canada are women, and only 2.8 percent are aircraft mechanics. She’s trying to change that and boost up the women in the aviation industry. Could the House please make her welcome.

C. James: I have two guests in the gallery today. They’re members of the Leadership Victoria community action project team called Bench Strength, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that. I think it’ll be the first of many, many projects that these amazing women will be involved in.

I’d like the House to please welcome Kimberley Newton and Julia Keenan on their first trip to the gallery.

S. Sullivan: I’m very pleased to welcome to the House two wonderful citizens.

First of all, Leslie Van Duzer. I refer to her as my boss, or at least my other boss. She has been the director of the School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture at UBC, where I teach. She’s an author of a number of books on architects and buildings. Also with her is Shanna Fromson, a landscape architect by profession and a weaver by passion. She’s worked for the iconic architect Ron Thom, as well, for Vancouver.

Will the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: Regardless of which side of the House we sit on in this chamber, I think all of our faces light up when we have youngsters visiting us in the chamber.

Today I have the pleasure of welcoming grade 4 and grade 5 students from the Westridge Elementary School. I think they’re just making their way in. It’s a big class of 35 and 38 students. One can only imagine how hard the teachers must be working to raise these leaders of tomorrow.

I would like to thank Mrs. Janet Pritchard, Ms. Amy Dodd, Ms. Melissa Sheard and Mme. Maija Fenger for leading their students to the Legislature today.

Their group is also accompanied by parents as well, and I would like to specially mention my constituent Stace Dayment. Stace and I are well acquainted since I first visited the Pacific Post-Partum Support Society, located in Burnaby-Lougheed, where she works. This program started in 1971 as a grassroots initiative when a small group of women began meeting at the Vancouver crisis line office to share their experiences and support each other around postpartum issues.

An estimated one out of six women and one out of ten men experience troubling depression or anxiety after the birth or adoption of a child. Over the last 40 years, the PPPSS has supported mothers and families and today assists over 3,500 people annually. So it is important work that Stace does with PPPSS for our community.

I ask all members to make her and the Westridge students and their teachers very welcome to the House today.

[1340]

[ Page 10658 ]

J. Tegart: I’d like to welcome, on behalf of Madame Speaker, Karen Kokig, Mila Marsh and Kathy Paranimo.

J. Horgan: Although I wasn’t able to participate in Pink Shirt Day here at the Legislature, I did get invited to my old alma mater, Reynolds High School, where I was given a pink hat and a photograph of my high school graduation. And I have to say that I looked pretty good. There was a bunch of hair involved, and I know the Minister of Finance would have been green with envy, as the rest of Canada would have been, to see that picture.

But the exciting part about being at Reynolds…. Those of my colleagues who were on the front steps will have met Holly Simonson, Dave Underhill and Ross, who presented their poetry from Reynolds High School. Brad Cunningham is the teacher there. Poetry is slamming at Reynolds High School, and it was here today for the Legislature to see and participate in.

Reynolds is a spectacular school. I was proud to attend there, and I was very proud to participate in Anti-Bullying Day today with a great bunch of kids, a great bunch of faculty. Would the House please make those poetry slammers very, very welcome.

G. Kyllo: I have three guests joining us in the House today. We have James Leland. He is the business manager with the Ironworkers local 97. We also have Derek Dinsi and a good friend of mine — Doug Parton. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Robinson: Today we have in the precinct representatives from the Alzheimer Society of B.C. The member for New Westminster and I are going to be meeting with them later today, so if anyone in the House should bump into the folks from the Alzheimer Society of B.C., please make them feel welcome. We have Rebecca Morris, Barbara Lindsay, Jennifer Stewart and Maria Przydatek joining us.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PINK SHIRT DAY AND

PREVENTION OF BULLYING

L. Reimer: I’m thrilled to see so many members in the House participating in Pink Shirt Day. By wearing pink today, we are taking a stand against bullying, which has no place in our schools, our homes, our workplaces or on line.

We have seen the tragic consequences that bullying can have on youth right here in B.C. Fourteen-year-old Hamed was driven to end his own life on March 11, 2000, after enduring constant name-calling, slurs and attacks on his sexuality by bullies. Hamed’s last wish was to put an end to bullying. His mother, Nasima, has since founded Hamed Nastoh’s Anti-bullying Coalition to educate youth about the severe consequences of bullying.

Although government is aiding in the fight against bullying, it is important to remember the impact that can be made on an individual level. Before his death, Hamed was upset that no one stood up for him. The Pink Shirt Day campaign reminds us that even the smallest acts of caring or kindness can make a huge difference.

The campaign started in a Nova Scotian high school when a group of students decided to wear pink in support of their classmate who was being bullied because he had worn a shirt of that colour to school. Today I’ve taken a pinky promise to stop bullying in its tracks, to stand up for people like Hamed. I hope you will join me.

FRIENDSHIP FOR CHILDREN AND

BOOSTER BENCH INITIATIVE

C. James: Research shows that children with strong friendships are better able to learn, have higher self-esteem, are less likely to suffer from stress and depression, and are more likely to have a bright, healthy future.

But building those friendships can be hard. To help, a new concept has come to Victoria. The city’s first booster bench was officially opened today, Pink Shirt Day, at South Park Family School. By sitting on the bench, children communicate to others: “I want to connect. Could you come over and talk?”

The booster bench will create friendship opportunities for all children but particularly those who are new to school, who want to make new friends, whose friends are absent from school, who want to play something different than their other friends are playing, who are having a problem with their friends and can’t solve it right now or just want to take a break, or who want to be a friend to someone else.

[1345]

Booster bench is a project of the amazing Leadership Victoria community action project team. The five-member team calls themselves Bench Strength. It’s just another example of the inspired community work done by Leadership Victoria.

Financial assistance for this project was provided by Coast Capital Savings and the Beatrice Stevens Memorial Foundation. The ceremony this morning was marked with children, parents and other members of the community invited to support making this bench, the first of many, a place to encourage friendship and empathy. The Minister of Education, myself and others gathered. We took a pledge to do the same and to do our part as well.

I hope all members will join me in saying congratula-

[ Page 10659 ]

tions to all those who have worked so hard to help this happen and to give our kids a little boost when they need it most.

WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION

IN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY

J. Thornthwaite: In March, we will observe International Women’s Day. What better way to celebrate that than to encourage more young women to consider education and employment in industries in which we continue to be under-represented.

Now in its fifth year, Girls Fly Too will take place from March 12 to 13 at the Abbotsford International Airport. It will offer girls and women free introductory flights for first-time flyers, as well as opportunities to explore civilian and non-civilian aircraft, see tactical and ground displays and meet flight crews and operators. This annual event aims to address gender and cultural diversity while encouraging women who have had little to no experience in aerospace, aviation, marine and defence to take

part in a weekend of activities that actively involve them in some of the largest and fastest-growing industries.

The Sky’s No Limit — Girls Fly Too is a great way to engage youth and inspire our future female leaders. I want to encourage everyone who’s in the area on March 12 and 13 to head to Abbotsford, sign up for a free flight and help more young women discover the amazing opportunities these industries have to offer.

DEMENTIA

S. Robinson: My grandmother, my bubbe Molly, was an amazing woman who could put a meal on a table like no other Jewish grandmother. Whether it was her chicken soup, her brisket or her holishkes, which are commonly known as cabbage rolls, her food was outstanding. But as she aged, we noticed her cooking skills deteriorate.

I recall a day when she was serving me soup and bread for lunch, and I noticed mould had developed on the bread. When I showed it to her, she insisted that she had bought it fresh. In her mind, she had just bought the bread the day before our lunch date. It was, however, the bread that she had bought the previous week. She hadn’t been shopping that entire week.

I went with her story that the store was at fault for selling her mouldy bread, and we had a lovely soup with no bread. But my family knew that my lovely bubbe Molly was showing signs of dementia and would eventually need to move to residential care as her ability to function independently became compromised.

The Alzheimer Society of British Columbia is committed to ensuring that all people affected by dementia are able to live a full life. It’s with this in mind that the Alzheimer Society reminds us all that people with dementia deserve to be known foremost as a person with a rich, complex story that is understood and valued. They recognize and work hard to ensure that family members and caregivers receive the information, support and training that remind us all that beneath this disease is a person — a person with skills and talents, a person with stories and a history, a person whose life has meaning and purpose.

My bubbe Molly was a fabulous cook who loved her family more than anything. Her purpose, even with Alzheimer’s, was to love us and to feed us.

FRASER RIVER

S. Gibson: Often referred to as the heart of British Columbia, the mighty Fraser River is a defining geographical feature in our province. Named after well-known explorer Simon Fraser, the river basin drains one-third of the area of our province and is home to over 60 percent of British Columbia’s population.

[1350]

The Fraser River bisects my riding of beautiful Abbotsford-Mission, flows from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean and embodies the rich natural, social and economic diversity of our province.

The ecological significance of the river is exemplified by the wetlands, which have a huge number of waterfowl and migrating shorebirds in the province. The system also produces more salmon than any other in the world, providing an ideal habitat for all species to flourish — also, significant populations of sturgeon and trout.

For thousands of years, First Nations communities have lived along the Fraser, relying on it as a source of food and transportation. Today the river continues to be central to our life in the province — for some, a source of income and, for others, healthy living and recreation.

We as government are committed to ensuring that the Fraser River remains one of the world’s great river destinations. Protecting the viability of the river is a collaborative effort with government to work with industry, First Nations, non-profits and communities along the river to ensure future generations of British Columbians can enjoy the numerous benefits provided by the mighty Fraser River.

BULLYING AND POLITICS

S. Chandra Herbert: Today is Pink Shirt Day — a day to stand together and say “no more” to bullies and to

[ Page 10660 ]

stand with those who have been victimized. I really, really want to believe all the commitments we’ve made on all sides, because we need to act. Simply put, the leadership demonstrated in this place on all sides is sometimes close to, and sometimes actually, bullying.

We tell young people not to call each other names, but when the cameras have stopped, I know that members of this House call other members, and other people they disagree with, names — sometimes horrible names. In fact, some use the name-calling and insults as laugh lines in speeches to supporters. It doesn’t sound so different from what we tell people in schools not to do.

In fact, if you talk to students or teachers, they can’t understand what goes on in this place. They ask me why we say we are against bullying when sometimes too many of us take a “you’re with me, or you’re against me” point of view. You’re a friend, or you’re an enemy.

In Canada, we’re free to believe what we want. But with that expectation, I also believe we have an obligation to respect, or at least accept, that there are people with other points of view. In this chamber and outside this chamber, it means for me that if I disagree with the Premier, with my leader, with ministers, with other members, that I still respect them as a person. I don’t call them names. I don’t attack them personally. I focus on the issues and the actions.

If we’re truly to wear pink shirts and say we are against bullying, if bullying really stops here, then we actually have to stop it here. This is the people’s House. Let’s for once show the people we can actually do what we say.

