2017 Legislative Session: Sixth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Pink Shirt Day and prevention of bullying

J. Thornthwaite

George Doering and Eric Goodman

R. Chouhan

Ken and Lou Ryan

R. Lee

Gabriola Arts Council

D. Routley

Perception of self and others

G. Hogg

Maternity ward and neonatal ICU at Burnaby Hospital

K. Corrigan

Oral Questions

ICBC revenues and automobile insurance rates

J. Horgan

Hon. T. Stone

A. Dix

Care standards at seniors care facilities

J. Darcy

Hon. T. Lake

S. Robinson

Seniors care in Port M c Neill

C. Trevena

Hon. T. Lake

Reports from Committees

Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, annual report, 2015-16

J. Thornthwaite

M. Karagianis

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. T. Lake

Petitions

R. Austin

H. Bains

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate (continued)

C. James

Hon. S. Thomson

H. Bains

Hon. M. Bernier

N. Simons

J. Martin

L. Krog

[ Page 13731 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: Today it is my honour to welcome Paige Norton to the Legislature. Paige is a decorated Special Olympian that competes in both winter and summer games, with excellence in speed skating, swimming, track and field for the past 12 years. She has represented Special Olympics B.C. in four national games, including the 2016 National Winter Games, where she earned three gold medals. Paige’s total medal count so far is over ten, half of those being gold. I think she’s trying to catch up to my medal tally very quickly.

Today is Pink Shirt Day, so I must also mention that Paige has represented athletes with disabilities in the ViaSport initiative to erase bullying in sport.

Next up for Paige: she will travel with the Canadian team to the 2017 Special Olympics World Winter Games in Austria. On behalf of all the members in the Legislature, I would like to wish Paige all the best of luck while she’s competing. We will all be cheering for you.

Would the House please make Paige feel welcome.

Hon. R. Coleman: He’s referred to sometimes as the president for life of the press gallery. Tom Fletcher’s birthday is today. Although he’s pushing closer to 60, he’s not quite there yet, so I won’t tell you his age. But if you go on the Internet, he’s already told you how old he is.

It’s his birthday today, and I wish the House to please wish him a happy birthday.

J. Horgan: On behalf of all the members of the official opposition, I wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to note “the passage of time” and “Tom Fletcher” in the same sentence, so I’ll join with the Deputy Premier.

I also want to take the opportunity to introduce someone I had lunch with today, and I’m not referring to the former member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Brian Smith, or the former member for Victoria-Hillside at that time, Sheila Orr. I’m referring to the new Ambassador from Ireland — my father’s homeland — Jim Kelly, who joined us today. After six months in Ottawa, he has discovered that the secret to Canada is coming to Victoria in February.

Would the House please welcome our newest arrival, the Ambassador of Ireland, Jim Kelly.

Hon. S. Anton: The other day, I introduced my predecessor, but he actually wasn’t here at that moment. Now he is — Brian Smith, QC, former Attorney General, always welcome back in this House.

D. Eby: I have to apologize to the House. I introduced my sister on Monday, and I made a classic big brother mistake. I introduced her as my sister, and I didn’t give you her name.

So I’d like to introduce my sister, Meaghan Eby. She’s the general manager of a very successful brewpub in Toronto. You should go to the Indie Ale House, if you’re there, and say hi to her. She is her own person. I’d appreciate it if you’d join me in welcoming her to the House.

K. Corrigan: After being in this House for almost eight years, it finally gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to introduce the love of my life. I am, by the way, talking about my husband, just in case anybody was wondering. His name is Derek Corrigan. He has a long history of public service to our community of Burnaby, which we both love.

He has been on city council for 30 years, serving as the mayor for the last 15 years. I think maybe he wanted to get out of the house, actually, is what it was all about. I also point out that Burnaby was named the best-run city in Canada. Since they haven’t held the contest again, we get to have the title forever.

[1340]

I want you to all make him very welcome. I also think it would be really important for Mr. Corrigan and Ambassador Kelly to get together and meet. I mentioned to Ambassador Kelly at lunch that he would probably love to meet you and how much you love meeting people from all over the world.

Will you please give my wonderful husband and father of our four children a wonderful welcome to the House.

Hon. T. Stone: It does give me a great deal of pleasure to welcome to the House a former member, someone who represented Victoria-Hillside passionately, who is a strong community advocate, a philanthropist and a successful businesswoman. But I know her well, and she would tell you that her greatest achievements are her children and her grandchildren. I would ask the whole House to please welcome Sheila Orr, who formerly represented Victoria-Hillside, back to the House.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to introduce one of my favourite political science students from UBC, my nephew Manraj Bains. Growing up, he tells me that his eyes are on the Premier’s chair. After watching question period, I hope he doesn’t change his mind. Please help me welcome him to this House.

[ Page 13732 ]

Hon. N. Letnick: I just want to point out to the Ambassador of Ireland that this is a welcoming community, because his name is about to be mentioned for a third time. We have a lot in common between B.C. and Ireland — good people, landscapes, but especially whisky and beer. I want to thank the Ambassador for Ireland for coming today and having meetings with the government about how we can continue that great relationship between both jurisdictions. Please help me welcome, once again, the Ambassador of Ireland.

D. Routley: There’s a gentleman in the gallery whose MLA sits two seats from me, the member for Nanaimo. He’s asked his MLA not to introduce him, but I’m not bound by that, so I can stand here and introduce Nelson Allen. I should say also that the member for Nanaimo is constantly complaining that, with redistribution, I take some of his best territory. Well, I’m handing, through redistribution, the support of Nelson Allen. He’s been a great supporter of all good causes in the Nanaimo region. Could the House please help me make him very welcome.

Hon. B. Bennett: There’s a gentleman in the gallery today who actually makes me think of Atlas Shrugged when I think about what he’s managed to do in the last six or seven years. He’s taken a mining project from just an idea to a $1.2 billion project.

There are 1,100 people working at that project right now. There are about 175 First Nations, British Columbians, working at that project. That project will pay, over the first 20 years of its life, probably $2 billion in provincial taxes that we can use for health care and social services. So it’s a great honour for me to introduce Mr. Robert Quartermain from the company called Pretium with the project called Brucejack.

J. Rice: On Monday, getting caught up in the rivalry I have with my colleague here over All-Native Basketball, I failed to mention that another team within my constituency had won the intermediate championships. That was the Lax Kw’alaams, or Port Simpson, Strike Force, who beat out Prince Rupert’s Synergy Storm. This was their second year in a row of winning the intermediate championships, so I wanted to congratulate Lax Kw’alaams in their victory and acknowledge that we had masters playing as well.

The Hydaburg, Alaska, team beat out another constituency team of mine, Masset, but it was again a phenomenal tournament. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the House…. If you ever get the opportunity to come up to Prince Rupert for this All-Native Basketball Tournament, it’s a phenomenal tournament. It will be 60 years, almost.

[1345]

D. Bing: It is my pleasure today to introduce a teacher, Mr. Patrick Glover, and a class of grade 11 students from my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. They’re here today in Victoria from Westview Secondary School. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Shin: I would be remiss if I didn’t take what may be my last chance to also join the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake in welcoming our mayor, His Worship Derek Corrigan, to this House.

This is a story that maybe not everybody here knows, but it was about five years ago this time that I was teaching at VCC and also serving as the head of program. The administrative portfolio that I had, had me scratching my head and wishing to get more involved and know more about the politics of our province.

I wrote, on one late October night after my lecture, an email to then Prime Minister Harper, the Premier, as well as my mayor in Burnaby. He granted me the honour of a half-hour meeting at the time, which turned into two hours. As they say, the rest is history. I’ve been on the roller-coaster of this political landscape ever since.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mayor Corrigan for not just being the champion and the guardian of the city of Burnaby and all of our citizens but also a mentor for the many, including myself, and the kind of opportunity that he’s made available to many of us. Thank you again for my political maker that’s in the gallery today.

If the House would please welcome him as well. Mayor Derek Corrigan.

G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by a legislative assistant, Simran Sahota, better known as Sim Allah Bim. He’s responsible for five difficult-to-manage MLAs, and he’s responsible for everything we do, except for the way we dress.

D. Donaldson: I, too, would like to welcome Robert Quartermain, the executive chairman of Pretium, the company that’s bringing the Brucejack project to fruition in my constituency in Stikine. As was mentioned, over 1,000 people are employed there at the moment. I want to remember, with Bob, the times that we met over the years — at least six years ago now — when he’d bring his core sample with him in a satchel bag, and we’d break it open on the table and have a look at the visible gold in the core sample.

Congratulations to Bob. His approach with First Nations has made the project an incredible success, and I look forward to the mine opening this year. Would the members help me welcome Bob Quartermain.

[ Page 13733 ]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PINK SHIRT DAY AND

PREVENTION OF BULLYING

J. Thornthwaite: Today is Pink Shirt Day, a day when thousands of British Columbians, myself and my colleagues included, take

part in raising awareness for those who have been bullied. It is a day that I hope we might not need in the future. But until then, I will stand in this House and denounce all acts of bullying.

Ten years ago, a grade 9 boy in Nova Scotia wore a bright pink-coloured shirt to school and was harassed by a couple of bullies. The next day, the child’s admirable classmates collaborated in protest against the bullies by wearing pink and giving 50 other boys in the school pink tank tops.

This outpouring of support has continued to grow each year, expanding across the country. As a result of the event, hundreds of thousands of dollars are fundraised annually for anti-bullying organizations. In 2008, our Premier brought Pink Shirt Day’s message to B.C., and our ongoing contributions and commitment to anti-bullying have been recognized by Pink Shirt Day’s founder, Travis Price.

Similar to our involvement with Pink Shirt Day, we have started initiatives like B.C. Friends and ERASE Bullying programs. The B.C. Friends program aims to improve conflict resolution and prevent anxiety in school-aged children, while ERASE Bullying educates youth about the damaging effects that bullying can cause. Both programs are vital to our children’s understanding of the impacts that our choices can have on one another.

It is my belief that we should not limit the principles of Pink Shirt Day to just one singular day, but let us stand against it every day, in our schools, our workplaces and everywhere in between.

[1350]

GEORGE DOERING AND ERIC GOODMAN

R. Chouhan: Madame Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity for me to stand up and celebrate the lives of two very special people from Burnaby.

George Doering passed away peacefully with his family by his side on February 7, two weeks ago. He was 87. George is survived by his loving wife of 60 years, Trudy, and his two sons, Ron and Rob.

George was born in Schwedt, Germany, in 1929. He immigrated to Canada in 1954. George was a machinist, millwright and first-aid attendant. He had a long and very distinguished career volunteering his time for people in Burnaby all the years that he lived there.

He received many accolades and awards — Queen’s Commemorative Medal, 1996; Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, 2012; Seniors of Distinction Award for Healthy Living, 2015; hero of Burnaby award, 2015; and in 2016, George received the first annual award for Extraordinary Contribution to the Community, to name a few. But above all, he was my executive member for all his life. He helped us. He was our IT person. He worked so hard. Every time we had any community function, George was always there.

