British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, February 18, 2016 (40th Parliament, 5th Session) (20160218pm-Hansard-v32n11) (20160218pm Hansard v32n11)

20160218pm-Hansard-v32n11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 40th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) THE HONOURABLE LINDA REID, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281 (P rint) ISSN 1499-2175 (Online) Thursday, February 18, 2016 Afternoon Sitting Volume 32, Number 11

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

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

Norm Letnick Minister of Children and Family Development .......................................................................................................Hon. Stephanie Cadieux Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development and Minister Responsible for TransLink ................ Hon. Peter Fassbender Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

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

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

T eresa W at Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training and Minister Responsible for Labour ...................................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Justice ...............................................................................................................................................................Hon. Suzanne Anton Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ...................................................................................................................................Hon.

Mike Morris Minister of Small Business and Red T ape Reduction and Minister Responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch ........................................................................................................Hon. Coralee Oakes Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation..............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Stilwell Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services ................................................................................................ Hon.

Amrik Virk Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................................................Hon. Todd Stone Minister of State for Emergency Preparedness ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Naomi Y amamoto LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition ...................................................................................................................................................John Horgan Deputy Speaker .............................................................................................................................................................................. Richard T. Lee Assistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surrey-Fleetwood Fleming, Rob (NDP) .......................................................... Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal) .......................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Scott (NDP) ............................................................Alberni–Pacific Rim Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ............................................. Abbotsford-Mission Hamilton, Wm. Scott (BC Liberal) .................................................Delta North Hammell, Sue (NDP) ....................................................

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

Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ....................................................Surrey-Panorama Huntington, Vicki (Ind.) ..................................................................Delta South James, Carole (NDP) .........................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................Esquimalt–Royal Roads Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ............................................................. Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Shuswap Lake, Hon. Dr.

Terry (BC Liberal) ....................Kamloops–North Thompson Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .........................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Richard T. (BC Liberal) ......................................................Burnaby North Letnick, Hon. Norm (BC Liberal) ..............................Kelowna–Lake Country Macdonald, Norm (NDP) ....................................Columbia River–Revelstoke McRae, Don (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Comox Valley Mark, Melanie (NDP) ...........................................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal) ..................................................................Chilliwack Morris, Hon. Mike (BC Liberal) ........................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Michelle (NDP) ..........................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Hon. Coralee (BC Liberal) .............................................Cariboo North Pimm, Pat (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River North Plecas, Dr. Darryl (BC Liberal) .............................................Abbotsford South Polak, Hon.

Mary (BC Liberal) ..............................................................Langley Popham, Lana (NDP) ...................................................................Saanich South Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ................................................................ Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (BC Liberal) ..................................................Richmond East Reimer, Linda (BC Liberal) ........................................

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

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

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

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal).................................................Chilliwack-Hope Trevena, Claire (NDP) .................................................................... North Island Virk, Hon. Amrik (BC Liberal) ............................................. Surrey-Tynehead Wat, Hon. Teresa (BC Liberal) .............................................. Richmond Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (Ind.) .......................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wickens, Jodie (NDP) ..........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Wilkinson, Hon.

Andrew (BC Liberal) ........................ Vancouver-Quilchena Y amamoto, Hon. Naomi (BC Liberal) ................ North Vancouver–Lonsdale Y ap, John (BC Liberal) ......................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ......................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Dr. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West ...................................................... Hon.

Michael de Jong, QC Alberni–Pacific Rim .......................................................................... Scott Fraser Boundary-Similkameen ................................................................ Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ................................................................... Kathy Corrigan Burnaby-Edmonds ..........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .............................................................Jane Jae Kyung Shin Burnaby North ..............................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey .........................................................................David Eby Vancouver-Quilchena ................................................ Hon. Andrew Wilkinson Vancouver–West End ...............................................

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

Hon. Christy Clark Party Standings: BC Liberal 48; New Democratic 33; Independent 2

CONTENTS Thursday, February 18, 2016 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Budget Debate (continued) ................................................................................................................................................... 10499 S. Simpson L. Throness K. Corrigan D. McRae A. Weaver Hon. M. Bernier D. Donaldson L. Reimer B. Routley Hon. P . Fassbender H. Bains

THURSDAY , FEBRUARY 18, 2016 The House met at 1:31 p.m. [Madame Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. A. Wilkinson: Madame Speaker, continuing de- bate on the budget. Budget Debate (continued) S. Simpson: I’m pleased to be back and to finish up my last ten minutes or so before my time is done. When I fin- ished speaking this morning we had been talking about the role of budgets and talking about inequality and the challenges of inequality in this province. We know that the inequality in British Columbia, the breadth of inequality, is probably greater than anywhere else in the country.

We know that our poverty levels are extremely high. We know that child poverty is high. We know that the working poor are challenged and that we have a minimum wage that doesn’t meet their needs. [R. Lee in the chair.] All of these are the kinds of issues that a budget should have begun to tackle, and none of them are tackled in this budget. Not one of those things is being addressed in any way, shape or form in the budget. What about the tools, though? We hear the govern - ment talk about the economic tools and talk about jobs and that. Well, one of the things we know….

We’ve had lots of debate here about Site C at different times in this House. We know one of the things that provincial gov - ernments do is capital projects. Often people talk about how governments don’t create jobs, but we know the reality is that in challenging eco - nomic times, capital spending, taxpayer money for infra- structure, is in fact a big job driver and is something that is used pretty effectively. The reality about capital spending is that it’s been a tool that has been used in this province since the days of W .A.C. Bennett by every provincial government that has existed.

I will assure you that just as this government is using capital spending, the next government will use capital spending, as well, as a way to ensure and build and upgrade and improve infrastructure in the province in a whole variety of ways and as an economic incentive and an economic tool. The difference comes in how you view that capital spending. We’ve seen the government’s view. We see it with the Site C project, where the labour model, the agreement that’s been put in place in terms of Site C, is an agreement that has no guarantees around jobs for British Columbians.

It has no guarantees around apprentice - ships. It does not have a working relationship with First Nations. It does not say a thing about local procurement and the need for local procurement to be a priority.

When we are spending taxpayers’ dollars, B.C. taxpayer dollars, it seems to me that while absolutely everybody gets to bid the job who wants to bid, it is entirely reason- able for us to say we are using taxpayer dollars to build infrastructure that we require, but we’re also using those taxpayer dollars as an economic tool. [1335] It’s a tool to build economy, to build community, to en- sure that we’re meeting objectives around skills training, that we’re in fact supporting small business and local pro- curement and that we’re supporting local economic de- velopment.