Oral Questions

PREMIER’S RESPONSE TO

LELU ISLAND DECLARATION

J. Horgan: I’m pleased and proud to rise following the comments by the member for Vancouver–West End. It is Anti-Bullying Day and, I think, an appropriate time and the first opportunity I’ve had to raise this issue with the Premier. She has been taking, over the past number of months, to have an “if you’re not with me, you must be against me” attitude towards British Columbians, most recently with respect to individuals, First Nations leaders, in the north coast area who are concerned about the siting of an LNG facility on Lelu Island.

They gathered together to express their concerns. They signed a declaration, and the response from the Premier was that they were kind of “a ragtag group” of people.

Let’s ponder that for a moment, shall we? Keep in mind the words of the member for Vancouver–West End and all of the things that we have been doing as legislators, whether it’s been on the front steps or in schools, as I and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill have. Words are powerful. Words are harmful. For the Premier of British Columbia to speak disrespectfully about a large group of people who have a different point of view, characterizing them as kind of a ragtag group of people, I think diminishes us all.

My question to the Premier is this. Does she believe that true reconciliation with First Nations begins with name-calling?

[1355]

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is taking an interest in reconciliation. It has been a central part of what we’ve been trying to do, working toward, in this government for many, many years now, and we are making very real progress with First Nations all across the province.

Our goal has been to recognize that if First Nations have the economic means, then they can create their own vision, their own economy, in their own communities — not a vision that’s created by a government outside their community, not a vision that comes from Ottawa or Victoria but a vision that they drive.

Ultimately, that is what First Nations have been looking for, for over 150 years. Our government has been working tirelessly and in good faith with First Nations all across British Columbia to try and make sure that we support them in finding the means, in creating the means, for economic wealth, because First Nations children and First Nations communities have been left out of the economic mainstream for far, far too long.

We have a generational chance in this House to change that trajectory for First Nations, and shame on us if we miss that opportunity. First Nations have been waiting far, far too long.

I am committed, members on this side of the House are committed, to making sure that First Nations get a crack at the economic mainstream, at a chance to be successful, at an opportunity for their children to live in the kind of wealthy, healthy society we all expect for our children. We aren’t going to stop until we get there.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I suppose that I can take some comfort in the Premier’s comments. But when I look back at the track record of her and the B.C. Liberals, when the Nisga’a treaty was ratified in this Legislature, the B.C. Liberals voted against it.

When they came to government, they not only tried to go to the Supreme Court and have the Nisga’a treaty overturned; they then held, when the Premier was the Deputy Premier, a racist referendum on treaty rights. They put that question to the public — minority rights put to the majority. Again, not necessarily the path to reconciliation.

And then to call a group of individuals ragtag…. They’re obstacles to the Premier’s vision. I heard what the Premier said, and I don’t recall the Lax Kw’alaams in

[ Page 10661 ]

their almost unanimous votes against this project saying: “You know, if only we had this paternalistic vision from the Premier of British Columbia about liquefied natural gas it, would set us free.” Quite the contrary. The entire community said no.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yes, they did.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

J. Horgan: The Premier went on beyond the comments about ragtag, and I think she sort of echoed those same comments today. She said in that media interview: “Post-contact, those First Nations are going to have the first chance to create the kind of community that they want.”

Now, that may well be the Premier’s vision, but I think the best way to find out what those communities want is to ask them. And if you asked the Lax Kw’alaams, if you asked the leadership that was at Lelu Island, you’d get a decidedly different answer than the one the Premier wants to hear.

So, again, I pose the question through you, hon. Speaker, to the Premier: You blew up the treaty process in British Columbia, where we had had 25 years of hard work, and now you’re calling those who disagree with you ragtag. Will the Premier confirm today that if you’re not with her, you must be against her? Or is she going to rise above that and be the leader for all British Columbians, whether they agree with her or not?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member forgets, in his recitation of history, that it has been this government that has signed all of the treaties that have come out of the treaty process, all of which have been a tremendous success for First Nations. We have signed hundreds of reconciliation and other kinds of agreements, economic agreements, with First Nations over just the last few years, and every single one of those is a building block toward reconciliation.

[1400]

Most recently we signed a landmark agreement with the Tsilhqot’in, which people said we could never achieve. We signed that agreement and, for the first time, heard sung a song that hasn’t been heard and has been lost to that community for over 75 years, in a moment that was moving for all of us.

If the member wants to stand up and misconstrue history, he’s certainly allowed to do that in this Legislature. But the truth of it is that our government stands with First Nations. Our government stands up to make sure that First Nations get every opportunity, every generational opportunity, that is being presented right now by saying yes to economic development projects, by saying yes to ensuring that First Nations are a part of those projects.

While that member will stand up and say no to those projects, when he does, he should remember he is also saying no to the futures of First Nations people who have a chance at something they haven’t had since contact with European people, and that’s the chance to make their own future in an economic mainstream that they have been shut out of by European settlers for far, far too long.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I’m trying to get my head around the Premier’s comments about Grand Chief Stewart Phillip: ragtag. Chief Murray Smith, Chief Stan Dennis Sr. and Coun. Stan Dennis Jr. from Lax Kw’alaams: ragtag. Chief John Ridsdale from the Wet’suwet’en: ragtag. Yvonne Lattie from the Gitxsan: ragtag.

I’m wondering. Although the Premier likes to say that everybody agrees with her when she stands in this place, surely she knows that that’s not the case. Surely she has enough understanding of the complexities of British Columbia that she understands that there is a diversity of opinion on a whole range of issues.

I’m prepared to accept that the Premier and I will rarely agree on anything. But I do not call her ragtag. I don’t call her inappropriate. I allow her to have that opinion, and I express a counter point of view.

Will the Premier today take the opportunity to say to those individuals who she characterized as ragtag…? Will she respect their right to have a different point of view and maybe, maybe, try and convince them, through the powers of her considerable persuasion, that maybe she can bring them onside rather than dismiss them as obstacles to her agenda, not theirs?

Hon. C. Clark: I am pretty sure that the Leader of the Opposition has called me worse than ragtag in the past. However, let’s stick to the line of questioning that the member has talked about.

Thirty-six First Nations have endorsed the project across British Columbia. We have Chief Harold Leighton from the Metlakatla; Chief Clifford White from the Gitxaala; Chief Don Roberts from the Kitsumkalum; Chief Joe Bevan from the Kitselas; Coun. Chris Sankey, on behalf of John Helin of the Lax Kw’alaams: Chief Arnold Clifton from the Gitga’at First Nation.

Those First Nations in the region have written a letter to his members asking them to stand down their opposition to this project, asking them to step aside, get out of the way and let the First Nations in these communities decide their own future without the politics of no, without the politics of the NDP in the opposition.

They want a chance to be able to make these decisions for themselves. They wrote that letter asking these mem-

[ Page 10662 ]

bers to step down and take a step back and allow them to make these decisions, and those members from the New Democrats refused.

I wish there had been First Nations in the gallery today. We know that there are pipefitters and members of other unions who are with us in the precincts today. Those are the people in British Columbia that we stand with when we work to get to yes on economic development projects. Those are the people who will benefit when those projects go ahead.

Everyone in this province has the right to freedom of speech. There won’t be a single project where we agree. But the thing that fundamentally differentiates the government from the NDP opposition is this. While they look for every way to try and say no to growth, when they look for every way to say no to jobs, on this side of the House, we stand on the side of trying to find every way that we can to build consensus so that we can get to yes.

[1405]

SCHOOL ANTI-BULLYING POLICIES

FOR LGBT STUDENTS

S. Chandra Herbert: I’m hoping the Premier will finally get to yes on this question. As I have been saying for years and years, gay, transgender, bi and lesbian students are targeted for harassment, violence and bullying at much, much higher rates than most other students in B.C. schools. They’ve been pleading with us to act to make their schools safer.

The Standing Committee on Children and Youth, made up of members of the Liberals and the New Democrats, made specific recommendations to the Minister of Education to address this violence. They called on the minister to require “stand-alone sexual identity and gender identity policies in schools and support for gay-straight alliances.”

Does the minister support this recommendation?

Hon. M. Bernier: British Columbia is a world leader when it comes to working to create safe schools. We are the envy of almost every province in this country, to make sure that we are constantly working to create a safe environment for all of our students in the schools, regardless of what the issues are — whatever their gender, their race, their religion, their gender identity.

Those are things that we find in the schools every day, and those are things, obviously, that we are going to make sure that we have processes in place. We work with our school districts to make sure that we have policies in place to make sure that no student is ever bullied or discriminated against.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver–West End on a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, targeted violence actually requires a targeted response. Saying we’re against bullying, and wearing pink shirts, and saying we’re number one do nothing for the student who has been attacked because they’re gay. It does nothing for the student who’s been attacked because they’re transgender. Specific policies are required.

Liberal members get it. New Democrat members get it. I don’t know why the cabinet doesn’t get it. Those students are pleading for us to act. Alberta has acted. Ontario has acted. Provinces across Canada have acted, but this government refuses to.

Will the minister, just for once, in this case, actually listen to the voices of students, actually listen to the voices of educators, actually listen to this call and bring in stand-alone policies that would specifically target the horrific levels of violence that too often face our lesbian, bisexual, transgender and gay students in British Columbia schools?

Hon. M. Bernier: I appreciate the fact that the member opposite brought this issue forward, and I appreciate the fact that he referenced the work that has taken place in other provinces. In fact, when those provinces were looking at putting policies and guidelines in place, they looked at British Columbia, because we’ve been leaders in this far before other provinces actually were doing this.

In fact, we have what’s called — and the members opposite know this — our ERASE Bullying strategy, which came in years ago. Through that strategy, we have dedicated safe schools coordinators in every school district in the province of British Columbia.

We have that in place, where we’ve trained over 12,000 teachers and educators in the province of British Columbia to not only recognize but to look at the signs that are in place when it comes to bullying, to make sure they’re constantly working with the students.

It’s something we don’t condone and the teachers and educators don’t condone. That’s why the school districts are encouraged and have policies in place to make sure this doesn’t happen.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES

AND BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Well, we all know that government is about making choices and that people want their government to make choices that make their lives easier. So the Premier has decided that clawing back bus passes from people on disability was a wise choice. We now know that she also decided to spend more than $100,000 to hold a photo op of yoga on the Burrard Street Bridge. She only backed down because the public cried out and asked her to stop doing that.

[1410]

[ Page 10663 ]

So my question to the Premier is this. Does she really think that her PR needs are more important than providing a $45 annual bus pass to people with disabilities?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member is simply wrong. She was wrong last week, she was wrong yesterday, and she’s wrong again today. But for some reason, she continues to misinform the public about the changes that have been made in my ministry.

Nobody is being denied the bus pass program. The subsidized bus pass program is still available to people with disabilities. The changes we’ve made are a $170 million investment to help increase the rates for people with disabilities.

