2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 23, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C.

D. Plecas

BladeRunners training program for at-risk youth

J. Kwan

Canadian society and values

G. Hogg

Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association

L. Krog

Rolgear manufacturing company

J. Tegart

Sexual exploitation of children and youth and work of Children of the Street Society

S. Robinson

Oral Questions

J. Horgan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Kwantlen University contract with lobbyist

K. Corrigan

Hon. A. Wilkinson

S. Hammell

Access to government information by Kwantlen University lobbyist

D. Eby

Hon. A. Wilkinson

Regulation of party bus industry

G. Heyman

Hon. T. Stone

Assessment program at Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre and budget priorities

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

M. Karagianis

Petitions

A. Weaver

Reports from Committees

Special Committee to Review the Independent Investigations Office, report, February 2015

M. Morris

S. Chandra Herbert

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

On the amendment ( continued )

Hon. B. Bennett

A. Dix

D. Barnett

D. Routley

L. Throness

G. Heyman

Hon. N. Yamamoto

H. Bains

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

C. Trevena

[ Page 5983 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2015

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Cadieux: On behalf of the Speaker and myself, I’d like to welcome Erin Arnold to the precinct today. Erin does work with the Public Service Agency as a safety adviser, but she’s also very active with the Pacific Post-Partum Society, where she has been co-chair for seven years. She’s on the executive of the parent advisory committee at General Gordon Elementary where her seven-year-old son, Kegun, is a student. She also works one day a week at the Helping Spirit Lodge Society, an aboriginal women’s transition house.

She’s interested in politics — not only in politics, but in women in politics. As such, I am mentoring Erin with the Canadian Women Voters Congress as she considers her future in the political realm.

Please, I would ask the House to make Erin very welcome.

[1335]

I’m going to introduce some of them right now, and certainly not all of them. I’m afraid we’re probably going to miss a few that are here today.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome Brittany Barnes, Zach Renwick, Sacha Fabry and Ben Glassen from Capilano; as well as Samantha Myran from Langara College; Dylan Thiessen and Ryan Petersen from University of the Fraser Valley. I think I saw Tyra Bermudez of BCIT Student Association.

I hope that the House will make all of these great, young student leaders very welcome today.

Hon. T. Lake: I am very pleased to rise in the House today and introduce some leaders from the B.C. Care Providers Association and Bayshore home health. They’ve come to Victoria for tonight’s B.C. Care Awards, which celebrate the dedication, innovation and excellence of front-line workers and staff in continuing care across the province.

Today in the gallery we have Daniel Fontaine, who’s the CEO of the Care Providers Association; Dave Cheperdak, who’s the president of the association’s board of directors; Elissa Gamble, who is the director of regional development for Bayshore home health; and a very special guest, Wendy Miller, who is a registered personal care aide with Bayshore home health and the winner of the B.C. Care Providers Association Care Provider of the Year Award. Would the House please make them very welcome.

L. Krog: I’d ask the House to assist me in welcoming today a fairly frequent visitor here. Amongst the many new feathers to her cap has been added the vice-presidency of the Nanaimo-Ladysmith federal NDP Riding Association as of Saturday. Avery Valerio is here today legitimately, because it’s a pro-D day in Nanaimo.

D. Eby: It’s my pleasure to introduce a number of the students who are here today for meetings and who come from the University of British Columbia, which is right in my constituency. Bahareh Jokar is from the UBC AMS. Neal Yonson, Tobias Friedel and Colum Connolly are all from the UBC grad student association. A pleasure to have you here today.

One more person to welcome from my constituency as well is Erin Arnold — a pleasure to hear the Minister of Children and Family Development introduce her. Of course, it’s all of our responsibility to make sure that there are more women in politics. I wanted to add that she is a strong advocate for child care in our community and provincially. It is certainly my great pleasure to have her here today. Will the House please make all these wonderful people from Vancouver–Point Grey welcome.

K. Conroy: I’m excited today to be able to announce that our daughter had a baby girl this morning, and she wanted me to make sure I made it really clear that, although it’s our eighth grandchild, it’s only her fifth. She was 7 pounds 7 ounces. As soon as Dad gets home — he’s working in Kitimat and missed the birth, but he’s on his way — they’re going to come up with a name, and I’ll let people know. Would the House please join me in making baby girl Batchelor very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS

ORGANIZATIONS OF B.C.

D. Plecas: Last Friday I had the good fortune of meeting with the executive of COSCO. That is the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of British Columbia. I met with the president, 70-year-old Lorraine Logan; the treasurer, 82-year-old Sheila Pither; and the secretary, 69-year-old Annette O’Connor. What an inspiring group of people, and what fantastic work they do.

[ Page 5984 ]

COSCO is the largest federation of seniors organizations in the province, and it’s been advocating for seniors for over 50 years. Their mandate is to assemble, coordinate and advance proposals and resolutions concerned with the welfare of elder citizens and submit them to government bodies. Their purpose is also to advance the social and physical welfare of elder citizens in the province.

One of the ways in which they meet their mandate is by organizing and facilitating workshops around the province. Workshops are all organized and facilitated by volunteer seniors. In fact, since they started doing these workshops in 2007, they have organized and facilitated more than 1,200 workshops, with over 21,000 seniors participating.

[1340]

They want to do more. They want to put on workshops for more seniors all across the province. Notably, some of these workshops have been delivered in Mandarin, Cantonese and Punjabi, and they cover an incredibly broad range of topics. What is very impressive is that COSCO has no paid staff. As the executive was telling me, COSCO is all about seniors doing this themselves by volunteering for seniors.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Seniors to the Minister of Health, I ask all members of this House to recognize COSCO for their high level of commitment and dedication to their fellow seniors in British Columbia. Let’s all be as supportive as we possibly can.

BLADERUNNERS TRAINING PROGRAM

FOR AT-RISK YOUTH

J. Kwan: BladeRunners is an internationally recognized, award-winning trades-training employment program that was established with the vision of the late Jim Green during the Glen Clark administration. It is a training program that provides at-risk youth the training, skills, credentials, support and opportunities to succeed in the workforce. It also has a mandate to promote workplace equity and has a long history of having aboriginal youth and young women in the trades.

BladeRunners recently celebrated its 20th year of success in the very building that BladeRunners participants helped to construct — the home of the Vancouver Canucks: Rogers Arena. We celebrated the many people who have found their place in the workforce, who’ve made remarkable achievements and built pride in their accomplishments while building the landmarks of our city. In Vancouver that includes Rogers Arena, the Woodward’s redevelopment and the Shangri-La tower.

The key to the success of BladeRunners is in no small measure the result of the dedication of the entire staff team. Garry Jobin, who has been an incredible anchor in supporting the participants, and his staff at BladeRunners provide more than just mentorship. They are there for the participants all the time, any time, 24-7. All the young people say it is because of the supportive family feel that is a big part of what makes BladeRunners a success.

One beautiful success story is a young man named Malcolm Lowe. Malcolm was born in B.C. but actually grew up in California. He’s had his share of troubles and spent time in state prison. Malcolm became involved in the BladeRunners program, and now Malcolm is an assistant site foreman at the Telus Garden project. His story is one of many over the years.

BladeRunners takes a holistic approach to helping people find not just jobs but careers. I want to recognize Laura Stannard, Peter Norris and Richard Saunders who, in their early days, worked day and night to bring BladeRunners into reality. Finally, sincere thanks go to the employers for believing in the program and the young people. This is a great model for a jobs plan, and it’s one that works.

CANADIAN SOCIETY AND VALUES

G. Hogg: Canada consistently ranks amongst the best countries in the world, whether it is by the OECD’s better life index or the United Nations human development index. Our multicultural, pluralistic and democratic society is the envy of many. We have found ways to ensure that people of different beliefs, backgrounds and social positions mix with each other in the course of their everyday lives.

Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that we share common spaces and a common life, common places and common events, shared experiences like cultural and sporting events, festivals and celebrations, weddings and even elections that help us to forge understanding, respect and compassion. Common experiences and encounters are how we learn to abide our differences, to support the common good and to take care of each other. They are the values and experiences that make us the envy of so many, and they should not be taken for granted.

Our marketplace economy has served us well. We have made remarkable advances and created great wealth. But if we allow ourselves to become a market-based society, we stand to jeopardize our sense of citizenship, of civic duty and of civil society. We do have societal values well worth protecting. A county in California allows its prisoners to pay $72 a night to upgrade their jail cell — an example of market values influencing civil society.

We have a strong sense of civic responsibility and citizenship. We make commitments and contributions to our civil society, a civil society that relies on volunteers, on donations, on goodwill and on the connections that enhance our social capital and community life, a society that ensures that we continue to rank amongst the very best countries in the world. It needs us to support it as much as we need it to support us.

[1345]

[ Page 5985 ]

NANAIMO FISH AND GAME

PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION

L. Krog: On February 14 my wife and I, being the romantic couple we are, went out to celebrate. Where did we go? We went to the Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association’s annual fundraising dinner. Where else in a single meal can you eat bear, can you eat elk, can you eat duck, can you eat venison and — my wife’s favourite — cougar? [Laughter.]

The members laugh. I speak the truth, as I always do in this chamber.

The Nanaimo Fish and Game Protective Association has 1,900 members and was founded 110 years ago in my community — 110 years of work in the community, and people out on the land protecting the environment before we even used the term.

I mention that because I want to also remind this chamber that the founding president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, which now has over 46,000 members in the province, was none other than Ted Barsby from Nanaimo — the first provincial president. Since then we’ve had two further presidents: the late Bob Peterson, a fine man; and Bob Morris, who’s still alive and well and was out assisting with the draw on February 14.

I just want to say to the members that I hope they all have active fish and game clubs in their ridings that have done as much good work for the community, that have consistently supported environmental causes and that represent the wishes and needs of their members and provide the programs in their communities that help support all those active hunters, fishers and conservationists in British Columbia.

ROLGEAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY

J. Tegart: For Manufacturing Week in October of last year, I had the privilege of touring Rolgear Manufacturing Inc., a family-owned manufacturing company located in Ashcroft, in the heart of my riding of Fraser-Nicola.

Rolgear produces a full line of ratcheting screwdrivers using patented technology. Although there are other ratcheting products on the market, the patented ratcheting mechanism used in Rolgear’s screwdrivers is the key difference. The Rolgear ratchet uses roller bearings instead of gears, making it silent, smooth and friction-free.

Rolgear manufactures multi-bit screwdrivers, ratchet bits and drivers, nut drivers and single-blade ratcheting screwdrivers. This small company has four full-time local employees plus a commission sales and marketing force of ten.

Rolgear Manufacturing was founded in 2009 by Robert Suter, who has a background in tool design that dates back to 1988. Robert took his innovative design idea to a hardware trade show in Las Vegas in 2010, and the response was overwhelming. Rolgear screwdrivers and bits are now available in roughly 300 stores across Canada and the United States, including Home Hardware Stores and Lee Valley Tools.

Robert’s wife, Angela, says one of the advantages of operating in a small town is her ability to ride her bike to the local post office down the street to send out shipments across North America. Global market forces encountered by nearly every manufacturer have forced Rolgear to consider relocating production to Asia, but they’ve resisted this pressure in order to support B.C. families, and for that, we applaud them.