The second person I want to mention is Eric Goodman. Eric Goodman was 90 years old. He passed a week before George. They both worked so hard, so beautifully, for the people of British Columbia. We’ll be missing them forever.

KEN AND LOU RYAN

R. Lee: I believe it’s pertinent for me to rise today to honour a couple who are residents of North Burnaby. Whether by starting an initiative for B.C.’s youth who are deaf, volunteering at local food banks and forming one of their own, or taking kids to Disneyland who may not have that chance again, Ken and Lou Ryan enriched the city of Burnaby for much of their lives. When most people would close their windows and turn a blind eye to those less fortunate, this couple instead opened their door, not just for a warm cup of soup or a place to stay for a night, but for a place to stay for three years.

These acts are what earned Ken the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal. After volunteering at Lochdale Community School each Christmas for over two decades, Ken was known by many Burnaby kids as Santa Claus. Others knew him as the organizer of Kool Down, a Friday night youth swim at the Kensington pool. Others still just knew him as the King of Kensington or Radio Shack Guy.

Ken founded the Kensington Community Fair in 1993. He also contributed in numerous committees, including the Burnaby North Community Association, anti-graffiti, Comshare, Hats Off Day, the Optimist Club, Coats for Kids and Block Watch.

In September, Ken was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and passed away last month. He is survived by Lou as well as his son, stepchildren, brothers, sister, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. When Ken’s family looks back at his life, they know that he lived honourably, with commitment to community.

His life was dedicated to Burnaby, and Burnaby is better off for it. I ask my colleagues to join me today to recognize Ken and Lou for their incredible contributions.

GABRIOLA ARTS COUNCIL

D. Routley: This year marks the 20th anniversary of the formation of Festival Gabriola Society on April 15, 1997. It later became, in 2006, the Gabriola Arts Council, a non-profit society that supports artists and art festivals. Gabriola Island ranks sixth across Canada with respect to

[ Page 13734 ]

[1355]

Gabriola Arts Council supports local artists in all mediums and at all levels while ensuring that local residents have opportunities to engage with art and artists and that off-island communities are aware of our rich artistic resources on Gabriola Island.

The importance of the arts community on individual development, both economic and social, has been well documented. Numerous studies of rural communities indicate that the arts stimulate economic growth and improve the quality of life. Gabriola Arts Council’s mandate is to foster and facilitate greater public awareness and understanding and participation in the arts. They stimulate economic vibrancy through promotion of island arts and take the lead in promotion of innovative and diverse culture-led economic development.

In two weeks time, March 5, I invite all members and, indeed, anyone from British Columbia — that is, who can scrape together the princely sum to ride the ferry to Gabriola — to come and join us for the Gabriola arts festival. It’s a really fantastic event, and you will be rewarded with a hospitality commensurate with the large investment you will make in getting there.

PERCEPTION OF SELF AND OTHERS

G. Hogg: I went to kindergarten in Mrs. Corfield’s class, and I soon learned that I and each of my classmates tended to see things somewhat differently. During colouring class, I tried as hard as I could to colour inside the lines, and I did quite well when I was colouring the cows, at least. The grass was easy to colour, because there were no lines to constrain me. I soon found out that Mrs. Corfield was not going to give me a gold star for my colouring. Yet it looked perfect to me, even though my friends Peter, Douglas and Dennis all laughed at my work.

I soon learned that I’d coloured the cows green and the grass brown, and even though that’s how I saw the world, I was still wrong. I learned later that I was partially colour-blind.

Interjection.

G. Hogg: Only partially, I’m pretty sure.

So the world looked somewhat different to me. I could stay within the lines and still be wrong.

As I grew older — and believed that all of my clothes matched — everything looked as though it went so well together, but Peter, Douglas and Dennis still laughed at my colour combinations. So my mom helped me out by putting numbers on my socks, on my shirts, on my pants so that I could match them and so that people wouldn’t laugh at me.

I have found that I’m probably wrong about a lot of things about me, and it seems that we’re all wrong about a lot of things about ourselves. My judgments about how open-minded, conscientious and impulsive I am are different from the judgments of those who know me well.

It seems that how you see me and how I see me are different, and that’s okay. Studies find that how you see you and how others see you are also somewhat different. It helps me to understand Mrs. Corfield’s and Peter’s and Douglas’s and Dennis’s perception of me and my perceptions of them.

We must each work hard at developing a sensitive understanding of and appreciation for each other and for our wonderful differences — differences that recognize and support a more compassionate, appreciative and caring society. While I still haven’t received a gold medal for my colouring, I have grown to really like this baby-blue-coloured suit.

MATERNITY WARD AND NEONATAL ICU

AT BURNABY HOSPITAL

K. Corrigan: I know that in the past, or often when I’ve risen in this House to talk about Burnaby Hospital, it’s to say that we need a new hospital and complain about the seismic problems or the age of the hospital. But I’ve always at the same time talked about the dedicated staff and the professionalism of all the staff at Burnaby Hospital. Today I want to recognize a couple of the units there that my family recently were very grateful to have. Those are the maternity ward and the neonatal intensive care unit.

The maternity ward I knew well. That was where all four of our children were born. But more recently, our twin grandsons, Finn and Bastien, were born at Burnaby Hospital three months ago, a month early. The professional and knowledgable staff of doctors, nurses and support staff in the maternity ward expertly helped Natalie and Darcy through a tough three days.

The 3.5-pound and 5.5-pound boys were moved to the neonatal intensive care unit, where they had to stay for a couple of weeks. Those times were difficult, particularly because little Finn forgot to breathe a few times. Natalie and Darcy and all of us were so impressed with the caring and professionalism at a time that was not only exhilarating but also, at times, very scary.

It was also in the middle of a huge snowstorm. I remember Natalie saying that she was so happy there was a neonatal intensive care unit at Burnaby Hospital, because it would have been difficult to travel to Children’s Hospital every day in the snow.

[1400]

[ Page 13735 ]

They also appreciated that the dedicated staff were there, despite having some staff shortages. They filled every shift.

On behalf of Derek and I, Natalie and Darcy, and little Finn and Bastien, who are not so little anymore — I think they’re 11 pounds and 13 pounds now — thank you so much to the maternity ward and the neonatal intensive care unit of Burnaby hospital.

Oral Questions

ICBC REVENUES AND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

J. Horgan: In 2012, before the last election, the government knew it had big, big problems at ICBC. So the Premier did a quick review, asking Liberals to tell Liberals what Liberals wanted to hear. After that, the Premier said: “No worries. We’ve got it under control.” Then we had an election, and after the election, ICBC rates went up 30 percent for basic auto insurance.

Now it looks like we have problems again at ICBC. In 2015, when the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, ICBC was projected to have net revenues of $678 million over a three-year period. Unfortunately, in the document tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance, those surpluses are now a deficit to the tune of $833 million.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Is he going to tell the drivers of British Columbia how much they’re going to have to pay for his bad choices?

Hon. T. Stone: Our government has made very clear to ICBC that their number one priority is to do everything they possibly can to keep rates as affordable as possible for British Columbians.

This is why we directed BCUC to approve an increase no greater than 4.9 percent, which took place earlier this year. This is also why we have launched a wide range of initiatives with ICBC to apply as much downward pressure on costs and rates as we possibly can. This is why we directed the ICBC board to commission an independent third-party review to look at all facets of ICBC and their operations and how they do what they do to ensure that they are employing every strategy, every initiative possible to drive costs down and, for the long term, to protect the ratepayer.

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

J. Horgan: For the uninitiated, they might not be aware that the minister who just took his seat was responsible for ICBC over the past three years, and instead of returning $600 million to the treasury, they’re in the hole $800 million. When you add it all up, it’s a $1.5 billion blunder, and the only people who are going to have a tough time of it are not the senior executives appointed by Liberals, not the people that the Liberals found to tell the Liberals what they wanted to hear. It’s going to be the drivers in British Columbia.

We had a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission. Now, I know that’s an institution that that side of the House doesn’t like to call upon, because it’s independent and it’s tasked by legislation to do that work. They prefer to find a campaign contributor, ask them to do the work and then report to the former Liberal minister, who is now the chair, and have him tell the current minister that everything’s fine. Not good enough.

We’re coming up to another election. The Premier wants to go behind the curtain and say everything’s fine. The drivers of British Columbia want the truth this time. Will the minister have the jam to stand up and tell people just how much his boondoggle is going to cost the drivers of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Stone: Well, if you want to talk about boondoggles, let’s talk about the boondoggle of the 1990s, when insurance rates went up 34 percent. When they had the opportunity in the 1990s, the combined rates of auto insurance…. The cost to the ratepayers went up 34 percent in that time frame.

[1405]

There is no question that the pressures on ICBC and its costs are enormous. These are pressures that are being experienced by insurance companies right across North America. As we are seeing the number of collisions increase, we’re seeing the cost of those repairs increase. The bodily injury claims cost is increasing. All of this is applying a lot of pressure to ICBC and insurance companies across the country.

That is why we are resolute in doing everything we can to protect the ratepayer. That is why we are getting tough on fraud. That is why we have amongst the toughest distracted-driving penalties across Canada right here in B.C. That’s why we are moving forward on a number of fronts, including this independent third-party review.

Working with ICBC, we’re going to continue to throw everything we can at keeping rates as affordable as possible for B.C.’s families.

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

J. Horgan: I appreciate accountability is not something that the B.C. Liberals take seriously, but in this instance, surely the minister understands that we had an independent third-party review happening just before Christmas. It was called the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Now, I know B.C. Hydro doesn’t have to do anything at the B.C. Utilities Commission anymore, but surely to goodness ICBC should, after this document, tabled by the Minister of Finance, shows a $1.5 billion swing in what they said they were going to do and what the ac-

[ Page 13736 ]

tuals are going to be. The solution from the B.C. Liberals: blame drivers; blame British Columbians. Never, in the time I’ve been in this House, has a Liberal taken accountability for a darn thing on their watch.

I’m asking the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to be a trendsetter on that side of the House: stand up, be responsible before an election campaign, and tell drivers how much your incompetence, your bad choices, are going to cost them.

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. Member. Members know that all comments are directed through the Chair.

Hon. T. Stone: The only members that we hear from that actually support tax increases are the members that sit opposite. We heard it again from the member for Victoria–Swan Lake.

The government just delivered a budget that provided British Columbians with $1 billion of tax relief.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: I am proud to be part of a government that just tabled a budget that will provide British Columbians with $1 billion of tax relief.

I know that the members opposite do not want to focus on any of the underlying challenges that face ICBC: the fact that bodily injury claims are rising — they’re up 10 percent year over year; or the fact that there are more crashes taking place on British Columbia’s roads, which is a trend we’re seeing across North America. These pressures are applying an immense amount of pressure on ICBC’s costs.

We are doing and will continue to do everything we can with ICBC, whether it’s cracking down on fraud, whether it’s distracted-driving penalties, whether it’s hiring more claims staff, whether it’s the transformation upgrades that we’re making — a wide array of initiatives to keep rates down for British Columbia’s drivers.