We are taking from the strength of our economy in order to build on the investments we can make in ministries across this government, whether it be $1.5 billion in health care over the next three years or $1.2 billion in the social development ministries of Ministry of Children and Families, myself and Housing. These are investments we’re making in the future to help those who need it most.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Nobody’s buying this truly Orwellian spin that the government is putting out about the bus passes, but best of luck continuing with that line.

My question was to the Premier. It’s because we recently got freedom-of-information documents that showed that she planned to spend more than $100,000 on her photo op. Now, she had her aides scope out the costs of Om the Bridge, and boy, did they cost — over $12,000 alone just to set up speakers. Keep in mind that $12,000 is more than what people with disabilities are getting each year.

Again, my question is to the Premier. Can she tell us who is in greater need of public support? Is it people with disabilities, or is it her PR team?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What I can tell this House, and what I can inform the opposition, is that we continue to grow our economy so we can make investments in the welfare of people of our province who need it most.

Since 2001, there has been almost $5 billion in subsidized housing provided for individuals across this province who need assistance. There are child care subsidies that are provided, free dental and optical, free MSP payments, discounted bus passes, medical equipment and supplies — multiple ways that we wrap supports around people in this province that need it the most. We will continue to invest, and we will continue to support.

M. Karagianis: The freedom-of-information documents had some more interesting information in them — money that seemed to be no object for the Premier to spend on her failed Om the Bridge project. There was money for custom stages, money for a giant graphic wrap — and here’s my favourite — money for two super silent generators because, of course, you can’t do Om on the Bridge if the generators are making any noise.

Can the Premier tell the House why she was prepared to dedicate taxpayers’ dollars to her massive photo op and yet not provide bus passes to people with disabilities?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The $170 million that is being invested into people with disabilities is new money to help support increased rates.

[1415]

It is part of our continued progressive policy changes that we make in social development, and we have made in the last several years, to help make the lives of people with disabilities more independent, to help those people who rely on us each and every day — whether it be us increasing the asset limits, taking away the exemptions for gifting without it affecting their income assistance rates, whether it’s their ability to earn almost $10,000 in earning exemptions before it is being counted toward their income assistance, if it’s the single-parent employment initiative. These are all changes that we are doing to wrap supports around people to make their lives better.

Madame Speaker: Esquimalt–Royal Roads on a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: Despite the minister’s comments here, she needs to get on top of that file, because the people in the disabilities community know exactly what happened with their bus pass.

It’s an interesting and sharp contrast with the kind of money the Premier was prepared to spend to om the bridge. She had planned…. You’ll have to just bear with me. Because there was no guarantee people would watch the Premier doing her yoga on the bridge, she also planned to spend nearly $25,000 of taxpayers’ money for a mobile TV and transmission facilities so that, of course, she could broadcast this great photo op to the world.

How can the Premier honestly tell this House that her photo op was more deserving of taxpayers’ dollars than the people in the disabilities community — for a bus pass so they can get around their communities every single day?

Hon. C. Clark: When they look up “scraping the bottom of the barrel,” they’re going to find this question period in the dictionary. There’s no question about it.

That member is talking about money that wasn’t spent and comparing it to one of the biggest lifts in rates for people on disabilities that’s happened in years in British Columbia — a rate increase that will benefit everyone, including people who will continue to use a bus pass and people who never had a bus pass. All of those individuals are going to benefit from this. Despite the fact

[ Page 10664 ]

that the member keeps saying that that won’t happen, it doesn’t make it true.

The truth is that this change in the budget, which we’ve been able to make because of a growing economy…. Because we make a priority of looking after vulnerable people in British Columbia, this change is going to make life a little bit better for all of the people who live with disabilities around the province.

When you add that to the long list of changes that the minister has already talked about, changes we’ve been making to ensure that we’re wrapping services around people who need it the most…. When you add those together, it means that every year since I’ve become Premier life has gotten a little bit easier for people who are living with disabilities in British Columbia.

COMPENSATION FOR FOREST WORKERS

IN MAA-NULTH TREATY AREA

S. Fraser: Life hasn’t gotten easier for the steelworkers and their families in Port Alberni.

The mayor of Port Alberni, the regional district directors and the United Steelworkers all support treaty and the Maa-nulth treaty, in particular. Part of the treaty provided 105,000 cubic metres of annual allowable cut from the tree farm licence for the Maa-nulth Nations. Those lands previously were held by Western Forest Products. They were providing employment for forestry workers in Port Alberni, and these workers have lost 25 percent of their cut.

Now, the government has a formula for this, and a precedent has been in place for years now to provide compensation to those forestry workers for the decisions made to support the treaty, which we all support. The minister assured workers in Port Alberni that their needs would be met. That was two years ago, when we met.

To the Minister of Forests: why are those workers and their families still waiting?

Hon. S. Thomson: I’m a little surprised, I think, to receive the question. The member opposite knows we’ve been engaged on this file, knows we’ve had recent meetings and have met with the union as recently as February 11, just ten days ago or so. We continue to work on the file.

I know the member opposite would just like us to write a cheque. That’s not the way we can do things. We have to do our fiduciary responsibility. We have to look through and determine whether or not there is actual compensation due and negative impacts that are a result of the treaty.

[1420]

We’re working through those processes. We’ve asked the union for additional information. They’ve agreed to provide that information. We’re working on the file, and we continue to work on it. So I’m a little surprised to receive the question.

The member opposite brought that issue forward to us. We’ve been working on it, and we continue to engage both with the union…. I met recently with the mayor as well. So we are continuing to work on it.

Madame Speaker: Alberni–Pacific Rim on a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister might want to take a walk out onto the steps out front and talk to the steelworkers who have not got that meeting. They’ve been waiting two years.

The steelworkers are not fighting alone on this. They have the support of the Port Alberni mayor, of course. Western Forest Products have stood up for them. Huu-ay-aht Councillor John Jacks, who is the recipient, the Huu-ay-aht, of the 105,000 hectares…. They don’t want to do it on the backs of those workers.

Treaties are an important part of a long-term reconciliation in this province between First Nations communities and non–First Nations communities. For that to happen, treaties must be done in a way that unites people, not divides them. That’s why the government needs to provide a just transition for the forestry workers in Port Alberni. Those workers support the treaty, but they also need to support their families.

Will the minister help unite communities in reconciliation by ensuring that these families receive the settlements that they deserve? Meet with them.

Hon. S. Thomson: It’s great to see the member opposite acknowledge a treaty that we signed. The Leader of the Opposition did not recognize that we have signed the treaties. Those treaties are very, very important steps, and we agree that we need to continue to build that reconciliation.

With respect to this particular case, as I’ve said, we continue to engage. We met with the union as recently as ten days ago on the file and have asked for further information. It’s my responsibility to do the fiduciary duty, the due diligence, to assess all of the impacts and what number of….

Interjections.

Hon. S. Thomson: The members opposite talk about the time. If you want me to go into requests for information, how long it took for that information to be provided and the process….

We continue to engage, and we’re continuing to do our due diligence and our fiduciary responsibility. I know the member opposite would just like us to write a cheque, but that’s not the way we can do things. We have to make sure that the impacts on the workers are known, the numbers are known. We’re working on that, and we continue to meet — as I said, as recently as ten days ago.

[ Page 10665 ]

RELEASE OF GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

TO REPORT ON YOUTH DEATH CASE

C. James: When she was asked about the timing of the response to the Paige report last fall, the Premier said: “The report was ready to be released…. The children’s advocate supported that release, so that’s when it went out.”

We now know that simply wasn’t true. An assistant deputy minister in government communications said in an email that according to the Premier’s office, Monday, October 19, election day, was very much desired. Then he went out and told staff to do whatever it takes to get it out the door that day. What’s clear from these emails is that the Premier was calling the shots, and the Premier wanted to play politics with this report.

My question is to the Premier. Why?

Hon. C. Clark: First, if I can go back to…. The member did ask if we could go and meet with steelworkers. I challenge the members of the opposition to go out and meet with any union leaders around the province, all of the people to whom they want to deny jobs through their regular opposition to economic development in British Columbia. Whether it’s the steelworkers, whether it’s the pipefitters, whether it’s a range of people from unions all across the province, they stand united in favour of jobs, and they stand united in getting to yes.

I ask the member to go out and meet with the steelworkers and unions across the province and say: “Guess what. I’ve changed my mind. I suddenly believe in yes.” That would be a nice change.

[1425]

The issue that the member has raised is vitally important, and I’m going to say this. What the member talks about specifically is when the report was released. She talks about the next day, when the minister made herself available to the media. Never once has this member gotten up and talked about the important contents of that report. Surely, that is the most important…. The outcome of that report is surely the most important thing to vulnerable youth in British Columbia.

Yes, we have responded with immediate steps based on the outcome of that report. The rep called for a review of all the files for ministry-involved children and youth in the Downtown Eastside. The minister put together a rapid response team. The rep called for accountability around agencies reporting harm and abuse. We have clarified the duty to report amongst those agencies. The rep called for making sure that the service delivery in the Downtown Eastside was reviewed. Over a five-month span, the ministry has been working and sitting down with social services agencies all around the Downtown Eastside to make sure we clarify those issues.

I know the member hasn’t asked about whether or not this report has been followed up. She hasn’t asked about whether or not the ministry is doing all that it can to respect the lessons that are learned from the tragic loss of Paige from this world. But I’m happy to inform the House and that member that this minister and this government are acting as quickly and responsibly as we can to fulfil the demands of this report, because those children depend on us.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Shin: I would love to resume my remarks from where I left off yesterday. With that said, it’s a brand-new day. Today is the anti-bullying Pink Shirt Day, so this is one of those favourite days that I get to celebrate, getting my pinkest wardrobe out. Of course, all across the chamber it’s lovely to see all the other MLAs coming out with their pink spirit.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On that note, though, I really must echo the sentiments that were so beautifully articulated by my colleague the member for Vancouver–West End, in that while we continue, in the spirit of anti-bullying, to raise awareness annually, there are still marginalized groups that are not recognized by the Legislature. I fully support him as well as all the other British Columbians. On that note, I came out and sported my rainbow shirt. It is a special day today, and I hope that the House will consider the advocacy that has been done for our LGBTQ-plus community.

In my previous remarks on the budget debate, I touched on the important issues for my constituents on housing, children and youth, continued child poverty as well as education — the underfunding of adult education, post-secondary education — and, of course, health care issues — more specifically, Burnaby Hospital, which is in Burnaby. I also touched on senior care.

What I would like to do with my remaining time is speak on the small business file. I had the honour of being appointed by our leader to work on this particular file and meet with our small business owners of British Columbia.