All of that, if it’s going to occur, doesn’t occur on a hope and a prayer and a wish and a dream. It occurs by putting in place agreements that accomplish that. We have used, in the past, models like project labour agree - ments that in fact accomplish those objectives. Here’s the difference in terms of capital spending be- tween what we’re seeing today with this government…. We’ve seen it with Site C. I expect we will see the same model used in other capital spending that has been refer- enced in the budget.

We’ve seen a pretty desperate situa- tion, when it comes to private dollars, with the project development agreement that was put in place around Pacific NorthWest LNG, which abandoned any kind of significant benefits to the province.

That’s a contrast to the discussion we’re having in re- gard to project labour agreements that ensure that people are working with security and good wages in projects where apprenticeships are a critical part of that; where we’re revitalizing our building trades, which require that; where we’re ensuring local businesses are getting the sup- port that they need and are able to in fact prosper by de- velopment going on in their communities.

It’s so that we have a partnership that’s meaningful with First Nations in their territories, where these pro - jects are occurring, so that they are getting a piece of the economic opportunity, they’re getting a piece of the jobs, they’re getting the skill training for their young members of those bands, of those nations, to ensure that they’ve got economic opportunity and a skill set that will ensure good jobs in those communities. None of that will happen unless we put the deals in place.

And what could possibly be better than model - ling a project labour agreement — every one will be slightly different; there’s no doubt about it — that can be applied, where everybody knows it’s the same rules for everybody? We invite all to bid on these jobs. That’s never in question. But you bid in a set of rules that en - sure a maximum benefit for British Columbia and British Columbians when we’re using taxpayer dollars to pay the cost of those projects. 10499

British Columbia Debates10500 Thursday, February 18, 2016 That’s something that this budget is absolutely silent on. We’re getting nothing out of that, and it begins to raise questions about how much of a waste that is in terms of taxpayer dollars going out without realized material benefit coming back to British Columbians. There’s small reference to forestry, a critical resource. And as we see, LNG is kind of on the ropes at the mo - ment. We know that commodity prices around mining are in some trouble.

We all hope that will rebound, that it’s cyclical and it will rebound, and that copper and other products will begin to see the benefit of that. We know that forestry, the one truly renewable resource we have, is available to us today, but we have abandoned looking at forest health. We need to revitalize those forests. We need to invest in forest health. Why aren’t we building a partnership with First Nations, territory by territory, to partner in the revital - ization and development of a forest health strategy to rebuild our forests as best we can?

Why aren’t we partner- ing around real R and D to look at the products, whether it’s in pellets, in other products? We know from talking to people now, to the industry, that there’s progress be- ing made there, but we know we can take greater advan- tage of it. Why aren’t we doing a better job there? That’s not in this budget. Why aren’t we doing a better job there?

Why aren’t we saying that when it comes to raw log exports, the reality is that we’re going to ensure that mills that want to cre- ate real opportunity for jobs in communities across this province will access fibre at a fair price — they have to pay a fair price — before logs will go offshore? That’s got to be a first step, but the budget is silent about that, absolutely silent. Those are just a couple of examples of what we face. [1340] I come back to the comments I made at the begin - ning around the budget. A provincial budget is not like a corporate balance sheet. It is about people.

It is about balancing resources and revenues and deciding prior - ities on revenues. Government has a lot of access to rev- enue but has to choose priorities, has to balance that with spending and, most importantly, has to balance that with people and their needs and has to balance that, particu - larly, with making sure we meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. We’re not doing that with the working poor. They are struggling. That struggle continues, and there is no sense that life is getting much better for those thousands and thousands of British Columbians who are struggling today.

We need to do a better job. It needs to be about people and communities. We know that while the economy is strong in the Lower Mainland, pretty strong in the south Island, costs of living are prohibitive. We’re not seeing support to ease those pressures on the people who live in those commun- ities who are particularly challenged by that. The budget is silent on that issue. In the rest of the province where, in fact, the economy is challenged, you have to ask yourself what we’re doing there. Y ou have a handful of capital projects that have been talked about. But where is the rest of the strategy?

This is a budget that, increasingly, you hear on the street: “Y eah, it’s balanced. But what else is there?” People are happy to have a balanced budget, but they know that there are much bigger issues than a balanced budget in terms of the economy of the province, and they want to know where the government is. Today, the government is nowhere. We’re seeing that struggle. We’re seeing the competing interests. We’re seeing the Premier and the Finance Minister taking ab - solutely contrary views on MSP in the press.

One’s say - ing: “We’ll change it all next year. ” The other one’s saying: “People have to be accountable. ” I guess we’ll get this sorted out sometime. There’ll be one message sometime when the two of them get in the same room at the same time and talk to each other. Maybe there’ll be one mes - sage. Maybe not. We’ll see how that proceeds. It is a budget that simply leaves people in this province wanting. It’s a budget that does not connect with the vast majority of British Columbians and their interests and concerns. It’s a budget that just leaves most people flat. They’re not angry about it.

They’re not supportive of it, because it just is a budget developed by a government that clearly has run out of gas — probably good in a fos - sil-fuel time, to run out of gas. That’s the reality we face. It’s unfortunate, but it is what we’re dealing with. It’s a budget that really is not worthy of this province and of the people in British Columbia, sadly. But I suppose it is probably worthy of the B.C. Liberals. L. Throness: I want to talk about our budget, of course, but I want to begin today by giving some thanks and thanking, first of all, my constituents who elected me.

It’s been a great privilege to serve them now for almost three years. I can hardly believe that I’m three years into a mandate. We’ve just got a year left. I’ve worked very hard. I would simply note that I’ve put about 130,000 kilometres on my vehicle since the election. The reason for that is that I have a riding that’s 11,000 square kilometres. It’s a huge distance to cover. I’m very often on the road, as I know many of my colleagues are as well, on both sides of the House. So at any one time, there are many issues that are personal and pressing and long-term ones, as well, that we’re working on.

Fortunately, I have great staff. I want to pay tribute to the people who work for me. My constituency assistants, of course, are vital to my work, and we all experience that in this House. Dagmar Lucak works full-time on con - stituency cases, and she has taken some of the toughest cases and had success on them. She really is a patient per- son, and she really goes the extra mile for people. They appreciate it, and so do I. Just an example. This week, the heat went out in our

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10501 office, and she refused to leave. She turned on a little elec- tric space heater and kept on working. That’s real pluck, and I want to thank her for that. I want to also thank my scheduler, Sheila Denis. I would not make it to any events if Sheila did not or - der my life, and she does a great and detailed job at that. Sometimes making arrangements and juggling appoint- ments can be tedious, can be complicated, but she works her way through all of that, and she’s cheerful in doing so.