A. Dix: Underlying? This was the government that took $1.2 billion meant to pay claims out of ICBC, the first government in the history of B.C. to do it, and that’s the minister responsible for that.

They stood up in 2015, that Finance Minister and that minister, and they said ICBC — all the same factors were in place — was going to make $210 million. They lost $293 million. That’s a $503 million mistake that drivers will pay for.

[1410]

Not to be outdone, the minister stepped it up the next year. He said: “We’re going to make $231 million.” They lost $396 million. That’s a $627 million mistake.

Now in their budget, tabled yesterday, they’re claiming $280 million in savings from a review that hasn’t even started yet.

They aren’t watching what’s going on; they’re not witnesses to rising insurance costs. They’re driving the car. When will the minister finally take responsibility for those bad choices that B.C. drivers are going to have to pay for?

Hon. T. Stone: Look, the choices that this government has made have resulted in a fifth consecutive balanced budget. The choices that this government has made have resulted in amongst the lowest personal, corporate and small business tax rates in the country. And the choices that this government has made have been to invest strategically in infrastructure in every corner of our province, including a record level of infrastructure on our highways, which is mostly about road safety.

We are going to continue to apply everything that we possibly can towards the pressures that are very real and that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway doesn’t want to talk about. He doesn’t want to talk about bodily injury claims rising as steadily as they are. He doesn’t want to talk about the rising costs of tin. He doesn’t want to talk about the rising costs of claims that ICBC has. The volumes are up; the costs are up. Those pressures are real. This government, working with ICBC, is going to continue to throw everything that we possibly can to drive the pressures down and to keep rates affordable for British Columbia’s families.

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

A. Dix: Well, the same charade took place before the last election. They were “protecting drivers” — that was what they said — and then they soaked drivers. They did a review before the last election. And we’ve heard this before, even this session: “We accept all the recommendations” from this Liberal review. “We accept them all. We’re taking action.”

Things haven’t changed since then. What’s changed is the position of ICBC. What’s changed is that they’ve soaked ICBC. They’ve taken away their money They’ve scooped away the capital. They need to take responsibility for this. It’s drivers; it’s hydro customers; it’s people who pay premiums, rising fees. It is becoming harder and harder.

British Columbians can’t afford this minister, and they can’t afford this Premier. His $1.5 million blunder is $1,000 a family. That’s how much it is. How are they supposed to pay for his blunder, for his bad choices?

Hon. T. Stone: What British Columbians cannot afford is the reckless spending and the increased taxes that the opposition represents. The member from Kingsway stands up every opportunity he gets, and he talks about all these hundreds of millions of dollars which were

[ Page 13737 ]

scooped out of ICBC, as if they went off into some never-never land. These dollars went into critical health and education programs for British Columbians. So I’d be interested to know: which health programs and which education programs would the members opposite say we shouldn’t have invested in with those dollars?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Please continue.

Hon. T. Stone: Which programs would the members opposite not have supported with those dollars? The member from Kingsway knows these dollars are generated on the optional side of the insurance business, and that excess capital has been used to fund critical education and health programs.

[1415]

He also knows that during that same period of time, $1.4 billion was transferred from the optional side of the auto insurance to the basic side to help keep rates as low as possible.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue, quickly.

Hon. T. Stone: Well, I know that the members opposite have been flirting with alternative facts for quite some time now. They just make it up as they go.

Yesterday British Columbians were provided $1 billion of tax relief. We’re going to continue to work as hard as we possibly can to also keep ICBC rates affordable for the long term.

CARE STANDARDS AT

SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

J. Darcy: This government would love nothing better than to have British Columbians forget about their sorry record on the deficit they’ve created in services for people, under their sorry record for the last 15 years.

The fact is that the abysmal record of this government in seniors care means that seniors care hours have gone down, not up, in the last year. In 2015, according to the seniors advocate, it was only 82 percent of care homes where the government’s own staffing standard of 3.36 hours of care per resident per day was being met. This year, 91 percent of care homes are not meeting the government’s own standard — 91 percent.

Yesterday we talked about Lana Turner, who relies on home support and who hadn’t been able to get a bath in 51 days — seven weeks. Well, the reality is that in seniors care homes, there are seniors who are going without baths, sometimes for two or three or even four weeks.

When is this government going to take responsibility for the crisis it has created in seniors care and make sure that seniors get the dignified care that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: Over $800 million — those are the additional dollars in the Ministry of Health budget announced yesterday. Over $800 million — that’s the increase the Ministry of Health received yesterday. And as the member knows, a large, large percentage of health care goes directly to seniors. In our increase that we received yesterday — a record level of increased dollars to spend on health care in this province — we will see increased services to seniors in residential care, in home care, in primary care that’s directed specifically to seniors in this province.

In other ministries — in the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, an increased number of handyDART hours that directly help seniors. In Victoria, over 4,000 more hours. In Kelowna and Kamloops, over 2,000 more hours of handyDART service. We are committed to serving seniors in the province of British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: The member for New Westminster on a supplemental.

J. Darcy: This minister and this government refuse to take responsibility for the fact that seniors care has gotten worse, not better. It is a national disgrace, what’s happening to seniors in the province of British Columbia. There’s no other word for it.

[1420]

Front-line health care workers, seniors groups, B.C. care providers came to the Legislature this week looking for a solid commitment in the budget for seniors care, and there wasn’t one word in the budget about seniors care — not one word.

We’re told that the Minister of Health wasn’t on side for the federal health deal, so maybe he wasn’t on side for the provincial budget either.

Again, to the minister: will the minister finally take responsibility for the systemic crisis his government has created in seniors care and act to ensure that our parents, our grandparents and our loved ones get the dignified care that they deserve?

Hon. T. Lake: The care of our seniors is critically important for this government. The member opposite and I were at the B.C. Care Providers Awards this week, honouring the amazing people that work in home care, in residential care, looking after our seniors.

We’re the first province in Canada to have an office of the seniors advocate. Our seniors advocate has presented a series of reports upon which we have acted. Important changes to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act allow people to stay in assisted living longer and reduce the need to go into residential care prematurely.

[ Page 13738 ]

Together with the federal government, with our agreement signed, there will be over $700 million over the next ten years directed towards home care and other seniors services.

A record increase in the health care budget — much of that will directly benefit seniors in the province of British Columbia. And over 90 percent of seniors in this province will benefit from a massive decrease in MSP premiums. This budget is a seniors budget, and we are proud of that.

S. Robinson: A seniors budget, and you don’t even mention the word “senior”? I heard a completely different budget.

In the Fraser Health region, only 13 of 79 facilities are meeting the minimum staffing benchmark for seniors care. That’s just 16 percent. That’s actually the best record of all five health authorities in this province — a mere 16 percent meeting the minimum standard of care hours. In the Interior Health Authority, only five of 75 facilities meet the minimum standard of care. On the Island, it’s only two of 59 — two.

I want to ask the minister: when can seniors expect adequate residential care in this province?

Hon. T. Lake: Again, we are spending record levels on health care, and a large portion of that, of course, is directed to our seniors. On top of the acute care that we provide are the home and community supports and the residential care supports that we provide. All of those are increasing. This budget sees the largest increase ever in terms of dollars in our health care budget, much of it directed towards seniors.

We are happy to come to an agreement with Ottawa for home and community care that will see directed, targeted funding for seniors care. The members opposite will see that plan as it is developed over the next few weeks, now that this agreement has been signed, and there’ll be lots of good news in it for seniors care in the province of British Columbia.

S. Robinson: The B.C. Liberals have been in power for 16 years. The benchmark for hours of care per resident per day is 3.36 hours of care, and 91 percent of facilities aren’t meeting those necessary care hours. I think that’s disgraceful.

What does this mean when 91 percent of the facilities that this government is responsible for funding don’t get sufficient funds to make sure that there is sufficient staff? Well, it means that seniors can’t get a proper bath. It means that they have to sit in a chair for longer than they want. It could mean that they sit for hours because there’s no one to assist them to move to another part of the facility. It also might mean that they sit in soiled clothing for longer than they care to.

These are all indignities to the seniors of our province. Again, I want to know from this government: when will seniors finally get the care they deserve from these B.C. Liberals?

[1425]

Hon. T. Lake: I will happily compare the record over the last 16 years on every file in health care, versus the 1990s, when you could not find a placement in residential care. We have added 6,500 publicly subsidized residential care, assisted-living and group home beds since 2001. Health authorities invested $2.9 billion in home and community care in 2015-16. That’s an 88 percent increase since 2001.

Other benefits for seniors. We mentioned the MSP reductions that over 90 percent of seniors will benefit from. I’m told of, around the province, over 100,000 more hours of handyDART service. And a historic agreement with the federal government will see targeted funds directed at home and community care. We will continue to make sure that our valued seniors are looked after in the province of British Columbia.

SENIORS CARE IN PORT M c NEILL

C. Trevena: There are 40 seniors in Port McNeill with mobility problems who don’t have access to either a shower or a bath. There’s nothing suitable for them at Port McNeill’s hospital. The minister keeps claiming that his government is looking out for the needs of seniors. If that’s the case, how does the minister suggest these elders keep clean and keep their dignity?

Hon. T. Lake: Well, I was very pleased to be with the royal couple in Haida Gwaii this year to open a $50 million hospital that not only has acute care beds in it but also residential care. The care that the folks in Haida Gwaii are experiencing is much better today than it ever was.

Up and down the coast, all around the province, we’ve invested in residential care: 6,500 new placements around the province. When some members on this side were first elected, it was two years’ wait to get into residential care. Now that is less than 90 days.

We will continue to make investments in seniors care around the province. The members should stay tuned as we put together the final touches on our seniors plan, with our agreement with the federal government.

C. Trevena: Is the minister suggesting that my constituents in Port McNeill move to Haida Gwaii? Geographic challenges, very clearly, here.

The minister clearly forgot that I actually did write to him about this concern. I actually got quite a prompt response, but the minister didn’t resolve the problem. What he suggested in his response was that these seniors not go to Haida Gwaii, not go into care in Haida Gwaii. They are actually being cared for at home. The issue is that they don’t get baths at home, and there is nothing

[ Page 13739 ]

in their community to give them a bath. But the minister suggested: “Go up to Port Hardy.” It’s 45 kilometres to Port Hardy. “Go to the seniors home there,” which is full, “and have a bath there.”

So the minister — I will help him along here — is clearly suggesting that people try and find a way to get to a different community on the same island — not different islands but on the same island — and then stand in line with other seniors simply to have a bath or a shower.

When the minister did respond, he did say that he wanted these seniors to have “quality patient-centred care.” Can he explain to this House how any of this is quality or patient-centred or even care?

Hon. T. Lake: The members opposite know full well what the situation was like for seniors in the 1990s in this province. They want to forget about that. I get it. There was a dismal, dismal record in the 1990s on seniors care. You could not get into residential care let alone have home care supply.

[1430]

An 80 percent increase in home and community supports for seniors….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. T. Lake: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

They know the dismal record of the ’90s. That’s why they’re so defensive. That’s why they react so strongly when anyone mentions it. And now they stand up every single day: “Spend more here. Spend more there. Spend more over here.” But they get in the way of every single bit of economic development that would pay for those increased services.