My New Democrat colleagues and I see the importance of a very robust small business sector in our province and, of course, are working hard to ensure that small businesses are not only treated fairly and supported and have access to the resources that they need to grow and succeed but that they’re also fairly represented. What I mean by that is that the small business category, as we

[ Page 10666 ]

have it in British Columbia, is a fairly big umbrella term. In that term, we have anywhere from owner-operated businesses, where it’s just a one-man shop, all the way to a medium-sized enterprise with 50 or less employees or up to $5 million in revenue. That’s a lot of different types of businesses that fall under the small business category.

[1430]

Last year, when I was appointed to that file, I toured around the province, and I visited hundreds of entrepreneurs and their employees right at their doorsteps. The reason that I did that is the small business community…. My parents were small business owners once.

A lot of the people who need to really voice their concerns to the House don’t exactly have the luxury of the time or the expertise or the resources available to voice their opinions. What that means is, regardless of the ongoing efforts by a number of small business advocacy bodies, there is a huge group of people whose voices are just not heard.

A lot of these entrepreneurs who are working around the clock cannot exactly come out and abandon their posts to participate in public hearings or to petition or to meet with their MLAs and MPs to express what concerns them, even in the ways that we try to engage with small business owners, whether it’s the Small Business Roundtable or Small Business B.C., which does a fantastic job of hosting a number of events and conferences. With that, again, it’s making that time to be able to participate. Time is just such a rare commodity that not a lot of our entrepreneurs have.

Even on the surveys that go out to the small business owners, language can be a barrier. Again, it’s time committed to get to know the issues and respond to surveys. It’s again something that not everybody is able to participate in doing. What that all means is that in that process, we have a lot of voices that are unheard and continue to be unheard.

On the point of surveys, it’s one thing to engage entrepreneurs and pose questions, but it’s another entirely to make it open-ended for people to be able to express themselves quite freely and to make sure that the prompts that are in those surveys are not predetermined, so to speak. If you only give them four choices of their top concerns and those four choices are spelled out, by that process you are sort of excluding all the others — the X, Y, Zs of other concerns — that could have come out but weren’t a part of that particular survey, so to speak.

That’s why it made sense to me to really just get in my car and start visiting the shops, right at their workplaces, instead of calling for a town hall or organizing a round-table meeting or sending out surveys. That’s exactly what I did last year and earlier this year. It turns out — my staff tallied this up — that I visited 54 communities across British Columbia. I don’t know how many kilometres I ended up putting on my car, but I’ve got dents and scratches to prove it.

With that said, it was wonderful to be able to connect with small business owners as they pour coffee for their clients, as they count up the inventory, and to be able to just have very frank conversations.

They shared with me a lot of the stories that probably wouldn’t have come out in the form of a survey or at the Small Business Roundtable or in conferences or public hearings. One of the things that I was surprised, but really not all that surprised, to hear about was that, yes there are other concerns, such as the red tape, which is a huge priority for this government. Red tape is a fine idea, and I’ll comment on that a little bit later.

But one of the things that we rarely seem to talk about in the House is what it means for small business owners, microbusiness owners that have employees, less than five of them, or even the owner-operated businesses.

Bank charges are a huge thing, for example. Is it right that we have a machine set up at our shops and that for every transaction that comes through — it’s like having a toll booth right there on your cashier’s desk — 3 percent is dinged right off every bit of your revenue that comes in. It goes straight to the bank, and when there’s a refund, there’s a hefty refund charge, $50 sometimes, in these very complex blueprints of fine clauses that a lot of entrepreneurs don’t get around to reading and fully understanding.

All these hidden costs, fair or unfair, that the banks and the vendors impose — and how well regulated or fully transparent those charges are — are something that small business owners are concerned about, as well as the cost of operation. There seems to be a big force of no out there that somehow a minimum-wage increase is going to be the collapse of free enterprise or everything small-business, but that’s to the contrary.

[1435]

For example, if you were to raise the minimum wage by $1 for an employee, given that most full-time workers are putting in about 2,080 hours per year, the overall cost of carrying that particular wage increase that adds value to someone who is working at my shop is going to be less than $150 or $180 per month. That’s really all it is, and $150 or $180 is not what kills businesses.

On the other hand, for a small-sized business that does about $1 million worth of revenue per year, it’s not a huge amount. There are a number of small businesses that easily pull in that kind of gross revenue. So $1 million of revenue, and you’re talking about $30,000 in the bank surcharge that goes straight to the credit card companies. What does $30,000 mean? That means you could have given a wage increase of a $1 to at least 15 of your employees.

It’s one thing to place emphasis on cost increases and what they mean for small business operations. As much as there’s this whole fixation around what minimum wage might imply, I would argue that one needs to look at the broader terms of what the cost of operations would

[ Page 10667 ]

mean as far as the MSP increases, the hydro increases, the ICBC, the tolls that are imposed, the cost of shipping that’s going up significantly.

Of course, as far as our Commercial Tenancy Act is concerned, that’s another area where we have a number of protective measures for residential residency, but for commercial tenancy, it’s too often that I hear stories, just heartbreaking stories, where a successful business that just managed to establish itself in one location has to close their door because of a sudden increase in their rent.

These are the opinions and the concerns expressed to me at the businesses by the entrepreneurs, that, time and time again, every time I have the opportunity to rise in the House, I share with the members opposite, bring to the minister’s attention.

Those are some of the measures that I would love to see in the budget for our small businesses and especially those that are marginalized as owner-operators or microbusinesses — as much as even just 1/10 of the celebratory emphasis that the government places on the whole notion of red tape, to the point that there’s now a day proclaimed for it.

On small business, it’s something that I look forward to — continuing to work for our constituents as well as many of the small business owners. This is definitely not going to be the last time I will be arguing the same point to the ministry and calling for the attention of the House.

On the budget, there are a number of things a province can do, a government can do, to make a difference for British Columbians that come with a price tag. As much as from our side we have a number of differences, as far as the priorities are concerned, with the government’s agenda, there are also a handful of items that the government can engage with in order to make real practical differences in British Columbia that don’t necessarily come with huge price tags.

I must re-emphasize the work that the opposition has been doing and a number of great bills that came out as private member’s bills. I’ve had the privilege of introducing a couple myself.

I just want to put into the record again that it would be wonderful to see the government consider modernizing our democratic participation by allowing electronically submitted petitions. It’s a bill that I’ve brought to the House a number of times.

As well, bills like the remittance, which goes back to supporting small businesses, immigrant communities and so on and so forth. And, of course, the anti-SLAPP bill, which is a way for us to really protect those people that may be bullied — on an Anti-Bullying Day. It’s one of the ways that I think the government can practically engage in those matters to improve the lives of British Columbians.

Now, on that note, I think I covered off the major, big issues for my constituents that I’ve heard over and over again.

[1440]

With that, I would like to spend some time listing off, actually, a fantastic list. It just goes on. I probably can’t share all of them. This is just about budget and priorities.

I believe that there is no member here in the chamber that would argue or say no to some of the relief that the government has in the budget, but I think we really have to put it in perspective.

This is a story that I share. One of my former patients was complaining to me, saying: “Jane, can you believe it? This bottle of water has ten milligrams of sodium in it. Why would anybody put salt in water? That’s too much salt.” She was saying this as she was munching on a bag of chips that easily had grams upon grams upon grams of salt, right? So it’s about perspective.

The reason that I share this is because it’s one thing for the government to say: “We invested $170 million of new investment into social development programs.” That’s great. The $170 million sounds big, but let’s put that in perspective here.

Let’s see, for example, the Vancouver Convention Centre. This project was supposed to cost us $341 million, but it cost us…. This government ran over budget. We’re not talking about 5 percent, 10 percent over budget. They had the audacity of going over budget by $500 million. The project that was supposed to cost $341 million became a project that cost $836 million. That’s $500 million that are paid out by the taxpayers.

When we look at numbers in that perspective, then that $170 million measure that the government is putting out there…. We know that it could have been a lot bigger piece of the pie that was given to the people who need it the most in this province.

It doesn’t stop there. We have, of course, the Port Mann/Highway 1. The cost estimates escalated from $1.5 billion to $3.3 billion, and the tolls are still nowhere what was predicted. So we are talking $1.8 billion of over-budget spending by this government — $1.8 billion. Can you imagine what we could have done with that money?

Burnaby Hospital. In order for us to complete the master plan…. The cost prediction is about $633 million. And $633 million — I mean, it could have come from that right there.

The B.C. Place roof. The original….

Interjections.

J. Shin: Oh, the minister has the ferry thing. I’ve got at least ten more pages of where this government went over budget, so I will go ahead.

The B.C. Place roof — $365 million in 2009. They made it a $514 million project. Another utter failure. The B.C. Hydro transmission line — $522 million over budget. It gets so ridiculous that you think we are just…. I mean, these numbers are staggering. We are talking about millions of dollars, not just $1 million or $2 million. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.

[ Page 10668 ]

The highway — $1.8 billion over budget. That’s the kind of money that we are talking about here. That’s the misspending over budget from this government over and over again.

Money doesn’t grow on trees. The minister has reminded me that the money doesn’t grow on trees. So, of course, how are we going to make up for it? How we are going to make up for it is by jacking up MSP, Hydro, ICBC, park fees, bridge tolls, B.C. Ferries.

I’m sorry that I ran out of time. I look forward to continuing to seek the stories at the doorsteps of our constituents.

D. Bing: It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of Budget 2016. On behalf of my constituents in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, I’m pleased to speak about how this budget benefits the communities I represent and all British Columbians.

[1445]

This is our fourth consecutive balanced budget. This is a significant achievement. We have maintained our triple-A credit rating with a stable outlook, the highest rating possible. We are the only provincial jurisdiction in Canada that has this rating. This means we are able to borrow for building infrastructure projects at lower interest rates. We borrow to build, and we spend within our means.

This budget has $1.6 billion in new spending over three years. This is on top of the annual increase of 3 percent for health care.

We are working on paying down our operating debt. Since 2013-14, we have reduced our direct operating debt by $2.2 billion, which means we have a lower interest rate. With our increased spending, nearly $500 million is funded by lower interest costs. By the end of the current fiscal plan, our direct operating debt is projected to be at its lowest point in more than 30 years. We have the possibility of being debt-free by 2020 for the first time since 1975.

B.C. has a track record of successive balanced budgets and steady economic growth. Budget 2016 is our fourth consecutive balanced budget, and B.C. remains in a fiscal position envied by many jurisdictions across the country and around the world. Our plan is working. B.C. has a strong, diverse and growing economy, thanks to all the hard work of this government and all British Columbians.

Budget 2016 works to improve housing affordability and helps families with the cost of living. We are increasing the property transfer tax for newly built homes up to $750,000. This will save buyers up to $13,000 on the purchase of a new home. For residents of my riding or people looking to move to Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows, this is something they can take advantage of and something that’ll save them money.

We are making a $355 million investment in affordable housing, over five years, that will support more than 2,000 new units. We will also continue our partnerships with municipalities and community groups to create more affordable housing in B.C.