I appreciate her so much, and I also appreciate her wise advice on all sorts of matters. [1345] Two others fill in from time to time in my Chilliwack and Hope offices, Kathy Miki and Helen Jeschuk. I so ap- preciate their competence and their willingness to fill in, interrupt their schedules, even on short notice, to make sure that my office can be open on a consistent basis. So I have lots of people to thank. People ask me what I enjoy most about my job, and I have to say it’s the people that I meet. There are great people all over B.C., and in my position, I tend to meet community leaders.

They are really an extraordinary breed. They work extremely hard on a shoestring budget. Often they do it on a voluntary basis. I think of Ron, who picks up garbage on his own time and often at his own expense in the Chilliwack River Valley. I think of Gail and her team, volunteers who run the community centre in Yale, or Dave, who coordin - ates a voluntary agricultural plastics recycling group in Agassiz with a bunch of farmers, or Ken and Debbie, who have volunteered with 4-H together for a total of 50 years.

There are thousands of people like this, all across our great province, to whom we owe a great deal of gratitude. There are angry people too. People don’t usually come to me because they’re happy. I can hardly blame most of them when I hear their stories, but even those, often they undergo incredible hardships, yet still are cheerful and take a positive outlook on life. So we in this House have to pay tribute to the individuals who elect us and who undergird our caring and compassionate province. It’s just one of the many things that makes B.C. a won - derful place to live. Those are my introductory remarks.

I want to talk a bit about the budget and give a few quotes of what people have said about the budget. I would quote the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who just, perhaps slightly grudg - ingly, gave a note of respect on our balancing the budget and diversifying the economy. I think we get support from unlikely quarters, includ- ing the B.C. Agriculture Council, where Stan Vander Waal, the chair, said that the budget is a positive step in the right direction.

He said: “We commend the provin - cial government for maintaining strong fiscal control and upholding a Triple-A credit rating. ” At the Canada West Foundation, Janice Plumstead, a senior economist, said: “The budget should also be applauded for ensuring every- one benefits from improved circumstances, with strong new gains for families, especially those with children. ” So economists agree. Jock Finlayson and Ken Peacock in the Vancouver Sun said: “We expect the B.C. economy to grow by 2.8 percent…this year, rising to 3 percent in 2017, enough to put us at the top of the provincial rankings. ” Can you imagine?

We’re the top province in Canada. Finally, from the Business Council of B.C.: “We endorse today’s provincial budget and compliment the government on its careful management of the province’s finances. ” Those are high compliments from people who would be critical of us. We welcome their criticism, and we appreciate their support as well. I want to set the stage for my remarks by talking about extraordinary government. I don’t say we’ve arrived at extraordinary government, yet extraordinary govern - ment is an ideal that every member of this House would strive for.

So I want to talk about it in the context of the budget that was presented this week. I want to talk for a moment about the concepts of conservativism and lib - eralism writ large, just to talk about the general guiding philosophy of conservatives and liberals, how they inter- act and how that might be reflected in this budget. I think this topic is important because our present gov- ernment, our B.C. Liberal governing party, is a coalition of liberals and conservatives. What do we actually mean when we talk about conservativism and liberalism? Simply put, I see it that a stereotypical conservative conserves.

A typical conservative is something of a his - torian, emphasizing respect for the past, drawing from all the best traditions and values of the past, bringing those traditions and values into the present and preserv- ing them into the future. A conservative by nature con - serves resources too, so we would expect a conservative to be also be an environmentalist. A conservative is skeptical of the foibles of human na- ture and guards against its faults and failings through things like a government and an opposition, the adver - sarial court system and adversarial union-management relationships.

A conservative would stress personal re - sponsibility and efficiency in business and would, there- fore, save more and accumulate capital and focus on spending it wisely. That’s, I think, why conservatives tend to be successful in enterprise and tend to be supporters of free enterprise. They’re cautious and prudent by nature. They prefer to save, rather than to spend. Conservatives are often older people. On the other hand, what is a stereotypical liberal? Again, it’s quite simple, a liberal liberates. A liberal is more of a futurist than a historian.

A liberal wants to break free from the past, to cast off old traditions and the things that are no longer relevant or valuable. [1350] A liberal wants to try new things, to be generous and welcoming and spontaneous and open. A liberal is more trusting of human nature and government. So a liberal

British Columbia Debates10502 Thursday, February 18, 2016 would tend to reduce the adversarial nature of parliament and courts and unions and focus on more consensus - based processes. A liberal would tend towards larger government and believe in its possibilities. A liberal might also tend to be more visionary, be willing to risk more, spend more, take on more debt for what it sees as a great cause, to be more outward-looking and take on new ventures. A lib- eral might tend to be younger rather than an older person. Of course, these are stereotypes. No one person is all conservative or all liberal.

On this side of the House, we are combinations of these things. But as a matter of em- phasis in our own lives, we tend to lean either towards liberalism or conservatism. Our choice of a political party often reveals that kind of focus, that kind of emphasis. For example, I myself tend towards the conservative end of the spectrum, as do some of my colleagues on this side. Of course, these are not only strengths, but they can also be weaknesses. Both can take their principles to ex - cess, and that’s a danger we have to guard against. As they say, there are ditches on both sides of the road.

Most governments in Canada today are either liberal or conservative. They tend to be quite partisan. They re- ject the viewpoints of the other side. The media said re - cently that our new federal government — which is a Liberal government, as we all know — has taken some policy directions not because they were good policy choices on their own merits, but because they were the opposite course of action to those of the Conservatives before them. And the Conservatives before them may have done the same thing at some time.

Wouldn’t it be ideal if we could shed the weakness - es and excesses of both perspectives and combine their strengths instead? Wouldn’t that be an opportunity for extraordinary government? I think that in our present government’s coalition — which happens to bear the name B.C. Liberal but is still a coalition of liberals and conservatives — we have the possibility of moving more and more steps towards that extraordinary government.

If there’s one great service that the NDP has done for our province, it’s to force liberals and conservatives to sit together on this side of the chamber, instead of on op - posite sides, for decades — on the same side instead of opposing sides. This causes internal pressures, to be sure. But the outcome, I would submit, is out of the ordinary. As the biblical saying goes, iron sharpens iron. People with differing viewpoints have to get along in order to retain power. So we refine each other’s ideas. We talk a lot. We pare down the sharp corners of each other’s viewpoints.

We have some people who are liberals and some who are conservatives in our caucus, and we’re both welcome. A party is just a vehicle to get us to a destination. We have, as it were, put our vehicles side by side. We’re go- ing to continue driving together toward the goal of extra- ordinary government. I see that as a strength rather than a weakness. Together we can build something that’s better and greater than if we were apart.