I ask the House to join me in recognizing this innovative, made-in-B.C. manufacturer that calls Ashcroft home.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN

AND YOUTH AND WORK OF

CHILDREN OF THE STREET SOCIETY

S. Robinson: Did you know that one in five youth are sexually solicited on line and that 75 percent of them do not even tell a parent about it? In January of this year, in response to this alarming statistic, the Children of the Street Society launched an awareness campaign for parents and community members about on-line predators. This is the latest campaign in this society’s 20-year history.

Children of the Street Society is dedicated to preventing the sexual exploitation and human trafficking of children and youth in British Columbia. They use education strategies, public awareness initiatives and family support. This amazing organization makes its home in Coquitlam-Maillardville but serves the entire province.

[1350]

Children of the Street Society was founded in 1995 when a group of parents united after their children were drawn into the sex trade in the Lower Mainland. Recognizing that this tragic occurrence can happen to any child in the community, Children of the Street Society began providing a series of workshops aimed at educating children and youth to prevent young people from being drawn into the sex trade.

Over the years the society’s workshops expanded, and they now educate parents, caregivers, teachers, service providers, police, government, community agencies and even the hospitality industry. As a result of increased community awareness of the sexual exploitation of children, a greater need for support was later identified, and now the Children of the Street Society offers support services to youth, parents and caregivers.

Since its inception Children of the Street Society has worked hard to influence changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act around the issue of sexual exploitation. They have been successful federally, which resulted in amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. Their advocacy efforts helped to bring changes to the Canadian Criminal Code which resulted in new legis-

[ Page 5986 ]

lation in 2008, raising the legal age of sexual consent in Canada from 14 to 16 years of age.

The Children of the Street Society is celebrating 20 years of excellent service to our province on March 5 at their annual Celebration of Success, an evening event to kick off the B.C. annual Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Youth Awareness Week. I invite the chamber to join me in many successes in this work.

Oral Questions

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

J. Horgan: This morning the Minister of Advanced Education and some of his colleagues took to the airwaves to talk about their proud, proud record, as they say, on post-secondary education. But the parents and students I talk to see the world in a little bit different colour than the minister responsible. In fact, over the past two years this government has reduced by $32 million the money that traditionally has been transferred to post-secondary institutions, reducing opportunities for kids, reducing opportunities to get out of a cycle of poverty.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: if budgets are all about choices and this government genuinely believes its rhetoric that it’s providing opportunities for young people, why in the world would you reduce funding to post-secondary education?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Week in, week out, year after year, balanced budget after balanced budget after balanced budget, this government has committed itself to higher education.

If the member, the Leader of the Opposition, had taken the time to read page 17 of the budget documents, combined with page 20, he would have realized that we’re putting $92 million more into advanced education. In fact, this government is now spending $1.961 billion on advanced education — more than $5.3 million per day.

Sadly, I must suggest that on this assignment, the Leader of the Opposition gets somewhere between a D and an F.

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

J. Horgan: A sermon from the minister responsible. He’s been several weeks on the job. I know he was picking up the ball that was fumbled by his colleague, and I can well imagine that’s been a challenge.

What’s the record? What’s the record on post-secondary education? Tuition fees have doubled on the watch of the people on the other side — doubled. Go and talk to single-parent families about how tough it is to find tuition. The minister said that debt is manageable for students today. By his reckoning, $20,000 coming out of university is manageable. BMO’s student survey said it’s $35,000, but let’s go with the conservative estimate of the Conservative minister. Oh, I’m sorry — the B.C. Liberal minister. Now, $20,000 on the backs of young people does not add opportunity; it reduces it.

Once again: why would you make choices to reduce funding and add debt burden? Why wouldn’t you, as other provinces have done, eliminate the interest rate on those loans, and do it today?

[1355]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s rather sad when we see the opposition, in a desperate attempt to resuscitate their relevance, simply toying with the facts.

British Columbia students pay less than one-third of the cost of their higher education. We have the fourth-lowest tuition in the country. We have an average tuition for university of $5,100 per year; an average college tuition of $3,000 per year. We’ve had a 2 percent cap on tuition growth for years now, and it will continue as long as this government is in power.

The net effect of this is we have students who stand to make massive lifetime gains and earnings who are incurring a very reasonable cost of their education. A Red Seal apprentice who completes a Red Seal program increases their lifetime earnings by $524,000 after investing $6,000 in tuition. Seventy percent of our students incur no financial aid costs going through university or college. The facts speak for themselves. The Leader of the Opposition needs to do his homework.

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

J. Horgan: It’s delightful to see a Minister of Advanced Education getting up. Even if the numbers are a bit skewed, at least he’s getting up without the aid of the Minister of Finance and the various investigations that are underway.

Let’s go to the students at Kwantlen for a minute, if we could. Those students have seen dollars removed from classrooms for investigations, dollars removed from classrooms for lawyers, dollars removed from classrooms for lobbyists. They’ve also seen an increase in the cost of adult basic education — again, opportunities squandered by this government.

Young people looking to get the breakthrough that the minister suggests will happen are not getting those opportunities as a result of the decisions that this government is making. Again, my question with respect specifically to the students at Kwantlen: does the minister have anything to say to them about the dollars squandered because of the behaviour of the previous minister that could have gone into classrooms and provided the opportunities that kids deserve today?

[ Page 5987 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Having had this job for some six weeks, and now that we’re in the third week of the session, it would seem that the homework assignments given to the NDP caucus research department are completely falling flat. These issues have been canvassed at length in this House.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now we’re going to hear some ad hominem abuse from the other side rather than substantive questions. This side, of course, would never engage in that.

The adult basic education scenario is that this government has provided nearly $7 million in transitional funding for institutions involved in adult basic education. A grant program of $7.6 million has been established so that a family of two with an income below $26,000 will get a complete grant for ABE.

Similarly, a family of two with two children with an income less than $37,000 a year will pay nothing for adult basic education. It’s time to do your homework.

KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY CONTRACT

WITH LOBBYIST

K. Corrigan: Despite being a well-connected political appointee to the Kwantlen board, the Minister of Citizens’ Services apparently didn’t think that he could just pick up the phone and call members of this government about issues affecting Kwantlen. Instead, as the chair of the human resources committee, he decided to spend some of Kwantlen’s operating grant to hire Mark Jiles and the Bluestone Group to lobby the B.C. Liberals on his behalf.

My question to the Minister of Advanced Education: can he please explain to this House why the now Minister of Citizens’ Services, a then political appointee of the B.C. Liberals, would need to spend student money to lobby the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s been a great pleasure as the newly appointed minister to tour 22 of the 25 institutions in the province and talk directly to the students.

[1400]

Notwithstanding the weather at airports all over British Columbia, the students have told me that they are getting excellent value for money, that they are satisfied with their education. In particular, the students at Kwantlen told me that they found it a thoroughly effective and efficient organization, and they are proud to be students at Kwantlen.

We, of course, respect the University Act and the fact that these institutions are autonomous bodies that can do as they please with their budget so long as they meet our expectations.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The members opposite laugh, but they shouldn’t be laughing about 444,000 students receiving first-class post-secondary education right here in British Columbia at a very reasonable cost.

Madame Speaker: Burnaby–Deer Lake on a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: An interesting expenditure of funds. I guess Kwantlen University could spend it how they wanted. According to the contract we obtained under FOI, the minister paid Mr. Jiles to “facilitate opportunities for Kwantlen to develop important relationships with key individuals,” including the member for Vancouver-Langara, the Minister of Children and Family Development, the member for Richmond-Steveston, the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Agriculture and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. According to Mr. Jiles, he offered Kwantlen access to “his strong relationships with these MLAs and ministers.” For this, he was paid $176,000.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, does he think that $176,000 of students’ money was a fair sum to pay for Kwantlen to access the B.C. Liberals?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We all know that members of this House do their best to make themselves available to interests and constituents and students and faculty members as much as we possibly can.

I have spent the last six weeks doing exactly that, touring institutions throughout the province, looking at their physical facilities, talking to the administration, talking to the faculty and, particularly, talking to the students. I have gone out of the way to make myself available to these institutions, to their students, to their stakeholders, to their boards. I suggest the members opposite do the same.

S. Hammell: The Minister of Citizens’ Services’ decision to provide Mark Jiles with money meant for students is troubling, but even more troubling is what he and his former colleagues on the Kwantlen board got for that rather princely sum.

We asked Kwantlen for the record of any and all work products produced by Mr. Jiles. Apparently he produced, over 3½ years of work for Kwantlen, four pages. I’ll repeat it: four pages.

To the minister, does he think that at $44,000 a page, Kwantlen students received value for their money from Mr. Jiles?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Kwantlen Polytechnic University is one of the institutions we are very pleased and proud of because it is entrepreneurial.

[ Page 5988 ]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: The members will come to order.

Minister, please take your seat.

Please continue.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The members opposite have had a good giggle, and perhaps that’s because they can’t find their dictionaries to look up words like “commercial,” “accounting,” “entrepreneurialism,” “development,” “donors” or “philanthropy.”

[1405]

The members opposite quashed that to the maximum possible degree during their time in advanced education, and we are left picking up the legacy of ten years of failure on the other side.

Madame Speaker: The member for Surrey–Green Timbers on a supplemental.

S. Hammell: Wow.

Perhaps it was never about the paper. Perhaps the real value Mr. Jiles offered the Minister of Citizens’ Services lay in his ability to develop important relationships with the 15 B.C. Liberal MLAs he listed in his contract — $176,000 for 15 B.C. Liberal introductions.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, does he think that $12,000 per handshake is good value for the students at Kwantlen?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, we’re seeing a fundamental attitude revealed on the other side of the House. Once again, we’re seeing the members opposite decry, dismiss, challenge the idea that institutions should be out developing relationships and building philanthropy. If these institutions….

Interjections.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, the members opposite are having a good laugh today, but the truly laughable record….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The truly laughable record is that when this government came to power, our universities and colleges were facing crushing burdens in terms of class size, the lack of access to classes because of the constraints that the members opposite had put on the sector, and students leaving the province because they couldn’t get the programs they needed. We have rectified that, and we are proud of that.

ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

BY KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY LOBBYIST

D. Eby: Mr. Jiles’s expertise did not end there. According to the contract, the Minister of Citizens’ Services expected Mr. Jiles to “monitor monthly caucus and cabinet meetings.” Now, most of the information the opposition requests about cabinet is redacted or refused, but for the right price, Mr. Jiles could get that information for the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, can he tell the House why the Minister of Citizens’ Services, himself a B.C. Liberal political appointee — soon to be a candidate — had to pay a lobbyist to be briefed on government’s activities?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Well, this is a fine question coming from the member who represents the Point Grey campus of UBC. UBC, of course, is our flagship institution in the province — about 50,000 students, a $2 billion budget, of which this government provides $583 million.

UBC has built itself up to be in the top 40 institutions in the world. That’s because UBC engages in extensive outreach to its alumni and others to build its funding base so that it can be a truly first-class, excellent institution, rather than the kind of mediocrity the members opposite encourage.

D. Eby: I’m afraid we’ve entirely lost the Minister of Advanced Education here. We’re talking about Kwantlen Polytechnic University.