Their answer: “Just raise taxes. Just raise taxes some more.” Then we can spend on all of these things, all of these ideas that the members opposite have.

We’ll continue to grow the economy. Despite the party of no over there, we’ll continue to grow the economy and provide the valued services that British Columbians deserve.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

J. Thornthwaite: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth for the fifth session of the 40th Parliament.

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

Motion approved.

J. Thornthwaite: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Thornthwaite: I move that the report be adopted, and in so doing, I would like to make some brief comments.

The report summarizes the committee’s activities in 2015 and 2016. The committee reviewed six reports of the Representative for Children and Youth, one joint report of the Representative for Children and Youth and the provincial health officer, and the representative’s 2014-15 annual report and 2015-16 to 2016-17 service plan.

The report also provides an overview of the committee’s special project on child and youth mental health. The committee completed more than two years of work on this project with the release of their final report titled Concrete Actions for Systemic Change in January 2015.

I would like to thank the former Deputy Chair, the member for Stikine and the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin for their service to the committee over those years. I thank all the committee members for their contributions to the work of this committee over the past year.

As noted in the committee’s annual report, 2016 was the final year of service by Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as Representative for Children and Youth. I want to recognize her many years of dedication to that role.

I’d also like to acknowledge the support of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. On behalf of all committee members, thank you for the important work that you do.

With that, I move adoption of the report.

M. Karagianis: On behalf of our Deputy Chair, and as a past-serving Deputy Chair, I would like to respond to this and urge members to accept this report.

I would like to take a moment to say thank you to all of the members of the committee. As members know, I am not running for re-election. This is probably the last opportunity I’ll get to speak about this committee.

I have served on it since its inception, and it has been an enormous privilege to work with all of the members and to work with the representative for children and families. And especially to our past Chairs, I would like to offer congratulations for the really terrific work we did.

It has been one of the few select standing committees that has done outstanding bipartisan work. We have accomplished wonderful things. We moved beyond our mandate and went out and conducted a poverty forum and helped educate this House on the true situation of poverty issues that face this province.

We then extended, under the current Chair, our mandate to go out and seek education on child and youth mental health issues and did an enormous forum over a long period of time and produced some really excellent and profound information for this House, to help to educate this House.

[ Page 13740 ]

It has been an extreme pleasure and privilege to have served on the committee for all of these years and to have worked with all of the committee members, past and present, and to have done excellent work. It is not often that you get a chance to feel this kind of pride for the job that we do on both sides of the House, so I thank everyone for their participation. It has been really a wonderful experience to have sat on this committee for so long.

[1435]

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. T. Lake: I rise to reserve my right to raise a point of privilege.

Debate Continued

Madame Speaker: Anyone else speaking to the committee report?

The motion before you is a question of adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

R. Austin: I would like to present a petition from the Catholic Women’s League and other concerned citizens, signed by 127 people from my community in Kitimat.

They are requesting that the government ensure a separation of the delivery of assisted suicide and euthanasia from current hospice and palliative care facilities to ensure the trust of vulnerable patients and their families. As well, they would like to ensure that health care workers have the freedom of conscience to not participate in assisted suicide if they so choose.

H. Bains: I have a petition to present to the House signed by 21,590 petitioners.

It reads that Sikhs have played a vital role in building a diverse and prosperous Canada and continue to contribute on all levels. Over the past few decades, members of the Sikh community who wear turbans have encountered difficulties in their workplace with respect to wearing hard hats instead of their turbans. This is contrary to the tenets of the Sikh religion. Sikhs have worked at all places with their turbans in hard hat areas in the U.S. since 1975 and in the U.K. since 1989.

The Sikh community would like to request that your government allow a person who practises the Sikh religion to have unshorn hair, to habitually wear a full turban and to be exempt from wearing a hard hat at their workplace.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

C. James: I rise to continue my response to Budget 2017. I’ll just outline the topics that I’m going to cover today and use my time.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

I want to start off with talking about the choices this government has made. I heard very little about choices. The government talks about budgets being about decisions. Well, I’d like to go through some of those decisions and go through some of those choices.

The second area that I’d like to cover during my time today is to talk about the impact of those choices. Choices are made, and there are direct impacts on people and on families. I’d like to take some time to talk a little bit about the impact of those choices and what people and families in this province are facing after 16 years of this government.

I’d like to talk about the reality of B.C.’s economy and take some time to put the real facts on the table about B.C.’s economy — the record on jobs, the two British Columbians — and talk a little bit about that.

I’d like to talk, as well, about what the public asked for in the budget. I’ve had the honour of sitting on the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, where we travel the province. It’s an opportunity to hear directly from the public. So I’d like to take some time to talk a little bit about what the public was talking about over the last number of years that I’ve sat as Finance critic. Then I’d like to close off by talking about some possibilities and some strengths. I am the designated speaker as well.

I want to start off with choices. The minister, in this budget — and, certainly, in the government throne speech as well — talked a lot about this government’s record. The Finance Minister said — I’ll just read a few things from both the throne speech and the budget — in his opening remarks that his government was committed to moving away from feast-or-famine budgets. Well, in fact, Budget 2017 is just the opposite of moving away from feast-and-famine budgets. The government even admits in the budget that they’ve tightened their belt. They’ve not been able to provide resources to the public and to services, and now is the time that they’re looking at it.

[1440]

Well, to me, that, in fact, is the definition of feast-and-famine budgets. That’s exactly what the minister said he is committed to not doing. But, in fact, Budget 2017 was

[ Page 13741 ]

just that — one of the wildest examples of that. I’ll get into the specifics as we go along.

This government actually said that they were committed to social investments. Well, that certainly is all of a sudden — ignore social investments for 15 years, and then when you bring out a budget at election time, all of a sudden decide that “We’re committed to social investments.”

Well, I can tell you that is no way to run a government. That is no way to put a budget together. I’ll talk about the individual impacts of that over the time that I have.

The minister also said that he was committed to the most important service that he believes government funds, and that’s education. Well, I don’t know how the Finance Minister could stand up and say that in this House when it was this government that spent the last 16 years going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, with taxpayer dollars, to not have to put money into education. For the Finance Minister to stand up and say that the most important service is providing money to education is unbelievable after 16 years of starving the system. It took the Supreme Court of Canada to force them to put money back into education. Incredible.

The other piece…. This is again why it’s an alternate reality if you look at this budget. The government also said in this budget speech that they were committed to affordability. Well, that would be laughable if it wasn’t so painful for people in this province over the last 16 years. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t the public who have been struggling to get by, for the government, all of a sudden, now in an election year, to say that they’re committed to affordability. Unbelievable.

The government also talked in the budget speech, and the Finance Minister talked in his budget speech, about years of sacrifice by all of us in British Columbia, and that the government is now in a position to pay you back, to invest in your household and to invest in your families. In the throne speech, the government said we have “the ability to do more, and to be caring from strength.” “We want to give back to you.”

The government says they’re in a position to give back to you. Well, let’s remember — and I don’t believe any member of the public will forget this — that it isn’t the government’s money. They’re not giving it back to you. They took it from you in the first place.

That’s what this government did. They took that money in the first place. It’s the public’s money. It’s money that the government took and now says we’ll share a little bit back. “Because of our work, we did such a great job taking money from you, now we’re going to give a little bit of it back, and you should all be so happy that we’re doing that. It was our good management that did that.”

Well, the surplus this government is claiming came directly from the public. It’s the public’s money. It was taken from medical service premium increases. It was taken from tuition doubling. It was taken from ICBC rates and hydro rates and the property transfer tax.

This government is actually attempting to have you believe that after years of taking and taking and taking, they suddenly care about you. Well, I do not believe that the public is going to forget this government’s record. The choices that this government has made have directly impacted British Columbians, and now they expect the people of this province to be grateful?

The government, after years of taking away, says that they’re going to give a little bit back, hoping that all of us are just going to forget everything they’ve done to make the public’s life more difficult. And by the way, it just happens to be an election year. What a coincidence. It’s a pattern. It’s a pattern we saw from this government in 2013. It’s a pattern we’re seeing again.

[1445]

The people of this province know that this Premier and this government are not working for them. They know that this tactic of cutting services and cutting programs, raising fees and raising costs — the public pays more, and you get less — is simply a crass election tactic, simply an election tactic by this government.

Now, this government spent a lot of time in the throne speech and the budget speech talking about their decisions and their choices that led to the surplus. But I happened to notice that they spent very little time, in fact no time, talking about how those decisions and choices have negatively impacted the people of this province. So I’d like to do that. I’d like to take my time to actually talk about what those decisions have done to the people in this province.

Certainly, the Premier and the government hope you’re not going to be looking at their record. They hope this budget will have you forget all the things they’ve done, forget all the fees and the costs, forget how tough things have been.

The public knows differently. They know differently because they face these challenges firsthand. I want to take some time to go through that list, because I certainly don’t expect that we’re going to hear the government talking about it over the next while.

Let’s begin with MSP, medical service premiums. Just in the Premier’s time, so just in the last five years, this Premier has increased medical service premiums by 24 percent. Since 2011, they’ve gone up 24 percent. What does that work out to? It works out to roughly $345 a family. That’s the increase.

This government actually takes in more from MSP than corporate income tax. That’s incredible. When you take a look at what that does to a family budget, when you think of what that increase will cost an average middle-class family…. There are families in this province who pay more in MSP than they do in income tax — more in medical services premiums than they do in income tax. So while we actually hear the government stand up and crow — and you do hear this in the budget, “Lowest taxes, we have the lowest taxes” — they don’t include….

[ Page 13742 ]

Interjection.

C. James: I’d suggest that the members hold their applause, because if you take a look at the lowest taxes and take a look at MSP premiums, in fact families are paying more under this government. I finally heard the Health Minister, actually, in question period, call the MSP a tax. It’s the first time.

This government actually stands up and says: “Oh, it’s not a tax. Our income taxes are low.” They don’t include things like MSP. They don’t include all the additional costs like hydro and ICBC. That’s the choice this government made. “Oh, yeah, don’t worry. Look over here. Things aren’t bad. Don’t pay attention over here where we’ve increased costs for you and your family.”

As we know, MSP is one of the most regressive taxes there is. If you make $45,000 as a family or you make $400,000 as a family, you pay exactly the same premium. That’s an unfair tax, and this government has continued and continued with this tax.

What does Budget 2017 do to MSP? Well, it announces that the government has seen the light. They’re going to actually eliminate MSP premiums eventually, they say, and they’re going to begin by reducing our MSP premiums. Well, as I said at the start, there’s no question that this is an election year. This budget makes it obvious. It was only six months ago that the government, the Finance Minister and others across the way actually mocked the NDP for even suggesting that the MSP premium should be gone. They actually said….

Do you want to go ahead?

Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. Speaker, I wonder if I could just seek leave of the House to advise people of the situation with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

Leave granted.

Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

[1450]

Hon. R. Coleman: The member wasn’t feeling well last night. He wasn’t feeling well in question period. He is in the hands of the paramedics. He is in good shape. He wishes us all well. He says he expects to be back soon, so it probably sounds like a minor flu or something. We thought that rather than have speculation and rumour going around the building, I would stand up on behalf of the government and keep you up to date about the member’s condition.

Thank you, Member.

C. James: Thank you for the update. I think many of us were wondering, so I appreciate the update.

Back to MSP. As I said, the government said that they wouldn’t look at MSP premiums, that it was important for the public to actually make a payment so that they knew that health care costs them something.

I heard the Finance Minister say that. I heard the Premier say that it was really important for them to get that separate bill so that they understood that there was a link between income — between the money that they had — and the health care system. Well, I don’t know anyone in the public who doesn’t know that it costs something to provide health care. I think everybody in our province is well aware that there are costs to our health care system.

What the public was rejecting was a regressive tax like the MSP, where you make $45,000 or you make $400,000 and you pay the same amount. The public understands that. That is not fair. They get that. So for the government now, after all of this time, to say that it was not something that should happen, that the NDP was being ridiculous when we thought we were going to look at MSP premiums….

Now the government comes forward at election time and says: “Forget what we’ve said. Forget everything we’ve done. Now we care about it. Now we’re going to move and look at it. By the way, you’re going to see them reduced by 50 percent.” Well, let’s not forget that this government actually increased MSP premiums. They’ve doubled them since 2002. So taking 50 percent away is actually taking away the increase that this government presented and took away from British Columbians. So it’s not a huge savings. It’s giving back some of the money that the government has gouged from the public over the last 12 years.

They’ve doubled MSP premiums, and now they want you to think that they’re going to fix their damage. Well, if you needed anything to show you that this was an election budget, it’s that commitment and that promise. The government wants you to forget what they’ve done over all of these years and just take a look at the election budget.

As we’ve said, as our leader has said, you can’t take a bad tax and make it better. You have to eliminate a bad tax, and that’s what needs to happen to MSP premiums.

Let’s take a look at another choice that this government made. Again, when we talk about choices that this government has made — the lists that you don’t see mentioned in the discussion, the lists that you don’t see mentioned in the throne speech or the budget response from the Finance Minister — one of those choices is the issue of hydro rates. What’s happened to hydro rates under this government and, actually, directly under this Premier? Hydro rates have skyrocketed. They’ve gone up 30 percent since 2011. What has that cost the taxpayer? That’s cost the average taxpayer $375 more every single year.

While the government has increased hydro rates since 2011 by 30 percent, they’ve also decided to take an unprecedented $700 million a year out of Hydro and put it to their bottom line. In other words, they padded their surplus with money from Hydro. Who has to pay for that? The public. The public has to pay for that.

[ Page 13743 ]

The government wanted to come forward and say how terrific everything is. Well, as I said, it’s not terrific for families. Not terrific for hard-working British Columbians. Not terrific to people who talk about the tough choices they have to make because they can’t afford to pay their hydro bill.

[1455]

Don’t forget that in the last election, in 2013, the Premier stood up and said that she didn’t think hydro increases were going to be necessary, that you weren’t going to see them. That’s what she said before the election. After the election — a 30 percent increase in hydro rates and continuing to go up. That doesn’t take into account the challenges that are going to be left at Hydro because of the government taking money to pad their budget.

What about the other Crown corporation, ICBC? Again, a Crown corporation. I think this is really important for all of us to recognize: these Crown corporations belong to the public. They don’t belong to the government. They belong to the public, and the public are the shareholders of those Crown corporations. But you would never know that, given how the government treats ICBC and Hydro as their own piggy banks to put money into the surplus so that they can look good when it comes to election year and make you pay for it.

What’s happened to ICBC rates? When budgets come forward, particularly in an election year, it’s important to take a look at what the government’s record is — not simply to look at the promise they made, not simply to look at what’s there but to actually look at the track record. This government has a 16-year track record. If we take a look at this Premier’s record alone from 2011, the ICBC rate increase, 36 percent, has cost drivers $235 more each year. And what’s it predicted to do? Go up 42 percent in the next five years. That’s the prediction.

What about ferry fares? Again, it’s a vital service for families and the economy on Vancouver Island. I’ve lived on Vancouver Island most of my life. I moved here when I was five years old, and I know that the ferry fares aren’t simply a challenge for families. They’re a challenge for the economy of Vancouver Island. They’re a challenge for economic growth for Vancouver Island.

There was a wonderful report put together for the Union of B.C. Municipalities — which members will be meeting with later today — a few years back that was presented and that talked about the challenges to the economy of ferry fares continuing to rise.

What choice did this government make on ferry fares? Again, since 2001, fares have gone up 80 percent on major routes and 100 percent on minor routes. What does that mean to the bottom line? That’s what matters to families: how much families are having to put out. That means a family of four on a round trip to Vancouver pays $216 — $96 more, under this government. That has a direct impact. It’s a choice this government made that has a direct impact on families and their bottom line, a direct impact on affordability for people, at a time when most families can least afford it.

Even camping fees. Even camping fees went up — one of those last vestiges of a holiday or an opportunity for families to be able to find a chance to get away for a weekend that isn’t too expensive and that they might be able to manage. Even those have increased five times since 2001, and they’ve actually doubled in the largest and the most popular campgrounds in B.C., which tend to be those campgrounds close to large urban settings. At the same time, we saw the parks budget cut by 40 percent since 2001.

Again, what kind of a commitment is that to families? That’s certainly not a choice that I’ve heard the government talking about in their budget speech, not a choice I hear the government crowing about — but a choice this government made that has a direct impact on families.

What about tuition fees? Well, tuition fees have more than doubled since 2001. Graduate fees have in fact tripled. It cost the average UBC student at least $10,000 more, under this government, to complete a four-year degree.

[1500]

Education is an opportunity that families work hard to save for, to provide that chance for their young person to head off to college or to university. For many families, it’s their opportunity to get out of the cycle of poverty, to be able to have hope for the future.

Yet for many families that I talked to, to think about coming out with these kinds of huge debts is overwhelming. They couldn’t even imagine being able to save the amount that would be needed to be able to even get a student loan, to be able to even get into university or college. That creates even a bigger social divide in our province, which isn’t good for people and certainly isn’t good for the economy as well.

Now, I’m glad to know that student loan interest rates are finally going to be dropped in this budget, but I think it’s important to note that we were the only province that was gouging students in this kind of way. We had the highest interest rate in the entire country, right here in British Columbia: 33 percent higher, in fact, than the Canadian average.

Again, the government is hoping you’ll forget that. They’re hoping you’ll just take a look at this budget that they tabled and not remember their record — their record of making life more difficult for families in British Columbia.

It’s not that people expect government to fix everything. The families and the citizens that I talk to understand the government can’t fix everything. In fact, they want to do their part. They’re working hard, many of them two jobs. They’re doing their best to try and find money that they can put away to save for their kids’ education, to be able to provide that support.

What people don’t expect is their government to make their life tougher. They don’t expect government to get

[ Page 13744 ]

in the way of the hard work that they’re doing. Yet that’s just what this government has done.

Let’s take a look at child care costs — again, a huge burden for families. We’re second only to Ontario in our big cities when it comes to child care costs. There are families who are paying more in their child care costs than they are in their mortgage payments. That says a lot when you take a look at the skyrocketing housing costs, and I’ll get back to that.

No fix in Budget 2017. Nothing to address that challenge for families. Nothing to say to them, “We understand that raising children is one of the most important jobs you could do” — that providing quality child care is not only right for families, but it’s right for the economy.

It’s an opportunity for families, for women in particular, to get back into the workforce. It raises productivity for employees. I have to tell you…. The number of employees I’ve talked to and families that I’ve talked to who have said that having quality child care has meant that they can focus on their work…. They’re not worried about where their children are.

That when there’s a challenge…. Particularly if you look at an organization like Telus, who has put a child care centre into a couple of their workplaces, for parents to be able to take that lunch hour and go and visit their children, go and take some time to say hello — run down, have that visit — that’s good for the parents. That’s fantastic for the children. It provides quality child care.

It’s also good for the economy, because your employees are much more productive. You have less turnover when people aren’t scrambling to try and find child care. We’ve all heard the stories, and I’m sure it’s not simply this side of the House. I’m sure the other side of the House has heard the stories of parents who, the day they get their pregnancy test, put their name on as many wait-lists as they can for child care, because that’s how desperate people are. That’s how desperate people are.

Well, again, I think part of government’s job is helping families with a hand up, not a hand out, providing support for that infrastructure to be there so that women can go back — mainly women — into the workforce, so that families can make the choices that they want to make. That wasn’t fixed in this budget.

These are choices that have had a direct, negative impact on families. I have to say that one of the most glaring choices, from my perspective, and a choice that really does speak to this government’s priorities more than any other, is the $1 billion tax cut for the top 2 percent of income earners. The Premier and this government made a choice after the last election to eliminate the top tax bracket for people earning $150,000 or more after tax. That’s individuals, not families. That costs almost $1 billion over a four-year term.

[1505]

I think it’s important for everyone to remember that when this government stands up and says: “We’re going to invest in you. We’re going to invest in your family. We’re going to pay you back.” Well, in fact, they did pay someone back in 2013. They did pay back the top income earners. They did decide to take care of those people. They actually invested in the top 2 percent of high-income earners while the rest of the families in British Columbia were stuck with more fees and services. Families were having to put out over $1,000 for Hydro rates, for ICBC rates, for MSP premiums.

So it’s pretty clear from our perspective, and I believe from the public’s perspective, where the loyalty of this government lies and what this government cares about. While they told the public to tighten their belts, while they left the most vulnerable without supports, millionaires certainly got their break. That was the choice that this government made.

While this government took away a $45-a-year bus pass from people with disabilities, making life tougher for the most vulnerable, they gave a tax break to the top 2 percent. That’s a choice. This government is right; it is about choices. That’s a choice that this government made, and I think that’s important for all of us to remember.

This government also chose, in 2002, to make drastic cuts to supports for the most vulnerable — the Ministry for Children and Families. What’s happened over the last 16 years? This government didn’t invest. They didn’t invest in children and families. They didn’t invest in youth mental health and addictions and recovery services, people struggling on income assistance, people struggling on disabilities or affordable housing. Those were not large investments made by this government, and there’s a consequence to that. There’s a consequence to years of neglect.

I heard the minister in this forget-everything budget, in this Budget 2017, that he presented. Now they’ve decided to put investments in, in children and families, in mental health. Well, it doesn’t make up for those 16 years. It’s not the right thing to do for those people who lost out all those years. I think, as others on this side of the House do, about Alex Gervais. His entire life, not getting the kinds of supports and services that he needed — the basic supports and services to be loved and cared for and looked after.

Again, when we talk about the Ministry for Children and Families, the ministry is a parent for children who are in care. That’s their legal obligation. Children who are taken into care — the government then has the responsibility to be the parent for those children. This government has failed so many in this province. What does it say when it’s election year and they want you to forget

[ Page 13745 ]

that record and just take a look over here? It says that’s not a real commitment.

