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 17, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 32, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Provincial curling championships

E. Foster

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Yvonne Cocke

J. Darcy

Introductions by Members

Speaker’s Statement

Talking Stick

By-Election Results

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 7 — Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. S. Bond

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Performing arts centre for Merritt

J. Tegart

Support for Syrian refugees

B. Ralston

Nechako-Kitamaat Development Fund Society

G. Kyllo

55-Plus B.C. Games

S. Robinson

Federation of Independent School Associations

S. Gibson

Jens Erik Knudsgaard

K. Conroy

Oral Questions

MSP changes

J. Horgan

Hon. M. de Jong

Senior cancer care case

J. Darcy

Hon. M. de Jong

Real estate transactions and collection of property transfer tax

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Investigation into real estate transactions

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Drinking water quality in Prince Rupert schools

J. Rice

Hon. T. Lake

J. Wickens

R. Fleming

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner, report, February 2016

M. Hunt

H. Bains

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Merit Commissioner

M. Hunt

Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Hon. M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

C. James

Hon. S. Bond

N. Macdonald

J. Martin

D. Eby

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

K. Conroy

[ Page 10431 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: I have a number of guests in the gallery today. I want to introduce Keith Dearing, and joining Keith is Bev Christensen. Many will know Bev Christensen as a tenacious fighter for the people of Prince George. She is a published author on energy policy in British Columbia. She was a school board trustee, and most importantly to me, she’s the mother of my chief of staff, Suzanne. Would the House make Bev and Keith very, very welcome.

I have two other guests in the gallery today who’ve joined us from Nanaimo. They’ve made a pilgrimage, a trip over the Malahat. That’s Brent Frain and his partner, Sonjia Grandahl. They’re both here today to observe the goings and comings of the Legislative Assembly and to ask some hard questions about funding for people with disabilities. Would the House make them both very, very welcome.

L. Larson: On behalf of my caucus colleagues who participated in the MLA mentor program of UBC Equal Voice, I’d like to welcome to the House Jade Scrymgeour, Hailey Graham, Zahara Baush and Jalini Parmasothi. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: Well, what a great day it was for the UBC Equal Voice mentees, young women coming to talk to women MLAs about the importance of women getting involved in politics. It was a great day for the official opposition to also host some of those students, along with the government-side MLAs. That was me and the member for Saanich South, the member for Nelson-Creston and the member for Kootenay West. On behalf of all of us here, I’d like to welcome Natasha Mihell, Harleen Brar, Nicole Covey, Audrey Tong and Cheneil Antony-Hale. Would the House make them feel welcome, please.

I have another group that is here today and that I’m very thrilled to welcome. We have the wonderful Anne Kang, a city councillor in the city of Burnaby and a constituent of mine. Along with Anne, we have her husband, Diego Lin, and their children, Elizabeth Anne and Teddy — well, Theodore, but I call him Teddy Lin — and a young woman, Letitia Chu, who’s spent many hours working in my office as a volunteer. With them, as well, is Henry Yao and Andre Chen. I hope that you will make all of them very welcome.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’d like to welcome Sheila and Jack Hay, who are coming down from Parksville today for their first question period. I hope we don’t disappoint them. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Farnworth: Shortly, two new members will be taking their place in the House, and watching in the gallery for the new member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain will be her husband, Brian, a self-employed milkman, and their two children — Troy, age ten, and Adriana, age six. Will the House make them most welcome for this really important occasion in their family’s life.

Tributes

PROVINCIAL CURLING CHAMPIONSHIPS

E. Foster: I rise today to recognize a group of young men from my riding in Vernon. I speak of the Jim Cotter rink from the Vernon and also Kelowna curling clubs, made up of Jim Cotter, skip; third, Ryan Kuhn; second, Tyrel Griffith; and lead, Rick Sawatsky. On the weekend, they won their third consecutive B.C. provincial curling championships in Nelson.

This is the sixth trip to the Brier for skip Cotter and lead Sawatsky, and they will be heading to Ottawa to represent British Columbia in the national championships, the Brier, and we would like to wish them good luck and good curling.

[1340]

Introductions by Members

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome my good friends for their first visit here in the Legislature. I call her Tita Effie Chiong. Also, I consider as my extended family her husband, Nick Chiong; their children Joy Nary, Jed Chiong, Leo Mananghas and Ariel Embrero. They all hail from Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

They were all here to witness the swearing-in ceremony. They worked very hard to elect the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and I’d ask everyone to please make them very welcome.

Tributes

YVONNE COCKE

J. Darcy: Well, we have welcomed some awesome women today, and I rise to pay tribute to a formidable woman, a resident of New Westminster, who passed away recently. She never had a seat in this House, was never a member of this House, but she certainly exercised tremendous influence over it. I’m referring to Yvonne Cocke, part of the infamous Cocke machine, who was a city councillor in New Westminster, a super effective

[ Page 10432 ]

campaign organizer, a very strong and committed feminist and the life partner of Dennis Cocke, who served as Health Minister in this House.

Robin Geary and former MLA and cabinet minister Colin Gabelmann were recently quoted as saying: “Yvonne was a committed feminist and an outstanding organizer. She and Dennis were so strong and effective within party circles that some wanted to ‘unplug the Cocke machine.’” Fortunately, party members were smarter than that.

There will be a memorial service for Yvonne later on in this session. I will certainly inform members of this House, but I know that this House would also want to extend its deepest sympathies to her family and to honour a woman who’s truly made an impact on politics in the province of British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Bernier: It’s not very often I have the pleasure of introducing my wife in this House. As I think most people would appreciate, it’s quite a lengthy pilgrimage from Dawson Creek to Victoria. I want to take this moment to acknowledge that my wife is visiting, but more importantly…. I guess I shouldn’t say more importantly than my wife, but in this case…. What I’d like to say is that just as important is the fact that we….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll keep digging, yeah.

I am very honoured to say in the House that we are very proud grandparents for the first time and want to welcome our first grandchild to the province of British Columbia.

S. Hammell: In the gallery are two amazing young members of the Iranian community. They’ve been here to enjoy the ceremonies this morning and now have stayed back to watch question period: Amir Bajehkian and Roya Amirafard. Would the House please make both of them welcome.

D. McRae: Today in the galleries, we have students from G.P. Vanier joining us. As people in this chamber know, while I was Minister of Education…. All the schools of British Columbia are very good, but G.P. Vanier holds a near and dear spot in my heart. It was where my father taught. I went to daycare there. I graduated there. I taught there. My niece graduated from that school.

It’s been a great school in the Comox Valley. We have 43 students from the Vanier Explore program, grade 11 students. They are joined by their teachers Crystal Gaudry, Grayson Pettigrew and Dave Neill.

Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Rice: With the exception of the seniors discount one can get at Shoppers Drug Mart at the age of 55, my father today is actually officially a senior citizen. He’s turned 65, and I would like the House to join me in welcoming Michael Wesley Rice. A happy 65th birthday.

L. Reimer: It’s my great pleasure today to welcome to the House two ladies that I worked with for many years in the Tri-Cities. Cathie Camley was the executive director of the Learning Disabilities Association Fraser North chapter, and Clair Schuman was involved with autism and also the Learning Disabilities Association.

Both have been passionate advocates for children and for special needs children. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Shin: I am thrilled to share with the House our newest British Columbians from Syria, who arrived just six weeks ago and are so excited to be here. It was a long, heartbreaking journey that our Syrian families in the gallery endured to be with us today. They first fled to Jordan in 2012 to survive the terror that brutalized millions of innocent lives in their country.

[1345]

I can’t begin to imagine their immense suffering and pain as they saw their homes destroyed and their loved ones murdered, but I do know that here in British Columbia they have friends who will stand alongside them as they begin their new chapter.

Now I’d like to recognize the life-changing work by the Canadian Arab Forum of B.C., a non-profit organization prompting and celebrating Arabic and Muslim culture in Canada’s vibrant multicultural society. CAFBC is a member of the Council of Muslim Organizations of B.C. and regularly hosts events and sponsors initiatives like today’s delegation.

Also on that note, I would like to thank Mr. Liaquat Khan, a respected businessman in Surrey and a prominent member of the Pakistan Canada Association, who generously sponsored the cost of our guests’ trip to the Legislature today.

To our newest fellow British Columbians: we hope you find peace in your days of healing ahead in Canada — the best country in the world, dare I say — which all of us, and now you, too, have the privilege of calling home.

Would all the members in the House please make them feel very welcome. [Applause]

H. Bains: I stand with pride and honour to introduce and join with the member for Burnaby-Lougheed to extend our warm welcome to our newer British Columbians.

These are the families…. As you have heard and many British Columbians have read in the media, their lives were uprooted because of no fault of their own. British Columbians opened up their arms, their wallets and their doors, and here they are today.

[ Page 10433 ]

It makes me so proud to stand here and to welcome them. I will name a few of them, because they are in Surrey now — Khaled Mohammed Oday, Abu Bahker Khan and Ibrahim Abu Karousse.

At the same time I welcome them, I want to say thank you to Liaquat Ali, Yousef Barakat. Like all British Columbians, these are the people that actually stepped forward and said “welcome” to all of our Syrian individuals who left their homes, not by choice, but we are here to welcome them.

I say please join with me, like all British Columbians have done, to say welcome and make their stay here as comfortable as we can.

S. Robinson: I have a number of guests here today.

I’d like the House to join me in welcoming Brooke Campbell from the B.C. Seniors Games Society. She’s their communications chair. The one thing I will say about Brooke is that she suffers from chronic volunteerism. It’s just one of the things that she’s really very good at.

I’d also like to join my colleagues in welcoming those Syrian refugees who have made Coquitlam their home. Coquitlam residents are thrilled and have gathered and organized over the preceding months, preparing for the arrival of Syrian refugees, and we are thrilled. I am certainly thrilled to see them here in the House today.

Would the members please join me in welcoming Mahmoud Halak, Smah Nyalh, Rahaf Halak, Merna Halak, Husam Jahmani, Ikhlas Alhussein, Laith Jahmani, Kenan Jahmani, Rebal Jahmani and Ali Elhayou.

S. Hammell: I’d like to, in particular, welcome councillor Yousef Barakat. He is a proud Canadian who was born in Palestine and immigrated to Canada in 2010. Since the immigration of the family to Canada, he has continued to demonstrate a passion for promoting intercultural relations, diversity and inclusion.

Yousef is the person who has been behind organizing this trip of the Syrian new Canadians to our House, their House.

I’d like to also introduce to the House Ryan Alda Benut.

[1350]

Speaker’s Statement

TALKING STICK

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, one further introduction. With the blessing of the Hon. Steven Point, this Talking Stick was presented to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly by the Hon. Judith Guichon at an event at Government House.