We have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada when all taxes are considered. This includes income tax, consumption tax, health care premiums and payroll tax. This means we leave more money in the pockets of British Columbians.

We also made changes to MSP premiums to help families with the cost of living. All children will be exempt from MSP premiums as of January 1, 2017. This will directly benefit over 70,000 single-parent families. As well, we are expanding premium assistance, so more people will either pay a reduced rate or no MSP at all. With these changes, an additional 335,000 people will see their premiums reduced, and an additional 45,000 people will no longer pay MSP premiums at all. These changes will help seniors, families and individuals with the cost of living.

Another investment that will help families all across our province is the expansion of the B.C. training and education savings grant. Through this program, we give $1,200 for children born in 2006 or later for their RESP, to begin saving for their post-secondary education. Families can apply to over 300 credit union branches across the province or any of the 100 BMO branches in B.C. It is easy to do and a great way to begin saving for future education from the age of six. You can provide this grant to children, and it can act as a boost for families to begin saving for their children’s post-secondary education from an early age.

Agriculture is a key economic driver in our province. Sales of B.C. food products have been increasing, as have our exports. B.C. is known around the world for agricultural products, and 2015 was a great year for agricultural exports. In fact, it was a record year for exports. Some $3.8 billion worth of B.C. agrifood and seafood products were shipped around the world.

[1450]

We also saw a record $12.3 billion in sales of B.C. food and beverage products in 2014. This was the highest ever. This positive trend will help B.C. meet its goal of seeing revenues in agrifoods and seafood reach $15 billion a year by 2020. There are 55,000 British Columbians who are directly employed in the provincial agrifood sector.

I am pleased to see that in Budget 2016, we have introduced a new tax credit for farmers. The farmers food donation tax credit is worth 25 percent of the fair market value of the qualifying agricultural products donated to a registered charity that provides food for people in need or to help a school meal program.

[ Page 10669 ]

We have some the best agricultural products in the world, and I’m happy that we are able to provide some help for farmers with this tax credit while also providing food to those in need. We will also be continuing the agriculture in the classroom funding for fruits, vegetables and dairy.

We are also providing an additional $2 million to the Buy Local program. We all visit our local farmers market and enjoy the fruits and vegetables that have been grown in our communities. Through the Buy Local program, we are able to support B.C. companies.

For example, in Maple Ridge, the Buy Local program supported Hardbite chips. Buy Local funding helped Naturally Home Grown Foods promote their chips through advertising, demos and on-line channels. They make their potato chips with locally grown potatoes. Simply helping a company expand the reach of their product and explore the potential of their product can make the difference.

Budget 2016 provides increased funding for our most vulnerable people. We are providing $673 million in additional support for those in need. This includes $217 million for the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support vulnerable youth and their families, and $465 million for the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation to support those in need.

This new investment will fund more than 130 new staff, including 100 additional front-line social workers. More specifically, this new investment includes $152 million to strengthen programs and services that provide for the welfare of children and youth. This includes child protection, children and youth in care and family supports.

There will be $11 million to support child care centres. There is $51 million for children and youth in care with special needs, as well as autism programs, and $3 million over three years to support adoption service and facilitate the adoption of children in care.

Budget 2016 includes the annual 3 percent increase to the health care budget. Health care takes up almost half the total budget.

Just last month we announced that we are working in partnership with the B.C. Nurses Union to create over 1,600 additional regular nursing positions. Nurses are the front line of care for patients, and I’m pleased to see that we are providing better support for our nurses.

Another initiative I want to highlight in health is the MRI strategy. MRI stands for magnetic resonance imaging. It does not use ionizing radiation, so in some cases, it makes it preferable to CT scans or X-rays.

Demand for medical imaging in B.C. has never been greater, so we have announced a four-year strategy for MRI services to help health authorities increase patient access to MRI scans. This strategy aims to increase the number of scans by adding up to 65,000 more annually by the end of four years. This will help reduce wait times and also help address the increasing demand we are seeing.

When it comes to our communities, we are working to keep people safe. We are providing $55 million in emergency preparedness and prevention initiatives. This includes initiatives such as upgrades to dikes and flood protection. For my constituents who live close to the Fraser River, this is an important investment.

We are also providing $10 million for B.C. search and rescue organizations. This will help bolster training, administrative support and equipment renewals for our volunteer search and rescue organizations. These volunteers venture out in some of the toughest working conditions to save lives, and I’m pleased to see that we are providing them with an extra boost in funding.

As Canada’s pacific gateway, B.C. is well positioned to benefit from trade with Asia. We launched our updated trade strategy, raising our game in Asia to continue to strengthen and diversify our trade there.

We are focusing on strengthening our ties with India. We are targeting $5 million over the fiscal plan to promote a stronger B.C. wood brand in India.

[1455]

This funding will help B.C. companies establish themselves as the world’s leading supplier of sustainably harvested wood products. As one of the fastest-growing emerging markets, B.C. companies have huge potential for their businesses. We have seen success in promoting our wood products in China, and I’m sure we’ll have success in India as well.

It has been a pleasure to take some time to highlight some of the aspects of Budget 2016. B.C. has worked hard at maintaining our fiscal prudence, and our fourth consecutive balanced budget is proof of that. We have worked hard to create a climate where businesses thrive and create jobs. We have a strong, diverse and growing economy.

I’m pleased to speak in support of Budget 2016.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to respond to Budget 2016. I think that it’s not really going to be very surprising that I’m not going to be quite as fulsome as the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in my enthusiasm for the budget.

Before I start, however, I would like to just say a couple of things. I’m always extraordinarily proud and honoured to stand in this place to speak on behalf of the people of the north Island, people who, otherwise, don’t have a voice here, who look sometimes cynically at what we do here but who realize the import that the decisions that are made here will have on their lives. I think that there is something that is very humbling to realize that you are the person speaking on behalf of so many diverse people. I would like to acknowledge that.

I’d also like to thank my extraordinary staff, who go too often without being thanked, I have to say. I’ve been off on medical leave for a little while, and they rallied forward in a way that I knew that they would. Lynne Stone,

[ Page 10670 ]

my full-time constituency assistant in Campbell River; Mary Carstairs, my part-time constituency assistant in Campbell River; and Fred Robertson, my part-time constituency assistant in Port Hardy all do the most extraordinary job on behalf of the people of North Island every day that they go in. They are real advocates, themselves, for people. I would like to thank them very much for their continued hard work, under extraordinarily difficult circumstances sometimes.

My thoughts on this budget, the 2016 budget. I was just doing a quick count, when the budget was going through, of how many budgets I’ve actually listened to since I was first elected in 2005. There have actually been 14 budgets, although it’s only 2016, because after every election — the elections are in a very strange part of the budget cycle — we get a real budget. Pre-election, we obviously get the election budget. And after the election, we’ve had a real budget.

We saw this with a telling truth when we had the budget in 2009. Immediately after the election, we had the introduction of the HST with no indication of that in the budget, but there it was in reality afterwards. So you sometimes get a few serious question marks about how the system is being worked.

This, obviously, is not an election year, but there are indications that next year will be. Next year there will be the two budgets again. There are some indications that it’s coming up towards an election. I have to say, it’s very interesting. I believe that at last, the B.C. Liberals have been honest with people about the way they are governing and about the way they handle the province’s finances.

It really is…. It’s a fantasy. While that might dismay some people who watch this place and hope that they are going to get honesty — get some real understanding — I think that in this budget, the Finance Minister finally admitted that the emperor has no clothes. Everything that his government has been doing for the last 14 or 15 years is shrouded in smoke and mirrors or maybe is as secure as some sort of sidewalk shell game, the shifting of pots of money around.

I question: am I being harsh? But I don’t think so. You just have to reflect on the budget and the last few years of this government.

In 2013 — I think everyone remembers 2013. That was the last pre-election budget. We had the 2009 one, and in 2013, the Premier, who is still the Premier, said that the problems of B.C. would be washed away, effectively, by the power of the liquefied natural gas industry.

We’re not only going to create hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. We’ll not only become — as the Premier’s campaign bus slogan falsely promised — debt-free. But by golly, we’d have a prosperity fund filled with billions of surplus dollars.

[1500]

It’s B.C.’s rainy-day fund, we were told. It’s like a provincial retirement savings plan. Cynical people might have thought it was going to be a slush fund, but there you have it. That’s what we were going to have. That was just a bare three years ago.

We have an election coming up next year, and I think most people are aware that the LNG pipedream is evaporating pretty rapidly. The main foreign investor, the main proponent at the moment, is a state-owned Malaysian operation. I think people are aware there have been some questions about the standards of its business operations. They’ve still not committed, in spite of the B.C. Liberals effectively bribing them with public money through various tax incentives — giving away the resource. They’re still not here.

The fact that the B.C. Liberals did promise…. The Premier stood up here and promised that this would all be up and running by last year. They failed on that. They also said that it would be the cleanest in the world. But we also know now that the plants alone — to talk nothing about the upstream problems — will increase B.C.’s carbon emissions by 8 percent.

Despite all of this, the government still thinks that they can pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia — my constituents, constituents of all the members in this chamber — and that we can convince them this is all fine and everything will be wonderful and we’re going to have this. The result is the establishment, in Budget 2016, of this prosperity fund, even though there’s no LNG to fund it.

Where is the prosperity coming from in this fantasy fund? Well, it does look, very simply, looking at the figures that we have been given — $100 million to the prosperity fund and $100 million in the increase in medical services premiums…. Effectively, it’s the people of B.C. who are paying, through a flat tax, for a fantasy prosperity fund, just simply to try and make the government look good as it goes towards another election.

I do think that the government is being a little unfair to the people of B.C. that they expect they’re going to fall for this. Those I’ve talked to have seen straight through it. It’s very strange, but the government still is trying to, effectively, as I say…. I described it earlier as a shell game, which con artists use. I think that the government is still trying to con people that they are sound financial managers, so they’re using a regressive flat tax to start this fantasy fund.

I think that it can only really be described as a desperate attempt to reflect that campaign promise and hope that the people of B.C. don’t see that the reflection is coming through a house of mirrors. It is a fantasy fund which is the core of a fantasy budget.

The concept of fantasy…. I know in B.C.’s history it goes all the way back. We did have Fantasy Gardens at some time. A former Premier was involved in Fantasy Gardens. I know this government doesn’t particularly like that former Premier, but there is a fantasy element toward the neoconservative approach that this government has.

[ Page 10671 ]

On fantasy and why I describe it as a fantasy fund. Let’s look at MSP, which is going to be funding this, the MSP increases. Despite the statements by the Premier earlier, the B.C. Liberals do seem to be committed to what is effectively an antiquated and an unfair system for paying for health care. It’s a flat tax. It’s a fee which has been escalating year on year on year.