You know, it’s really a mystery as to why the Minister of Citizens’ Services had to pay a consultant to lobby the B.C. Liberals. As a political appointee himself who reported to a cabinet minister, he should have been able to just pick up the phone when he needed information or help.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell this House: what sort of special access did Mr. Jiles have to the government that the Minister of Citizens’ Services did not have as the vice-chair of the Kwantlen board?

[1410]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, the member opposite comes perilously close, in his language used to describe board members of our higher education institutions…. We have 25 institutions with hundreds of board members who selflessly give of their time to promote higher education in the province of British Columbia. This is an onerous task and almost entirely unpaid.

[ Page 5989 ]

The members opposite heckle and cackle and giggle like a flock of chickens. It’s time for the members opposite to stick to their knitting and figure out how to conduct question period.

REGULATION OF PARTY BUS INDUSTRY

G. Heyman: Last November the Justice Minister told reporters that her government was seriously looking at stronger regulations for the party bus industry. She said: “The Minister of Transportation is following this issue, he is interested in it, and he is looking to see what kind of positive changes he can make.”

This industry, despite repeated infractions and unsafe practices among many operators, is not even subject to the same oversight as taxis or limousines. As graduation parties fast approach, can the Minister of Transportation tell this House what progress he is making on this issue?

Hon. T. Stone: I have said in the House a number of times that we obviously understand the pain that the Raymond family has gone through and the loss that they have suffered. They have certainly met a number of times with various members of this government, myself included.

We are absolutely aware of the impending grad season that’s coming fast upon us. I want to say this to the House: we continue to remind British Columbians that it is illegal to consume alcohol aboard any vehicle in British Columbia — period. That is the law.

Secondly, through the passenger transportation branch, we continue to meet on a regular basis with party bus operators and make sure that they’re aware of their obligations, which is the safe transport of their passengers.

Thirdly, we are undertaking a review of passenger transportation branch regulations with the goal being to see if we can tighten up those regulations to ensure that the operation of these types of vehicles is even safer for the travelling public. Work is underway on that front.

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

G. Heyman: The Justice Minister talks about the minister looking at positive changes, and the minister refers to an industry that’s clearly unsafe being made even safer than it already is. So I assume the positive changes are not very much at all.

The minister may not be aware that this month in neighbouring Washington state, the Senate Transportation Committee approved a bill to regulate their party bus industry. It’s expected that a common bill will shortly pass in both houses. Washington state has seen party bus incidents but no fatalities to date. Their legislators decided to act proactively after a review of jurisdictions — including British Columbia, where we have had numerous unsafe incidents, where Shannon Raymond and Ernest Azoadam lost their young lives.

Will the minister follow the example of Washington state, or will he wait for more tragedies before he finally acts to protect children in British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: The fact that is that when you compare the jurisdiction of Washington state and the jurisdiction of British Columbia, in many respects we already have regulations in place that they don’t have south of the border. For example, it is not illegal in Washington state to have alcohol in certain types of vehicles, including what we all refer to as party buses. It is illegal to have alcohol in those vehicles here in British Columbia today.

[1415]

Furthermore, as I have said and I will say again, safety is our number one priority here. We are working rigorously within the Ministry of Transportation, with the passenger transportation branch — along with the other agency partners, including the Ministry of Justice, ICBC and law enforcement — to remind the operators of their obligations and to see if there is a way for us to tighten up additional regulations to make these vehicles even safer than they are today.

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AT BULKLEY

VALLEY CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

AND BUDGET PRIORITIES

D. Donaldson: The Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre has supported children and families through the intake process for the Northern Health Assessment Network for more than nine years. In this program a social worker works with a family of a child with specialized needs, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, to navigate the assessment process. The Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre has been informed that the Liberal government has cut the funding for the program and replaced it with a phone line operated from Prince George, more than 500 kilometres away.

Can the Minister of Children and Families explain why her government has cut this vital program to some of my community’s most vulnerable children?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As is always the case in British Columbia, the priority of the Ministry of Children and Family Development is the safety and security of vulnerable children in British Columbia. That is the first and foremost priority. In order to do that work, we spend more than $1 billion annually on supporting children and youth with special needs.

Since 2001 the funding for children and youth with special needs has nearly doubled, and our spending is now over $292 million. We work in collaboration with other ministries to provide a continuum of services

[ Page 5990 ]

for children and their families. We have over 90 services and supports for families with children who have special needs. We’re going to continue to do that work. Those services are accessed by more than 30,000 children every year.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Let’s put this in perspective. Let’s talk priorities. The Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre is a not-for-profit, run by a volunteer board, running programs for people where they live. This government made a conscious decision to cut this program. They decided that a $230 million tax cut to the highest paid, the 2 percent, was more important than $11,000 for some of the most vulnerable children. That is this government’s priority.

A longtime social worker in the Bulkley Valley has pointed out: “It is very likely many vulnerable children will be weeded out of the program due to the simple fact that they are unable to understand or follow through with the process being suggested to them over the phone.” Can the minister explain why some of B.C.’s most vulnerable children are left behind by her government’s appalling priorities?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Once again, the opposition chooses to disregard facts and instead chooses to use anger and loud voices to present their point. The reality is that the Ministry of Children and Family Development is one of the very few ministries that has seen budget increases in the last number of years. In fact, this year our budget is increasing by over $39 million. That is because we absolutely believe in supporting the most vulnerable British Columbians.

[1420]

M. Karagianis: Well, I have a couple of facts for the minister. The majority of these children who will access these services are First Nations. They live on reserves, and an overwhelming number of them live in poverty. Many of these families don’t even have a phone, so giving them a phone number to call is a little bit like Marie Antoinette saying to feed the commoners cake.

The reality is this government chose very deliberately in this budget to give a $230 million tax break to B.C.’s top earners and consider that money well spent. But apparently, $11,000 for children who have developmental challenges is not worth it.

Now, if they had done any consultation with the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre, they would have been told some facts. First of all, they would have been told that it’s impossible for this kind of service to be delivered over the phone. They would have said that clients are unwilling to share that level of sensitive information over the phone.

Will the minister do the right thing and ensure that the Bulkley Valley Child Development Centre gets the money it needs to continue to fund this important program on the ground, in the community where they need it?

Hon. S. Cadieux: As I’ve stated, supporting the most vulnerable British Columbians — and, in this ministry’s case, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, supporting children and families in British Columbia — to ensure that they are safe and have the supports and services they need is a priority. That’s why our budget has increased this year by $39 million.

This government is proud of the fact that we have a third balanced budget. The reason we’re proud of that is not because that will benefit all British Columbians. But in fact, because of a balanced budget, we are able to invest in services for British Columbia’s most vulnerable, in ensuring that we can set priorities where they need to be. That is on providing the supports and services to British Columbia’s vulnerable people. That’s indeed what we’ve done.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

A. Weaver: I have a petition I’d like to table. I have a petition of 6,662 British Columbians calling on the government to replace the regressive MSP premium poll tax with a more fair and equitable option to fund health care services in British Columbia.

Reports from Committees

M. Morris: I have the honour to present a report by the Special Committee to Review the Independent Investigations Office.

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

Motion approved.

M. Morris: I’d like to make a few comments before moving adoption.

This report contains the results of the committee’s review of the administration and general operations of the independent investigations office. The IIO was established in 2011 and began its work in 2012 as an independent, civilian-led office to investigate serious incidents involving police members.

The committee consulted with stakeholders and individual British Columbians who provided valuable input into our work and recommendations. The report contains recommendations regarding the administration and general operations of the IIO as well as the chief civilian director’s progress towards civilianization of the IIO.

[ Page 5991 ]

The committee expressed concern in its report and to the Ministry of Justice about recent reports of human resources and operational challenges at the IIO. Our report recommends that the Ministry of Justice continue to review the IIO’s human resource practices and report publicly within one year on actions taken to address the IIO’s human resource issues.

Given the importance of civilian oversight of serious police incidents, the committee also proposed that the Police Act be amended to require a comprehensive statutory review of the independent investigations office by a special committee of the Legislative Assembly at least once every six years.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to everyone who participated in the consultations. I would also like to recognize the hard work of all the committee members, particularly the Deputy Chair, the member for Vancouver–West End.

[1425]

As Chair, I’m pleased that we’ve all been able to work collaboratively as a group on this important issue. I look forward to the implementation of the committee’s recommendations and believe they will enhance civilian oversight of police services in B.C. to the benefit of all British Columbians.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

Madame Speaker: Moving adoption of the report with leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to join with the Chair and, indeed, the entire committee in thanking all of those community members, police members, families who’ve been involved in trying circumstances, the Justice Ministry and everybody else who has a concern for seeing that justice be done, including when there are challenges within the legal and law enforcement divisions.

It’s very important work that the independent investigations office does. We reviewed it at an interesting time, two years into the formation of it, and found continued widespread support for the civilianization of the independent investigations office, as well as, of course, consistent support for a high level of investigative work and for ensuring that everybody had adequate training and support to do their job well.

I just want to thank the Chair for his work and thank all those that brought their ideas for ways to improve the administration of the independent investigations office. I look forward to the report being adopted and, ideally, followed by the Ministry of Justice. Thank you, hon. Speaker. I move seconding the report.

Madame Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. T. Stone: I call continuing debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

On the amendment (continued) .

Hon. B. Bennett: I was up on my feet on Thursday, and I really felt that the members at the time on both sides of the House weren’t giving me their full attention. I think they were all thinking about maybe chasing the ferry and getting on an airplane and going home. I am sure that we’ll have everybody’s undivided attention for the rest of my probably not-so-scintillating comments.

I started, in my speech last Thursday, talking about the ministry. It’s a good opportunity for a minister to stand in this House and just talk about the ministry that the minister is in charge of. I had dealt with the energy side with B.C. Hydro, the BCUC review, Powerex, Site C and a number of energy-related issues. It’s too bad that the whole opposition couldn’t have been present for that part of the speech. I think it was quite edifying.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Today I’m going to switch to mining. Budget 2015 provides a lift to the mining component of the Ministry of Energy and Mines — a $6 million lift, specifically. We are also authorized by Budget 2015-16 to collect $3 million in fees for a new process that we’re going to put in place and are putting in place currently to deal with major mine applications and also major mine expansions.

I should say that this is part and parcel of a long tradition in this government of trying to find ways to stay competitive with the rest of the world in terms of attracting mining investment. It is a very competitive field — particularly, as is the case today, when commodity prices are down. One of the ways we can do that is to make sure that our process is, if not fast, then at least reliable and that we get to a yes or a no in a reasonable amount of time.

I did want to mention that sometimes I think that we look for things to be proud of here in B.C., and there are a lot of things to be proud of. One of the things that I think we sometimes overlook is the mining expertise that we actually have in this province. When you look at the city of Vancouver, you’ll find about 1,200 head offices located there.

[1430]

You’ll find, probably, the single greatest collection of engineering expertise, legal expertise, financial expertise, environmental expertise — all the way down the line.

[ Page 5992 ]

Everything that you need to know about the mining industry is located in Vancouver in large numbers, and the rest of the world looks at Vancouver as being a centre of excellence for mining. So when we do think about what we’re best at in this province, we ought to always include mining, because we are one of if not the best centres of mining excellence in the world.