This Talking Stick was carved by the artist James Delorme and was presented to the Hon. Steven Point, as Lieutenant-Governor, in 2010 by Chief Robert Sam, as a gift from the Songhees First Nation, to commemorate the Salish Sea naming ceremony. The Talking Stick is a replica of the totem pole located on the front lawn of the Government House. The totem pole was carved by Chief Tony Hunt and originally designed by Mungo Martin.

By-Election Results

Clerk of the House:

February 16, 2016

Hon. Linda Reid

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly

Room 207, Parliament Buildings

Victoria, B.C. V8V 1X4

Dear Madame Speaker:

On July 13, 2015, this office received your warrant advising of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Jenny Wai Ching Kwan, member for the electoral district of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. On August 17, 2015, this office received your warrant advising of a vacancy in the Legislative Assembly resulting from the resignation of Douglas Horne, member for the electoral district of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

On direction from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I issued writs of election for the electoral districts of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on January 5, 2016, ordering that by-elections be held to fill these vacancies. The writs specified general voting day to be February 2, 2016, in both electoral districts.

The by-elections were held in accordance with the provisions of the Election Act, and the completed writs of election have been returned to me.

In accordance with

section 147(2) of the Election Act, I hereby certify the following individuals to be elected to serve as members of the Legislative Assembly: Melanie Mark for the electoral district of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant; Jodie Wickens for the electoral district of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.

Sincerely,

Keith Archer, PhD

Chief Electoral Officer

British Columbia

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the results of the election of members be entered upon the Journals of the House.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: It has been two weeks of constant smiling from me from me, and I know that gives great joy to the members on the opposite side.

It was a truly moving day. I want to thank the member Delta South for joining us and members of the government’s caucus for being here for the swearing in, the ceremony that involved Tsimshian drum corp — just an exciting passionate and powerful moment for all of us who participated.

Adding to that — what I thought could not be a better day — is to have our friends from Syria come here to observe the transition from one to another, from the old to the new — people leaving this place and people coming

[ Page 10434 ]

into this place without fear, without reprisal, without violence. It is something that is a reminder to all of us of how profoundly fortunate we are to live in this great country and in this spectacular province, and of the privilege and honour to represent the citizens in our communities. A spectacular day.

I have the honour to present two women, two mothers: the first First Nations woman to take a seat in this building and the youngest member — with great respect to the member for Vancouver–West End, who now has to pass the mantle to the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. Two women who will fight for their community, passionate supporters of children, passionate supporters of families and passionate supporters of education.

Madame Speaker, I have the honour to present Jodie Wickens, the member for the electoral district of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and Melanie Mark, the member for the electoral district of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who have taken the oath, signed the parliamentary roll and now claim their right to take their seats. [Applause.]

[1355]

The hon. members for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and Vancouver–Mount Pleasant took their seats.

Hon. M. de Jong: May I say, on behalf of the government benches, to the new member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the new member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: first of all, congratulations. To acquire the right to sit in this place is, in and of itself, a tremendous achievement and an honour.

They have earned that right, and we look forward to working with them. I can’t, in fairness, pledge that each moment in this chamber will be characterized by the mood that exists at the moment. But I can say this. In ways that have already been described, and, I expect, in other ways, both are pioneers.

I can also, I think with a measure of certainty, say this. Away from the glow of the bright lights in this chamber, they will, I know, come to appreciate that there is a measure of collegiality that exists in the halls of this place.

The House Leader for the two new members and I have, in the past, commented on the exclusive — not elitist, but exclusive — club of individuals over the past 130 or 140 years that have acquired the right from the citizens to sit here. All of us enjoy that.

We bear at least one thing in common — me with you. I arrived here in a by-election and earned the right 22 years ago today to sit here. I do remember the sense of excitement. I remember the sense of excitement on the night, and I remember the sense of awe and excitement of walking down the red-carpeted floor as the members just did. So bravo. Good luck.

I can’t pledge a desire to extend your careers indefinitely here, but I do know that you will enjoy your time and look forward to working with you, on behalf of all government members, now that you’ve taken your seats.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 7 — INDUSTRY TRAINING

AUTHORITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 7 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: Skills training continues to be a major priority for the province, given the shifts in the labour market and the projected demand for skilled workers over the next decade. The importance of skills training is why, in 2013, Jessica McDonald was appointed to conduct an independent review of the Industry Training Authority and trades training in B.C. We have committed to implementing all 29 recommendations outlined in the McDonald report, aimed at strengthening B.C.’s trades training system.

[1400]

The Industry Training Authority, or the ITA, is the regulatory body responsible for managing our province’s trades-training system. It is ensuring B.C. trains the right number of skilled workers to meet demand. The ITA is governed by the Industry Training Authority Act, which outlines the ITA’s power to deliver a high-quality and effective apprenticeship system. It’s time to update the act and make the changes necessary to ensure that the Industry Training Authority is best positioned to effectively lead the system in B.C.

Today we are introducing amendments to the act that will directly address the recommendations provided in the Macdonald report. These amendments will clarify and strengthen the authority’s role within the system and ensure industry stakeholders are engaged in strategic planning and decision-making. At the same time, the amendments will ensure the ITA continues to have flexibility to respond to priorities quickly and efficiently.

I move that Bill 7 be placed on the orders of the day for the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 10435 ]

Bill 7, Industry Training Authority Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE FOR MERRITT

J. Tegart: The city of Merritt, in the heart of Fraser-Nicola, has a rich cultural diversity that spans all sectors of the community. Young and old are enthusiastic participants in Merritt’s arts scene. Unfortunately, as in most small communities, Merritt lacks an adequate facility where live performances, music events and plays can be held, a centre to showcase and promote arts and culture in the community.

The Nicola Valley Community Theatre Society is working on a solution. The society has completed a detailed business plan that makes a performing arts centre a successful proposition from a cost standpoint. Stand-alone performing arts centres historically are money-losers for communities. Income rarely covers operating expenses, but the Nicola Valley Community Theatre Society envisions a performing arts centre that generates steady revenue by including a movie theatre that screens first-run Hollywood films.

The society has determined that a community-owned cinema complex incorporated into a performing arts centre could subsidize the cost of the entire venue. This proposal has wide community support. A 250-seat performing arts centre would be combined with the attached three-screen cinema complex of 100 seats each.

With an estimated cost of $5 million, this is an ambitious project. Fundraising has begun, and a membership drive has resulted in almost 450 members. The theatre society views this as a pilot project to demonstrate how small communities with limited resources can build and operate facilities that foster local arts and culture. One idea, a couple of people that are passionate, and you can change a community.

SUPPORT FOR SYRIAN REFUGEES

B. Ralston: The civil war in Syria has created one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time. More than half of all Syrians are either refugees or internally displaced. Thousands of refugees continue to flee, taking perilous journeys that make it clear that resettlement to third countries like Canada continues to be needed.

In addition to government-assisted refugees, there are other civil society–based legal avenues to assist Syrian refugees — by sponsorship agreement holders, by groups of five or more citizens or by community sponsors. Canadians have reached out, and here in the communities of British Columbia, many civil society groups, faith-based organizations, businesses and networks of individuals have all answered the call for help.

For many Syrians, these sponsorships mean a new beginning, and they start with our support. Groups like the Canadian Arab Forum of British Columbia, the Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia, SUCCESS, the B.C. Muslim Association and many others are helping. Be it by volunteering, offering housing or employment opportunities and with in-kind or direct donations, citizens across British Columbia are responding.

[1405]

On behalf of all members, I extend my thanks to everyone involved, and to our new Canadians joining us in the gallery today: welcome home.

NECHAKO-KITAMAAT

DEVELOPMENT FUND SOCIETY

G. Kyllo: Today I’d like to recognize the achievements of the Nechako-Kitamaat Development Fund Society on its 15th anniversary. For the past 15 years, volunteer board members have dedicated their time and energy to support the society’s economic development mandate. The society was established back in 1999 to support economic development in the region roughly between Kitimat and Vanderhoof, the area that was most affected by the Kemano project and the creation of the Nechako reservoir.

The society funds projects in partnership with communities and other partners, serving the needs of some of B.C.’s smallest communities, including a number of First Nations communities. As of March 31, 2015, the society has approved a total of 282 individual projects valued over $8.8 million. In 2014-15 alone, the society leveraged $1.6 million from outside sources, attracting critical investments into some of B.C.’s smallest and most vulnerable communities.

The projects funded by the society are developed specifically in response to the needs of First Nations and non–First Nations communities in the region. Communities such as Fraser Lake, Burns Lake and the Saik’uz Nation have all benefited from projects funded by the society. Such projects include marketing and promotional campaigns, community hall upgrades, downtown revitalization initiatives and the creation of world-class walking and biking trails. All of these projects spur economic development by making the region more attractive to businesses and residents.

I encourage all members to congratulate the hard-working volunteers and staff of the Nechako-Kitamaat Development Fund Society for their extraordinary service to their communities over the past 15 years. Their dedication to serving their communities has undoubtedly

[ Page 10436 ]

helped to make the northwest central region an even better place to live and play.

55-PLUS B.C. GAMES

S. Robinson: The 55-Plus Games are coming to Coquitlam this year, and I couldn’t be more thrilled to be a representative of the host community. Coquitlam is celebrating its 125th birthday this year, and hosting the annual 55-Plus Games is a great way to bring our community together. I love the fact that we’re celebrating our birthday with sport, competition and friendship. And what’s more, the city’s parks and recreation department has been hosting try-it sessions so residents can try their hand at a new sport that will be showcased at the games.

The B.C. Seniors Games Society works with communities around the province to hold these games. The volunteer-run society operates the multisport 55-Plus Games every year by bringing people together to celebrate the year’s culmination of hard work, dedication and friendship in sport and other recreational activities. This September Coquitlam will welcome up to 4,000 participants and coaches in 22 different sports and activities. Participants will engage in everything from archery to whist. An additional 1,500 volunteers will be on hand to help put on the games, making this one of the largest community gatherings Coquitlam ever hosted.

While the community will benefit by bringing out the best in us as hosts, there will be significant economic benefits to the region as well. Survey data collected for the B.C. Seniors Games in Langley in 2014 indicated direct economic impact of more than $3.1 million in the area, of which over 85 percent was created by the spending of games participants, while the remainder was contributed by games society organizers and related agencies.

Join us in Coquitlam this September and be amazed at how older adults take to their sport and push their limits. Be sure to celebrate with us because #youwishyoucouldplaylikeanolderadult.

FEDERATION OF

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS

S. Gibson: Congratulations to the Federation of Independent Schools on their 50th anniversary. For over five decades, FISA BC has been a strong voice for independent schools in our province, providing a diversity of choice for parents for the education of their children and youth.

Today the federation is the umbrella organization for over 76,000 students attending 297 member schools. This represents 93 percent of the total independent school enrolment in our province. FISA’s growth demonstrates the respect it enjoys among B.C.’s independent schools. I’ve had the pleasure, over this past year, of visiting 35 independent schools and plan to visit more in the coming months ahead.

Independent schools provide a valuable complementary alternative to the public education system. It’s all about choice.