Other provinces don’t have separate flat fees for health care. Some have experimented with them and withdrawn them, because they were too cumbersome or too expensive. Most have their health care paid for. It’s not all paid for by the user, as it is in MSP. We all realize that. MSP doesn’t pay for our health care bill, but it’s rolled into a progressive tax system, into a progressive income tax system. For some reason, this government remains completely tied to MSP.

I think the only reason you can do is that they have so failed on our industry that now MSP brings in more to the provincial coffers than our forestry industry, our once proud forestry industry; than our mining industry; and than our gas industry — our resources industries. MSP that we are paying brings more to the public purse than those combined.

I’ve got to say that maybe it’s no wonder that the government, then — the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, along with all his colleagues who’ve stood and spoken about the budget in this place — have talked about the changes to MSP, the slight fiddling with the edges of MSP — which, in effect, are going to leave British Columbian families paying more for the health care than they were in the past.

[1505]

Yes, children are now being eliminated from the MSP bill, but you’ve also lost the couples rate, which means that you’re paying individually. So a number of people are going to end up paying more.

This is at a time when we should be investing. We should be investing in people; we should be investing in our resource industries.

I mention the fact that MSP brings in more than the mining or forestry sectors. Well, forestry is obviously huge still in the north Island. It’s a very important industry. There are no mills left, thanks to this government’s policies, but we still are logging and still employing a number of people in logging. Unfortunately, the government that was so committed to mining has failed miserably on that for the north Island. We have two mines. Both have shut down under this government’s watch, both in this last year — shut down, losing hundreds of well-paid jobs.

The government promotes how fabulously it’s doing there and yet failing completely — again, working through some strange fantasy that everything is great until you look down at the reality and find that it isn’t so. But don’t worry. I guess it’s all going to be paid for through MSP.

The other fantasy that has been playing out — it’s been playing out in question period; it’s been playing out in the media; it’s been playing out very extensively — is the fantasy that this government is actually doing anything for our most vulnerable people.

To the Premier, I don’t mean the pets of this province — you know, we love our pets — but our most vulnerable people: the disabled. The very, very cynical giving with one hand, taking back with the other; the increase of just a little more than $70 in disability payments, an increase that hasn’t happened for nine years, but then the loss of the transit pass, the loss of the bus pass.

I’m not the only MLA, I know, who has had their email box filled with concerns from constituents, phone calls from constituents wanting to know what’s happening. How can a government that has been starving them for funds for so long that people are so desperate take away the very minor increase they’ve had? People are literally desperate. They are in tears. They are beyond angry. They are upset. It is such a cynical, cynical move.

One of my constituents says his subsidized bus pass is going from $45 a year to $52 a month. So basically, his $77 increase is eaten up immediately. Then he’s still got to pay for housing, pay for food. This is a person who lives in the north Island. Housing is a bit cheaper. Food is not necessarily any cheaper than down on the Lower Mainland, but housing is a bit cheaper. How are people supposed to exist? And these are the lucky ones. Those on income assistance have had no increase in assistance rates for years. I mean, how does government expect people to survive?

Seriously, how does this government expect people to survive in this, the most expensive province in the country? Maybe they’re expecting them to dip into the fantasy fund — just put your hand in there. Except they don’t have control of the purse strings. It would be very different if they did.

Likewise, no indication of an increase to the minimum wage. My colleague from Burnaby was very eloquent about how it is very cost-effective to increase minimum wage, how you’re actually reinvesting in the economy. But people on low incomes are still going to be having to work two, three jobs just to keep their heads above water, because of the government’s absolutely shortsighted approach — as will seniors.

I’d like to quote an email from a senior in my constituency. She wrote: “How are we to keep up with all the increases plus having the cost of food increase beyond belief? On top of all of that, if you don’t receive relief on MSP, it appears we’ll pay more, since the levels have changed for payment. So the choice is no longer meat or meds but meat, veggies, housing or meds or all of the above. I did think about becoming a vegan until I saw the cost of veggies at our local IGA.”

The government is ignoring the disabled, seniors, people who aren’t working, the lower paid, the unemployed. Yet

[ Page 10672 ]

it still has the audacity to make a $1 billion tax cut for the richest 2 percent. We talked about this last year. It came into effect this January. The top income bracket of over $150,000 was eliminated from taxation. It brought in $230 million last year. This is going to be a $1 billion loss over four years. It is fine if you are well-off, if you’re wealthy, but not if you are one of the people who is really struggling, whether you’re disabled, you’re unemployed, you’re on a low wage. You are going to, effectively, be ignored.

[1510]

It’s very interesting, the government’s priorities. On the north Island, we are getting two new hospitals — one in Comox Valley, one in Campbell River. We are very pleased that this is happening. I know the member for Comox Valley is also very pleased that his constituency is getting a new hospital. But there is going to be an anomaly.

We are getting a hospital, which was reannounced in the budget under the capital plan. It’s almost finished, and I want to tell the Minister of Health: “It’s great, coming along. It’s going to be open in 2017 when you are most likely opposition Health critic.” Hopefully, we will be there opening this as a government project.

We are getting a new hospital. It opens in 2017. It’s going to be a bit of an anomaly in the community because Campbell River — we’re very fortunate — is a community where you don’t pay for parking. There are maybe two places — the airport, which is outside town…. There is one pay-for-parking area right downtown — small area. Never pay for parking, except at the new hospital. It’s going to be paid-for parking there.

It’s been a concerted campaign. I’ve written to the minister. I’ve written to the health authority. Other elected officials have written to the ministry and health authority asking for this to be halted to ensure that people can have free parking at the hospital. It’s not much of the health care budget to ensure that we can continue to have free parking. We’ve got free parking at the moment. Continue to have this. Not much of the health budget to do this. These very concerted pleas are being ignored.

The catchment area for this hospital is large. It’s rural. People are going to be driving, often from a great distance and at a cost to get there. They really don’t need the extra burden of parking meters once they arrive. Going to the hospital is stressful enough. Making people pay to park when they haven’t paid to park before, when you’re in a community where there is no paid parking, when you’re talking about a community of people who don’t have a lot of money is, I think, again, a cynical fantasy. I would have hoped that the government could have put in a small budget line that would ensure that that was covered. Unfortunately not.

Nor did the budget provide relief for those overstretched school districts. No increase in funding for education. We on this side of the House often talk about how important that high-quality public education is. It should be at the heart of any civilized society. It’s the equalizer. It allows every child, no matter what their background, to have an equality of opportunity. There’s no question about that. Unfortunately, the government has shortchanged school districts for years, undermining the very start that children should have.

It’s bad enough that you leave people in poverty. Your children are coming to school either hungry or often cold, so they’re not able to put their energies into learning. Then we see — this is the reality for kids — the school districts and schools having to make up that shortfall. Then we see that the school districts are being starved of funds for education, for what their real job is.

It’s not just providing the hot meals, sometimes, for kids or the clothes in the closet that kids may need because there’s nothing in the thrift store. There is no funding for education. They’re being cut to the bone. Last year they were told to go for the low-hanging fruit, to cut administration costs, to cover the MSP increases and salary increases with almost no increase in funding — and told to still be innovative and give our kids the best possible education.

School district 72 has long been regarded provincewide as an innovative and smart district. It covers Campbell River, south to the Oyster River, north up to Sayward, east to Cortes Island, including Quadra and Reid Islands.

I would like to read part of a letter that the school district wrote to the Minister of Education recently, just before the budget. It explains some of their concerns about the government’s approach to education and the government’s funding for education.

“The locally elected board of education for school district 72 is increasingly concerned with government actions, which are having an impact on our ability to deliver educational programming, provide adequate learning resources to our students, adequately keep our classrooms in good condition for learning and maintain our schools in order to prevent larger costs for repairs in the future.

“Earlier funding reductions outside of those that resulted from enrolment decline have, in the past, resulted in reduced education programming, fewer learning supplies in our classrooms, reduced janitorial services in our classrooms and deferred maintenance of our district infrastructure. The board is provided with an increasingly limited number of dollars that must be spread over a wide variety of needs in our district, and some needs, of necessity, must take a lower priority than others.

[1515]

“On behalf of the board of education, I am writing to express our concern with the constant downloading of education costs to our district. In the last provincial budget” — 2015 — “our board was stripped of more than $295,000 in ‘administrative savings.’ Last month school district 72 was burdened with the $155,000 cost of buying the technology required to access the provincially mandated new generation network.

“Additionally, the provincial ‘holdback’ has been allocated to other districts as a consequence of increased school enrolment and the influx of Syrian refugee children. Consequently, an additional $178,000 that had been assigned to pay for the district’s connection to the new generation network has been lost to school district 72.

[ Page 10673 ]

“Finally, your government’s recognition of the need to begin to compensate our administrators fairly in view of the provincially imposed 6½-year wage ‘freeze’ but its failure to fund this increase has resulted in an unanticipated $139,570 in additional costs to school district 72. When these amounts are added to the approximately $254,000 in ‘administrative savings’ for the 2016-17 school year, our district is facing unplanned cuts of $1,021,570. With a structural deficit of approximately $600,000 to $900,000, school district 72 is once again being forced to make hard choices about which services we will have to curtail in order to submit a balanced budget.

“This course is unsustainable and that your government continues to download ever-increasing costs to school districts, without providing the funding that would allow them to address these increased costs, is causing serious damage to the public education system in this province.

“In order to reduce our costs, the board and senior management of school district 72 have recently initiated the school closure process for two of our smaller elementary schools. Should the decision be made to close these schools, the savings anticipated to result from these closures will be largely eaten up by the increased costs that have been downloaded to our district over the past year and will not, as the board had planned, address our ongoing structural deficit.

“We will again need to use a large portion of our small unrestricted surplus to balance the budget this year, leaving the district with a minimal reserve for next year. This manner of dealing with chronic underfunding is unsustainable and must result in a reduction of services that directly impact our classrooms in the very near future.

“The board of education for school district 72 is requesting that the Ministry of Education fully fund the additional costs that have been incurred as a result of decisions that have been made at the provincial level. We further call on the government to act in this year’s provincial budget,” which we’ve just received, “to fully implement the recommendations to address the shortfall in government funding for public education that were made in the report on the Budget 2016 consultations. It is time for our government to make public education the priority it must be if our province is to have a vibrant and sustainable economy in the future.”

I think that says everything about what is needed for our education system. There has — perhaps sadly, perhaps not surprisingly — been no response. As the letter says, the school district is in the process of examining possible school closures, which is the last resort for any school and, as the letter indicates, won’t free up money that it really needs to meet the cost to provide a high-quality education to the children and the teenagers in the north Island, in the Campbell River area.

I’d like to turn my attention now to my shadow responsibility and look at some of the government’s budgets and plans for transportation. I think it’s little surprise that there’s not much pleasure there either.

The number one priority for this government is the replacement of the Massey Tunnel. We’ve heard the minister talk about this quite a lot. This is despite asking many questions about the rationale for this. It seems to be one of those classic…. Again, I think it’s a possible fantasy — very political.