Now, I have heard a few speeches on the budget and a few speeches in response to the throne speech. I’ve heard one particular phrase from the opposition that’s been repeated over and over ad nauseam, something about putting all the eggs, the economic eggs, in the LNG basket. It’s a pleasure for me to be able to correct that erroneous impression that the opposition seems to have by talking about the number of mines that have been built since 2011 and the number that, I believe, will be built over the next few years.

Since 2011 in this province mines have opened, have been built: Copper Mountain, New Afton, Mount Milligan, Bonanza Ledge and Yellow Giant. These latter two are not large mines, but they’re mines nonetheless, and they’re producing as we speak. That’s a total of five new mines since 2011.

I don’t know that there’s another four-year period at any time in this province’s history where we’ve had that many mines open.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. B. Bennett: Am I done?

Deputy Speaker: You are done, yes.

Hon. B. Bennett: You don’t say. Well, that’s too bad. Thank you, hon. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to get up and talk, even for a very brief time, about the third consecutive balanced budget here in British Columbia.

A. Dix: It’s good to lead off this afternoon’s debate, following that short intervention by the Minister of Energy, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, and after a question period where the Minister of Advanced Education defended, apparently, his government’s priorities in the area — which is the high rate of return you get from a lobbyist’s education, I think, while seeing dramatic increases in tuition fees.

That difference, that approach, that privileging of an elitist approach to the economy we see reflected, I think, not in B.C. society, not in our communities, surely not in my constituency of Vancouver-Kingsway. But we see it reflected in a budget which sees inequality and acts to increase inequality, which sees people struggling and makes their struggles worse, which in fact fails to address the fundamental issues facing the residents of Vancouver-Kingsway and of constituencies across British Columbia.

I’m very proud to represent Vancouver-Kingsway. I think that the people of Vancouver-Kingsway work extraordinarily hard, struggle a great deal in these times. We have developed and worked together to develop just an extraordinary community that works together in a way, I think, that communities around the world don’t do as successfully.

My constituency, I think it’s fair to say, if you look at all of the electoral districts not just in Canada but in the world, is one of the most diverse — people whose families, like mine, have come from around the world and yet work together in schools, in neighbourhood houses and community centres to create extraordinary things.

I just think of some of the individuals. This weekend I had the honour to speak at a memorial service for a woman named Bobbi Senft. Bobbi’s family is unusual in the Collingwood area of my constituency in that they’ve lived there for well over 100 years. In fact, Bobbi’s family has gone to and has had children going to Carleton Elementary School almost continuously since, if you can believe it, the 19th century. The school opened in 1896, and their family have continued to stay there generation after generation, going to that school.

[1435]

Many of the things, many of the best things, that happened in Collingwood are the result of Bobbi’s work. Her and her sister Jackie McHugh’s dad had been the fire chief in the area of Fire Hall No. 15. Bobbi and Jackie acted to ensure and save the heritage Fire Hall No. 15 on behalf of the people in the area. They mobilized people. They helped to save Carleton Elementary School when many people, including, alas, the current Premier, wanted it to be closed.

They acted to build a neighbourhood house where none existed. That neighbourhood house started in a house owned by Bobbi Senft on Church Street in my riding. She worked in local schools. She was, as she called it, the administrative secretary at Graham Bruce Elementary School for a couple of decades and at Garibaldi Annex before that and influenced a generation of children in our community.

She worked hard during the day. She never stopped working afterwards. She never left the school before five o’clock. And then she went home and raised her family with her husband, Terry, and contributed enormously in the community.

I think of another friend of mine that lives in the riding, just down the street from me. He works at St. Michael’s care home in Burnaby where, sadly, Bobbi passed away in December. A number of months ago he wanted to save money for his daughter’s wedding. He works at St. Michael’s.

Of course, because his work wasn’t seen as valuable as other kinds of work, he lost significantly in the time of this government as a result of Bill 29, another piece of legislation. He worked hard during the day. He wanted and was struggling to get some extra money to help with

[ Page 5993 ]

his daughter’s wedding. He ended up working the night shift at Save-on-Foods on Marine Way on the way from Vancouver-Kingsway to New Westminster.

I think of another constituent of mine who works every day from 4 a.m. to 11 a.m. at UBC in food services and then returns to Surrey to run his restaurant.

I think of families like Ann Wong’s, who works hard, has built her own business, has raised a family, leads the local PAC, contributes enormously to the community, works hard in an area where housing costs have spiralled in a way that I think is uncommon around the world. It’s unbelievably expensive to live. She and many other people contribute, I think, enormously.

I think of another person that I met just this weekend on her way who also works in a care home, providing critical care as a care aide 37½ hours a week and then, she tells me, works 17 hours a week cleaning other people’s homes so she can pay for the home that she shares with another family.

Those are the struggles people have. And they’re not down. They’re not negative. But surely they deserve respect.

Now, all of the people I’ve mentioned have been supporters and voted for me in the last election, although, of course, there are many people in Vancouver-Kingsway who don’t. I got 57 percent of the vote, which means by definition 43 percent of the people didn’t vote. But I respect all of them. It takes all people to build a community. That’s why I was surprised to hear the Premier divide people in the way that she has.

Think of those people and what they contribute. And then think of the joke of the Premier, talking about people who she says don’t have any ambition for the future and really don’t have any expectation for themselves. “By the time he’s 31 years old, if he’s still doing that, he’s no longer a teenager; he’s a New Democrat.”

Well, the truth is that that approach to people who work hard…. I don’t think there has been a time in our memory when people have had to work as hard to pay for their homes in this province, work as hard to pay their bills in this province as they do now, and that deserves, I think, more respect than they’re getting from the government.

[1440]

So 710,000 people voted for the NDP in the last election. They are hard-working, they contribute to the province, and I don’t think they deserve the Premier’s scorn. If it was just jokes at fundraisers, that would be fine. But it is reflected, that attitude, in the very budget we see here today.

The principal fiscal measure in this budget is a tax cut of $236 million for the top 2 percent of income earners — $236 million laser-focused, as the Premier likes to say, at the top 2 percent of income earners.

Now, who in British Columbia…? Members of the committee that went around British Columbia to talk about the budget — was there a single witness who said: “$236 million for the top 2 percent of income earners, those earning over $150,000 a year”?

Let’s be clear. The majority of that money goes to the top 1 percent of income earners. We’re talking north of $800,000 a year. Who in British Columbia said that that’s where the struggle should be? And who in British Columbia…? Name a single person in British Columbia who said, “You should make up that $236 million,” for example, “by increasing again MSP premiums” — which are paid, as everybody knows, overwhelmingly by the middle class. So you have a $236 million tax cut paid for in part, almost half of it, by a $128 million lift in MSP premiums.

You would say: “Well, this may just be this budget. Something happened.” The Minister of Finance seems to think that it happened. It was some sort of law of nature that this tax cut happened. He had no control of it. It had to happen. He couldn’t have done anything else. That is his suggestion.

Maybe you would think that high-income earners should be the priority in British Columbia. If the government had campaigned on that, I suppose maybe they would have more credibility in suggesting that. But in fact, if you look at the top 1 percent of income earners, who got the biggest bang from this budget, they were the ones who benefited from this budget — in difficult financial times where everyone is struggling, particularly in Metro Vancouver because of the cost of housing for both renters and homeowners. It’s the top 1 percent that benefited.

What did the government…? What was the conclusion? What were the circumstances that led into that? Was it a series of tax increases over the years on top income earners? In fact, no. The average person in the top 1 percent, the principal beneficiary of this budget, had received between 2001 and 2011 a $41,000 annual tax cut. And yet it wasn’t enough. So the government took a little bit of that back for two years to help them to get through an election, and then it goes right back to them. That was the benefit.

In fact, if you see what happened, if you see that tax transfer over time and then consider the issue of MSP premiums, which have grown not only in cost for the middle class…. For people earning $40,000 and $50,000 and $60,000 a year, it’s a growing burden. When you’re having to pay for housing in Vancouver-Kingsway, that is a significant cost.

Those premiums, for the average family, have increased. They’ve doubled, increasing by $864 over time. They’ve gone from about $900 million in the provincial budget to $2.4 billion this year, and that $1.5 billion has been shifted to a flat tax on the middle class.

It’s different. You can pay that increase, if you think of that $864 increase and you’ve received a $41,000 tax cut, out of the tax cut. But if you’re a middle-class British Columbian, that’s not the case.

[ Page 5994 ]

So what we’ve had is a strategy, at a time when British Columbia leads the country in inequality, when people are struggling in the community, when entrepreneurs in the community — such as my constituents — are struggling to get by and trying to create work in creating jobs for others…. You have a government that has focused its attention, as the Premier would say — what does she say? — laser-like on the top 1 percent.

[1445]

It is, I think, out of step with the needs of British Columbians, as expressed not just by the Finance Committee but by anyone who talks to people in the province. I talked to people in the province over the weekend, as we all did. It’s simply out of step, those two measures — an increase in flat tax on the middle class and the other fee and rate increases that also have followed from that, on the one hand, and dramatic cuts in the marginal tax rates for the top 1 percent. That is a government that is out of touch with what people are thinking in the province.

Now, of course, if it was only MSP premiums and if it was only the government focusing on the top 1 percent, that might be one thing. But go through the list. A massive increase in MSP premiums, as we’ve suggested — significant, indeed — and massive increases over time in B.C. Hydro rates. We’ll return to this matter because the minister appears proud of government policies that have caused this increase in recent years, making life less affordable for the average family.

Significant increases in ICBC rates, significant increases in ferry fares and bridge tolls and camping fees. And of course, as we learned today, very significant increases in tuition and cuts to the very grants that were designed to ensure that people have access to the very lift of education we’ve talked about. That has been their policy. It has been elitist all around. It has been, unfortunately, a policy that is not supporting — at least, after the elections — the middle class. And you see this throughout the initiative.

Now, let’s just speak about those B.C. Hydro rate increases. Let’s just talk about the government’s management of hydro rates. As you know, this has been a crucial matter for the government.

They, in the period from 2001 to 2011, promoted a self-sufficiency policy at B.C. Hydro that, in fact, forced the utility (

a) to not be able to develop its own resources and (

b) to buy power it didn’t need at high prices. And the government seemed shocked…. Hon. Speaker, you’d say: “Well, this sounds partisan to me.” But in fact, it was the very conclusion the minister himself came to when he announced the most recent rate increase — that the government’s self-sufficiency policy had, in fact, been a disaster.

Unfortunately, it’s not the minister or the government that has to pay. No, they raised hydro rates to protect the dividend for the government. It’s the people of B.C. that had to pay for that colossal failure. Again, this is a resource that has been built, this is a company that has been built, by workers in B.C. — people who’ve built the dams, who’ve paid the taxes. The ratepayers of B.C. — they’ve paid for B.C. Hydro.

What we saw in the period since this government has been in office is the transferring of that benefit to a few people who, shockingly, are friends of the government. So what you have now is a situation that I think was well described. But this isn’t Marvin Shaffer’s analysis. This is just what B.C. Hydro documents say of a utility, because of those policies, losing $250 million a year from those very private power purchases paid for by ratepayers.