[1410]

Thanks to the energy and passion of FISA, our government recently passed Bill 29, which ensures that property reasonably necessary for the education of children continues to be exempt from property tax. This will ensure that unnecessary financial burdens are not placed on independent schools so they may use their resources to educate and enlighten our children.

Way to go, FISA. We’re all proud of you and your contribution to the quality education for our entire province.

JENS ERIK KNUDSGAARD

K. Conroy: Last Saturday, February 13, I attended the service for Jens Erik Knudsgaard, who passed away in Kananaskis on February 5. Erik was born on February 12, 1938, in Rossland — the first set of triplets to be born in Rossland and, some say, even in B.C.

Erik’s hobbies included skiing, hiking, Masons, Sons of Norway and Ski for Light Canada. He enjoyed travelling to England and Denmark, celebrating his Danish heritage and, especially, spending time with his family and grandchildren.

Erik is survived by his wife, Margaret; his sons — Paul and his wife, Colleen, and Mark and his wife, Julie-Anne; his daughters, Karen and Anna; his grandchildren, Mya, Kristian, Logan, Winter and Moss; his brother, Einer and his wife, Mariette; and his sister, Linda and her husband, Allan; as well as nieces and nephews. Erik was predeceased by his parents, Hans and Linna, and his brothers, Frankie and David.

Erik had been in Kananaskis as a guide for blind skiers, participating in the annual Ski for Light event. On Saturday, he guided his blind skier to a gold-medal finish. Later that night, Erik died peacefully in his sleep.

He was a member of the Sons of Norway, Castlegar Nordic Lodge #76, made up of members of Scandinavian heritage from throughout the West Kootenays. Ski for Light is an outreach program of Sons of Norway that annually pairs visually impaired cross-country skiers with sighted guides for a week of skiing, training sessions and social events. The program started in Norway but expanded to the U.S. and then Canada. In fact, the very first Ski for Light event in Canada was hosted by the Castlegar Nordic Lodge in 1978. They hosted again in ’89, ’96 and 2003.

Erik was an enthusiastic and successful guide. As well, he was always there to help out friends and family. He never failed to give me political advice, always with a smile and a hug. Our community has lost one of those members who contributed much and never asked for

[ Page 10437 ]

anything. As his sons said in their eulogy of their dad, he died doing what he loved, helping someone else achieve their goal and a gold medal too.

Oral Questions

MSP CHANGES

J. Horgan: Over the past two weeks, the Premier has made a number of statements about what she thinks is wrong with the medical services tax. Most recently, she said — and I’m quoting this, because I certainly wouldn’t have said this: “It’s antiquated, it’s old, and the way people pay for it generally doesn’t make a…ton of sense, so therefore, it is really hard to try and make the sensible changes that we need to do.”

Five years the Premier has presided over the tabling of budgets. For five years, she’s known that it is unfair, it is antiquated and it needs to be fixed. But just last week, apparently, we discovered that that would be really, really hard.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Why is it that after claiming that they were going to do something to relieve the burden of the medical services tax on British Columbians, they are in fact increasing the take this year, next year and the year after that? Why is it so really, really hard to do the right thing and make an unfair tax disappear and let British Columbians deal with health services like every other province in the Confederation?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I mentioned, I think, a day or two ago, predictably the Leader of the Opposition and, I suspect, a few of his colleagues are choosing to dismiss outright the significance of the changes that are outlined in the budget that was tabled yesterday. In so doing, they are saying no to changes that would ensure that a single adult making less than $42,000 can save up to $324 a year by virtue of the changes we’ve made to MSP.

[1415]

They are saying no to changes that would see an adult couple earning up to $45,000 save up to $480 a year. They are saying no to changes that would ensure a senior couple earning less than $51,000 could save up to $480 per year. Perhaps more importantly, they are saying no to changes that will ensure that 70,000 single-parent families can save up to $1,224 a year on medical services premiums.

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

J. Horgan: It’s old, it’s antiquated, and the way it’s paid generally doesn’t make a ton of sense. That was from the leader of the government of British Columbia.

I think what British Columbians would like is for the Minister of Finance to say yes to helping families that are in distress. I think British Columbians would like a government that says yes to doing away with unfair taxes that have been crippling people for generations.

The minister is often prone to say — and he may have it prepared in his next response — that he believes that, somehow, British Columbians need a symbol that health care costs some money. Now, if they were only increasing the medical services premium by the increase in the Medical Services Plan expenditures over a year, that would be fine. But my reading is that this year medical services are going up 2.9 percent, yet the MSP premium is going up 4 percent. That’s not even revenue-neutral, as the minister likes to say. That’s a grab, plain and simple.

For the first time in my memory, there will be more revenue from the medical services tax than from forestry, than from mining and natural gas. We have now $100 million in a photo-op slush fund for the Premier that’s not being funded by LNG revenues, because there aren’t any. It’s being funded by — you’ve got it — the differential between the 2.9 percent increase in his budget and the 4 percent increase in the tax.

My question to the Minister of Finance: why the tax grab? Why don’t you do something about the antiquated, old and unfair way you’ve been collecting taxes from families for the past 15 years?

Hon. M. de Jong: The opposition leader and his colleagues’ unfamiliarity and lack of enthusiasm for the concept of saving is well known to people across British Columbia. But I expect I’ll have some opportunity to discuss that further in follow-up questions from him and his colleagues.

The question, though, that the member has put and that deserves a direct answer relates to where there are increases. I noticed, in his

preamble and in some of the commentary that he has advanced outside of this chamber, he and his colleagues have chosen — purposefully, I expect — not to refer to the significant ongoing increase in the Health budget that is measured in the billions of dollars. That’s billions of dollars to ensure that British Columbians can access the health care that they need. And an unwillingness on the part of the member to acknowledge that of the soon-to-be $19 billion that taxpayers will provide to fund Health Ministry operations…. That doesn’t even include all of the other health aspects of the budget. Of the Health Ministry operations, but 14 percent of that comes from MSP premiums.

We have made changes that acknowledge the challenge that families face. We have made changes that result not in nominal or insignificant savings but significant savings to families in every circumstance, and it’s all laid out in the budget. It’s good news for those families — that they are securing the relief they need under a balanced budget in 2016.

[ Page 10438 ]

SENIOR CANCER CARE CASE

J. Darcy: Yesterday the Finance Minister said: “The measure of any society is reflected in the degree to which it is willing to help the most vulnerable.”

[1420]

Well, Fran Flann is the most vulnerable. She’s 82 years old and recovering from cancer surgery. While she was having surgery, her landlord decided to clean up her apartment, which was infested with bedbugs. A social worker found her in a motel room, but funding for that ran out after a week. Now Fran is in a homeless shelter. That is a shameful way to treat a senior and a cancer patient — absolutely shameful.

If a society is measured by how much it is willing to help the most vulnerable, to the Finance Minister: how does his government measure itself when it comes to treating Fran Flann?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are people in British Columbia who experience challenges. They are seniors; they are other individuals. I expect that one of the common features that draws people to this chamber — and two more just joined us — is a desire to take steps that would alleviate some of the challenges that people in British Columbia face — those most vulnerable people. That is why we have devoted and, within the budget, provided hundreds of millions of dollars in additional funding to support our most vulnerable citizens.

That’s why we have ensured…. That’s why we have capitalized and taken advantage of our fiscal strength as a province, which surpasses any other jurisdiction in Canada. It’s why we have applied ourselves with such diligence to fiscal discipline and why we have taken steps to reduce the cost of borrowing money so that, in this case, up to half a billion dollars more is available to do what I presume the member wants government to do, and what we are doing, which is to take steps to make life just a little bit easier for those that are confronted by those challenges.

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND

COLLECTION OF PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX

D. Eby: We know that residents of Metro Vancouver, who are watching an out-of-control real estate market drive prices well beyond what they can afford, are not celebrating the Premier’s budget. But shadow flippers have a reason to celebrate. The Premier and the Finance Minister failed to close a loophole that they’re exploiting to evade the property transfer tax that everybody else has to pay.

This loophole could be costing the province hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That’s money the Premier is taking instead from hard-working families through increased MSP, hydro and other fees. For some reason, this government is pretending that shadow flipping isn’t happening, that this property transfer tax evasion isn’t happening — and it isn’t collecting this money.

To the Finance Minister: why is he not acting to close this loophole?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, quite frankly, I would have expected a more informed question or submission from the member, because he knows what he said is just not true. In fact, in very specific and pointed ways, we have begun the process of gathering information that heretofore has not existed about the very phenomenon that he describes.

But I would have expected at some point in my search of the commentary from this member, in particular, to see some recognition for a step the government has taken that has the immediate impact of putting not one, not two, not three, but up to $13,000 directly into the pocket of a family that wants to purchase a home in British Columbia. That is true in the neighbourhood that the member represents, and whether he cares or not, it is true for British Columbians right across this province.

[1425]

Is there any better indication of the negativity or the spirit of no that pervades across the benches of the opposition than that member’s refusal to acknowledge a $13,000 benefit for British Columbians who want to get into the housing market?

Madame Speaker: Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: What British Columbians would like to see is some recognition from this Finance Minister and this Premier of the hundreds of millions of dollars left on the table through property transfer tax not paid by shadow flippers and not paid by international investors.

Wealthy international investors are celebrating the Finance Minister’s budget as well. They’re using our low dollar to scoop up commercial properties, especially in Vancouver. Vancouver’s Royal Centre building sold to a German billionaire for more than $400 million. Vancouver’s U.K. Building sold to Chinese investors for $122 million. They, and others like them, get to avoid the property transfer tax by using a loophole, which the Finance Minister knows about, called a bare trust. On these two deals alone, the province may have given up, up to $11 million in revenue. There are hundreds like them over the last ten years.

Why did the Finance Minister not close this loophole, as well, around the property transfer tax?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, again, the member will know that the budget yesterday announced specific steps to do something that has not taken place in the 30 years since the advent of the property transfer tax, around the question of bare trust. It’s something previous govern-

[ Page 10439 ]

ments chose not to do, including governments led by the party opposite.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. We’ll wait.

Please continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, believe me, I don’t like to think about the ’90s either. I share that with the opposition, actually.

We are beginning the process of gathering accurate information upon which sound decisions can be made. But it was a very interesting submission. The member seemed to be quite critical of the fact that people came to British Columbia and are purporting to make a commercial investment. I’m going to repeat something I said yesterday, just so that people understand.

The government, members of the government caucus, actually value and encourage people coming to British Columbia to invest in our economy. We actually think it makes sense for people to be encouraged to come here, invest, set up businesses, employ British Columbians, diversify our economy even further, diversify our markets. I expect, and will say again, that that is one of the important things that distinguishes the government from the opposition. I will also say it’s one of the reasons British Columbia continues to lead Canada in terms of economic growth.