And though there will always be tensions in a caucus, we have to remain cognizant of that better and higher goal: the goal of extraordinary government, which is bigger and more important than any one polit - ical party. It has the best interests of the province in mind. What are some elements of an extraordinary govern - ment? Well, for sure, fiscal responsibility and discipline has to be one. Balancing the budget is an integral part of extraordinary government. I’m so pleased that we’ve been able to do that now for four years in a row.

That’s something no other government in Canada has done in recent memory, and I think it’s a signal achievement. The U.S. government, for instance, last balanced its budget in 2001. That’s 15 long years ago. It’s been a string of defi- cits ever since. I think an extraordinary government would keep a low burden of debt, in part to keep from saddling future gen- erations with our debt, but partly to reduce debt-servi - cing costs right now, which we can then devote to other, better purposes. That’s why I appreciate our rapidly fall- ing debt-to-GDP ratio.

With a ratio of 17.4 percent, we compare favourably with other jurisdictions in Canada. For instance, our two largest provinces — compare us with Ontario and Quebec. They’re at 40 percent and 55 percent debt-to-GDP ratio respectively. Ontario alone pays $1 billion a month on its provincial debt just for interest. That’s $12 billion a year unavailable for any so- cial program, any infrastructure upgrade, any tax relief or anything else. And it’s rapidly getting worse in that province. [1355] Ottawa’s debt-to-GDP ratio is now 31 percent, almost double B.C. ’s rate.

It spends $26 billion every year on interest just to service its national debt. Happily, we’ve kept our triple-A credit rating, and over time, that saves us billions. Now, I want to talk for a moment about the U.S. debt. I have, every year since I began, been alerting members to this issue. America’s debt burden is now 103 per - cent of GDP , if you can imagine. That is a debt burden six times heavier than B.C. ’s debt burden. They are ap- proaching $19 trillion. The U.S. debt is ten times bigger than Canada’s entire economic output for an entire year.

Obviously, this situation is unsustainable, and it’s only getting worse. As someone said, if something can’t go on, it won’t. It has to stop sometime. And when it stops, it will mean a drastic downturn in the economy perhaps of the whole world. So we’re doing well in diversifying our economy away from the American economy as we have over the past decade, very wisely, and in diversifying our economy so that we’re not just dependent on a few com- modities.

We have a jobs plan that has about eight differ- ent sectors, like agriculture, software, film industry and all sorts of things that we’re doing in order to diversify.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10503 The beauty, of course, of balanced budgets is small sur- pluses, which we’re using to pay down our operating debt. We can use those lower interest costs to fund spending on social programs with no change to our bottom line, no risk to us. Over the next three years, $500 million that would otherwise have gone to interest payments will in- stead go toward program improvements. It makes me feel very proud to be part of a government that’s fiscally responsible.

Y es, it holds the line on budgets and is very responsible in spending, but it’s also a com - passionate government. We’re paying attention to those most in need among us. I want to address a few program improvements in the budget that I think my constituents would like to hear about. I’ve received a few complaints in my office about MSP premiums, particularly from middle-income people and from seniors who are on fixed incomes. I think it’s great that we’re broadening the subsidy in a number of different ways. An example: single people won’t pay full premiums until their income hits $42,000.

Last year or just be - fore the budget, or this year, continuing until January 1, it’s $30,000. So we’re increasing that by $12,000. Y ou can earn $12,000 more in income and still not pay full premiums. Likewise, senior couples earning less than $31,000 will pay no premium at all and will only pay full premiums when their combined income reaches $51,000. I have a lot of seniors in my riding. I think they’re go- ing to be very happy about that. That’s going to have a positive impact on a lot of people. It’s going to put a lot of money in their pockets, people who need it.

The news of the full exemption from the property trans- fer tax for purchases of newly built homes up to $750,000 for use as a purchaser’s principal residence is really great news. This will spur new home construction in Chilliwack. The vast majority of homes are well below that, and I would point out that the median price for a home in Chilliwack is something under $400,000. So, in fact, most homes in Chilliwack could profit from this new move. A buyer will be able to save up to $13,000 on their new home. All over my riding, new homes are going to be more affordable.

The $13,000 saved on the property trans- fer tax can make a big difference to a down payment. It will enable a first-time homebuyer to break into the hous- ing market and take advantage of the rising home prices that are going to continue for a long time in the Fraser Valley. To be part of that market is really important now. Disability rates are increasing by $77 a month. I think that’s a great leap forward. That’s been a long time in com- ing. I’m happy to see it. On a base pension of $906 a month, that’s a significant increase.

It builds on other measures we’ve taken recently, in the last year, for people on disabil- ity. If you’re on a provincial disability pension, for instance, you can earn up to $9,600 a year. Y ou can earn that money at any time of the year without taking anything away from your pension, no reduction in pension. We exempt child support payments for families on dis- ability assistance. We’ve increased asset levels to $100,000 from $5,000.

All these measures are designed to make it easier for people with disabilities to enter the work - place, to inherit property without penalty and generally to make their lives easier and better to live. [1400] I was particularly happy, being from the Fraser Valley, to see $55 million for emergency preparedness and flood protection, like upgrades to dikes. There are lots of those where I live. That’s something we can always be anxious about. We’re always watching the mountains. There’s a big snowpack this year. We’re always anxious about flooding.

A couple of weeks ago, several municipalities and First Nations along the Fraser met with the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations to outline the risks of inaction. The risks of inaction, in the case of a catastrophic flood, would mean billions in costs. I’ve since spoken with Colin Hansen, who’s the head of the Fraser Basin Council and the former Minister of Finance, regarding a large flood study they’re do - ing. They’ve been working at it for a long time, about a year and a half.

They’re going to report out in late March or early April, and they’re going to give some learned recommendations as to what needs to be done on a sys - tem-wide basis. So that report is going to be very timely. Of course, we MLAs in the Fraser Valley are going to be following up to see that our communities are allocated their reasonable share of that good sum of $55 million. Over the next three years, general taxation revenue will supply more than $500 million each year for health care. Demands on the system are growing every day. I get a lot of concerns about health care in my office.

With the retirement of the baby boom generation…. The first baby boomer retired in 2011 and will hit 75 years of age in 2021. That’s when the real health problems will begin to mount, so we need to keep on investing in our health care system. I’m proud of a government that is putting needed money in every year — $500 million more each year for health care. Our income tax burden continues to be one of the lowest in the country, and I’m proud of that. For a single person making $80,000, the total tax burden is the lowest in Canada.