What do we have in terms of hydro rate increases? Well, a 74 percent increase in the average bill, rising to 94 percent by 2018 and, when you consider what the Liberals said before they came to office, processes that have been totally taken out of the hands of the B.C. Utilities Commission — those rate increases. Projects, many of which have gone disastrously over budget, such as the ones I’ve talked about, were in fact also taken out of the hands of the B.C. Utilities Commission and have never delivered what the government promised them to deliver.

You’ll recall, hon. Speaker — people will remember this because it has echoes of the current debate about LNG — on B.C. Hydro, the promises of the early part of the Liberal regime — that the success of the IPP project was going to lead to the elimination of the provincial sales tax. I mean, they were going to eliminate it with that, and it ended up costing us hundreds of millions of dollars more a year — billions of dollars more.

[1450]

They said it was going to get rid of the sales tax. It didn’t. This is why the people of B.C. take so seriously the Premier’s comments about getting rid of the property transfer tax, getting rid of B.C.’s debt, getting rid of the provincial sales tax today. These are the promises that the Premier ran on in the last election campaign. Those were the promises, and in fact, since the last election we’ve gone in the exact opposite direction.

Now, the government has said, the minister has said: “I couldn’t do anything about this tax cut”— laser-focused on the top 1 percent. “I couldn’t do anything about it. It was just there. I couldn’t change that. It’s impossible. Government can’t do anything.” At least, they can’t do that. But they can produce a service plan before the last election which said how much they were going to take from B.C. Hydro customers and completely revise it after the election, with a 28 percent rate increase.

They can claim, as the Premier did, that they were wrestling hydro rate increases to the ground before the last election, and then after the election see massive rate increases. Just by way of comparison — I don’t expect that people will be unfair to the government — there were rate increases, of course, in the NDP government — B.C. Hydro. The rate increase over that period was 5.6 percent, over nine years. That was the rate increase then.

Since these policies have been brought into place —

[ Page 5995 ]

policies that avoided scrutiny by the BCUC, policies that forced B.C. Hydro to buy expensive power — we’ve seen these dramatic rate increases, which don’t only hurt families, although they surely hurt families. But they do more than just hurt families, I’d argue. They also make all of B.C. businesses less competitive. They are, in fact, job-killers as decisions.

The government argued that they were creating jobs with these measures. But when you buy something at a high price that you can’t sell it for, of course the people who have to pay, which includes B.C. families and B.C. businesses, are going to see the overall productivity of the province’s economy decline as a result of those very policies.

What you had before the election was a budget tabled then, which said one set of things about B.C. Hydro, that they completely rewrote after the election to the detriment of the middle-class family in B.C., the average family in my constituency. We saw a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest 1 percent in the budget. Then we saw a transfer of wealth from all British Columbians to some private power providers over the previous period that caused those very rate increases.

We’ve seen a shift in the tax burden to flat taxes in general and away from progressive taxation. That’s been the government’s policy over time. Unbelievably, after 13 years of it, they don’t think they’ve done enough, so they have this budget for the 1 percent.

The final thing — and this is, of course, well understood. Because of the deferral accounts they created, because of what they said before the election and because of the rate increases they’ve imposed on B.C. Hydro in that period, the government, which throughout this debate has talked about balancing the budget three times…. It’s predicated on that very illusion.

As the previous Auditor General said — and the distinguished Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, who is beside me, may be able to get this exactly — those deferral accounts create the illusion of profit where none actually exists — the illusion of profit where none actually exists. That is the sand on which this edifice stands.

We have, therefore, a strategy for the economy which punishes those who need a break and benefits those who need it less. That’s the strategy on the economy. But what do you say…? You would say: “Is that the only impact of this budget?” Well, we’ve seen…. I think the responses of the Minister of Advanced Education in question period illustrate this on the very issue of the budget — and the responses of the Minister of Education.

We see a budget that also takes away from the very means, the very ladder of economic success, that people need in this province.

[1455]

If you are a child or a student or a high school student in this province or someone going to post-secondary or returning to post-secondary education, you pay the price when the government does what it has done here — not just, by the way, directly. The government has imposed new costs on all schools. These very hydro rate increases we talk about also are being paid by public schools, taking money out of the classroom to pay for the government’s friends.

Also, in spite of the fact that they haven’t funded education in the past, in spite of the fact that they’ve engaged in more than a decade of division on public education — you see the results of that in this budget as well — the government decided to claw back, after the longest strike in B.C. history in education, further money which school boards might reasonably have used to protect programs in the classroom. They said: “That’s not going to be money designated for the classroom. We’re going to claw it back. We’re going to get you with B.C. Hydro rate increases, we’re going to engage in division, and we’re going to claw money back in education.”

That’s what this budget is about. It is a budget that is against what we call social mobility, which is really, at its core, the dream of Canada — the idea that one generation can do better than another generation. This budget is at war with that social mobility. It is also the great entrepreneurial force of our economy, that idea of people moving forward. Taking those opportunities away is, I think, a profound mistake.

I want to finish just by mentioning the government’s other laser focus in this budget. Their first laser focus, as we know, was a tax cut laser focused on the top 1 percent of income earners, those earning over $800,000 a year. That was their top priority in the budget.

Their second, continuing priority — their central preoccupation, their laser focus — was LNG. But you see in the budget that laser focus means different things, first of all, for the Premier than everybody else. Of course, they were late with the royalty regime, a year later than they said they’d be. So laser focus means a different thing. You know, meeting deadlines — a bit of a problem there. Let’s just say that it’s a central preoccupation — maybe that’s better than laser focus — for the Premier on this question.

We’ve seen, budget on to budget after the election, less emphasis on this. But what we’ve seen from the government is that in spite of their struggles to deliver on skills training, which they had abandoned for the better part of a decade….

[ Page 5996 ]

Interjection.

A. Dix: Well, apprenticeship rates in the first ten years of the Liberal government were cut in half — completion rates. That’s not a record of great success. That is a significant problem that the government is facing now and that B.C. young people in particular but all B.C. workers are facing now — the intentional decline of standards of the government on that key issue of skills training.

The other consequence has been a failure of the government to address the needs and the importance of other industries, from forestry…. The government really ignores, on the jobs question, 25,000 jobs lost since the government came into office in forestry. A failure to address key issues of the forest’s future and to invest in the land, the land that we own, that is our birthright, that we should put on to new generations. A failure to address those issues.

We’ve had throne speeches where they haven’t even mentioned forestry. Cuts to the forestry budget. In fact, the government’s laser focus on LNG, even though it allowed them to miss virtually all of their deadlines on the question, did succeed in one degree. It allowed them to ignore forestry. It allowed them to ignore high tech. It allowed them to ignore other key sectors of the economy.

Other key sectors of the economy include, of course, the agriculture sector, where the government’s only approach — again, we see a decline in the commission budget here — was to weaken the agricultural land reserve and our future.

[1500]

In conclusion, I would say this. This government and this budget fail to meet the priorities of the people of Vancouver-Kingsway. Its laser focus on the top 1 percent of income earners — those earning over $800,000 a year — at the expense of average British Columbians is a significant problem. Its failure to invest in public education, at a time when even the Minister of Advanced Education acknowledges that it’s more important than ever before, is a significant problem.

Its failure to understand the struggles — day-to-day struggles — of people who are optimistic about their future, who act with optimism and compassion and commitment and entrepreneurial spirit in their communities but find themselves weighed down by government whacking away at their purchasing power….

They have expressed their priorities. They are not our priorities. That’s why we’ll be voting against this budget.

D. Barnett: I’m pleased to rise today and have the opportunity to respond to the budget.

Our government supports economic development. Communities in the province, such as in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, need to be safe and secure in order to succeed. Safety and security come through developing a strong economy. They say that the third time is the charm, and balancing our third consecutive budget in a row is not only charming, but it is a result of our government’s continued hard work, with a projected surplus of $879 million.

We are grateful for the opportunity that British Columbians gave us. We have listened. We have a plan, and we are delivering on the commitments that we made to the people of British Columbia. We did this with fiscal prudence and a strong vision.

Prudent fiscal management supports B.C.’s triple-A credit rating, which allows more taxpayer dollars to be spent on direct services rather than debt-servicing costs. Fiscal responsibility requires discipline. We are balancing the budget because that is the very heart of fiscal responsibility.

Because of our government’s strong fiscal discipline, we’re able to find room for modest investments that strengthen and encourage growth in key economic sectors, such as resource development. We’ve leveraged the knowledge and skills of British Columbians and the strengths of our natural resources. With this budget, we are continuing to build on these advantages.

Our government is extending the mining flow-through tax credit for an additional year by developing our natural resources responsibly, working with industry and harnessing the power of the private sector.

Forestry has always been the backbone of the economy of the Cariboo and reflects the ecological and the cultural diversity of our province. Our diversified forest industry is so strong that our region has a reality show, Timber Kings . That shows the incredible skills and talents of those building magnificent log homes for buyers around the world that boosted the Williams Lake economy.

There are 51 community forests in B.C. that play an active role in the forest sector through harvesting and supplying logs for the market. In the Cariboo region we have community forests in 100 Mile House, Clinton, Iskut First Nation, Likely-Xatśūll, Tatla Lake and the city of Williams Lake and the Williams Lake Indian Band as partners, and in Wells-Barkerville.

There are also important and growing opportunities for employment and economic growth while enhancing the working relationships between communities and local First Nations. In 100 Mile House we have West Fraser Sawmills, 100 Mile Lumber and Chasm Sawmills, Ainsworth–100 Mile House OSB plant. A number of log home builders in the area also rely on timber from the timber supply area.

[1505]

We also have four lumber mills: two Tolko Industries, West Fraser Mills, West Chilcotin Forest Products, Tolko chip mill, Pinnacle Renewable Energy Group pellet mill, West Fraser plywood and veneer sawmills, Sigurdson Mill sawmill and River West in a thriving softwood lumber industry.

The Northwest Energy cogeneration plant, operating in Williams Lake since 1993, is the largest biomass plant in North America and sells energy to B.C. Hydro. It con-

[ Page 5997 ]

sumes 600,000 tonnes of wood waste to generate 66 watts of electricity.

We have a plan. We laid it out. Why does it matter? It matters because if we respect taxpayers, we can’t simply assume that these costs will be dealt with by taxpayers alone. We need to responsibly develop resources in British Columbia so that we can give British Columbians the kinds of advantages that they expect and deserve.

As we continue to build and diversify our natural resource industries, we’re making sure that First Nations are partners in advancing economic prosperity. We continue to make slow but steady progress on the treaty front. In the meantime, B.C. is the first province in Canada to share provincial revenue from mining, forestry and clean energy projects with First Nation communities. We now have more than 200 revenue-sharing agreements in place, ensuring that First Nations benefit directly from the work taking place in their traditional territories.

We also have been tireless advocates for diversifying our markets. Thanks to those efforts, we have seen great success in China and hope to duplicate that success in India.

Forestry is another traditional mainstay of our rural communities. More than 40 percent of the province’s regional economies is based on forestry activities, through more than 6,600 businesses.

The NDP say they care about forestry, jobs and communities. Well, how did they deal with mitigating the pine beetle epidemic? Back in the ’90s local communities, industry, foresters and mayors said, “Let’s go in and manage the beetles,” even though they were in a class A park, but the NDP said no. The result? Devastation.