INVESTIGATION INTO

REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS

C. James: This year and next year, the government projects that they will collect an unexpected extra $750 million in property transfer tax, largely due to the out-of-control real estate market in the Lower Mainland. Residents of Metro Vancouver are concerned that speculators, shadow flippers and others are hyperinflating the market, and they’re ensuring that property prices continue to remain disconnected from the stagnant wages of B.C.’s families.

Now, an independent investigation into the real estate market in Metro Vancouver that could include spot audits, title research and comprehensive interviews under oath would likely cost about $1 million. Will the Finance Minister do the right thing and spend 0.001 percent of his property transfer tax windfall to fund, for example, a retired judge to investigate what’s really happening in Metro Vancouver in the housing market?

[1430]

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it’s not the first time, but once again, we’re getting somewhat mixed signals from the opposition. One member thinks we’re not collecting enough property transfer tax, and another member thinks we’re collecting too much.

Let me say this about an important portion of the real estate market, housing market, in British Columbia. In Vancouver last year, the statistics reveal that a third of the homes that were sold, sold for under $400,000. So when I hear members opposite dismiss as inconsequential a decision that immediately provides an exemption for British Columbians — for people who live here, who want to buy and make their permanent home here — an exemption that could save them $13,000, it suggests to me that there is something else at play.

There is a process underway to examine some of the practices that have given rise to concern involving the Real Estate Council and the superintendent of real estate. The member has heard me in the past — and my expectations and the government’s expectations around proper behaviour by those involved in the real estate sector.

But for heaven’s sake, the single biggest change to the property transfer tax — an opportunity for British Columbians, not just in Point Grey or Shaughnessy but around this province, to purchase a new home and save up to $13,000…. If the members opposite can’t join with the government and celebrate that fact, I guess that speaks volumes to where they are.

Madame Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill on a supplemental.

C. James: I’m amazed that you would hear the Finance Minister standing up and talking about being against closing loopholes, dealing with speculators and ensuring British Columbians are treated fairly. That’s what we’re talking about in this House.

The minister chose to completely ignore a thoughtful proposal from UBC’s Sauder School of Business which gave a way to track absentee speculator investors through the tax system. The minister knows that there have been very serious allegations about real estate manipulation in Vancouver.

So again my question is to the minister. Why on earth does he believe that a voluntary declaration will be completed accurately by international investors who want to shield their true residency?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member may not remember this, but I do — not, by the way, because of political involvement but as a result of professional involvement in duties I had 100-plus years ago. We used to collect information. We used to require people to provide information about citizenship. I haven’t dwelt on this, but the member persists, and so I shall.

I have no idea why the NDP government in 1998 decided to end that practice. I have no idea. I am certain that as a keen student of history of her party and governments past, the member will stand up in a moment and explain that to us.

[ Page 10440 ]

We are taking steps to collect specific information, reliable information and — as odd as this might seem to members of the opposition — to base subsequent decisions on that reliable information.

DRINKING WATER QUALITY

IN PRINCE RUPERT SCHOOLS

J. Rice: Yesterday, the parents of school children in school district 52 received a shocking letter. They were informed that their children had been drinking water with lead levels in excess of Health Canada guidelines.

Four schools were tested. Three elementary schools and one middle school in Prince Rupert have lead levels beyond the maximum acceptable level. They were informed that in order to address this problem, the district would begin flushing school water pipes and installing filtered water fountains. Parents want to know what the health impact on their children might be.

[1435]

Can the Minister of Education tell the House how long he has known that school children in my riding have been exposed to contaminated drinking water?

Hon. T. Lake: The health authority, obviously, is very concerned about drinking water quality and has been working with Prince Rupert schools, as they do around the province when there’s a question of water quality.

We know that lead is a naturally occurring substance but also is released from older plumbing, older pipes. I understand that in the ’80s and ’90s here in Victoria, for instance, there was a need to address this situation in older schools.

The health officer in Prince Rupert has determined, through routine testing, that there are slightly elevated lead levels. They are taking proactive action with the school district to ensure that the drinking water for those students in those schools is safe. A letter has gone out to parents to advise them of this. We will ensure that the water is safe to drink in those Prince Rupert schools.

Madame Speaker: The member for North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: My question was not answered. The question was: how long have they known?

Almost half of the 23 sample sites inspected by Northern Health tested positive for elevated lead levels. Children at Conrad Elementary were drinking water with lead levels three times higher than health guidelines, and, to quote Northern Health, “There is no ‘good’ amount of lead” — period.

Parents in my community want answers. Can the minister tell the House how long these children have been drinking contaminated drinking water?

Hon. T. Lake: Medical health officers around the province are certainly aware of the interaction between older plumbing, the alkalinity or acidity of the water and the relationship that results in possible contaminants in the water.

The health officer for Prince Rupert, as soon as they were aware of the elevated lead levels, worked with the school. There is a program in place to ensure that the faucets are flushed first thing in the morning, to make sure that any residual lead from the plumbing system has been flushed from the system, and there will be filters put on those water fountains to ensure that water is fit to drink for the students of those schools.

J. Wickens: Hon. Speaker, it actually gets worse. According to Northern Health, children attending Pineridge Elementary have been drinking water with lead levels 14 times higher than the maximum concentrations allowed by Health Canada — 14 times. Why has the Minister of Education allowed our school children to drink water that Health Canada says is unsafe?

Hon. T. Lake: I want to thank the new member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for the question and for the style in which she presented it. I’ve never had to ask a question in question period. I don’t look forward to the opportunity, but I think she did a great job.

The reality is: as soon as Northern Health was knowledgable about the elevated lead levels, they worked with the school to ensure that there was a system in place to protect the children at these schools. This is a problem that has occurred in older buildings throughout the province. As soon as people are aware of the problem, measures are put in place — flushing systems, filtration systems. Northern Health is working closely with the school district to ensure that water is safe for these children to drink.

R. Fleming: Parents in British Columbia expect the government to look out for their children when they are at school, and of course, they expect their kids to be safe when they go to school each day.

[1440]

Imagine the shock of a parent receiving a memo yesterday saying that their kids have been exposed to toxins linked to developmental disabilities and permanent physical damage from lead poisoning. Imagine that.

My question is to the minister, whichever one cares to answer here today. It’s about other schools in the northwest, because the testing results in Prince Rupert have shown that all of those schools came back with positive results that will impact children. How many other schools have been tested for elevated lead levels, and will the minister release the findings of those tests so parents can be properly informed?

Hon. T. Lake: As I mentioned, in older buildings with plumbing that is aging, particularly depending on the

[ Page 10441 ]

pH of the water system, there can be an interaction that causes lead to be residual in the water, particularly if the water has been sitting overnight. That’s why it’s important to flush those systems first thing in the morning.

This government is committed to replacing older schools throughout the province — over $1.7 billion over the fiscal plan to renew schools throughout the province of British Columbia. Meanwhile, health authorities will always work with school districts to ensure that water in the school system is high quality and fit to drink for the students.

R. Fleming: The fact is that British Columbia has no mandated test of drinking water in public schools. In fact, Ontario is the jurisdiction that has seen fit to conduct regular testing to determine whether their school children are exposed to high levels of lead.

In the case of Prince Rupert, they are flushing the pipes, and they’re telling parents that they can buy their own home lead-testing kit at a discount for $29. Is this all that the ministry is prepared to do — tell parents to buy a test kit and you’re on your own?

In light of all we know, in light of what this minister knows, in light of the discussion going on in North America about the risk to children from lead poisoning, I ask this of the minister: will he do the right thing? Will he start to coordinate provincial testing, mandatory for every school in British Columbia, to determine what risk there is to kids in our province?

Hon. T. Lake: It is evident that as soon as Northern Health was aware of elevated lead levels, action was taken. In older plumbing, we know that there is a possibility of lead getting into the system if water has been sitting in it for a period of time, particularly if the pH of the water system makes lead come out into the water.

The water supply in Prince Rupert is absolutely fine. It’s the older buildings that have an issue, whether that’s residential buildings or whether it’s school buildings or whether it’s hospitals. Northern Health is working closely with parents and the school to make sure that the water in the school system is fit to drink for the students of Prince Rupert.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

M. Hunt: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner.

I would move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

M. Hunt: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

M. Hunt: In moving the adoption of this report, I would like to make some brief comments. This report represents the committee’s unanimous recommendation for the reappointment of Ms. Fiona Spencer as the Merit Commissioner of British Columbia.

As you are aware, the role of the Merit Commissioner is an important one, but when I mentioned to folks that I was Chair of this committee, the standard question was: “What is a Merit Commissioner?” Well, the Merit Commissioner is a statutory officer of the Legislature who is responsible for ensuring the effective application of the merit principle in public service appointments, thereby confirming that the appointed individuals are qualified for their positions.

The Merit Commissioner accomplishes this through random audits and through detailed reviews of specific appointment decisions. Since her original appointment in 2010, Ms. Fiona Spencer has carried out these responsibilities in a most capable, effective and professional manner.

[1445]

Ms. Spencer’s knowledge of public service and management and human resource issues, both at the provincial and federal levels, as well as her integrity and commitment to accountability, make her an ideal candidate to continue to fill this role.

I want to thank my fellow committee members, including the Deputy Chair, the member for Surrey-Newton, for their contributions and support of the selection process. It was a delight to work with each and every one of you.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Ms. Spencer in the gallery today, right behind me, and, on behalf of the committee, offer her our sincere congratulations.

With that, I would move adoption of the report.

H. Bains: I rise to add my comments in concurrence with the Chair of the committee, the member for Surrey-Panorama. I would also like to thank all committee members for their focused and principled approach in reaching and concluding the process to recommend unanimously to this House to reappoint Fiona Spencer as Merit Commissioner for British Columbia.

On behalf of the committee members, I want to thank, in particular, the Chair of the committee for his respectful, constructive approach in collecting views from all those who wished to offer. On behalf of all members of the committee, I would like to thank the legislative Clerk’s office, especially Kate Ryan-Lloyd, for their support to help organize meetings and their technical advice.

The legislative committee agreed to recommend Ms. Fiona Spencer’s appointment in 2010 and her reappointment in 2013, and we believe she will continue to serve British Columbians with integrity, excellence and dedi-

[ Page 10442 ]

cation to her role. We look forward to Ms. Spencer continuing her leadership as an independent officer of the Legislature, responsible for monitoring the application of the merit principle to public service appointments.

Madame Speaker: The question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

M. Hunt: I would ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to reappoint Ms. Fiona Spencer as Merit Commissioner of the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF MERIT COMMISSIONER

M. Hunt: I move:

[That this House recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the reappointment of Ms. Fiona Spencer as an Officer of the Legislature, to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia pursuant to

section 5.01 of the Public Service Act .]

Motion approved.

J. Wickens: I seek leave to make introductions.

Madame Speaker: Please proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Wickens: I’d like to say a special welcome to some people who are very important to me in the House today. We have Louise Witt and Dione Costanzo, who are past colleagues of mine from the Autism Support Network; their children, Catherine Taylor and Eric Paquette; my sister-in-law, Brenda Newton, and Sam Newton; my good friend Joanna Drake and her mom, Karen Styles; and two mentors of mine, Clair Schuman and Cathie Camley.