A little bit of background here for those who aren’t aware. The election promise of 2013 — again, a bit like the fantasy prosperity fund and the fantasy LNG industry…. Big boards were around the Lower Mainland, on the highway, for all those people driving, saying: “Don’t worry. We’re going to replace the Massey Tunnel in 2017.” Just ahead of the 2013 election, big boards went up saying: “The Massey Tunnel will be replaced” — by something — “in 2017.” Just really bookended by two elections.

There wasn’t any business plan when those boards went up. Now the minister says that, oh, they have a business plan. It’s been put together. Look on the website. Despite vocal concerns from elected representatives in the Lower Mainland and despite the cost….

[1520]

At the moment, we’re hearing it’s going to be about $3.6 billion. I think this is very worrying, if that’s the cost that the government is saying right now.

Just look a little bit downriver, and look at what’s been happening with the Port Mann Bridge, which is built — a huge bridge, now has fewer vehicles using it than used the original bridge and is more than $1 billion over-spent.

The deficit on it is growing and growing. It’s going to be many years before we pay it off. I think we’re supposed to pay it off in the next couple of years. It’s many years down the road until it’s paid off, and as I say, fewer people are using the Port Mann Bridge now than used the old bridge. No way are we seeing the numbers go up. Now they’re talking about offering incentives to get people across the bridge. I mean, it’s a bridge.

Yet we’re seeing exactly the same process happening for the replacement of the Massey Tunnel. It’s unbelievable. You see one huge mistake. What does the government want to do? It wants to repeat it, and this is the number one priority for the Transportation Minister. It seems to be a pure political vanity project.

The next one on the cards, which we haven’t actually seen the billboards for but I know has been talked about, is the second crossing for Lake Okanagan. We’ve had one bridge just go up there not so long ago, and there is already talk of another one. But we have this without any real plan on how we’re going to pay for it, which is, I’ve got to say, terrifying.

What we’re going to see is the people of B.C. stuck with another billion-dollar white elephant, which is going to cause further chaos in the already chaotic traffic and transit system in the Lower Mainland. It’s an area that’s starved of funds for transit, yet we’re going to be spending billions of dollars on a ten-lane bridge. You just have to look at it. The question is: how is it going to work? The question is: how is it going to get paid for?

There are so many big questions there, and yet the government is rapidly working on this election fantasy time frame. Advertise it in one election. Do it in time for the next election.

One really loses faith in how the B.C. Liberals still try and convince people — again, it’s another fantasy — that they are sound managers of the purse strings here and that they are economic managers. They really know

[ Page 10674 ]

what they’re doing. I think you’ve just got to look. I mean, we’ve now had — what? — 15 years to look back at what this government has done and see that they are not the sound managers of the purse strings.

You just have to look at…. One that I’m sure will start raising the heckles, which we’ve been avoiding so far, thank goodness, is the way that they’ve been handling B.C. Ferries. It’s pretty interesting. Today we heard the announcement that we won’t actually be paying more to use the ferries just at the moment, although we’re supposed to be, because their fuel rebate is going to be covering what would be the increased ferry costs in 2016. The government comes out and says that this is thanks to their fiscal prudence.

Well, it’s actually got nothing to do with fiscal prudence. It’s got everything to do with the collapsing economy and the fact that oil prices are at rock-bottom levels. It’s got nothing to do with what this government is doing, and yet they slap themselves on the back and say how wonderful they are.

That may explain something about their mindset when they’re looking at ferries. I mean, we’re still trying to find out why the Queen of Chilliwack , the ferry, was sold at a bargain basement rate despite $15 million of public money…. That’s our money, the money that we pay our MSP for, that we pay our taxes for, and we should feel very proud that we do pay it so we do get some services. But $15 million of public money was spent on the Queen of Chilliwack , and it was sold for $2 million. We still haven’t had from the Minister of Transportation any answer about this.

It’s extraordinary, the government’s approach to the ferry system and to our marine highway. It is a shortsighted, political, blinkered attitude to what is essentially the link to keep our economies going and our communities going, up and down the coast. There is absolutely zero new money for the marine highway, zero new money for B.C. Ferries in this budget.

[1525]

The money in the budget in transportation is going to pavement. It’s pavement politics. We’re coming up to an election. “Let’s just put the tarmac on and try and win people over that way” — even for the people of Powell River. “Let’s try and build a highway from Powell River over to the mainland instead of relying on ferries, instead of investing in that.” Pure political action. It’s coming up to an election. Pavement politics is the traditional tactic for governments to use to try to win votes, and that’s what this government is doing.

Meanwhile, life has become unaffordable for most people in the last 15 years of the B.C. Liberal government. Fees have gone up. Hydro has gone up. MSP has gone up. Ferry fares have gone up, despite what the minister says. My constituents see absolutely no relief in this budget. They see nothing for their communities, for their industries or for their lives.

I’m going to be very proud to stand up and oppose this budget when it comes to a vote.

S. Hamilton: I’m very proud to stand in this House again and once again speak in favour of this year’s provincial budget. There are many, many good things contained in this budget, and it’s difficult to know where to start.

I will start, first of all, by acknowledging my constituency of Delta North and all the hard-working people that live there, as well as my staff in my constituency office and, of course, my lovely wife, Kristen, and my children, Paige and Lauren. I would never be doing this without their support.

As Chair of the Finance Committee, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that Budget 2016 came about after a great deal of planning and consultation. As you know, members on both sides of this House participate in a prebudget tour to hear from ordinary British Columbians in all parts of this province.

The Finance Committee heard a broad range of options and opinions. There were all sorts of perspectives expressed from different regions of the province, and while not everyone could agree on how to use precious tax dollars to our best advantage, I did note an underlying theme that shone through almost every consultation. That was the support for a balanced budget.

Certainly, people understand that government’s top priority is to eliminate deficit spending. Most everyone understands that you can’t simply pile up more and more debt just to cover the day-to-day operations of government. It’s just not fair to spend like there’s no tomorrow and then pass that debt along to our children and our grandchildren. This budget just happens to be the fourth consecutive balanced budget in a row, and that cannot be underscored enough.

While we were on the road with the Finance Committee, I couldn’t help but think about what my counterparts in other provinces are experiencing. It would be a tough exercise in the province of Alberta, as we know, with collapsing oil prices, rising unemployment and the floor falling out of the government revenues.

We’re all talking about a government that’s planning to run a massive deficit for the foreseeable future just to meet the daily needs of its citizens. Once proud to be a debt-free Alberta, it’s swimming now in a sea of red ink and probably won’t even realize a surplus within the next five years of that government’s mandate.

I’m quite content to be the Chair of the Finance Committee right here in British Columbia. British Columbians are depending on us to keep the books balanced and to secure a debt-free future. No other province in Canada is even close to having our financial track record. British Columbia is the only province in Confederation that enjoys a triple-A, stable credit rating. That means we can afford to put substantial investment into infrastructure by paying the lowest rate to service our capital budget.

[ Page 10675 ]

For example, Budget 2016 proposes $1.6 billion of new spending over the next three years plus increases of health care spending of 3 percent annually. However, with that, the members opposite define that and characterize that as tinkering around the edges. I can’t see where that type of investment equates to tinkering around the edges.

Just about $500 million of this new spending is made possible by reduced interest payments. By way of comparison, if we had that province’s credit rating, instead of saving $500 million, we’d be spending an additional $2.45 billion in interest payments. That’s $2.45 billion of interest that British Columbia doesn’t have to pay because of a triple-A, stable credit rating. Clearly, the balanced budget approach works best for British Columbians, and it’s one of the reasons why we are the strongest provincial economy in Canada.

What does a balanced budget mean to the average British Columbian? Well, to start with, it means we can start returning the dividends of a balanced budget back to families in this province.

[1530]

We all know that the population of the Lower Mainland continues to expand at a rapid rate. This places a great deal of pressure on local housing markets. While there are many factors that determine the cost of housing, we do know that more and more people are chasing after a limited number of homes. And we know that the expense of those homes is going up rapidly.

To make housing more affordable for young people looking to start a family, effective immediately, the government is exempting the purchase of newly built homes valued at up to $750,000 from the property transfer tax. That’s for new housing. This represents a saving of up to $13,000 for the purchaser of a new home.

This measure benefits consumers, but it also supports the construction of new housing and increases the housing supply. That means more jobs in the construction industry, and people of all ages can benefit. Young people can find a place to start a family, and older people who want to downsize, maybe like me, will benefit too.

A balanced budget also means a balanced approach to our priorities as a government. To ensure that no one gets left behind, this government announced a historic $355 million investment in affordable housing. This means individuals with low-to-moderate income will have access to affordable housing options throughout the province.

According to the chief of the Affordable Housing Societies, Bob Nicklin, “This significant funding commitment by the province will create a lot of opportunities for the non-profit housing sector and open doors for new partnerships with the B.C. government to create more long-term stable housing solutions for those most in need.”

That’s what makes our budget balanced. We’re applying a fairly modest surplus to help those most in need in this province. I’m not sure why the opposition plans on voting against these measures. Budget 2016 is aimed at helping families in many ways, including exempting every single child in the province from MSP premiums. For parents, especially single parents, this represents a huge amount of economic relief. Under these changes, a household with one parent and two children will save a minimum of $864 a year and up to $1,224 a year, depending on their financial circumstance.

We’re also investing an additional $70 million to enhance premium assistance. This will help more lower-income families, seniors and individuals qualify for reduced rates. By making children free and expanding premium assistance, an additional 355,000 — I’ll say it again: 355,000 — British Columbians will see their premiums reduced, including 70,000 single-parent families. Overall, nearly two million British Columbians, or 40 percent of the population in this province, won’t pay MSP premiums at all. Again, I’m not sure why the opposition will not sign on to helping single-parent families or support affordable housing.

There’s another way Budget 2016 is helping families in the province. Parents will also appreciate the fact that we’re expanding the eligibility of the B.C. training and education savings program. Children born on January 1, 2006, or later are eligible for a one-time grant of $1,200 towards a registered education savings plan, and parents are not even required to contribute to the plan. But they can use this as an affordable opportunity to plan ahead for their children’s future. This is a great way for families in Delta and, indeed, across British Columbia to give their children a head start on their future careers.

Families in Delta and the Lower Mainland will also appreciate the fact that a balanced budget means that we can afford to make long-term investments in transportation infrastructure. This includes a new $3.5 billion, ten-lane, three-kilometre bridge crossing over the Fraser River on Highway 99.

I heard the member opposite speak about this in her dissertation a little earlier. I would just invite her to come to that intersection at Highway 17 and Highway 99 at eight o’clock, any given morning from Monday to Friday, just to see how important that investment in that infrastructure is. Once completed, it’ll be the largest bridge ever built in British Columbia, and it will address the worst traffic bottleneck in the province. It’s going to be safer, with more lanes to merge. It’ll meet modern seismic standards and include a multi-use pathway for cyclists and pedestrians. Perhaps most important of all, it will take into account the addition of future rapid transit.