For a four-person, two-income family mak - ing $90,000, we are the second-lowest tax jurisdiction in Canada. And for a senior couple making $30,000, B.C. offers the third-lowest taxes in the country. These are all things that we can be proud of. We’re an affordable province to live in. Of course, speaking of affordability, there is money for affordable housing — $355 million over the next three years. That’s something that is to be applauded.

I would caution the government that spending too many precious dollars on affordable housing in the most expensive mar- kets in B.C. — and some of the most expensive markets in Canada — will reduce the total number of people we

British Columbia Debates10504 Thursday, February 18, 2016 can help. That same funding, used in a market in other less expensive areas of B.C., will help us to maximize the number of people we can assist. I would further point out, for those with rent subsidies and so on, that commuting to work is often not an issue with affordable housing, because most people who re - ceive subsidies are not part of the job market — people perhaps with mental illness, seniors who are long out of the job market or people with disabilities that make it dif- ficult or even impossible for them to work.

I continue to say, as I did the other day, that our policy in this regard must not be Vancouver-centric. It must be people-centric. We have to stretch our scarce dollars to help as many people as we can. I think this is the most compassionate approach toward our affordable hous - ing policy. In conclusion, I’m working on issues all the time. In addition to issues in the constituency, I’m working hard in my critic role. I try to maintain a semblance of a pri - vate life as well.

I’m going to continue to urge the government to stay the course that was set in this budget, to continue our strong and sound fiscal policy but also to combine that with a sound, social policy, a compassionate social policy that meets the needs of British Columbians. I’m going to continue to serve to the best of my ability, and together we’re going to keep shooting for that ideal of extraordin- ary government. K. Corrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s good to see a colleague from my community in the chair today, which actually happens most of the time because two of the Deputy Speakers are from the community of Burnaby. So we’re well represented in this House. Half an hour goes by very quickly, so I’m going to get right to the thing that I think is most important for me to talk about today, and then I’ll talk about some other things a little bit later.

But the area that I am most concerned about in our province, the area which I am spokesperson for, for the official opposition, is Advanced Education. [1405] I was surprised a couple of weeks ago, when we got the throne speech, that there was no mention of advanced education. That really concerned me, and I thought per- haps it was an omen of things to come. In fact, I’m cor- rect, because in the budget, which we had earlier this week, there is virtually nothing for advanced education, which to me, is a very shortsighted approach.

When we talk about the importance of the develop - ment, the future prosperity of our country, we cannot, as provincial legislators — as my colleague from Vancouver- Hastings said a little bit earlier today — control every - thing, certainly, through the choices that we make and the priorities that we have in provincial legislation and in our budgets. But there are some areas where I think we can make a difference.

I do believe that the most important invest - ment that we can make, not only in the citizens of our province but also in the future economic prosperity and growth of our province, is in advanced education and in the K-to-12 system. I find it very disappointing that for several years now in the post-secondary system — our colleges, our uni - versities and our institutes — we have not only, over the past few years, not kept up with inflation, we’ve actually cut the investment to our post-secondary institutions.

This year, there is a tiny increase, but it is not an increase that will keep up even with inflation for already-strangled colleges and universities. We have no relief from that this year. In fact, with about a 1 percent increase over each of the next two years, that does not even keep up with infla- tion, which is running at just under 2 percent right now. Again, essentially what we have are further cuts to the post-secondary system, which is what we’ve had for the last few years. It seems like a very short-sighted approach to the growth of this province.

There is some in the capital budget for deferred mainten- ance. I’m glad to see that, but the reality is it’s long overdue. I speak to administrators, students, faculty from all across the province in the various institutions, and they’re telling me that their buildings are crumbling underneath them. W e are in desperate need of money put into our infrastruc- ture in order to protect the investment that we have made. In this budget, not only do we not have enough in the budget to keep up with inflation, there is nothing to help students who have the highest debt loads in the country.

I’m not necessarily talking just about the direct student loan program, but according to BMO in a study that was done a couple of years ago, B.C. students, when they leave university, carry the highest overall debt load of any prov- ince in the country. There’s no relief from that. There’s no relief from the B.C. Liberals, who extract the highest in - terest rates in the country on student loans. There is nothing to help colleges and universities, which have suffered a long, slow drain of support from this government.

The share of investment by government in our post-secondary system has steadily declined under this government. Government is contributing less and less of the share of the system, while students are con - tributing more and more. We are losing some of the best and brightest, particularly of our graduates, because we do not offer the scholarships that other provinces do, so we have a brain drain from our colleges and universities. [1410] There’s nothing in this budget to help families and stu- dents who are struggling to afford to get to university.

As I said earlier, it is such a shortsighted approach to the fu- ture of this province. Our universities, colleges and technical institutions not only add a direct economic impact on regions, but they also have an impact on human capital and tech -

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10505 nologies. And they increase productivity, employment, purchasing, contributions to the community, student spending, visitor spending, research dollars, housing. From a strictly economic approach, our colleges and universities and other post-secondary institutions, both public and private, are literally hives of economic activity, both directly and in all the businesses that they support.

Not only do our colleges and universities have sig - nificant positive economic impacts on regions; they also improve the long-term economic fortunes of a region through the research and teaching that produce skilled workers and technological innovation. They result in im- proved wages for the individuals and for regions. Instead, the approach of this government over the last several years…. The B.C. Liberal government, instead of working hard to improve the fortunes and improve the education and the post-secondary education, have in - stead relied on bringing in temporarily foreign workers.

Temporary foreign workers, on the one hand, versus a long-term vision of success for our province. Higher wages result from investment in our institutions. Higher wages mean increased taxes, increased consumption and higher levels of savings and investment. I’ve met with a great many high-tech businesses in my community of Burnaby and elsewhere. Repeatedly what you find from speaking to them is that they often were businesses that were created from activities and research at our post-secondary institutions, or they’re built, de - veloped, by individuals who graduated from our post- secondary institutions.

Organizations, businesses like Electronic Arts, Schneider Electric, D-Wave, in Burnaby — all are prod - ucts of our post-secondary system, and they say what they need is skilled graduates. This is, to me, a no-brainer. This is an area that we should be investing in for the fu - ture economy and for the future of our province. Studies repeatedly have shown significant positive im- pact to a region from the skills that a university or college provides its students. Start-ups, technology licences, pat- ent applications, research — all are spinoffs of our post- secondary institutions.

I was speaking earlier today about a trip that I made, along with the Leader of the Official Opposition and a couple of colleagues, to BCIT two weeks ago. It was a very clear example of what I’m talking about — the import - ance and the vibrancy and the economic implications and the critical engine of innovation and creativity which can happen in our post-secondary institutions. The tour that we went on. BCIT is in Burnaby and is B.C. ’s largest post-secondary institution, with 48,000 full- and part-time students at five campuses, including the main campus at Burnaby. Of course, there’s Simon Fraser University.