Please help me in welcoming them today.

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. M. de Jong: By leave, I’d like to move a motion. For the information of members, it is the activation of the Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, pursuant to

section 80 of that act.

[That a Special Committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 165 pursuant to

section 80 of that Act, and that the Special Committee so appointed shall have the powers of a Select Standing Committee and is also empowered:

a) to appoint to their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee and to delegate to the subcommittee all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;

b) to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next following Session and during any sitting of the House;

c) to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient;

d) to conduct public consultations by any means the committee considers appropriate, including but not limited to public meetings and electronic means; and

e) to retain personnel as required to assist the committee;

and shall submit a report, including any recommendations respecting the results of the review, to the Legislative Assembly by May 26, 2016; and shall deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment and upon resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chair shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

That the said Special Committee is to be composed of Don McRae (Convenor), Eric Foster, Sam Sullivan, Jackie Tegart, John Yap, Kathy Corrigan, David Eby, and Doug Routley .]

I think all members are in possession of the motion. I will say that it asks the committee to submit its report by May 26, 2016. For the record, the special committee is composed of Don McRae, convener; Eric Foster; Sam Sullivan; Jackie Tegart; John Yap; Kathy Corrigan; David Eby; and Doug Routley.

By leave, I will move that motion.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

[1450]

Budget Debate

(continued)

C. James: It is my pleasure to continue my beginning discussion that I started yesterday, to rise to speak to B.C. Budget 2016. Yesterday was simply a quick overview of the budget, and today I want to take my opportunity to be able to talk a little bit more in-depth about specifics in the budget, about the kinds of things that are important to British Columbians and the role of the budget in all of those.

So just for those folks who are paying attention and listening, I’m going to go through the strengths of British Columbia. I’m going to go through the role of the budget in supporting those strengths and dealing with the challenges.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

[ Page 10443

I want to talk a little bit about this government’s promises. I believe it’s important to talk a little bit about the new promises in the budget and what the track record of this government is when it comes to promises, because I think it’s important for the people of B.C. to remember history when we take a look at new promises.

I want to take some time, as well, to talk a little bit about the reality for families, the challenges that families are facing, some stories that I certainly don’t believe are unique to my constituency but in fact are, I’m certain, heard from members across this province.

I also want to take some time to take a look at what the public has asked for. There’s quite an extensive process that occurs in British Columbia through the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, where we actually take the opportunity to travel the province. I want to take some time to talk a little bit and respect those voices, those people who take the time to be able to tell us what they believe the priorities should be. I’d like to take some time, as well, to talk a little bit about that public voice.

Then I want to close off with a little discussion about possibilities — what possibilities there are in this province and what kinds of challenges we have.

I will be the designated speaker as well.

Just to begin, I want to talk a little bit about our strengths. I’ve had the good fortune to live in British Columbia for most of my life. I immigrated with my parents when I was a baby and moved to British Columbia when I was five years old. I, in fact, moved into this community — into James Bay and the Victoria community — when I was five years old and have spent almost my entire life in this community.

I moved north for a bit and continue to call that my second home — Burns Lake, where my husband’s territory is and where he continues to work as well. I consider that my second home. But Victoria and this beautiful place, as well as this province, has been my home for my entire life. I am a proud British Columbian.

It was interesting yesterday. I was asked a couple of times, in doing follow-up on the budget, why I felt that there were comments made by the other side bashing other governments and other provinces, talking about the strengths of B.C. compared to other places. I’m a big believer — a lesson that I think is important — that we can be proud without putting other people down. I think that’s critical for all of us. I will continue to be a proud British Columbian. I will continue to talk proudly about our province and the great strengths we have.

I’m also a believer that people are the greatest asset that we have. They are our greatest strength as a province. Certainly, when it comes to the economy…. Our economy is a global economy, and we have a massive advantage here in British Columbia when it comes to our diversity. We have people from all parts of the globe who have chosen British Columbia as their home.

We had the wonderful example earlier today where we had refugee families from Syria who were here in the gallery witnessing what was occurring here. I’m just so proud to live in that kind of province, in a multicultural province where people reach out and support newcomers to British Columbia. It really is one of our greatest strengths.

If you’re looking at a global economy, we have people who have connections to all parts of the globe who’ve chosen British Columbia as their place to contribute, who’ve chosen British Columbia as their place to be able to share their strengths and their talents.

[1455]

When I go to citizenship ceremonies, which I think for all of us are very moving — to see new Canadians and to attend those ceremonies — I often say that I believe refugees and immigrants are some of the bravest people in the world. I think that for many of us, to imagine coming to a country without the language, often without connections, without family connections, leaving behind family, leaving behind everything you’ve known and taking that plunge, taking that big step…. To be able to come to a new country and say, “I’m going to share my talents and my experiences,” is incredible, absolutely incredible. I think it really does speak to the courage and the strength of our immigrants.

In British Columbia, when we talk about the strengths of our province, one of the huge strengths that we have is that diversity, those connections. It certainly makes our province a much richer place, to know that we have those connections.

The other piece that I think is important to acknowledge in our province is that we have a very fast-growing entrepreneurial spirit in many, many folks in British Columbia. Whether it’s large businesses or small businesses, whether it’s a home-based business or an international business, whether it’s the area of high-tech, the area of agriculture or forestry, whether it’s health care — you name it — we really have an incredible amount of entrepreneurs in our province.

Again, we all benefit. I think that’s the key that I’d like to mention when I talk about our strengths in British Columbia. We all benefit from that strength. We all benefit from the creativity and the flexibility.

The determination to be an entrepreneur takes huge determination. It takes patience, but it also takes risk-taking. It takes being able to take that big step out when others are saying to you, “This idea isn’t going to go anywhere,” or you’re turned down by folks when you’re looking for capital or you’re out looking for that opportunity — the many people, I’m sure, who’ve told those entrepreneurs that it’s not going to work.

I love the entrepreneurs who say: “If you haven’t made any mistakes….” In fact, at the most recent high-tech conference, there was an ask for a show of hands for the number of people in the audience who had gone bank-

[ Page 10444 ]

rupt and then come back again. Really, when you’re talking about entrepreneurship, you are talking about taking risks. You are talking about reaching out. You are talking about making mistakes, learning from them and then moving on. So I think it’s important to acknowledge the entrepreneurial spirit in British Columbia as one of our huge strengths.

We also have world-class institutions of higher learning. I am so proud of our community college and university network that we have in British Columbia. I use the term “community college” purposefully, because I worry — and I’ll talk a little bit more when we get into that

section of the budget — about the eroding of our community colleges. I think they are a huge asset in our province.

In fact, I think most people, certainly in my generation — I won’t speak for others — remember people starting off in college and moving to universities. That’s usually the path that is often taken, and we have some excellent agreements between colleges and universities for people to be able to take courses and to be able to move back and forth.

Well, it has been interesting to watch over the last five years or so. We now actually are seeing the opposite. We are seeing people who have gone to university, who have received their degree at university, who are going to community colleges as their second opportunity in the province, because they’ve seen that they have a degree and now they want to look at something a little more practical, sometimes, or something that has opened up another opportunity for a job field.

There isn’t one better than the other. They are both critical — and both critical to a strong economy. From my perspective, if we don’t have that community college and university system with the linkages and with the support, then I don’t believe we’re going to have a strong economy. I’m very proud of our community colleges and our universities in British Columbia.

One of the other advantages when it comes to the strengths of British Columbia — and I think we don’t talk often enough about it — is our public health care system and our public education system. Again, if you look at the foundation of a strong economy and the foundation of a strong society, public education and public health care are critical. They are important not only to a healthy community; they’re important to businesses.

[1500]

I can tell you that in the travels I’ve done in the years that I’ve been an MLA, I have lost track of the number of individuals at a chamber of commerce or at a business mixer that have talked about businesses saying that one of the things they look for, when they’re looking at investment and when they’re looking at communities, is: what are the schools like, and is health care accessible? Because that’s what their employees are asking about.

Their employees are saying: “If we’re going to come and work for you….” Particularly in the kind of competitive market that we see in our province and in our global economy, when you’re competing for people across the world, it’s important to take a look and see where those services are for people who are coming to work for your business.

I certainly believe that our public health care system and our public education system are the foundation of a strong economy and the foundation of a strong society. Again, as I go along, I’ll talk a little about what Budget 2016 offered, or didn’t offer, when it comes to both of those areas.

One of the other great strengths of our province is our place as a gateway to the Pacific. We have access to markets that really are the envy of many, that really give us a huge opportunity and a huge advantage in a province. Again, I think it’s important for us to continue to recognize those strengths.

We have an unparalleled natural environment. Anyone who’s travelled our province knows that. We have a range across this province that is unparalleled to other places, and that attracts people from around the world, provides opportunity for people to be able to explore the great outdoors.

Again, it is an opportunity for businesses to really attract investment here in our province — to talk about our parks and our green space, to be able to talk about our natural environment, our mountains and our lakes and our coastlines and to talk about that as a real strength in bringing business investment into British Columbia. I think when we take a look at building a strong economy, we cannot underestimate the strength of our natural environment and the ability to attract people here because of that.

We have, as well, a highly qualified labour force — well qualified, well educated, productive, well trained. We certainly see that when it comes to all sorts of industries. I’ll just mention one, which is the film industry.

We hear people talking about the wide choice that they have when it comes to being able to choose where they want to go to do a production. Often British Columbia is talked about, because the investment was put in place for those well-trained employees, because we have a strong network. A production company knows that when they come to British Columbia, they’re going to have success. They are going to have well-trained people who can start on the job immediately, who can be there, who can provide that support. Again, that makes a huge difference when you’re looking for investment.

We have a range of natural resources that, if managed sustainably, can be a huge long-term advantage for British Columbia. I believe that there are few places on earth that have the kinds of advantages that we have in British Columbia — few places — but advantages that from my perspective, have been missed opportunities or have been completely neglected by the government.

You see that again in Budget 2016. To me, I think that is a government’s job, and a budget should be a definition

[ Page 10445 ]

of that. It should define a government’s agenda. It should really show what a government believes is important, how they build on those strengths, how they capitalize on those strengths. Government doesn’t do everything, but a government does use the advantages and the tools that they have to capitalize on our strengths and to be able to address the challenges and the weaknesses that we may have.

A budget, as I said yesterday, truly defines a government’s character. It speaks to a government’s choices, and it speaks to their priorities. It speaks, I believe, to how a government sees the world and what they see as critical. It also tells us what they don’t see as critical, the things that are further down the list.

As I started off yesterday, I talked a little bit about what this budget says to British Columbians, what this budget tells the people of this province. I have to tell you that I truly believe this is a budget that does reflect the character of this government. It reflects how clearly out of touch this government is with the people of British Columbia, how far out of touch they are. We saw that reflected over and over again. In my time, I’ll talk a little bit about those particular issues.