You know, I think of the families that I meet with in my constituency office, who come in talking about what it’s been like to try and find supports for their young person with mental health or addictions issues. These are heartbreaking stories. These are individual families who have mortgaged their house, who’ve gone from office to office, who’ve phoned and been put on wait-list after wait-list because there aren’t supports and services, or they can’t navigate what isn’t a system. It’s just a broken up bit of services and supports that have long wait-lists.

[1510]

The people who work in the system have done an extraordinary job over these last 16 years — extraordinary — under very difficult circumstances. I talk to those outreach workers and I talk to those social workers, who are in tears at the end of a day because they haven’t been able to do the kind of work that they want to do. They haven’t been able to meet with the children in care that are on their caseload. Because their caseload is so large, they aren’t able to get to them all. They aren’t able to do the good work that they went into the field for.

Believe me, no one goes into the field of outreach work or community support work or social work for the resources. They go in because they care. They go in because this work means something to them, because they want to make a difference. There is nothing worse than people who are in those caring professions not being able to do a quality job because they don’t have the resources and the supports that they need. That’s what’s happened. That’s what’s happened over the last 16 years.

It isn’t building a strong economy when you starve a system and then decide in an election year that you’re going to put a little, tiny bit back. That isn’t building a strong economy. That’s not a good budget. That’s not good financial management.

I hear the government talk about deficits. We’ve had a social deficit. That’s the situation we have in British Columbia, and it is the children and those families who have paid the price.

Let’s remember, again, that while the government was telling everybody to tighten their belts, and those children and those families weren’t able to get the services and supports they needed, the government certainly found money to spend on their priorities. I mentioned the tax break for the top 2 percent. Well, there are more choices that this government has made. What about doubling political ad spending? Up to $15 million of your tax dollars for those ads that people are seeing running constantly. That’s a choice made by this government.

I’m sure we’ll hear it’s simply a coincidence that all of a sudden, you see all of the government ads and all the government spending happening just a few months before the election. The public sees through that. The public knows that the only reason that the government is putting more money into government advertising is that we’re coming up to an election year. That’s the only reason we see these ads running.

This government made a choice to find $1 million to spend on photographers for the Premier. That’s, again, a choice made by this government. Then I haven’t even touched on all of the information technology computer systems that this government either messed up or scrapped or had to redo.

Let’s remember BCeSIS, the system that was put together for the K-to-12 system, where $97 million was spent putting this information technology system in place. Then what did the government do? They scrapped it. It was so bad, it couldn’t even be fixed after they put $97 million into it, so they had to toss it out.

Well, $97 million, $1 million in photographers and $15 million in doubling the advertising budget. When this Premier talks about tightening your belt, it was very clear that those weren’t the choices being made by the Premier for her choices. Those weren’t the choices being made by the Premier for her priorities or this government’s priorities. But the public’s priorities? Too bad. That’s just too bad. “There are tough times.”

The integrated case management system in Social Development and Ministry of Children and Family Development — $182 million. And the Auditor General said this week that there are still privacy problems with that computer system. There are still issues that haven’t been worked out.

Well, think about if that system had actually worked from the start or had been cost-effective. Certainly, the staff that I talk to in the field gave lots of feedback to the government about how to do it differently. They talked a lot about the importance of consulting people in the field before you develop a computer system for them.

[1515]

Seems kind of basic to me that if you’re developing a computer system for people in a workplace, you’re going to talk to them first to see what makes sense. Well, even the government had to admit that that didn’t happen with the integrated case management system. They didn’t spend time talking to the social workers on the front line or the employment counsellors on the front line.

We had stories. I went into an office to see the challenge that some of the employment counsellors had on the computer system. It took 22 steps through the computer system to be able to provide a bus pass — a one-trip bus pass — to an individual who was going out to look for a job. That’s 22 steps on the computer system, and if you missed one, you had to go back to the start again. If there was a mistake on one of those 22 steps, you had to start all over again. I had workers say to me: “I took the money out of my pocket.

I provided it to my client because I felt bad for the poor client who had come in to see me and who was stuck while I was stuck in front of the computer system, not providing the kind of quality support.”

[ Page 13746 ]

What kind of support and what kind of service does that give? But those were choices made by this government, choices that they felt were more important than taking a look at supporting the most vulnerable or giving some affordability to families.

Let’s take some time now. As I said, I wanted to talk about choices this government made. I’d like to take some time to just review the consequences of this government’s choices, because as we all know — and certainly, as parents, as we tell our children — every decision has a consequence to it. Certainly, many of this government’s decisions have had a profound impact on the people in British Columbia. I do not expect you’ll hear the government, in their response to the budget, talking about that. I do not expect we’ll hear a lot about the consequences on people. So I think it’s important to take some time to run through that.

The first clear consequence has been the affordability crisis that we see in B.C. I have never heard so many concerns on the issue of affordability as I have in the last number of years in my constituency office, and from such a wide range of individuals over the last five years. This is an issue that is impacting so many. It’s certainly impacting people living in poverty — families, individuals, seniors — but it’s also impacting the working poor. It’s impacting people who are struggling with precarious part-time work, and those are often younger workers who are put in those kinds of positions.

It’s also impacting the middle class, who are working hard, trying to get by and just not able to get ahead.

I want to start off by talking about the most vulnerable. British Columbia, as we all know, is one of the most expensive places to live in our country. We have the second-highest rate of child poverty in the country and the highest rate of working poverty — those with employment. Let’s just take a minute to think about that, because I think most people think that people living in poverty are people who aren’t working, people who don’t have jobs, people on income assistance or with disabilities. In fact, we have the highest rate of working poverty in this country, which means individuals who have jobs, who are working and who are living in poverty.

With all of that record, we are the only province in this country that doesn’t have a poverty reduction plan. Did Budget 2017 change that? No. It did nothing to address that.

Now, we’ve heard a lot about the crisis in housing and affordable housing, and I’ll come back to talk a little bit more about some details on that issue. But I’d just like everyone to imagine what it’s like being on income assistance or disability and trying to find a place to live. The impact of this government’s choices to ignore the crisis for those on income assistance and on disability is seen on our streets every single day. Individuals who can’t find a place to live. It’s impossible, at $610 a month as your total income, to try and find a place to live, in rural or urban settings.

[1520]

Individuals want to get out of the cycle of poverty and are stuck because the supports and a hand up just aren’t there for those individuals.

Now, I’ve heard the Premier and I’ve heard the Finance Minister and I’ve heard other members on that side of the House say that a job is the best poverty plan. Well, that’s ignoring the reality for many, many individuals who are living on income assistance and living on disability.

Just imagine having to look for work when you have an abscessed tooth and you can’t get any dental care, when you’re not able to get any kind of support. When you have infections, the response that I’ve heard from this government, from the individual offices, is that the government will pay, through income assistance, for you to have your teeth pulled, but it won’t pay for the dentures to replace your teeth once they’re pulled.

Now, that may seem like a dramatic thing to say in this Legislature, but it’s a reality for people out there. How do you tell someone to go and find a job and look for work when basic dental care that they need to be able to go to see an employer is not available for them, when you can’t afford a phone or you have no home and no connection for anybody to reach you when you’re told to go out and look for employment? You won’t have a bus pass anymore because you had to give up the bus pass to be able to get that little bit of extra resources to support yourself.

Then when you need to go and check email and see if an employer has got back to you, or apply on line for a job, you stand in line at the public library. Thank goodness for public libraries because they’ve become much more than simply a place for lending books. They’ve become a community hub. They’ve become a community hub, in many settings, for individuals on income assistance and disability. They provide an opportunity for people to be able to access the Internet, to be able to access job searches.

But if you ever visit a public library, you’ll know that there’s only so much time you can spend on those computers because someone else is waiting behind you to be able to get on there. Well, imagine trying to look for work when that’s the only option you have or when you don’t have clean clothes and you certainly don’t have money to be able to go to the laundromat.

Or what about the supports for your mental health issues? When you’re not able to get those kinds of supports and you’re struggling with anxiety or so many other challenges that people with mental health are facing, the government says to you: “The best way to get out of poverty is go and get a job.” Well, unless you get those supports, that’s not even possible for you as an individual.

Then think about those who need to upgrade their education, those who are taking a look at trying to better themselves — perhaps in a minimum wage job, perhaps hoping that they’re able to upgrade themselves and get into better-paying employment. They find out that they need grade 12 science. They didn’t need grade 12 science

[ Page 13747 ]

to graduate when they graduated, but they need grade 12 science to go into a care aide program, for example, or a nursing program that will really help them get their family out of poverty.

Well, those individuals aren’t going to go back. Many of them have been turned down by systems for years. You finally get them to access the course. They finally go to a college or university. In many communities, for First Nations communities, school was not a warm and welcoming place. It was not good memories. The opportunity for them to access free courses and free upgrading is huge. Well, that’s now a barrier.

[1525]

Did that change in Budget 2017? No. Is that door to opportunity open by this government? No. In fact, it’s slammed shut. That’s a reality for individuals trying to get out of the cycle of poverty. That’s the real human consequence of this government’s choices.

What’s another consequence that we’re seeing because of this government’s choices that they’ve made? B.C. has the highest household debt in this country: over $60,000 for every man, woman and child. More than half of British Columbians live paycheque to paycheque — 53 percent — and 49 percent say they can’t save any money at all. And 47 percent of all British Columbians — again, the highest rate in all of Canada — say they’re within $200 a month of being unable to pay their bills. That’s a consequence of this government’s choices.

Budget 2017 doesn’t change that. People are going to have to continue to pay the increasing and rising costs of MSP. No changes come until January 2018, even if the government choices happen. Hydro increases, ICBC rates, tuition costs. As well, more British Columbians rely on expensive payday loans than in any other province. What’s the consequence of that? Never getting out of the cycle of poverty — being stuck.

I was on a call with an individual constituent of mine last week who phoned to tell me that she had gone, during the snowstorm in Victoria, to the income assistance office. She’s on disability and income assistance. She hasn’t had a new coat for 12 years, she hasn’t had new shoes for ten years, and it snowed.

She’d heard that there was an emergency grant that you could get at the income assistance office if you had an emergency. She has never, in all of her years being on disability, gone for an emergency grant. She said: “I don’t like to ask for help. I think there are many more people who are more needy than I am, and I don’t like to go and ask for help.” But she was really stuck — holes in her shoes, no winter coat, snowing and predicted to be cold for a few weeks here in Victoria — so she went to her income assistance office.

She first had to phone, because you don’t get an appointment anymore. They actually don’t have an ability for you to go get an appointment. You have to go on line, or you have to make a phone call. So she had to go down to the library, she had to get on line, and she had to try and get an appointment.

She was told that emergency grants don’t cover things like this, that if she’d had a fire in her apartment and all her clothes had burned up, maybe then there was an opportunity to be able to provide her with some support. But that’s not what an emergency grant covers, so she was stuck at home. She was stuck inside.