It was agreed to give Carrier Lumber about $75 million in cash and other benefits to compensate for timber rights improperly confiscated by the opposition in 1993. The settlement stems from a 1999 court ruling that found that the NDP government abused its authority by taking away cutting rights. The government then tried to cover this up, the court found, by failing to disclose more than 2,000 relevant documents. This is NDP forestry.

Our government’s initiative for responsible forestry is a step in the right direction to create long-lived wood products that store carbon for decades and even centuries. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations for Rural Development, I will continue to be a voice for rural communities in our Legislature. As a resident of the beautiful Cariboo-Chilcotin, the interests of rural communities have always been important to me. Rural British Columbians are generous, hard-working people with a pioneer spirit.

Whether they’re ranchers, miners, teachers or doctors, they’re independent and proud. It is the rural parts of British Columbia that give our province its unique character.

Employment in rural communities is one of the main benefits of community forests. According to the upcoming report by Natural Resources Canada, the industry average of jobs per metres cubed is 0.2 jobs for 1,000 metres cubed. These jobs are exclusively in forestry, logging and support services.

[1510]

The mining industry is important to British Columbians. An average salary today in the mining industry is over $114,000 a year, up from $81,000 in 2001. We actually have approximately 20 percent of all the mineral exploration investment in Canada happening right here in British Columbia, in rural British Columbia. Extending for one year the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit will provide an incentive for mineral exploration.

In addition, a base budget increase of $6.3 million annually to the Ministry of Mines and Energy to support continued improvements to permitting, the regulatory oversight, including increased of mine inspections. Under the previous NDP government, mining was decimated in B.C. The mining workforce shrunk by 36 percent, and mining executives ranked B.C. as the most antagonistic place in the world to invest in mining.

Our province has the most diverse agrifoods industry in Canada, providing approximately 60,000 jobs, generating roughly $11.6 billion a year for our province’s economy. We are further committing to $2 million to our Buy Local program to help farmers and food processors promote their B.C. products.

Our health care system. More than 800,000 residents, or 20 percent of the province, do not pay MSP premiums because of premium assistance. When we help seniors, we help everybody. Over the past decade we have focused on expanding the range of care options available for seniors in order to meet this increased demand, while supporting healthy aging to improve the quality of life for all B.C. seniors, helping them remain independent for as long as possible.

Our government has reduced the rate of health funding increases to an annual average of under 3 percent from a high of nearly 8 percent in the mid-2000s.

The budget reaffirms the B.C. government’s commitment to health care, with nearly a $3 billion increase to the Ministry of Health’s spending over three years. Our province continues to have the best health care outcomes anywhere, including the longest life expectancy in Canada and the country’s lowest mortality rates for cancer and heart disease. I am proud to say that B.C. ranks third in the world for health performance. In 2015, this year, health care funding again is at a record level of $19.2 billion, more than double the amount spent in 2000-2001.

When it comes to transportation, our government has invested $2.9 billion in transportation investments. With Highway 97, the Cariboo region is benefiting every day, as motorists are safer now and have more effective connections to work and home.

In the Cariboo region four-laning three sections south

[ Page 5998 ]

of 100 Mile House has included 70 Mile North, starting north of Willow Road. That was completed in October 2013. Stormy Road North and Bullock Lake Road projects were also completed in October 2013.

Over the next three years construction will start on four-laning between Carson Drive and Fox Mountain, in Williams Lake, as well as four-laning the south boundary of the Williams Lake Indian Reserve and Lexington Road. In addition, on Highway 20 at Alexis Creek, in the Chilcotin, and at Anahim Lake Airport there was $4 million of resurfacing of approximately 11 kilometres, including extending the runway pavement at Anahim airport, that was completed in the fall of 2012.

On Highway 20, in the Chilcotin west of Riske Creek, there was also $3.5 million of resurfacing of approximately 12 kilometres that was completed in the fall of 2013, and there were four projects delivered along Highway 20 in 2014. We installed a dynamic messaging sign just west of Williams Lake on Highway 20 at a total cost of $340,000. The Ministry of Transportation provided $300,000 of that.

[1515]

We brushed the highway corridor in the Tatla Lake area of the Chilcotin. We seal-coated 92.84 lane-kilometres between Tatla Lake and Puntzi Lake at a total expenditure of $1.89 million. We resurfaced and paved 39.2 lane-kilometres between Anahim IR and Lees Corner, in the Chilcotin, investing $5.33 million. I’m proud of the work that has been done by the Ministry of Transportation on Highway 20 for the people of the Chilcotin, for their safety and for transportation and to create economic growth.

Our tourism sector in British Columbia employs more than 132,000 British Columbians — almost one in every 15 jobs in our province — and generates $13.9 billion in revenue. Our government believes that the tourism sector can continue to create jobs, opportunity and prosperity for British Columbians in every corner of the province.

In the Cariboo-Chilcotin freshwater fishing is one of the many attractions. With this budget we are delivering on our commitment to direct all revenues from freshwater fishing licences, approximately $10 million a year, to the Freshwater Fisheries Society for conservation activities. Freshwater sport fishing generates approximately $500 million a year in economic activity, much of that taking place in rural British Columbia and in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

British Columbians expect their tax dollars to be used wisely and that every available education dollar is going to help children in the classroom, whether it is in K to 12 or post-secondary. We are engineering our education system and training so that B.C. students and workers have the skills to be first in line for jobs in a growing economy.

This budget delivers significant funding for education, up $576 million over three years. Total funding to school districts will top $5 billion next year. That’s $1.2 billion more per year that goes towards school districts, such as school district 27 in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

More than 70 percent of those jobs will require some form of post-secondary education, and 44 percent of those jobs will be skilled trades and technical occupations. As part of that plan, Budget 2015 extends the training tax credit, which benefits both employers and apprentices, to the end of 2017. We are also extending the enhanced credit, which provides an additional 50 percent for First Nations individuals, people with disabilities and their employees.

With this budget, we are reaffirming our commitment to keep our province on the right track of expanded growth and opportunity, ensuring that British Columbia stays the best place to live, work and raise a family. The 2015 budget truly does reaffirm our commitment to keep our province on the right track of expanding growth, opportunity and prosperity in the most balanced way.

D. Routley: It’s indeed always an honour to rise to speak in the B.C. Legislature. We represent citizens of our province and their best interests. No matter what the subject, it is indeed, of course, an honour to stand in this place — it is so gracious and lovely, elegant — in order to raise up the interests of British Columbians. I would like to thank the citizens of the communities I represent for the opportunity to stand here and represent their interests. It’s always, as I said, a great honour to do so.

Of course, I’d like to thank my family, my partner Leanne and our children; my staff, my constituency assistants in the constituency, who do so much to serve so many people with so many issues; and, of course, the staff here in the Legislature — everyone from our caucus staff to the security staff, the dining room staff and all the other people involved in taking care of the B.C. Legislature.

[1520]

I learned a lot about dealing with people from different cultures and different marketplaces, but I also learned a lot about marketing. And one of the things I learned, which was a little bit counterintuitive, is that a lot of companies will advertise their weaknesses. They will confront what’s a perceived weakness and advertise it as though it were a strength.

A perfect example of this is a popular banking commercial in Canada that shows a green leather armchair. That’s to represent the experience of going into that particular bank. You will feel as though you’re being offered a green leather armchair. In fact, this is exactly opposite to the way most people feel about going into the bank and standing in a lineup and having to deal with their

[ Page 5999 ]

issues and waiting a long time, usually, to do that. This is a counterintuitive kind of advertising, and it’s called inside-out marketing.

Looking at the record of the B.C. Liberal government, I think I could say that they are true masters of inside-out marketing. They take their weakness, and they advertise it as a strength. I’m going to give you some examples of that.

They have spared no amount of energy — and expense to the public — to advertise things such as a jobs plan, when indeed we’re seventh in the nation in creating jobs. They’ve spent and spared no excess in advertising their intention to create a debt-free B.C. They ran a campaign on debt-free B.C. They painted a bus “Debt-free B.C.” And yet the truth is that they have increased the debt faster than any government in B.C. history.

These are perfect examples of inside-out advertising, inside-out marketing. It is interesting. It might even be comical to comment on this if it weren’t tragic, because the government has a lofty responsibility to defend the public interest of British Columbia. I would suggest that creating an illusion around such important issues as debt financing, as job creation, as the core industries of the province, and creating an illusion that’s based on an opposite reality is hardly the responsible thing to do and hardly what people expect from their government.

We have seen, in my constituency, so many issues ignored by this government, or if not ignored, made far worse than they had been.

Forestry. We see a 500 percent increase in raw log exports — this while mills in my constituency close because of a lack of fibre, this as profitable pulp mills like Harmac Pacific in my constituency suffer fibre shortages that threaten their operation and their viability. Those businesses must watch closed sawmill sites being used as loading sites to load raw logs for export to other countries. That’s the reality of what the B.C. Liberals have done to my constituency.

I’m from Nanaimo–North Cowichan, which is, of course, a very ferry-dependent area on Vancouver Island. I represent several Gulf Islands as well. We’ve seen Ferries create an economic and social crisis on the coast of British Columbia.

[1525]

The major routes of this province have seen 74 percent increases in fares, and small routes in my constituency have seen over 100 percent increases in fares. This has, of course, as anyone would predict, led to lower ridership and increased losses for B.C. Ferries that have been answered by yet higher fares and lower ridership — a downward spiral. That’s what has been delivered to the constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan by the B.C. Liberal government.

In health care, seniors throughout my constituency face shortages in services. People have come to my office, nurses have come to my office, and asked that they be allowed to call a paramedic to rescue their senior relative from care. That’s how badly care has descended in my constituency — and not because people aren’t dedicated to their jobs. The people who are giving service to our seniors are absolutely dedicated to the point of injuring themselves and making themselves sick through the workload that has been put on them in order to meet basic needs and, even then, fail to do that. That’s what has been given to Nanaimo–North Cowichan by the B.C. Liberal government.

In education we’ve seen a starvation of budgets that leads to deficits every single year — the closure of small schools, decreased and deteriorated services and buildings. That’s what has been delivered to my constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan by the B.C. Liberal government.

What are the priorities? Well, the government in this budget has answered one great call. They have offered to the highest 2 percent wage earners a $ $236 million tax cut. We see the highest wage earners of British Columbia being offered $236 million, while post-secondary budgets are starved, while K-to-12 education budgets are starved. There’s a children-in-care crisis in this province that’s directly attributable to a lack of resources. This is what the B.C. Liberal government has delivered to British Columbia with successive budgets and throne speeches that have ignored the priorities and values of British Columbians and have answered only the most elite interests of our province.

The government’s focus for the last three years has been all LNG, all of the time. All LNG, all of the time. If a ministry’s plan didn’t equate to increased access or development of LNG, it just didn’t matter, and it wasn’t heard.

Well, that didn’t work out, so now the buzzword was “Site C.” Site C was the buzzword. “Why are you talking about LNG? We’re talking about Site C.”

Then we moved the laser-like focus of the government to the word “diversity.” All of those industries that have been neglected by the government’s obsessive focus on LNG and the placing of every egg of British Columbia in one basket were answered with the word “diversity.”