The original campus, and the largest campus, is also located in Burnaby. Our tour a couple of weeks ago included two great — perhaps not huge — but small examples of innova - tion and creativity. Faculty members Joey Dabell and Joe Newton showed us the solar canopy demonstration project, which provides solar-powered lighting for the school’s parking lots. [1415] This was just fascinating. Electrical and computing engineering instructor Craig Hennessey provided a fas - cinating demonstration of the far-reaching implications of gaze-tracking technology, which actually computer- tracks your eyes.

First of all, it calibrates your eyes on a screen, and then it tracks the gaze that you have. It can be used for anything from interactive gaming to advertising research and security systems. Advertising research — we asked some questions about that. One of the examples was that they can put these special glasses on you, send you into, say, a supermarket and follow with video exactly how your eyes move around the shelves. It was a pretty amazing system that is being developed at BCIT by a faculty instructor and which involves working with students as well.

This particular tool has great potential for those with limited mobility, because it can allow individuals to use it to actually type using just the focus of their eyes. There’s lots and lots of medical applications, as well, that could be really exciting. Those are just two very small examples of the types of innovation and creativity that are happen- ing at our post-secondary institutions.

As well as the economic impact of our post-secondary institutions, we also have to remember that one of the most important things that our education system, both K to 12 and post-secondary, does is that it creates the think- ers, the citizens, even the dreamers and the leaders of the future — the critical thinkers. I think we can’t forget about the importance of that role of our post-secondary institutions as well. We’re building social capital, and we’re supporting good jobs that support both men and women.

Y ou know, when you talk about building physical infrastructure around this province — and we want to build physical infrastructure around this province — remember that in the trades, which are the jobs that are building that physical infrastructure for the most part, that still there’s a very small percentage of women who are in the trades. One of the advantages of investing in our post- secondary institutions is that these are creating jobs for women as well as men. In fact, we know that women are doing extraordinarily well in the post-secondary sys - tem and are very well represented.

It’s an issue of equity as well. Investment in our post-secondary institutions is good for the future of women. I think we want to al - ways remember that we need to have a balance between investment in bricks and mortar and investing in social capital with education. I want to mention a couple of concerns that I have with the direction that we’re going in post-secondary educa- tion in this province. We have the blueprint for educa -

British Columbia Debates10506 Thursday, February 18, 2016 tion, which advocates a market-driven approach for our post-secondary system. While I do believe that there should be some alignment between what we believe the future markets are going to demand in terms of training, I think there is — as I said a minute ago — an intrinsic value to our society of pre - paring good citizens and of those critical thinkers — the leaders, the creators, the innovators, the thinkers and the dreamers. They are all of value.

When you talk about alignment with jobs, if you want to put it in that perspective, remember that the people who become your managers are leaders in your com - panies, the creators of companies…. Those also are jobs that, although you may not know the direct alignment between…. Maybe you’ve got an undergraduate degree in English and a master’s degree in public policy. Those types of degrees are the ones that prepare people to be good managers, to be good leaders and to be good in - novators.

College graduates are more likely to volunteer in their communities, more likely to be aware of and participate in political events, more likely to vote. They need less health care, and — I wouldn’t have known this — they smoke less. [1420] I do think that while we want to align our system somewhat to what the markets need, we also need to be aware that there are many other benefits from the post- secondary education system.

One of the other concerns I had about the blueprint for education was the fact that while the claim was that this was going to be an entirely evidence-based approach and that we were going to identify the top 60 jobs in the province in terms of market need, what the government then did was superimpose LNG on top of that. They superimposed one report by KPMG that assumed — had as its basic assumptions, I assume provided by govern - ment — that we were going to have five LNG plants in place within a few years.

The problem that we have is we have this whole ship of the post-secondary system — which is a huge system, billions of dollars — being turned very slowly, because it’s very difficult to do it’s so large, on the basis of one re- port and one government’s hope that we are going to hit the LNG jackpot. My concern is that we are moving the ship. We are say- ing it’s all about LNG. We are supposedly training people — that’s what the report said — yet we have had zero LNG plants and we have no money coming from LNG. It is a real concern.

When you take that kind of an approach to your post-secondary system, that’s a real issue. Now I know this year we have a different approach. We’re talking about tech, something we’ve been talk - ing about for a while. Apparently the government, now that the LNG golden basket hasn’t worked out so well, is talking about diversity and talking about technology. Now we’re going to put some resources from the post- secondary system into technology.

I’m very concerned that these are political directions that we’re being forced to go in, as opposed to truly evidence-based directions — particularly when you look at the fact that so many of the decisions about where we needed to put our resources were based on one report that has promised things that have not happened. I also have concern about rural education and access to education. Last year I visited a number of colleges and universities throughout the province and continue to do so. I went to Northwest Community College, a wonder- ful college. It has a number of campuses — or did.

One of the campuses, which was newly opened, has now closed. I went to the Northwest Community College and the College of New Caledonia and visited UNBC, the uni - versity that is located in Prince George. Here, and cer - tainly in the Kootenays and other communities as well — Prince Rupert, throughout the north…. What is happening is that we had this fantastic college system in British Columbia that was built up through a few decades, that was a place that students could go to and often get their first two years of post-secondary education.

That would give them a good chance, close to home, to get training — either diploma training, get a complete training or get the first two years of post- secondary and then transfer to a larger community like Vancouver, now Prince George, or Victoria, and go to university. The transfer programs are constantly being cut back in our rural communities. So what is happening is that there is less and less access for individuals who live in small communities to go to our post-secondary educa - tions. We’re creating a two-tiered world in education.

We’re creating a world where if you live in an urban cen- tre, chances are you’ll have a pretty good chance of going to college or university. But if you live in a small com - munity, then you have less of a chance. [1425] Remember, also, what we were talking about earlier. What I was saying earlier is that these colleges and north- ern universities, rural colleges, are drivers of economic activity. They provide jobs. They increase the capital, the skills and the social capital of an area.

I’m very concerned that, for example, when you have a college campus closing in Kitimat just a few years after it opened, a brand-new college, what you are doing is you’re reducing the potential of that community. And just like when you take away…. I remember several years ago the Liberals closed hos - pitals in communities across the province. Hundreds of schools have been closed across the province.

Every time you close those kinds of facilities that increase our social capital and provide good jobs, you take another little stab and you inflict another wound on a community and eventually can kill those communities.

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10507 I was very disappointed to see the closure of the dental program at the College of New Caledonia, the dental hy- gienist program. Now there are promises that they’re go- ing to bring it back in a few years, but I don’t believe that’s going to happen. Apparently, the experience at the College of New Caledonia is that even though there are promises made that programs will come back, often it does not hap- pen.