She mentioned payday loans at the end of that call and said: “I live on a payday loan. I have to get one every month. I can’t survive otherwise.” She said: “I’m really, really serious about paying off that payday loan. I go in there every month, and I make my payments so I don’t have to pay the extra interest. I only pay the huge, exorbitant interest that they already charge me. I pay that.”

She said: “When I go in, because I’m serious about making my payments, they spend ten minutes talking to me about trying to take another loan.” She said it’s a sales time period. “I can’t pay off my bill every month without getting a sales pitch and pressure, every single month, to try and take out another payday loan.”

“It’s great. You’ve paid this one off. You can take out another $100.” Or: “Because you’ve made your payment this month, we can give you another $150.”

She was telling me this, not because of herself, but because she was worried that for so many people on income assistance and disability, that’s the only way they manage to survive.

What about food bank usage, another indicator of this government’s choices? It’s at the highest rate ever in British Columbia. Even charitable giving has dropped. A report came out about charitable giving, and British Columbia has had the largest drop in charitable giving in the country. Again, that’s affordability. People don’t have extra to be able to share. They can’t get by, themselves — they and their family.

[1530]

I mentioned that I would come back to the issue of housing because it is certainly a crisis in our province. We have a runaway speculative housing market that this government did absolutely nothing about until it became a headline problem for this government and this Premier and until there happened to be an election around the corner.

It’s not that they weren’t warned. They were warned by the opposition. They were warned by even the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. They were warned by people who where trying to buy houses that there was a problem in this province, particularly in our urban settings, in the Metro Vancouver area and in Victoria and the capital region.

[ Page 13748 ]

Yet this government ignored it until all of a sudden — just as they’ve done with Budget 2017 — it looked like it was going to be an issue as it came to the election. They want you to forget they did everything, and by the way, “Just look now, when we think we’ve fixed it.”

Well, if I take a look at my own community, we have a 0.06 percent vacancy rate. I hear the stories every single day about the results of this government’s choice not to invest in a long-term, comprehensive housing strategy in this province. Seniors sleeping in their cars. I had those conversations this summer.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Who would have imagined, as an MLA or as someone who grew up in my community, that I’d be having a conversation with a senior who sleeps in her car because that’s the only option she has? She told me she’s grateful for one of the Tim Hortons in town, because they’ll let her go in and use the bathroom and wash up in their sink. That indignity is unacceptable in my community or any single community in British Columbia.

Families unable to find housing. Parents unable to get their kids back who have actually turned their lives around and are looking to get their kids back from government care. But what’s one the one of the requirements when you need to get your children back? Housing. You need to have quality housing.

Well, I defy anyone to find quality housing that’s affordable if you’re a single parent and you’re on disabilities, in my community or in many large communities around this province. What that has meant is that it has squeezed the entire housing market. It has squeezed the rental market, because it’s a speculative real estate market, because prices have gone up. You’ve seen new owners buy rental buildings and decide that they’re going to renovate the buildings. They’re either going to increase the rent, or they’re going to look at turning them into condos.

That has huge consequences. I’ve certainly faced it. I’ve had, I think, three, four, five town hall meetings now with individuals from buildings who have not been treated well, who are not getting the basic respect they deserve as tenants in our community. If those rental accommodations disappear, where are these individuals going to go?

These are individuals who work in our community. Who’s going to do those jobs if you can’t find housing? We’ve had large employers come forward, like Hootsuite, to say that they can’t keep employees because of the cost of living, because it’s too high, because they can’t afford to live in their community where they work.

Again, it’s not simply an issue of not being able to provide good-quality housing to individuals; it’s an economic issue. It has a huge impact on employers. It’s a direct consequence of this government ignoring what they were told over and over and over again, and then thinking at election time that they better fix it. But that’s too little, too late.

I just think of all the lost opportunity in all the areas that I’ve talked about, all the programs and services that have been taken apart. That’s not good economics — to take apart a system, to starve the system for all those years, and then all of a sudden at election time decide to put some resources back in. That doesn’t save money. In fact, it costs more to take that kind of approach.

In the meantime, think of all those consequences for all the individuals. Think of the cost, both human and social. Think of the economic cost of this government’s decisions.

[1535]

What about seniors? We didn’t see any mention of seniors in the throne or the budget, in fact — when we take a look at the kind of lack of care that we’re seeing for seniors in British Columbia, when we read the reports that come out from the seniors advocate, when you see that 91 percent of care homes in this province don’t meet the basic standard for seniors, basic standards meaning a few hours of individual care for things like bathing and toileting.

We’ve asked these questions before, and I’ve heard the Minister of Health say: “Oh, these aren’t issues.” Well, I’ve talked to these families — where their mother has to get up two hours before breakfast because if the care aide doesn’t provide for and get the individual residents she looks after up out of their bed and into a chair, then they won’t be ready to feed in time. They won’t be able to provide them with the care they need.

That’s not quality care for people who built our province, for people who contributed as taxpaying citizens all those years — to not get basic care in care homes. That’s a direct result of this government’s choices to not enforce those standards and not provide the resources to ensure that those standards are provided.

My colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake and I held a seniors forum a couple of weeks ago — an overflowing crowd. We had a care worker from residential care, from home care, who talked about what it’s like to run from appointment to appointment. I support investments in home care, but investments in home care doesn’t mean providing a senior citizen with 15 minutes of someone’s time, which includes the travel time that they have to get to the place and to get out and get to the next place.

That’s not quality care. That’s not providing a senior citizen with the dignity and respect that they deserve. No wonder you see revolving doors. You hear seniors and their families talking about the challenge of having different care aides each time that they have a person come to their place. Well, no wonder, when people go into this work because they care and the situation that they have to work in is to run from appointment to appointment, to deny people basic care that they need. That’s not a strong economy.

What about post-secondary? I talk to young people and their families. They certainly hope that their young people will go to post-secondary, are saving up so that

[ Page 13749 ]

they can go to college or university. But when they do get there, they pay double for their classes if they can even get the course that they want.

The other thing we’re seeing is that lots of post-secondary institutions now are squeezed financially by this government, have had to increase the number of foreign students that come to their university or college. This provides a wealth, a mix of people at universities and colleges. People and students will say that it adds to the experience — but not at the detriment of making courses unavailable for all students. That’s what we’re seeing in some of our colleges and universities.

Then what about the K-to-12 system? Children certainly haven’t been getting the supports that they deserve and that they need in B.C. classrooms, for 15 years. That means that an entire generation of children, for their entire education from kindergarten to grade 12, under this government and under this Premier, have not been getting the basic supports they need because this government and this Premier felt it was more important to pick a fight with teachers than it was to put the resources into our education system.

This government used taxpayer dollars to fight the teachers all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and it took the Supreme Court of Canada to say to this government: “You are wrong. Put the resources back into the classroom.” That’s not a commitment of this government, to now say, “We’re going to put money back into education,” when they had to be forced by the Supreme Court of Canada to put those resources in. That’s no kind of commitment whatsoever.

[1540]

Think of all the children who lost out for all of those years. Think of the lack of teacher-librarians and counsellors and specialist teachers. I know the difference it can make to have a reading recovery or a support teacher in a classroom helping kids who just need that little bit of extra support at the start to be able to shine through the rest of their education.

Or to that child who the music program is what keeps them in school. That’s what makes a difference every day when they go. Those specialist teachers were gone.

Or the counsellor who happens to notice that that child is having a really hard time right now and takes them under their wing and gives them a little bit of extra support so they can go back to the classroom and manage. That’s what was lost. That’s the real human consequence of this government’s decisions.

What about health care — people waiting longer? We’ve had the stories and we’ve told the stories of individuals who have been waiting in pain, progressively getting worse when it comes to their health. The people who can’t find doctors. That is a huge issue in our province. Not able to find a health care team to be able to provide them with quality, ongoing care. Not able to get diagnosis treatments. Not able to get basic supports.

Then there are those, as I mentioned earlier, struggling with mental health and addictions, and people who haven’t been able to navigate the bits and pieces of service that are out there. Those are the human consequences to the choices that this government has made.

I talked about children in care earlier — endless empty promises. I sat as the critic for Children and Families for a couple of years, and I have to tell you I asked questions over and over again of this minister as the government would come forward and say they were going to implement this recommendation or implement that recommendation. Was anything put forward? No. We’d ask questions about resources, and resources weren’t there. That’s a consequence of this government’s decision.

I see a member who’d like to make an introduction.

G. Hogg: I seek leave to make introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

G. Hogg: I have a wonderful group of students from White Rock Christian here, their teachers and a number of parents supervising them. They are exceptionally fine rap singers. They’re quite engaged in the political process. Three of them are colour-blind, they told me, so they really do like my blue suit. Please welcome the group who came here from White Rock Christian to the Legislature.

Debate Continued

C. James: Now I want to take a little bit of time. I’ve talked about the choices that this government has made. I’ve talked about the human impact of the choices that this government has made. I just want to take a little bit of time to move on to the reality, the real facts, about B.C.’s economy.

I want to start by saying that a prosperous economy that benefits all British Columbians should be a goal that everyone in this House strives for, but it’s not what we see in Budget 2017. That’s not the goal that is being worked on by this government — in fact, just the opposite. That’s why I want to take a look at a few numbers that don’t often get brought forward by this government when they talk about the economy.

We’ve seen very clearly in this province that the growth of B.C.’s economy has really been focused on a speculative, out-of-control housing market. That’s not sustainable. It impacts hundreds of thousands of families who can’t afford to live in their own communities. The Royal Bank of Canada housing affordability index shows it takes 87.6 percent of the median income to afford an average house in the greater Vancouver area — 87.6 percent of the median income to buy an average house in the Vancouver area. That’s the highest ever recorded in

[ Page 13750 ]

all of Canada. That’s what the speculative real estate market has done.

[1545]

Those aren’t just numbers. Those are families. Those are workers who aren’t able to be in the community, stay in the community or provide their expertise to all of us as tax-paying citizens.

Those numbers impact families who are looking at home ownership. They also impact, as I said earlier, tenants and renters. As vacancy rates drop, the rents go up. The market is skewed, and there isn’t that balance that you need for people to be able to move from accommodation to accommodation, for renters to move into housing and to provide opportunities for more renters to move into those rental markets. You need that continuum of housing to provide affordability and support to individuals in our province. That has gone because of this speculative market.

Let’s unpack some of the numbers that the government talks about often. The government talks about giving security to hard-working British Columbians when it comes to jobs. Well, in fact, in British Columbia, part-time jobs grew almost four times faster than full-time jobs. Part-time growth in our province was 7.6 percent, and full-time job growth was 2 percent.

While the government likes to talk about employment and employment numbers, I think all we have to do — the sad example, from my perspective — is to take a look at the forest industry. Now, this is an industry that built British Columbia, that has been part of our past and should be part of our future. Yet if we take a look just at that industry alone….

The Quesnel sawmill closed in 2014, 209 direct jobs. The West Fraser Houston mill, 2014, 225 direct jobs. The Tolko mill in Merritt closed in December 2016, resulting in a loss of 203 direct jobs. The Canfor mill in Canal Flats closed permanently in November 2015, laying off 75 employees — or 170, when you consider the employees who were laid off earlier in the year. In August 2016, Catalyst Paper shut down one of its three magazine paper machines at the Powell River mill, 50 job losses. Pinnacle Renewable Energy closed its Quesnel pellet plant in May 2016.