These are precisely the types of investments that we need. Before I conclude, as Chair of the Finance Committee, I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Minister of Finance. He’s achieved what no other Finance Minister in this country has achieved in recent memory: he’s managed to balance the budget four years in a row without raising income taxes.

[1535]

[ Page 10676 ]

This is a remarkable feat when you consider the fact that our province is not immune to what’s essentially a fragile global economy. There are risks. There are risks all over the world, and I’ll quote from a backgrounder regarding Budget 2016: “Downside risks to B.C.’s economic outlook include the potential for a slowdown in North American economic activity; ongoing fragility in Europe; slower than anticipated Asian demand, particularly in China; uncertainty in the outlook for the Canadian dollar; and weak inflation.” We are not immune to the forces from all over the world. Those forces can contribute to an economic catastrophe if we do not manage our fiscal house.

On that, I’d just like to bring up what’s been talked about in this House a little bit in recent days, and that’s the prosperity fund. Now, I don’t know how the members opposite want to define the prosperity fund, but in my house, I call it a savings account. I call it a savings account because my income is not going to be the same throughout the rest of my life, and there are going to be rainy days. I have to rely on that for my future, and other people do exactly the same thing.

We have made the first instalment into our provincial savings account, going forward. It’s going to be there for all British Columbians in the future, including everyone’s children and grandchildren in this House.

Many governments in the past have attempted to balance the budget by drastically increasing taxes. We certainly saw that the last time the opposition was in government in the 1990s. We saw tax increases of $1.5 billion in just two provincial budgets, on everything from personal taxes to job-killing taxes on small business. From that experience, we learned that the opposition never met a tax they didn’t like. It was their solution for everything.

Fortunately, now we have a government in charge that’s kept income taxes to the lowest levels in Canada, and we have a balanced budget — in fact, a modest surplus, obviously, which we have invested in areas like children and families, SDSI. We have made investments in areas where the opposition has been crying for us to make more investments for ages. We’ve done it, but somehow they managed to characterize that as fraught with clawbacks. I don’t understand it.

We have invested in these areas, and I think this government has done a very, very good job of helping the most vulnerable people in our society. We’ll continue to do that, because it’s important. We’re a government that’s not afraid to make tough choices on behalf of British Columbia. It doesn’t mean following the temptation, doing the most popular thing, but it does mean doing the right thing for this province.

That’s why I plan to vote in favour of this budget. It’s a balanced budget with a balanced approach to shaping the future of our province.

M. Mark: Hon. Speaker, Simgigat, Sigidimhaanak, K'uba Wilksihlkw, distinguished guests, chiefs and matriarchs, it is indeed an honour for me to be here today representing the constituents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, a culturally diverse and proud community with an unwavering history as advocates who have and will continue to stand up for economic, social and environmental rights and justice.

I am the descendant of a strong, proud, determined and resilient people. I am Nisga’a, Gitksan, Cree, Ojibwa, French and Scottish. Until 1960, people like me weren’t even allowed to vote and therefore participate in our parliamentary democracy — 56 years ago. That may sound like a long time, but think of it this way. I am one of the first generations of First Nations and indigenous people for whom voting has been a natural right since my birth.

On February 17, I became the first First Nations woman to be elected to serve in these chambers. I am proud to take my place alongside the extraordinary British Columbian trail-blazers, all New Democrats, who came before me.

[1540]

Frank Calder was elected in 1949 as the first person of aboriginal descent. Rosemary Brown was the first black woman. Emery Barnes was the first black man. Moe Sihota was the first Indo-Canadian. Jenny Kwan was the first Chinese person. Tim Stevenson was the first openly gay man. Carole James was the first aboriginal Métis woman. Mable Elmore was the first Filipino. Jane Shin was the first Korean woman.

I want to say a few words about my journey to this House. My late Nisga’a grandmother, from the village of Laxgalts’ap, Thelma Mark, attended St. Michael’s Residential School when she was ten. It was the darkest days of her life and, notably, the darkest

chapter in our Canadian history, as Chief Justice Murray Sinclair illustrated in the truth and reconciliation report and 84 calls to action. My late Gitxsan grandfather, William Woods, was given up for customary adoption when he was three and raised by the Mark family in Gitsegukla, who had the fortitude to hide him from Indian agents when he was nine years old.

In fact, my maternal grandparents couldn’t vote until they were 30 and 32 years old. We have come a long way, given that indigenous communities were on the verge of extinction. Remarkably, aboriginal youth are the fastest-growing population in Canada.

When it comes time to have aboriginal rights and title enshrined in our Canadian constitution, it is because of the relentless determination and unwavering rights-based advocacy approach of the indigenous people across this province and across this country that we celebrate this progress.

Again, we have come a long way, given that in 1887 my ancestors, members of the Nisga’a Nation, made an epic journey from the Nass River to Victoria’s Inner Harbour, determined to settle the land question. They were met by a Premier who barred them from this Legislature.

[ Page 10677 ]

Even in this House we have come a long way towards reconciliation, considering that less than 20 years ago, the former leader of the then opposition B.C. Liberals and the current Finance Minister actually took the former NDP government to the Supreme Court of Canada to stop the Nisga’a final agreement. Undoubtedly, we have a tremendously long way to go to see reconciliation in action.

Before I continue, there is a universal saying that it takes a village to raise a child and a community to raise a leader. I want to take this time to acknowledge my mom for all of the gifts that she’s given me, my aunts Teresa Mark, Janice Mark, Lily Jorgensen and Gerry Busch, Jack Busch for their unwavering love and generosity.

To my daughters, Maya and Makayla: you are the sunshine in my life. Thank you for inspiring me each and every day to be a passionate, courageous advocate for change.

To my team. I want to acknowledge, like all of you in this House when you’re involved in a rigorous campaign, my campaign managers, Kate Van Meer-Mass and Nathan Allen, for their remarkable leadership and their generosity.

I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge some of the superstars on my team, who truly made February 2 historic: Michael Cheevers, Mia Edbrooke, Ashley Fehr, Gala Milne, Jessica Smith, Samantha Monckton, Stuart Neatby, Andy Healey, Abby Leung, Cass Elliott, Ian Mass, Lynne Van Meer, David Perry, Alda De Aza, Lester Obuyes, Leo Alejandria, Maryvon Delorme, Roberta Robertson, Colin Askey, Joshua Berson, Clay Suddaby, Cassidy Kannemeyer, Jessica Boon and Josh Niemi.

Thank you to Jenny Kwan for your 20 years of service on behalf of the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and to the Vancouver–Mount Pleasant constituency office for all of your support.

Thank you to the Lax Kxeen drummers and dance group for reminding us all that the drum is the heartbeat of the people. It is my hope that we hear more drums in this House.

So why am I here? Why was I elected? I’ve been fighting bullies my whole life, and I’d like to acknowledge that we are acknowledging Anti-Bullying Day today.

[1545]

I’ve been a human rights advocate for the past 20 years. I’ve travelled this beautiful province and across Canada as an advocate for some of the most vulnerable, voiceless and invisible people in our society. I’ve been a passionate child rights advocate for sexually exploited youth, youth in and from care. I worked alongside the Vancouver city police to review the horrific circumstances that left a vulnerable homeless aboriginal man, Mr. Frank Paul, in an alleyway of the Downtown Eastside — and who evidently died in police custody — in an effort to make sure that such injustices don’t ever happen again.

I spent the last eight years as an advocate at the Representative for Children and Youth office to ensure that children, youth and their families access the services that they so desperately deserve from the Ministry of Children and Family. I don’t have enough time to speak about all the recommendations that have come out of that office, calling in to support the rights and interests of children that need services from the Ministry of Children and Family.

While I waited almost six months for the by-election to be called and the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant went without an advocate, I took every opportunity to connect with the amazingly resilient constituents that live, work and play throughout Strathcona; Chinatown; across Commercial Drive, Broadway, Main Street and the Downtown Eastside; Gastown and Railtown.

I had the opportunity to hear from constituents about matters of the heart and the ongoing ultimatums they are faced with by this government. Time and time again, I heard concerns about the housing crisis and affordability concerns and issues, parents and teachers concerned about seismic upgrades and class composition, ongoing concerns about how we’re going to protect the best coast from irreversible damage and reduce our carbon footprint for our children and our children’s children.

I met with members of the vibrant arts community who feel like their contributions to the economy have been overlooked. I met with talented leaders in the tech sector who have a real chance to shine as the Silicon Valley in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I met with so many small business owners that are proud of their artistry but fear they won’t be able to keep the doors open and the lights on with increased taxes and hydro rates.

I met with people who are concerned about the steady influx of gentrification and the concern about displacement. I talked to people about the importance of celebrating our diversity, like the festivals of the lunar new year parade, and advocating for cultural retention and revitalization.

We talked about the plans and the concerns around those plans for the St. Paul’s Hospital that’s coming to the flats. We talked about the need for more housing. People brought their concerns to my attention — especially the students, who are concerned about securing viable employment to pay off their student debts.

I met with the craft brewers, who see their work as truly a work of art. I met with first responders impacted by post-traumatic stress disorder. I met with so many parents functioning like ships in the night because they can’t secure affordable and safe child care.

I met with human rights advocates saying yes to justice for persons on income assistance who are forced to live on $21 a week. I met with the survivors, families and advocates who will not relent until justice is served for the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

The reality is I don’t have enough time to list all of the reasons why this budget is not balanced and how it has failed the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. For a

[ Page 10678 ]

minute, I was mildly optimistic that this government would deliver on something new. I almost bought the spin that the government would demonstrate leadership and pay it forward to restore public confidence, especially for the 98 percent of income earners that don’t make $150,000 per year.

Instead, this budget underscores the reason I put my name forward for nomination. When it comes time for report cards, the B.C. Liberals have failed the hardest-working and most vulnerable citizens once again in this province. I can’t comprehend why this government is so hell-bent on fighting First Nations in the courts, wasting the public’s money instead of working with First Nations.

[1550]

I can’t believe this government is picking fights with the Representative for Children and Youth and standing behind the Plecas report instead of cooperating with the independent office whose mandate it is to advocate for the best interests and rights of children and families throughout this province.

This government seems to have an allergic reaction when it comes to accountability. Once again, our province stands alone in Canada as the only jurisdiction without a poverty reduction or housing strategy. I can’t believe the Finance Minister and the Premier have the audacity to say that the housing affordability crisis only affects a few neighbourhoods. Not only has this government said no to increasing the rates for those on income assistance, they have cynically cut supports for persons with disabilities while claiming they’ve increased them.

It boggles my mind why this government relies on balancing this budget — at the cost of increased MSP and ICBC premiums, increased tuition and camping fees — on the backs of average British Columbians without asking the rich to make a few little sa