[1505]

I want to start with just one. It was one that we saw reflected in last year’s budget that is once again reflected in this year’s budget. I raise it first, and as the key issue to define a government’s character, because I believe it speaks so strongly to the kinds of priorities that this government has, the people that they believe are important and the people that they believe aren’t. That was when the government last year, and again in this year’s budget, in 2016, found money to be able to give the top 2 percent income earners a tax break in British Columbia. Nothing in my mind speaks more to the character of this Premier and of this government than that decision.

This was a time where we saw the Finance Minister stand up and say to the rest of British Columbians that it was time to tighten your belt. This was going to be a tough economic year. Once again, there were clouds on the horizon. People needed to be cautious. The government needed to be cautious. They needed to be fiscally responsible. They needed to be prudent with taxpayer dollars.

Well, for the public to have to hear the government giving them a lecture about being cautious with the public dollars while they found $230 million to be able to give the top income earners, millionaires, in British Columbia a tax break I think says everything. It says everything about the lack of regard this government has for the public, for hard-working British Columbians, for individuals who are trying to get by.

The public that I talk to are not looking for government to fix everything for them — in fact, just the opposite. They understand that the government can’t fix all the challenges. In fact, they are doing their part. They’re working hard, many of them at two jobs, to try and get by. They’re working very hard on modest incomes to try and put a little bit aside every single month, perhaps for their children’s sports programs or arts programs. Perhaps they’re worried that their car might break down, and they just won’t have the ability to be able to get it fixed because they’re getting by paycheque to paycheque.

I talked to a family that talked about their children’s dental work. How on earth were they going to be able to manage to save up that little tiny bit on each paycheque, to put a little bit aside for dental work that they knew had to be done?

Those individuals, those families, those seniors come into our community offices to talk about how tough it is to get by. A senior that I talked to said they take their medication every second day because they want to spread it out. They’re worried that they don’t have enough resources to be able to take it every day.

Well, that’s not why they were given a prescription. That’s certainly not what their medical professional would recommend. That’s certainly not something that they would be looking at. Yet that’s exactly what they’re facing.

For those individuals to be told, “I’m sorry,” that their own government just can’t afford to help them, and it’s just not possible to help them, I think is one of the biggest insults that we see in Budget 2016.

Oh yes, we can find money, don’t worry, for the top 2 percent of income earners, even when the economy is struggling, even when we tell you that there’s no money there. When you’re struggling and your family is struggling? Sorry, nothing there for you. You just have to wait. You don’t count.

That’s what we see reflected, once again, in Budget 2016 — a slap in the face to hard-working British Columbians trying to do everything right.

I’ll come back in a bit to more specifics on the pressures that families are facing because of this government. I’ll talk a little bit more about the reality for families that I feel the government is choosing to ignore.

I also want to take a just few minutes, as I said at the start, to talk a little bit about this government’s promises. Yes, there were some promises, some commitments, made in the 2016 budget, and I’ll talk a little bit about that. But I think for the public, they’re wearing thin. They’re getting weary when it comes to the B.C. Liberal track record on promises.

[1510]

Now, to be fair to the government, there were a couple of promises that they have kept. They certainly did give a tax break to the top 2 percent income earners. They managed to do that. That was a promise that they didn’t break. They managed to keep that one.

Oh, red-tape-reduction day. I think that’s another one that they said they were going to come forward with and that the government actually brought in. Whether they really cut red tape or not is a whole other matter. But they said they’d bring in a red-tape-reduction day, and yes, I do believe they did do that.

[ Page 10446 ]

But what have most of the B.C. Liberal promises meant for families? What has happened to many of those promises? I think the one I want to start off with is families first. How many of us remember when the Premier stood up and made her biggest commitment, her big promise? It was going to be families first. That’s what she was going to focus on.

Well, you would imagine that that would have meant that there were going to be resources to families, that we would look after the most vulnerable families, that hard-working families were going to see a break from this government. In fact, just the opposite. Budget 2016 makes life tougher for families. There is no families first.

All I can imagine is that the Premier meant certain families first, a few families first — those very rich, wealthy families first but not the rest of British Columbians. They certainly didn’t count in the families first. So I guess it means being more specific and asking questions about which families the Premier means.

That’s the kind of lack of commitment that this government has had with their promises that makes the public cynical. The public expects the government to act on their behalf. The public expects the government to be there for them. When they hear a promise and a commitment from a Premier that says families first, they expect that means something. They expect that that would be some benefit to them. Instead, as I said, they simply get life made more difficult and less and less services and supports.

What about another promise and another commitment? Debt-free B.C. Now, that one was hard to miss for anybody, because “Debt-free B.C.” was on the side of the campaign bus by the Premier in this last election, in 2013. The idea was that a prosperity fund would be rolling out the money by this time, eliminating the debt. I think at one point, it even said getting rid of the sales tax. That was all going to happen between 2013 and 2015. In fact, the Premier talked about that, talked about dates.

Just to read a couple of quotes from the Premier. The Premier said that at least one LNG plant will be on line by 2015. We’ll have “three in operation by 2020.” Well, we’re here discussing Budget 2016. That’s a broken promise.

What about that prosperity fund? The Premier was quoted as saying, “The prosperity fund could exceed $100 billion” — not million dollars, $100 billion — “over the next 30 years,” and could eliminate the provincial debt, eliminate the provincial sales tax. Well, I have to say, another broken promise from this government.

How much has the debt gone up since that promise was made by the Premier in 2013? Well, $9 billion. That’s a “b” — $9 billion the debt has gone up since the Premier said we’d be “Debt-free B.C.” Again, another broken promise. And we wonder why people are cynical about politics.

It’s the worst of the worst when the big promises are made, when the pictures happen, the photo ops occur, and then nothing happens for families, for people who are slogging away, looking for life not to be made more difficult. They are let down over and over again by this government.

What did we see in this throne speech when it came to those jobs and the billions of dollars that should be rolling in? In fact, this throne speech simply talked about a goal of hanging on to the existing 13,000 jobs.

[1515]

How far we’ve come from the Premier saying that we’re going to create tens of thousands of jobs in British Columbia. Instead, we’re trying to hang on to the existing jobs we have.

And what happened to the prosperity fund? I took some time last year to talk to the Finance Minister about the prosperity fund, about when they would begin the process of putting in place the criteria for the fund, how it was going to be fiscally managed, when that was going to occur. The Finance Minister, just last year, said that that fund was going to happen when LNG occurred in British Columbia. When we saw final investment decisions made, when we had the prospect of having an LNG plant here and when we had the anticipation of the resources coming in to British Columbia, then the prosperity fund would be put in place.

We actually have spoken about the fact that, particularly for resource markets, particularly for commodity prices that go up and down, there is some sense to a prosperity fund — to be able to put aside resources to be able to weather the storms of up and down. But there’s something very critical here, and that is you need the industry and the funds from that industry to make up a prosperity fund.

What did we see in this budget? What have we seen the Premier do? We’ve seen the Premier put in place her own fantasy fund, where she took $100 million of taxpayer money and put it into this imaginary prosperity fund for an industry that doesn’t exist and for money that hasn’t come into the province. That $100 million, again, is hard-earned money that has come from British Columbians, from their pockets — to go into the Premier’s fund just to try and save her some embarrassment because she can’t deal with the fact that the LNG hasn’t arrived.

She also doesn’t want to say that she doesn’t have a prosperity fund, so she’s taking your money, the public’s money, and putting it into this imaginary fund so that she can then say she’s done something. Well, that is the worst of the worst. There is no industry. No new industry has come in. There is no money coming in from that industry. And yet the Premier puts together her own fantasy fund and says: “Now it’s there.”

I want to take just a minute to talk a little bit about that $100 million. If you take a look in the budget, 2015-2016, that $100 million is about the amount of money that the government brings in from the increase to the public’s medical services premiums. Almost $100 million. You

[ Page 10447 ]

face a 4 percent increase on your medical service premiums. Once again, you’re facing a tough time. Once again, a fee has been put onto families, and that money now is going into the Premier’s fund.

They made a choice, this government. They made a choice to say to you, “Yes, we’re going to gouge you one more time. Yes, we’re going to make your life more difficult. Yes, we’re going to increase your MSP premiums by another 4 percent,” simply so the Premier can have her own fund so that in 2017, when we come up to the election, she can look like she’s doing something.

Well, that’s not good economic planning. Saving the Premier from embarrassment should not cost the taxpayers, and that’s what we’re talking about here. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about the Premier trying to save herself from embarrassment with taxpayer dollars, making life tougher for families once again.

Now, in going through this list of promises, there was also a promise from this Premier and from this government that they were going to support the most vulnerable — that that was important to the Premier, that that was critical. Well, I don’t have time to go through the litany of reports and investigations and deaths and challenges that the most vulnerable have faced in this province under the B.C. Liberals.

Whether we’re talking about the Ministry of Children and Families and children in care and those tragic stories, whether we’re talking about mental health and people living with mental health issues, whether we’re talking about homelessness and people on income assistance and people on disabilities…. You name it. This government made their lives more difficult and certainly didn’t provide resources for the hard-working staff who try and provide services and supports every single day.

[1520]

I’ve had workers in tears. No one goes into the job of front-line social work, for example, particularly child protection…. They don’t go into that job unless they care deeply about the children that they are caring for. They don’t work in an income assistance office, talking to people about poverty, unless they care deeply about the people that they’re working with.

There is nothing more heartbreaking than not being able to help someone who has come to you as their last resort — said to an individual: “I’m sorry. There’s nothing I can do for you. There are no programs and services and supports I can provide for you, because the government cut the budget once again.” It was 28 percent out of the Ministry of Children and Families in the first couple of years of this government’s reign. Imagine the difficulty that that causes.

I think it’s also important to remember that the government, for children in care, is the parent. It’s a legal responsibility that the government has to these children. I would say this government has failed miserably when it comes to providing support for the most vulnerable in this province. Even after they have been called out, even after report after report has come forward, does Budget 2016 address that issue? I’ll come back to that and talk a little bit about the amount of money that’s gone in.

I’m glad we’re finally seeing some resources go into the budget for Children and Families, for the ministry, but it does not begin to make up what this government has taken out. Think of the lost years for those children and those families. Those don’t come back. Children and families don’t get those years back when this government didn’t invest the kind of resources that were needed.

What about the promise for a GP for everyone by 2015? Well, again, I think we’re debating the 2016 budget. We’ve passed 2015 now. I can tell you, just in my own circle of friends and my own struggle, that finding a GP…. Everyone does not have a GP. We have not lived up to that promise and commitment. In fact, most people are still having a very difficult time trying to find a family doctor.