They said they were unable to secure sustainable, economically available fibre to support the operation of the mill. That’s just a short list of the challenges in that industry.

When the government talks about things in the economy being strong and it being well for everyone, certainly not for those families, certainly not for those communities. They haven’t seen the kind of boom that the government has talked about in this budget.

What does it look like when you take a look at the statistics around wage growth? Well, B.C., in fact, had the worst record in the country when it comes to wage growth. When adjusted for inflation, wage growth fell by 1.1 percent in British Columbia. Since 2011, when the Premier became the Premier, B.C. has had the worst record of wage growth. It’s no surprise that affordability would be a crisis for people in our province when you take a look at flat wage growth. It’s no surprise that we see the kinds of debt levels I talked about earlier or the increasing use of payday loans or the increasing use of food banks.

It’s no surprise when you take a look at the numbers below the numbers that the government puts forward.

We have the largest wealth gap in the country right here in British Columbia. I don’t think there’s an economist who doesn’t come forward in these times to talk about the challenge of growing inequality. That’s a global issue, and it’s an urgent issue right here in British Columbia. It needs to be addressed, not simply because it’s the right thing to do but because it’s also the right economic thing to do. An economy isn’t strong if everyone isn’t benefiting. We need to make sure we address inequality.

[1550]

Growing income inequality is going to be huge this next year continued. A report just came out from CIBC that talks about the growing income inequality across this country but, more importantly, right here in British Columbia. What did that report say? It says that growing income inequality divides communities. People trust each other less. There’s more emphasis on trying to keep up with the Joneses, resulting in feelings of alienation and isolation. It divides communities.

Income inequality is also associated with reduced physical and mental health. It decreases children’s well-being. When you add onto that the precarious jobs that we see happening in British Columbia, you end up with a double factor. We see increases in insecurity, meaning that individuals are struggling with precarious employment — poorly paid often, casual, even part-time. Even if you hold more than one of these kinds of jobs, it can be hard to make ends meet.

What’s the impact of that on individuals, often younger workers? There’s an increase in burnout, specifically emotional exhaustion. Workers feel drained and depleted. They have no hope. They begin to dread what’s ahead in their workday. They experience physical symptoms, like chest pain and heart palpitations. They may struggle with anxiety and depression. That’s what happens when we don’t address the issues of precarious work, of low-wage work and of inequality in British Columbia.

In addition to the low wages, in addition to the challenges of building an economy on a speculative real estate market, we also have seen a large portion of that economic growth happen in the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island. We truly are two provinces. We truly see those challenges. In fact, the TD Bank said in January of this year that construction and real estate “explain over 100 percent of the growth” in employment. “In other words, in the absence of this sector, there would be an outright decline in full-time jobs in this province. The real estate sector reflects a concentration risk in job de-

[ Page 13751 ]

mand that marks one reason why we maintain a cautious outlook on employment growth for British Columbia in 2017 and 2018.”

That’s not the opposition putting forward these quotes. This is the TD Bank. The TD Bank has said there is a risk. There’s an economic risk when you base your economy on a speculative real estate market that is going to soften, and it is going to see a slowdown.

Regions outside the Lower Mainland and outside southern Vancouver Island have seen their unemployment rates go up over this last year. The rest of the province is shrinking. The populations, the labour force and the overall employment in every region outside the Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island have been shrinking since 2011, since the Premier became the Premier. Kelowna, the Premier’s own riding, lost 2,400 jobs since she became Premier. The unemployment climbed from 8.6 to 8.9 percent.

Young workers, as I said, have been particularly hard hit. They’re the people that often have to take that part-time temporary work, without benefits, without support. Precarious work really is a reality for many of our young people.

What about the quality of jobs available? I often hear the government talking about all the job vacancies that are there and, as I said earlier, that the best way to address poverty is a job. Well, there’s an interesting new table that’s done by Statistics Canada that looks at job vacancy and wage survey. When you take a look at British Columbia, the current data that’s available, it shows that, in B.C., many of the new jobs that are available, that do have vacancies, are part-time, temporary and low paid. Among the ten occupations with the most job vacancies in 2016, over half of them paid less than $12 an hour — over half of them. That’s Statistics Canada data.

So when the Premier says that a job is the best poverty plan, it’s pretty tough to get out of poverty when you’re living on a wage that’s below the poverty line, when you can’t find affordable housing and when those are the choices and the jobs that are available — low wage, part-time, less than $12 an hour. That’s pretty tough for most families and most individuals I know.

[1555]

Again, when we come to the economy and we hear the government talking about the economy and we hear them boasting about the issue of taxes, let’s not forget, as I said earlier, that this government chose to take from families, take from individuals, in fees and costs.

What has that meant? What has that meant to our economy, and what has that meant to our tax system? Well, it’s meant that B.C.’s tax system has become much less fair over the 16 years of this government. When you start charging people with MSP premiums and Hydro and ICBC rates, those are regressive taxes. They’re not based on your income. They’re not based on how much you make, as would happen if it was the income tax system, where you pay more as you earn more. Those taxes you have to pay regardless.

As I said earlier, on MSP, if you make $45,000 or you make $400,000, you still pay the same amount in MSP. That’s meant that our tax system has become much less fair, much more regressive. That means inequality grows, as I talked about earlier, which isn’t healthy for an economy, isn’t healthy for a community and isn’t healthy for society.

We’ll all remember, in 2002, when the government talked about tax cuts benefiting all British Columbians. I’m sure we all remember that 25 percent tax cut that they all talked about and said it was wonderful. Everyone was going to benefit. In fact, if you analyze that cut, you find out that the reality was actually just the opposite.

With the constant increases in regressive taxes like medical service premiums, the benefits of that tax cut were actually skewed to higher-income earners. Households with income over $400,000 — the richest 1 percent in our province — gained the most from those tax cuts by this government: $39,000 per year on average, compared to the 2000 tax rates.

So in 2002, this government comes in. They make a choice to give a tax break and have benefited the richest 1 percent in a much larger way. For comparison, households with income between $20,000 and $43,500 actually saw their taxes increase since the year 2000. That’s not taking into account the other costs that I’ve talked about, like tuition or ferry fares or housing or child care.

When you take a look at the reality of the economy in British Columbia, it’s no surprise that the public feels that they’re struggling to get by. It’s no surprise that they can’t stretch from paycheque to paycheque. There’s a reason for that, and that reason is this Premier and this government and the choices that they have made.

I heard the minister and the Premier say that they listened to the public. Well, as I said earlier, I’ve had the privilege of sitting on — and it is a privilege, regardless of all the travel and the time….

Interjection.

C. James: Yes. My colleague says that the top 2 percent income earners have certainly benefited and been listened to by this government. But when it comes to the rest of hard-working British Columbians, they’ve been completely ignored.

I travelled the province on that Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It’s always interesting, because that’s a bipartisan committee. It has both sides of the Legislature sitting on it. We come up with a report, and we have come up with a unanimous report over the last number of years, on some very strong recommendations for the Premier and the government to take a look at in the budget.

It’s a chance to hear from people in rural and urban settings all over this province. It’s an opportunity to be

[ Page 13752 ]

able to hear firsthand the issues that matter to them. You get a wide range, believe me, of issues the public comes to present on — things that they care deeply about and that they really want the government to focus on when it comes to setting their budget.

I think it’s important just to take a look at a few of those areas that the public said they felt should be priorities in this Budget 2017.

One of the areas that has been a priority over the last number of years since I’ve sat on the committee — so not just this year, but in fact last year and the year before and the year before that…. Number one priority for the public was schools and education funding.

[1600]

Here we have the public saying: “Put money into K to 12. Put money into education and schools. We believe that’s critical.” Yet the only way we see this government actually listen to the public is when they’re forced to by the Supreme Court. That’s not a commitment. That’s not a commitment to education. That’s being forced to have to put money into something that is a basic service that should have been provided in this province.

The second area is the issue of hospitals and mental health supports. Again, last year it was a priority. The year before, it was a priority, and the year before, it was a priority. You’ll see, as I go through a couple of these, that there is a clear pattern — a clear pattern where the government wants to starve the system of those supports and then, when it comes to an election year, say to the public: “Don’t look at our record. Forget about everything that’s happened over the last 16 years. Just take a look at Budget 2017.” Well, that’s not good enough. Simply not good enough.

What was the third area that the public requested for the government to set as a priority in this budget? The area of environmental protection and climate change. Barely mentioned. Barely mentioned in Budget 2017. When it comes to listening to the public, the public report…. The government’s own committee that goes out and travels around the province wasn’t listened to by the Finance Minister, wasn’t listened to by the Premier, wasn’t listened to by this government.

What was the fourth priority that people asked for in that report? An increase in social assistance. Was that in Budget 2017? Not at all. In fact, the small amount that they gave to people with disabilities wasn’t enough to even pay for the new bus pass that people on disabilities now have to pay for — didn’t even cover it.

What was No. 5? It was the area of child care, early childhood and poverty reduction. Was that included in the budget? No. Budget 2017 didn’t talk about poverty reduction. It didn’t talk about building a child care system instead of a piecemeal approach that doesn’t provide support to families.

I think that when it comes to child care, we’ll all remember the government crowing about their child care map around this province that basically gave parents a chance to be able to go on line and see where child care spaces didn’t exist. That’s really what that map did. It showed parents all the places that there were no child care spaces and, certainly, no affordable, quality child care spaces that were accessible.

L. Krog: Liberal transparency.

C. James: Yeah. Liberal transparency, my colleague says. I suppose, though, that’s a pretty sad statement but, I think, an accurate statement for the challenge we’re facing in British Columbia.

No. 6: reduce the MSP premiums. Well, I was glad to see that some tinkering is happening in the budget, in Budget 2017. Once again, let’s remember that a 50 percent reduction in MSP premiums basically just makes up for the increases that this Premier and this government have put on families over these last 16 years.

No. 7 priority for the public during the budget consultation: reduce Hydro, Ferries and ICBC rates and costs. Was that in the budget? No. That wasn’t in Budget 2017. People will still have to continue to pay out of pocket. They’ll still pay $1,000 more. They’re not seeing a break in those areas. That wasn’t a priority for the government when it came to their budget. It was a priority for the public but not a priority for the government.

When the government talks about support for families, when the government says they’re listening to the public, their own report shows just the opposite. Their own report shows that they didn’t listen to the public. They didn’t take into account the presentations that were made at that committee. They didn’t take into account the areas the public said should be a priority for them.

In the final piece that I want to talk about today, I want to talk a little bit about possibilities and a little bit about what is possible and opportunities in British Columbia.

[1605]

I think what we really saw in this budget was that the government wants you to believe that everything is fine. They want you to completely forget everything that they’ve done for the last 16 years and believe that in the B.C. Liberals’ world, everything is absolutely fine in British Columbia. Well, people in this province know things aren’t fine. T