I spoke to one of the instructors of the program, ac- tually, in the last few days, and my understanding is that that program may well not come back at all. The financial pressures on the colleges and universi - ties, particularly the rural colleges, are such that what is happening is that decisions about programming are being made not on the basis of whether or not that’s a good program for the area, whether or not those skills are needed, whether or not they can get jobs, but instead on the basis of whether or not it’s a program that the col- lege has to cut because they have to balance their budget.

That dental program was a good example. One of the most expensive programs at the College of New Caledonia, it had its name all over it as a target when the college, with further cuts, had to close some programs. It’s very unfortunate, because dentists in the area, pa - tients and businesses all said: “This is a great program. ” Almost complete employment, 97 percent for one and a little bit less for one of the other ones — almost fully employed. Dentists said, “We can employ every single dentist hy- gienist that comes out of that program, ” yet it was closed, because it was an expensive program.

The need was there. That dental program was also running a dental clinic with almost 20 chairs in it, which was providing services to the community as well. So there’s another service, dental services at low cost, which is being lost to the commun - ity of Prince George. That’s not going to be measured. That’s not going to be noticed. That’s not going to be accounted for in any way in the books of the government, but that’s the reality of the closure of that program.

When you’re talking about access to education, as well, not only am I concerned about what’s happening in rural British Columbia, but I’m also really concerned about the cuts that have happened as a result of funding declining or being stagnant over the last several years in the areas of adult basic education and English language learning, or ESL, as some people call it. Adult basic education. Recently government decreased the funding, got rid of the funding, for adult basic edu - cation, except there was a bit of a transition grant, which is now coming to an end for most of the post-secondary institutions.

What that has meant is that there is less ac- cess. Enrolment is significantly declining as these transi- tion grants end. Some students have access to grants, but they take a lot of energy to get the students signed up for them, and what we’re seeing is less access. [1430] These are, again, building social capital.

These are people, usually, who went back to school to complete or upgrade their education, and not just to do that but usu- ally because they had some career path or some training in mind and they needed to upgrade themselves, maybe take biology 12 or finish off English 11 and 12, whatever — finish or upgrade. We’ve created this barrier to post-secondary educa - tion. For people who are trying to make their lives better and to contribute to society, it seems very shortsighted to be cutting the support. I remember that at the time….

I mean, it was this government that decided to make adult basic education courses free. Now they’re charging. It was this government that said it was in the public interest to do so. They were correct then. They are not correct now in ending free adult basic education. This is on top of major cuts to English language learning that happened over the last couple of years. The programs at Vancouver Community College in English language learning have been decimated.

Thousands of students who had one hurdle in their life — often were well qualified in other countries, had all sorts of skills and have all sorts of skills to offer the economy of British Columbia — have a barrier put in front of them. They have one hurdle, which is to improve their English. Now we are creating a barrier, and it’s much harder for refugees and immigrants to get those English language programs and far more expensive. As the low-cost or free education is being cut off in British Columbia, we also notice that there are private colleges flourishing next door.

That’s a priority, or a lack of priority, of this government, and I think it’s very un- fortunate. People come from all over this world to British Columbia, and we invite immigrants to be here. Why we would invite immigrants and then slam the door to education in their face, I do not understand. I want to say particularly that when you consider that we are inviting refugees to come to this province, why at this time would we be cutting out access to adult education and English language programs? I see my time has almost come to an end. In

summary, I am concerned about the lack of support by this govern- ment for post-secondary education and K-to-12 educa - tion. I think it’s a shortsighted approach because it is the best investment that we could make in the future econ - omy and in the future of citizens of this province. D. McRae: Today I want to start off my speech, like many of us do, by recognizing the individuals who allow us to do our job. First of all, I would be remiss, of course, if I didn’t talk about my wife, Deanne McRae. We’ve been married now…. This will be into our 21st year. I met her while I was in high school.

She tolerated me then, and she still tolerates me now, so I’m a lucky man. We’re joined now in our life with our two daughters, Gracie and Chloe. I had the opportunity to return home

British Columbia Debates10508 Thursday, February 18, 2016 last night for a few minutes, and I was able to see them and come back to the Legislature today and give this speech. While I don’t suspect they’ll be actually listening to my speech, they’ll at least be able to pull their names up in Hansard one day. In Comox Valley, the constituency office, I have some amazing employees. I want to say a special thanks to them as well — Dianne Lineker and Roseanne Garritsen. Dianne has been with me my entire time as MLA for the Comox Valley, like she was there for Stan Hagen before me.

Roseanne Garretson has come on board in the last several years. She is both a receptionist and sort of an as- sistant constituency assistant and does an amazing job. Two amazing women. In the summertime, we are joined by, in the past, Connor Gibson, but he has now left us, obviously to pur- sue education. He’s attending flight school in the Lower Mainland. Probably two of the most challenging jobs in the Legislature are those who look after me when I’m actually down in Victoria.

Down in the basement in now my sev- enth office in seven years, I am supported by my legisla- tive assistant, Grant Hatley, and my assistant legislative assistant, Brendan Dawson, who, I might want to add, is basically from the Comox Valley. [1435] The man is on a streak — seven offices in seven years. To be honest, I don’t really expect to actually unpack my boxes this time, because the office I’m in is only tempor- ary. Truly, I understand that more than almost everybody. Interjection. D. McRae: The member opposite is asking if I have a window. Y es, I do have a window. Actually, I have two windows.

If you ever want to come down and visit gov - ernment, you’re welcome to come on over. Maybe you’ll come over and join us, Member opposite. The Comox Valley, as you all know, is one of the nicest places in British Columbia. I would argue it is probably the nicest place in British Columbia. We have 65,000 residents, and as I’ve said before, it is made up of three municipalities. We have the village of Cumberland, with 3,400 resi - dents.

I want to recognize that, as the mayor and council move forward — they’re trying, obviously, to reinvigor - ate their community, as all councils do — they were real- ly pleased in the last year to be the recipient of a Build Canada announcement. They’re going to be able to redo five of their downtown blocks, streets. They’re going to be able to do the infrastructure underneath. They’re going to be able to beautify the streets and the sidewalks above. It’s worked because of a partnership with the prov - ince, with the federal government and, obviously, with the municipality participating.

They’re able to do five city blocks, which allows them to really ramp up their plans and do a lot more, faster. I’m looking forward to seeing those improvements in the village of Cumberland in the year to come. Just the other day I was out with the mayor of the town of Comox, with 13,000 residents. They’re really excited because they’ve been the recipient of funds from, for ex- ample, Island Coastal Economic Trust, federal govern - ment funding and, obviously, their own dollars. They’re going to do a major upgrade of Marina Park, which is one of the most beloved parks in the Comox Valley.