It really shows a pattern of this government. It’s a pattern where the government makes big, lofty promises, where they say they’re going to do something — they even, in some cases, put a timeline on it — and the promise is hollow. It has no plan to it. It has no focus. It has no result. I don’t know whether the Premier thinks, by simply putting it out there, that nobody will pay attention. Well, we are going to continue to pay attention, and I can tell you that the public is paying attention. They know what this government’s promises are worth. They know the lack of support that this government has provided.

I said I’d come back to a couple of pieces that are in the budget and just unpack them a little bit. I think that’s important to do, because on the surface, the government once again will try and put out that they’ve been doing big things for families, and big issues. But when you unpack them, you find out that in fact there’s a little bit of tinkering. There are some promises that actually don’t live up to what the government says.

I’ll just start off again to go back to the issue of MSP. I think it’s interesting, in this budget, that the government basically has admitted that MSP is an unfair tax. They’ve admitted that. They admitted that the MSP is a tax that is unfair, that doesn’t work and that needs to be adjusted. Well, if you have a bad tax, and you’ve admitted it’s bad, and you’ve admitted it’s unfair and it doesn’t work, you would think that the promise and the commitment would be to get rid of it. But is that what the government did in Budget 2016? No.

In fact, what they’ve decided to do is that yes, a few people will end up paying less, as children will be exempt. But a whole bunch of people — singles and couples and seniors — will end up paying more on their MSP premiums. What kind of a break is that for British Columbians?

Even those few people who are going to get a little bit of a break don’t get it till 2017. You’ll remember I said that a budget is the sign of the character of a government.

[ Page 10448 ]

Well, it says everything when the Premier doesn’t have to wait for her slush fund. The Premier doesn’t wait for her fantasy fund. She doesn’t wait to give millionaires a tax break, but oh, families who are going to get a break on their MSP: “By the way, you’ve got to wait until January 17.” That is unfair.

[1525]

If the government is going to do something, they should acknowledge that the MSP is an unfair tax, and they should just make the commitment to get rid of it and ensure that the public knows that. But that’s not what we saw in Budget 2016.

I think, again, one of the areas — I would say disappointment, but I have to say anger — that makes me angry in this budget is the government saying that they’re going to support people with disabilities. They’re going to give them some additional money every month. People with disabilities who saw that announcement in the budget expected that they are going to start seeing an increase each month from this government, because that’s what they said: $77 a month would start coming in to people with disabilities. A small amount, but when you’re living on disabilities and you haven’t had an increase for a number of years, every little bit counts.

What the government didn’t go into detail about, and certainly didn’t put out as the big announcement, is that they’re also taking away a transportation allowance and a bus pass program that they provide for people right now with disabilities. “We’ll provide you with $77 a month, but by the way, we’re not giving you a bus pass anymore, which means $55 has come back. You go and use that now to buy your own bus pass if you decide you want transportation.”

Well, I can tell you that for most of the people on disabilities that I talk to, the bus pass is one of the most important things that they have. It gives them a chance to not be isolated. It provides them with an opportunity to be able to do some volunteer work if they’re able or to get out and be part of their community, as they should be.

What an insult to people with disabilities to say: “We’re going give you some money, but by the way, we’re taking things back.” That speaks to the character of this government who doesn’t care for the most vulnerable in this province. They can’t even provide some additional support for people with disabilities without clawing it back out of their pocket at the same time. Unbelievable, hon. Speaker. Unbelievable.

Budget 2016 certainly hasn’t corrected the damage that this government has done. Hydro rates are still going up. I’ll talk a little bit about the specifics. Any relief on tuition for people who are trying to sends their kids to university or college that I talked about earlier? No. Ferry fares are rising. ICBC is still going up.

I mentioned the Ministry of Children and Families earlier, and again, I think it’s important to recognize that while I am glad to see much-needed resources go into that ministry, it shows a pattern that we see with this government, which is that the only time they ever do something is when they get caught out or it becomes a problem for the Premier.

Shouldn’t a government do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do? Isn’t that what a government is there for? A government is not there simply to act when it becomes a problem for them or simply to act because they’ve had report after report or simply to act because advocates in the field or people who work in the area or the opposition are asking question after question on this issue.

That shouldn’t be the indicator for a government to decide that something is a priority. Yet that is exactly what we see with this government. It’s exactly what we see in Budget 2016. I am glad money is going into the Ministry of Children and Families. I am glad that the most vulnerable are going to see those resources. I’m glad the people in the field are going to get a little bit of support that they need in a very, very difficult situation and a very, very difficult job. But it shouldn’t take that. The government should do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do, not simply because they’ve been caught out.

I think it’s interesting, as well, to take a look…. The Finance Minister spent a great deal of time in his response to Budget 2016 talking about fiscal responsibility, talking about this government’s record, talking about the fact that they’ve done well when it comes to that.

I just want to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about the government’s track record when it comes to their own projects.

[1530]

I think it’s important for the public to recognize that this isn’t all about additional resources going in. This is also about the existing choices the government makes and how they manage or not manage those resources themselves.

I want to start off with I think, probably, the most glaring area, and that’s government information technology programs. If ever there was an area where government has wasted dollars that could have gone to all of those other programs and services I just talked about, that could have gone to support hard-working families, it’s government IT projects. I don’t think there’s an IT project this government has touched that hasn’t become a mess, that hasn’t run way over budget, that hasn’t been way over time or that certainly has met the needs of the individuals that it’s meant for and was put together to provide for.

We’ll start off with the Ministry of Children and Families. The integrated case management system, ICM as it’s known, was a complete nightmare. There were cost overruns. There were information breaches where individuals were getting information and access to information that they shouldn’t have been able to see.

This was supposed to be an integrated case management system across the Ministry of Social Development

[ Page 10449 ]

and the Ministry of Children and Families to provide efficiencies and the ability for information not to get lost. But it was very clear from the start that in fact the government, in this design, didn’t spend time with the people in the field that the system was designed for.

That seems pretty basic to me. It seems like pretty basic management. If you’re putting together a big project, you talk to the people in the field about what they’re looking for and what’s important to them so that you can design the project to meet their needs. Well, it is very clear that this was not a system that had any kind of support from people in the field or any opportunity for them to be able to give feedback until after it had been put in place, until after money had been wasted, until after the budget had overrun.

Just this one example I think says it all. Employment counsellors often will provide bus passes to income assistance clients to be able to go to a job interview if they don’t have the ability to be able to pay for a bus. They’ll give them a bus pass to be able get to that interview. Well, this system, the ICM system, required 22 steps on the computer to be able to access a bus pass for individuals — 22 clicks on a computer system to get a simple bus pass — and if you made one mistake along the 22 steps, you had to go back to the very beginning again and start the entire process.

I can tell you the frustration that I heard from workers and clients who were going through this process of having to sit and wait.

But that wasn’t the only system that has been an absolute mess — again, coming back to the Finance Minister saying that this is a government that’s fiscally responsible, that has looked after your money well. Anything but.

The education system. The government put together a system called BCeSIS which was to track students through technology — $97 million. That system didn’t even work. That system actually had to be completely thrown out and a new system brought in. So $97 million — that’s fiscal responsibility? I can tell you that $97 million would have gone far for people living with disabilities, for all those not-for-profit agencies out there that provide incredible support in our communities every single day. The education system. Think of what we could have done in the education system with that $97 million.

The government brought in a new system, the Aspen system. Well, that’s having problems too. Once again, we don’t see the attention to detail. We don’t see the focus. We don’t see the support. That’s the Ministry of Children and Families, the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education.

And guess what? B.C. Hydro had the same problem — once again, when it comes to technology. B.C. Hydro embarked on a five-year plan, $400 million. They were going to upgrade their information technology. That was actually going to reduce operating costs. They set a goal for that one and said they were going to reduce operating costs.

Now here we are six years later. They’ve spent over $500 million, and operating costs have gone up, not down. They didn’t meet their goal, which was to reduce operating costs, so we’re now putting more money in around operating costs, exactly the opposite of what this government said. They’re a year late, and they’ve already spent more than their budget. Again, money that could have been used in other places.

[1535]

It’s not all about putting new money in but also about managing the existing dollars that you have. These are not dollars that belong to the B.C. Liberals. They are not dollars that belong to government. They are dollars that belong to the people of this province. The people of this province expect that their dollars are going to be looked after more wisely than these kinds of examples.

The northwest transmission line is another example. It’s $342 million, 85 percent more than the original cost — 85 percent. Not a lot of business folks I know would say that was a good goal or a good marker, for a government to be 85 percent over budget on a project.

B.C. Place roof. How many people remember that one? It was 41 percent over budget. Another technology problem: the B.C. emergency health services. They in fact dumped their $2.8 million patient care record system before it even went into use. That’s another example — not simply about making choices in the wrong place but actually not watching the existing dollars that they have and paying attention to them on behalf of taxpayers.

Of course, there’s the Basi-Virk settlement — $6 million for legal fees for two individuals who pled guilty. And I haven’t talked yet about…. I probably won’t have time, sadly, to go into B.C. Rail, to go into advertising dollars, to go into Bollywood — the Premier’s fiasco; again overspent — or private power contracts. The list goes on, and these are all dollars that could have contributed to helping hard-working families — wasted by this government.

Of course, ahead of us, we see the potential for another project to go over budget and to be done without oversight, and that’s Site C. The budget for building Site C has already grown before it has even been built. The estimates started off at $6.6 billion. What are we at today? At $88.8 billion and growing. But there are certainly no guarantees on that number, because this government refuses to send the Site C project to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The B.C. Utilities Commission, for those who don’t know, is the independent oversight to take a look at exactly these kind of projects, to say whether they make sense, whether the business plan is in place, whether it’s needed. I think it’s interesting to note, and it was mentioned in this House by our leader, that the B.C. Utilities Commission was put in place by Bill Bennett — again, to provide that kind of fiscal oversight.

The Premier boasts about this being the biggest project. I think this is another one of those big projects in the his-

[ Page 10450 ]

tory of British Columbia she is so fond of talking about. Well, if the government is so proud of this project, if the government believes this is the project that we need to move on in British Columbia, why won’t they send it to the B.C. Utilities Commission? Why wouldn’t they give it independent oversight? Why don’t they want an independent body to take a look at this at this project and make a decision?

It raises all kinds of questions about what the government is hiding, what they don’t want the public to know. Why wouldn’t they, if they’re so proud of it, allow it to go to the independent B.C. Utilities Commission?

The other piece that I think is interesting in that case is the opportunity for Hydro to be able to examine alternatives. If you’re putting together a project like this, you usually take a look at what other options there are. If we didn’t build Site C, what other options could we look at? Is there alternative power, alternative energy — wind, solar? We know the price of solar is coming down. We know the opportunities that will be there.

Was Hydro allowed to look at alternatives? Were they allowed to examine those options? No. In fact, Hydro was told that they couldn’t look at options. How is that, as the minister said when he announced Budget 2016, good fiscal management? How does that provide an opportunity for the public to say that, okay, the government looked at these options and decided this was the best project?