Inside-out marketing. A debt-free B.C. Well, what are the economic numbers? In job creation, this province is seventh in percentage of people who are gainfully employed. We have the lowest wage growth of any province west of the Maritimes. And 38,500 British Columbians have given up looking for work since the current Premier came to office.

In terms of income, between 2006 and 2012 we’ve seen the worst income growth in the country. In fact, income has gone down by 2.4 percent. In Vancouver workers have lost 3 percent of their income. In Victoria they’ve lost 4.8 percent of their income. In Abbotsford workers have lost 5.1 percent of their income.

British Columbians have the lowest confidence in retiring of the people of any province in this country.

[ Page 6000 ]

University grads in British Columbia face the lowest wealth growth of any province in Canada. B.C. families have the highest consumer and mortgage debt of any province in Canada. Forty-seven percent of British Columbians live paycheque to paycheque.

[1530]

We have been, for 12 years, mostly first but at least second, with the highest numbers of children living in poverty. So 19.4 percent of British Columbians live below the poverty line. Half the children in poverty in this province have at least one parent working.

Let’s not leave corporations out of this. Even in terms of corporate profit growth, during the NDP decade of ’91 to 2001 corporate profits rose 12.7 percent; under the B.C. Liberals, 10.5 percent. These are the outcomes. This is the definition of inside-out marketing.

While the government has been obsessively focused on LNG and ignoring the industries that have been the core of this province, specifically forestry…. We’ve seen a deterioration of that industry as well. Last year there were over $12 billion worth of forestry products exported. The total natural gas export value was $1.7 billion, yet that is deserving of the obsessive focus of this government.

Fifty percent of the value-added businesses in the forest sector in this province have gone bankrupt since the B.C. Liberals took power. There has been a 40 percent decline of employment in the value-added sector of forestry since the B.C. Liberals took power and a 30 percent decline in forestry employment overall. There has been a 60 percent decline in sales of forest products since the B.C. Liberals took power, and 206 mills have closed.

From 2001 to 2013 there was a loss of 21,000 jobs in forestry, many of them on Vancouver Island, many of them in the constituency of Nanaimo–North Cowichan, which I represent. Forty percent of the jobs in the value-added industry have been lost.

There has been a 500 percent increase in the export of raw logs. Approximately eight million cubic metres per year are now exported. That’s enough to fill loaded logging trucks bumper to bumper from Vancouver to Winnipeg and back. This is what the government boasts.

What do we get from the most renewable resource in our province? The core industry, the core resource industry of our province. The most renewable natural resource industry available to any jurisdiction — forests. Forests that grow and regrow. Forests that, when they thrive, are the lungs of the planet and the heart of a thriving B.C. economy. What do we get for that resource? How is it stewarded?

Well, in terms of jobs per cubic metre harvested in this province, Quebec gets three times as many jobs for every cubic metre harvested. Ontario is doing even better. Ontario gets four times as many jobs for every cubic metre of wood harvested. Yet this is our core industry, and it has been neglected to the point of failure by a government obsessed with a pipedream.

What is the state of our forest health? We have two million hectares of public lands that have not been planted. What is the investment in the future of the most renewable industry and resource this province has? What is the investment in the future of the economy of British Columbia and the well-being of our communities? Two million hectares of public lands that have been logged and not replanted.

We face an impending fibre shortage after the pine beetle infestation, a likely loss of 60 percent of the annual cut. Yet this government has failed to make the most basic investment in the future — planting trees. Not only is it a great investment in the future; it’s a great investment in job creation.

[1535]

That is tragic. This is the core of our economy. It’s the core of the well-being of the future of British Columbia. It would be the greatest contribution we could make to countering the effects of climate change to have a healthy, thriving forest that absorbed carbon from the atmosphere and provided jobs for British Columbia into perpetuity. Unfortunately, that investment has been neglected and that great resource, worth a quarter of a trillion dollars to the people of British Columbia, has been allowed to degrade and deteriorate.

While they’re focused on the 2 percent — as a speaker earlier said, a laser-like focus on the 2 percent who now receive a $236 million tax break — what’s happening to our debt? The Premier spent a lot of time talking during the election and since about not passing the debt of today to the children of tomorrow. Practically every B.C. Liberal member who has spoken to the budget or throne has echoed those words. Yet more inside-out marketing, because the reality is that we’ve seen the fastest increase in debt in B.C. history.

Of course, debt can be good, and debt can be bad. We need to make investments for the future, but we have to be serious about a serious and important issue. We have to be transparent and honest about the state of affairs in this province, something the B.C. Liberal government is incapable, it seems, of doing.

While they say they believe in a debt-free B.C., while they say they will have LNG plants up and running tomorrow that will create fabulous wealth and prosperity funds that will pay off the provincial debt, B.C. Hydro

[ Page 6001 ]

debt…. Every other problem in the province will be answered by this pipedream. While that’s happening, while the Premier has been in office we have seen an $18 billion increase in debt, the fastest increase in B.C. history. March 31, 2011, the debt was $45.2 billion. The estimated debt at the end of March 2015 will be $63.4 billion. So much for not passing the debt of today onto the children of tomorrow.

I’m sure the children of tomorrow who will benefit from some of the investments of today will be willing to contribute, but wouldn’t it be nice if the people of today were told the truth at least once in a while about what the government is doing, about what the government intends?

Another fertile ground for cynicism is the B.C. government’s claim of an $800 million surplus this year. An $800 million surplus — how did the government arrive at that figure?

B.C. Hydro. Despite its mounting debt, despite billions of dollars of deferral accounts that have been created under the B.C. Liberals, the government is taking $635 million from B.C. Hydro. The previous Auditor General called this “creating an illusion of profit where there is none,” forcing B.C. Hydro to take on debt and forcing B.C. Hydro ratepayers to pay for B.C. Liberal claims of a surplus that doesn’t really exist.

It’s $635 million from Hydro, and from all of those ICBC ratepayers in the province, $210 million. So that’s $845 million from Crown corporations to create an $800 million surplus.

[1540]

This is the great performance of the economic wizards of the other side, the B.C. Liberal government, that mount debt faster than any government in history and yet claim that we will see a debt-free B.C., that shows a surplus of $800 million while they take $845 million from ratepayers, that gives away $236 million to the highest 2 percent of wage earners in this province. And the rest of us pay. The rest of British Columbians pay for that with increased fees that are a penalty as a regressive tax increase, the worst of which would be MSP premiums.

In 2001 the average family paid $864 for MSP premiums. After this budget they will pay $1,728, an $864 increase — an increase of exactly 100 percent. They are the ones who are paying so that the B.C. Liberals can exercise inside-out marketing and claim a balanced budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people of this province.

B.C. Hydro ratepayers. In 2001 the average family paid $710. After this budget that number will be $1,234, an increase of $524 or 74 percent. So much for low taxes.

ICBC ratepayers. The average family paid $518 in 2001 and this year $747 — a $229 increase, a 44 percent increase.

Ferry fares. The major routes have seen a 71 percent increase. The minor routes, as I said earlier, have seen more than a 100 percent increase. It has led to devastation of Gulf Island communities like the ones I represent, where property values are plummeting, where businesses, particularly tourism-based businesses, are suffering and closing.

In terms of another investment in the future, the most essential human capital investment in the future, post-secondary education tuition has increased under the B.C. Liberals by 115 percent. That’s what this government has delivered to the lovely province of British Columbia.

Rather than fulfil the promises they’ve made…. The list of broken promises is too long to list in a half-hour response to the budget or the throne — not to sell B.C. Rail, not to bring in HST to the province, not to tear up contracts, on and on and on. Decisions and broken promises that have not only led to horrific consequences in people’s lives but have cost the purse of this province hundreds of millions of dollars in lost court battles defending those improper and illegal decisions.

Before the election this government was fully committed to everything LNG — all LNG, all the time. We were told that the money from LNG would start to flow in 2017. We were told that we would have three plants up and running in 2020. The first one, we were assured, would be operating in 2015. That looks hardly likely, as nothing has been even approved for building. No final investment decisions have been made, and we’re more than halfway through the period.

The prosperity fund, we were told, would exceed $100 billion. It would eliminate the provincial debt. It would eliminate the provincial sales tax. We would have a debt-free B.C. 15 years from today, the Premier said on April 15, 2013. Yet we’ve seen this massive increase in debt.

The prosperity fund would eliminate the debt of B.C. Hydro, and yet the government just took $635 million more from a Crown corporation that’s losing money, forcing B.C. Hydro to take on even more debt to pay for B.C. Liberal broken promises and the inside-out marketing of their agenda. The prosperity fund would eliminate the B.C. Ferries debt.

[1545]

LNG, we were told by the Premier, would create 100,000 jobs. Now the answer from the government on questions of LNG is: “Petronas who? LNG what? We’re talking about diversity. Let’s talk about Site C. Let’s talk about forestry.”

What happened to the laser-like focus? Every one of the ministers of this government had a letter of expectation given to them by the Premier that included a direction to direct the efforts of their ministry to realize an LNG industry for this province. Even the Ministry of Children and Family Development was told that somehow their ministry must contribute to the development of an LNG industry.

It was such a sure thing, but now it’s a chance. Now it’s a potential opportunity. Now we’re going to talk about diversity. Now we’re going to talk about forestry. Now we’re

[ Page 6002 ]

going to talk about an industry that, under the neglect of the B.C. Liberals, has failed. It is failing and is likely to continue to fail, with a lack of investment, a lack of attention, a lack of planning and a lack of concern.

These are the outcomes. This is the reality. Inside-out marketing might be cute for a bank commercial — a green, leather armchair that advertises the comfortable experience of going and standing in the lineup at the bank. But when it comes to the business of the B.C. government — when it comes to the business of the Ministry of Children and Family Development; of health care, responsible for our seniors; of Finance, responsible for making things fair for British Columbians, not just beneficial to the top 2 percent wage earners; and when it comes to children living in care in the crisis that we see in British Columbia — I think the province deserves much better.

I understand that it’s a very difficult task to make this province work for everyone. I understand that these issues are complex. But I also understand that British Columbians are aware of that, and they accept that there will be difficulties. They accept that there will be failures. But I don’t think…. I hope they will never accept that this will be simply an exercise in deceit, that we simply tell people what they want to hear and then do the opposite, that we promise benefit and deliver these poor outcomes.

I will be voting against the budget. I will be voting against the budget because I will be voting for the interests of the people I represent, who have been neglected and ignored by the B.C. Liberal government.

L. Throness: It is always a pleasure and a privilege to stand here on behalf of my constituents and speak. Any time I look at this place, I am always awed by this chamber. I worked in the Legislature as a political staffer 30 years ago, and if I could have thought then that I would be here now speaking, I would have been awed then too. So it’s always a privilege and always part of a lifetime fulfilment to be here speaking and to represent my constituents.

I want to speak to the budget, of course. At budget time we talk a lot about finances and affordability, so I want to begin by addressing living costs for a moment. I want to talk about costs of living in praise of my own riding.

We hear a lot of complaint in the press and from the opposition about how expensive it is to live in Vancouver, which suggests and which implies that the government has some kind of moral obligation to make it possible for everyone to live in Vancouver, in the most expensive city in B.C. Of course, it would be impossible to do that.