The government, in fact, didn’t look at other options to see if this was the best project. The government didn’t send it for independent oversight to make sure that the plan was needed and made sense for British Columbia.

[1540]

Harry Swain, who is the chair of the federal-provincial environmental assessment review panel on Site C, said that the failure to investigate alternatives to Site C was “a dereliction of duty.” Dereliction of duty. Those are pretty strong words from an individual who is known for his independence, who is known for his own opinion — stating that from his perspective, taking a look at alternatives to Site C was just good basic business. But no, not from this government. They decided they didn’t want to take a look at that. They decided they didn’t want to look at independence. They wanted to say yes and move ahead despite that.

Again, for the Finance Minister to stand up and say he believes that this government manages money well and looks after the taxpayer dollars…. All of these projects have given you just a few of the examples where government has wasted money, has not done the planning, has not put the focus in. It’s taxpayers and people who need services and supports that lose out in all of this.

I want to take a moment now to look at the reality in our province for families, because it’s pretty clear to me that this government has chosen to ignore the reality for most families in this province. They certainly aren’t spending time listening to the same people, I’m certain, who come to them that come to me and talk about how difficult it is for them to get by.

If you take a look at all of the fees and services and the costs that this government has layered on families just since the Premier came to office — not even looking back to 2001 but just since the Premier came to office — the additional taxes, fees and services on a two-income family have gone up by about $1,000. That’s a huge cost to a family. Most people don’t have a lot of extra money to be able to throw around.

Now, I hear from the Finance Minister — I heard it again in his speech yesterday — that this government is proud that they’ve kept taxes low, so proud that they’ve kept taxes low. Well, no one believes that. No one believes that this government has kept taxes low.

In fact, the Premier herself, when she was running for office, when she was running for the position to lead her party, actually said that she felt it was important to look at all of the fees and services that were there because those were all taxes on British Columbians. She said it before she was elected, but once she was elected, all of a sudden those things are no longer taxes. We’ll just pretend that they don’t exist. Well, families can’t pretend that they don’t exist. Those are bills that come every single month that this government has added onto the burden of families.

Let’s just take a look at a few of those. Hydro rates have had a 74 percent increase during this government’s reign — $524 more each year in hydro rates. And that’s just the start under this government: 2016 sees a 4 percent increase; 2017 sees a 3.5 percent increase; 2018 sees another 3 percent increase, which, on average, will add another $300 for every family, every year. It’s not as though people have a choice to give up hydro. That’s an additional cost that people have to bear.

You know, hydro and competitive electricity rates used to be known in our province as a competitive advantage. It used to be the way that people would come to British Columbia and invest in our province, because of our competitive advantage when it came to hydro rates. Now the government is having to give a deferral to the mining industry because the rates are so high that they can’t manage them.

The government itself has admitted that it’s no longer a competitive rate. They’ve admitted themselves that it’s no longer an advantage. They’re having to defer it and waive it for businesses to try and help them survive. That’s a lost opportunity. When I talked earlier…. That’s a lost opportunity in British Columbia by this government.

What about that medical services tax? Well, that has gone up 108 percent under this government’s reign. And what’s coming? Even though, in Budget 2016, the government said, “Don’t worry; relief is coming for MSP” — well, certainly not this year, and certainly not next year. Four percent this January, and 4 percent next year. That doubles the income tax that most families are facing.

[1545]

[ Page 10451 ]

Government said way back when that they were going to tie medical service premium increases to health care increases. Well, in fact, that’s not true. It certainly isn’t happening. That’s just not what is occurring in the budget — 4 percent, much higher than the amount of money that has gone into the health care budget. So again, another broken promise. If you take a look at broken promises, this is another broken promise from this government.

What about ICBC, car insurance — people looking at paying their car insurance? The basic rates for drivers have gone up 48 percent since 2001 — again, under this government’s watch. In 2016, they’re going up between 4 and 7 percent.

What about ferry fares? Ferry fares have increased 77 percent under this government’s watch. For a family of four going between Vancouver and Victoria, 77 percent. The smaller routes — Nanaimo to Gabriola, for example — have gone up 100 percent under this government’s watch. And again, what’s happening in the future? A 1.9 percent increase for the next four years.

Think of the costs that that adds to families — 74 percent on hydro, 108 percent on medical service premiums, 48 percent on ICBC and 77 percent on ferry fares.

It’s not simply families who are struggling with these increases. It’s businesses. There was a wonderful report done for the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities at the UBCM two years ago that really identified the economic challenges to Vancouver Island when it came to ferry fares increasing. It was a huge cost, because business, of course, uses the ferries to transport goods back and forth. It had an impact on employees. It had an impact on bringing economic growth to Vancouver Island.

While the government says, “Oh, these are just extra increases, not taxes, just extra increases we’re putting in,” in fact, they’re taxes. There’s no other way to describe it. These are taxes on families, and it’s making life more difficult for British Columbians.

What about post-secondary education? No relief there. Again, tuition has more than doubled under this government.

Even long-term seniors care. Families, at one of the most difficult times in their lives, when they’re having to make decisions about moving into long-term care, having to make decisions about doing that…. Those rates have increased as well, in 2003, in 2010….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, can we have some quietness, please, in the House? Thank you.

C. James: Those rates have increased as well — 2003, 2010, 2011. Even long-term care, even seniors care, has gone up by 93 percent in this province.

I think it said everything when it was announced last Friday that the government increased park fees again. Even when you want to go on an affordable holiday with your family, because you’ve been gouged in all of these other areas, that’s the kind of holiday that you look at, a camping holiday. Even there the government has gouged you. Fees have increased for camping in 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2015. Now again, in 2016, in this budget, camping fees go up.

If you take all of that together, if you look at the impact on families, it makes it tougher for people to get by. It makes it very difficult for people to make ends meet. I think these next statistics — I just want to run through a couple of them — would not be a surprise. If you were aware and you knew what was going on for families — if you paid attention to it, unlike this government — you would know that these statistics would not be surprising.

B.C.’s consumer debt is the highest in the country. According to a report, and this is not a left-leaning organization, the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia said that the per-capita debt in British Columbia — that means every adult and every child, so they’ve divided it per capita — was $10,000 higher than the national average in our province. It’s $58,621.

[1550]

There was a BMO survey, the Bank of Montreal — again, no left-leaning organization’s statistic. They reported that B.C.’s household debt — the entire household — was $99,834. People in British Columbia are swimming in debt, which, as we all know, adds to the stress of family life, makes it tougher and more difficult.

People aren’t struggling and in debt because of frivolous costs. They’re just trying to get by. They’re just trying to manage the fees and services and costs that this government has downloaded on to them.

Vancity last month did a report on the use of payday loans in our province. Payday loans, as many of you know, are not the best option to be able to borrow money. But for many families, they’re the only option that’s available to them, which is to borrow paycheque to paycheque, with exorbitant rates. It makes it very difficult for people to get to a place to be able to pay back those kinds of loans.

What did they see in British Columbia? Between 2012 and 2014 — remember all those years that the government was layering on all those additional pressures and additional costs to families? — they found a 58 percent growth in the use of payday loans in our province.

They interviewed people who were using those loans, and what did they find out? They found out that people were using those payday loans for the basics — not for a vacation, not for something extra, but to pay a bill each month, to be able to get by and buy groceries when it was getting tight at the end of the month.

What about wage growth? That’s an important indicator for the strength of the economy of our province. B.C. is ninth when it comes to wage growth — ninth.

What about private sector job growth? I heard the Finance Minister talk about the private sector and the

[ Page 10452 ]

thriving private sector. Well, in fact, in private sector job growth, we are sixth in Canada. Sixth. And since the 2008 recession, our job growth continues to lag. We’re still 2.4 percentage points lower in 2008, which is the second-worst record in the country.

We also struggle regionally. I want to use one city as an example. I want to point out…. Oh, let’s just pick Kelowna, which happens to be the Premier’s area. Since the Premier came to office, Kelowna has lost 700 jobs. There was a news story just last week about hundreds lining up for a couple of jobs that were available, in hopes of getting the positions. Just in the past year and a half, Kelowna’s unemployment rate went from 2.9 percent to 7.6 percent today. That’s Kelowna.

I want to speak about another huge cost driver — the Finance Minister mentioned it in his budget remarks yesterday — which is the issue of housing and the cost of housing in British Columbia. The minister likes to throw back, as we heard today, that this is not an issue in other parts of British Columbia. In fact, it is an issue in British Columbia. Housing is a huge issue in British Columbia. There are some unique circumstances in Vancouver, in the Lower Mainland — no question. But housing is a critical issue in Victoria, in the capital regional district, in other parts of British Columbia. We continue to see high housing costs.

I talked earlier about that stagnant wage growth, which makes it very difficult for people. The other piece that wasn’t even mentioned in the budget yesterday that is also hugely important is the whole issue of rental housing. I’ve seen examples just in my own community in these last few months. We have seen some proposed renovictions occur, where buildings were bought — apartment buildings with mainly seniors who are renting the apartments — where the owners started looking at doing renovations and were giving tenants two months’ notice and telling them that they had to leave the building.

Well, the tenants joined together. I have to give huge credit and huge pride to my community and to the individuals in my community who pulled together and said: “We’re not going to put up with this. We’re going to come together and we’re going to fight this, because we don’t believe that these renovations are necessary for us to be evicted.

[1555]

“We believe that there are enough vacancies within these apartments” — it was five apartments he bought — “that you could still allow the landlord, the owner, to do his renovations.” They could be moved into the vacant apartments and then move back into the other apartments after the renovations were done.

If you look at our area — a 0.06 percent vacancy rate in Victoria. You can’t find an apartment, never mind an affordable apartment. What does that lead to? That leads to homelessness. That leads to poverty. That leads to struggles for families and for seniors.

Did the budget speak about those rental accommodations? Did it speak about trying to find that range of housing and a comprehensive housing approach to all of that? No, the budget did not.

I think it’s important to recognize…. I mentioned earlier the Vancouver challenges. It’s not simply families who are impacted. It’s also businesses, just as I talked about earlier. There was a quote in the paper from Ryan Holmes, who is the Hootsuite CEO. He said: “Unaffordability is emptying Vancouver of one of its most valuable assets — young people who grew up in the city and who are invested in it…. Qualified job candidates are deterred from moving to the city, and great employees are leaving because they can’t afford to build a life here.”

That’s something government should have been paying attention to. This didn’t just pop up in last two months. This isn’t something that just occurred. If you read Budget 2016, you might think the government just discovered that there was an affordability issue in Vancouver, that they just discovered that there were unscrupulous activities taking place and that there were things that should be investigated.

If we are going to keep our economy going, if we’re going to keep our economy thriving, we have to be able to attract and keep the best and the brightest. When you can’t afford accommodation, a house or rental accommodation — whether you can even dream about buying a house — then other parts of the country start to look more attractive. Other places start to look more attractive. The government’s housing strategy in Budget 2016 did not address that.

There was a wonderful study that came forward from UBC. Some pr