Four years ago I came back from Ottawa to the Lower Mainland. I decided to move back, and I thought I’d like to live in Vancouver so I looked for a condo in Vancouver. I very quickly learned that I couldn’t afford to live in Vancouver, so I bought a condo in Abbotsford. I loved it there. I was happy there. I was content there. It was a beautiful place. I’ve since moved to Chilliwack. It’s a wonderful place to live, and I’m loving it there as well.

[1550]

The point of that little story is this. All through the Lower Mainland, in B.C.’s interior, B.C.’s north and on Vancouver Island there are fantastic places to live. For example, I want to point out Hope in my riding. It’s a beautiful town — 5,000 people, 45 minutes from skiing in Manning Park, just under three hours from Kelowna, two hours from the American border and from Vancouver. It has all the conveniences — a great swimming pool, an arena. It has a lovely public library. Kawkawa Lake is right in the municipality of Hope. And the Fraser River, as well, is right there.

The drinking water in Hope is so clean that it comes right out of the aquifer, without chlorination. Hope is a stone’s throw away from fantastic fishing and hunting. It’s a stunning place to live, and it’s very affordable. I would encourage some of those who can’t afford to live in Vancouver to move to my riding — like Chilliwack, like Hope, like Agassiz, like Harrison Hot Springs. They are all great communities.

I will never fail to sing the praises of my own riding. In my absolutely unbiased opinion, it is truly one of the most beautiful places to live in Canada, and in comparison with Vancouver, it is very affordable. Focusing on Vancouver sells short all of the other great places there are to live in B.C.

Now, I want to talk about affordability and the budget. I’m very happy with the budget. It is a signal accomplishment. I would call it a historic budget. I think it’s even a budget that the NDP should support, although I don’t expect that at all. I want to mention a few things that I think my constituents would be concerned with, because they always let me know what is important to them.

I want to talk, first of all, about some social benefits that are made available by this budget. We have many adults in our community of Chilliwack who have developmental disabilities. I know that CLBC, Community Living B.C. — which has a budget already of $789 million, serving about 16,000 adults — has financial shortfalls, and there are always pressures. So last week we increased CLBC’s budget by $106 million over the next three years. I think that that shows that this government has a heart of compassion for those with severe disabilities. We are most generous to those who have the greatest need. It’s a great principle.

In addition to this, we’re going to add $20 million to the social assistance budget. Sometimes I get this question: why don’t you raise social assistance rates and disability rates across the board? It’s certainly true that now they are subsistence rates. But when I hear this, I remind people that almost all of our government programs, $45 billion worth, are naturally tilted toward those who need it most.

For example, our largest expenditure by far is on health care. But by definition, health care is about medical ne-

[ Page 6003 ]

cessity. It’s about need. It only helps those who need medical attention. The more you need, the more health care you get. We care the most for those who need the most.

Our tax system is also progressive. We allow those with the lowest incomes to pay less in income tax. This is important when we come to MSP premiums, which are going up again next year. MSP premiums are themselves progressive, so that anyone making less than $22,000 a year pays no premium at all, which means that 800,000 British Columbians will not pay MSP premiums this year. But I want to point out that MSP premiums raise just $2.3 billion out of $17 billion in total health care spending. The rest of that amount depends on our hugely progressive tax system. So health care contributions are all progressive, indeed.

I would further point out that in this budget, we’ll raise the numbers of those who pay no tax at all. In the coming tax year no one making under $19,000 a year will pay provincial tax. In their day, the NDP happily taxed the lower-income earners in B.C.

But I digress. Allow me to get back to social assistance rates. We’ve taken steps to increase the incomes of those on social assistance, through employment. In 2012 we began to allow those on disability assistance to earn up to $9,600 a year without affecting their benefits. That would almost double their income. Those on social assistance can earn $200 a month without a cut in their monthly benefit. That would increase their benefit by about a third. For those who are able to work, these are very significant increases.

I think the government would like to raise rates across the board. But rate increases in this way for 135,000 people are very expensive. I asked and found that to raise income assistance and disability rates by just $100 a month, it would cost over $160 million more every year. Given that we are already spending $1.6 billion per year now on those two programs, we have to settle for more affordable and more targeted assistance.

[1555]

That’s why in this budget the government chose to eliminate the clawback on child support payments for parents on social assistance. Again, this targets some of those with greatest need, in particular children. It will cost taxpayers about $10 million a year, but it will benefit 5,400 children in 3,200 families. Since there are only 5,900 single parents on social assistance right now, this measure will touch more than half of them. This will be a very meaningful increase in their monthly income. Since the NDP has been calling for this for some time, I know that they are rejoicing in this budget.

But there’s more on the social side that I want to point out. On April 1, 180,000 families will start receiving the B.C. early childhood tax benefit. The benefit provides $55 a month for every child under six years of age. Every family making under $100,000 a year will get the full benefit, and the amount is significant. A two-child family earning $60,000 per year will get $1,300 in the coming year from this program. A family with two kids could buy 32 litres of milk and 15 loaves of bread each month just from this benefit. That’s not an insignificant amount.

As long as you’re registered for the federal child tax benefit, you can’t miss this payment because it’s automatic. The cheques are just going to start coming, and I think that’s great. It’s costly to raise children today. This monthly benefit will help make it easier on young families. We have a huge emphasis in our society on spending on those who are elderly, and we absolutely need to take care of them. But we need a balance in our spending. We cannot forget about children.

I want to highlight another item of social spending for my constituents, and that is for all those families who have a registered education savings plan. A $1,200 grant for training and education will be given to each child in B.C. when he or she turns six. With interest, this will go a long way to their future education, and of course, parents can add to it.

You have to apply for this grant, so I would encourage my constituents to go to their local bank and get more information on the training and education savings grant. Of course, if they need more information, they can always call my office, and we will be glad to help them.

Now I want to turn to health care, which is the biggest item in our budget. It’s of great concern to the government that health care continues to consume so much of our province’s budget. The government has been successful in restraining health expenditures to less than 3 percent while still offering a great health care system.

This year the budget of health care will consume 37.8 percent of the total provincial budget. In three years it’s going to be 1 percent more, 38.6 percent of the total budget in three years. So Health is still growing in proportion to the total budget, but that growth has been slowed considerably. It’s quite an achievement, I think, in the face of a rapidly aging population.

Meanwhile, over the next three years we will add a total of nearly $3 billion to health care spending, which is a measure of our commitment to care for those who need it most, those who are ill in our province.

Nor have we forgotten about education. We will increase K-to-12 education spending by a total of $564 million over the next three years. It’s true that we’ve asked school districts to find savings of $29 million in administration next year. We don’t apologize for that. There are things districts can do together to make educational administration more efficient, and I support that. But in the overall scheme of things, we are increasing funding for K-to-12 education by a half-billion dollars.

Now, last year we had a serious labour disruption in our education system. This was difficult for students and for parents and teachers, as well as MLAs. I’ve spoken to some very angry constituents over the last six months. But this budget is proof positive that the government is

[ Page 6004 ]

committed to our K-to-12 education system. We’ve never spent more on educating fewer children than we are today. Our commitment to education is rock solid.

Now I want to move on to economics and the budget itself. I want to bring up a notable feature of our budget, and that is our fiscal prudence, which is a very important feature. There are several levels of prudence built into the budget to make sure we don’t overestimate our revenue and underestimate our expenses. Our projections for economic growth are therefore more conservative than private sector projections. So are our natural gas forecasts.

We’re also determined to hold the line on expenses. We’re limiting spending growth to just 2.5 percent. And just in case something bad happens, we’ve built contingencies — a $350 million contingency fund that will grow every year — into the budget as well as a forecast allowance of $250 million that will also grow. When you add these up over the three-year budget plan, our contingencies add up to $2.1 billion. That’s a lot of insurance against downturns in the economy, and it increases public confidence in our budget.

[1600]

Even with these amounts built in, even with a difficult forest fire season last summer, we have managed to balance our budget for three years in a row, and we’re forecasting three more years of balanced budgets totalling over $1 billion in surplus funds. I’m pretty proud of that. I would point out that in the last election the NDP predicted and promised in their election platform three years of budget deficits. I have no doubt that they would have delivered handsomely on that promise.

I think it’s a bit ironic and rich that the NDP now rail against government debt that we incur for things like schools and bridges and dams. Two years ago they publicly promised to mire government not in what some would call “good debt” that delivers an economic benefit, like schools and bridges and dams, but in operating debt — just giving away the store in program spending, as they are doing hand over fist in Ontario right now.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So far this year B.C. is the only province to balance its budget. Alberta is in difficulty. Saskatchewan is on the brink of a deficit. Quebec is solidly in deficit territory. Ontario, Canada’s largest provincial economy, is in a positively frightening state with a deficit of $12.5 billion.

America, in particular, continues to worry me. I’ve been speaking about this for the last two years. Last year its deficit alone was $485 billion. Looking ahead, the White House proposes a budget through to 2025, and it forecasts in that year $687 billion in deficit — the deficit growing right through to 2025. The debt will amount to a staggering sum of $20 trillion in 2025.

If the American economy ever runs into a bump in the road, if ever there is public confidence flagging in the American dollar in the face of these gigantic numbers, we will need to be prepared for a big economic shock. That’s why I especially appreciate the prudence of our B.C. government in our careful budgeting.

Now I want to go on to talk about LNG for a moment. We’ve been criticized for putting all our eggs in the LNG basket and, at the same time, of de-emphasizing LNG, which I would note are contradictory accusations. But we’ve not backed away from LNG at all. We’ve been very frank and open and honest with the public. We hoped something would happen sooner. No one could have projected the drop in oil that the world has experienced.

Even so, we have 18 consortiums now that are still interested in developing LNG in this province. None of them have left. None have walked away from the table. In fact, we continue to hear good things — most noticeably a few days ago when the Prime Minister announced a welcome new federal tax break for the industry to bring some of these companies to the table for a final investment decision.

We have not put all our eggs in the LNG basket. In fact, we have put no eggs in our LNG basket. It is private enterprise that has done the spending. Industry has taken the risk and spent a total of $8 billion so far in preparing their proposals. The taxpayers have been exposed to no risk at all.

We’ve not counted any chickens before they’re hatched. We’ve not assumed one penny of revenue from LNG in our budgets over the next three years. Any more revenue we get from companies — building plants or preparing sites or doing other work — will be gravy for the provincial budget. I do believe it’s going to happen because the longer companies hang on, the longer they keep spending on their proposals, the more likely it is that they will commit for the longer term.

It’s a matter of time. We need to be patient. Surely, the critics of LNG should get this. There’s no risk in developing this industry. There’s no downside. There’s only an upside, and that’s why we’re going to continue to chase this industry and bring LNG to B.C.

I want to turn to a few other issues that I’ve been involved with. It was in my riding last summer that a case became public where animals were abused on a local farm. This was a hugely unfortunate circumstance, and it deserved a strong government response. Of course there’s no room for cruelty to animals in B.C. The $5 million given in the budget to the SPCA will help with their ongoing campaign to improve their facilities and will defray operating expenses for them in other areas so that they can concentrate on fulfilling their mandate to combat cruelty to animals.

I recently toured the very cramped quarters of the SPCA in Chilliwack and was impr