If you ever have a chance to visit the Comox Valley on British Columbia Day, it’s one of the most amazing places to see in the province of British Columbia. It’s pretty to be there, a fantastic view, and the infrastruc - ture they’ll put in there to support visitors and residents alike will be amazing. Just last Friday the city of Courtenay, 24,000 residents, was the recipient of over $3 million through some gas tax dollars. They’re working on a complete street project — six blocks in the city of Courtenay from Fitzgerald Avenue to Menzies Avenue.

It’s an opportunity to in - crease bicycle and walking infrastructure and stormwater retention infrastructure, an opportunity just to make the entrance into the downtown area of the city of Courtenay a bit more pleasing and also a bit more accessible. It’s a great opportunity. Oftentimes in municipalities when we build infrastructure, the stuff we built seven years ago stays there for 70 years. This is an opportunity to refresh a really important part of our community, and I know the mayor and council are rather excited about that.

Those just add on to other investments with the sup - port of provincial government moneys that we’ve been able to bring to the Comox Valley. I know members op- posite are always keen to visit our community. If you’re coming from the Campbell River area…. I know the Minister of Transportation was visiting us recently. We’re working on a north connector, a new bridge. It could be in the range of about $17 million. I know our community is excited to see the Dove Creek Bridge get rebuilt. The temporary bridge has been there for 15 years.

Temporary is long enough, and now we’re going to get a more permanent structure. As you drive by that bridge and into the city of Courtenay, you can’t help but notice the sign in front of G.P . Vanier high school, where the government of British Columbia, with the school district, is working on a $31 million seismic project to make one of the most iconic schools on Vancouver Island just that much safer for the residents, not just for this year but for years to come. What else makes the community really vibrant? Well, good health care. Again, we’re working on a new hospi- tal in the Comox Valley.

There’s also a new hospital in Campbell River. The projects together, combined, are a $600 million investment by the province, by the residents of the areas to make sure that we actually have services for our community. I’m really excited to see those pro -

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10509 jects come to fruition, and I look forward to seeing them being open in the next year or so. When you’re building projects of that size, it does take a bit of time. As well, we’ve had another opportunity in our com - munity. The last several years have been challenging for Mount Washington. Now, Mount Washington is a ski resort, the only major ski resort on Vancouver Island. I know there’s one on the north Island — a little smaller — but this one is obviously the largest.

It also is probably the largest private sector employ - er in Comox Valley, with 800 employees. The last two years have been really challenging. With climate issues, there just hasn’t been enough snow. Well, this year they have new owners, and the new owners have been bless - ed with an amazing amount of snow. I’ve been up there several times with my family. It’s so nice to see Mount Washington this full and vibrant with lots of snow, lots of people, lineups. It means that they’re actually having people come through the tills, which is really important. I was talking to a hotel owner just the other day.

He was saying that every weekend for the last month, his hotel has been at 100 percent capacity. He attributes that to the ski hill being a go and families coming to visit us from British Columbia and beyond. [1440] In fact, just the other day we were talking to some people on 5th Street. They were from Saskatchewan. Their Family Day was different than our Family Day. One of the advantages of having different holidays was that they actually have an opportunity to visit the com - munity and not compete with British Columbia residents. They came to Comox Valley. Why?

Because they wanted to take advantage of the mild weather down by sea level, but they also wanted to take advantage of some of the ski opportunities above. The other thing I wanted to bring up as well…. I know we were talking about budget, but it’s also important to make sure we recognize what communities are doing. The city of Courtenay has actually recently just finished its 100th-year centennial. I know that other communities — Prince George — have also celebrated 100 years, and it’s been a special time for our communities.

For the last 12 months, the city of Courtenay, under the chair of a gentleman by the name of Ron Webber and committee members like Audrey Craig, Starr Winchester, Rod Hunter and Ed Grieve, and supported by city staff like Randy Wiwchar, has done an amazing job, having oppor- tunities for people to celebrate and return home to enjoy life in the city of Courtenay but also the Comox Valley. I think we should now turn to the budget, if I may. Y ou know, it’s funny. When I come to this chamber…. I’ve been here now for seven budgets, and it’s like there are two worlds when you come into the chamber.

Y ou have the world of optimism and the world of pessimism. If you listen to the side opposite, one of the things I won - der is often…. Y ou’ d think we were maybe talking about different provinces sometimes. If you’ d just tuned in and weren’t sure what you were watching, you’ d think: “ Are you talking about British Columbia, or are you talking about somewhere else?” I always like to preface my comments on budget about comparables. British Columbia is definitely not perfect. We always are looking for ways to improve, and we try our best. Let’s look at how the rest of Canada is faring.

I want to preface it by saying, as well, if I may, that when all of Canada is doing well, it is good for every province. We are definitely a Confederation. It’s not that we want to have one province suffer at the expense of others. We’re better when we’re all doing well. But look at some of the challenges we’re facing. Alberta. Their economy has shrunk in the last year by 1 percent. It’s projected to shrink by 0.5 percent in the com- ing year. Their budget, arguably, has been projected at $5 billion to $6 billion in the hole coming up to the year. But you know what?

That’s based on $50-a-barrel oil, and the price of oil, if you just saw it recently, is down to about $31, $32 right now. So when they bring their budget in, in the next couple of months or couple of weeks, you may see that $6 billion deficit be substantially different. Saskatchewan. Y ou know what? They did a great run right there. As a Prairie province, they have lots of differ- ent opportunities, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, pot- ash, grain. But it’s been a challenging time for them as well, and their budget is now going to be in deficit — not something they’re very proud of, I’m sure.

But one of the opportunities is…. They at least had a really strong op - portunity to invest well in the last couple of years, and I’m sure they’ll be coming out of that soon. Manitoba. A $400 million deficit last year, projected to a $300 million deficit in the year coming forward. Ontario. Well, Ontario always does things big. Ontario is big in terms of their deficit. An $11 billion deficit is what they expect to have this year. They do talk about balancing their budget four years from now, but again, it’s always a challenge.

And sadly for Ontario, as they’ve had to make some choices, they have become the largest sub-sovereign debt carrier, not just in Canada but in the world. That is an incredible challenge, because eventu - ally someone’s children are going to have to pay for the choices we make today. Newfoundland. I think many of us saw a recent story in Newfoundland about how they have had some strug - gles as well. They are projecting a $2 billion deficit — not for this year but for the next four years. This is from a population and a province that is arguably about the same size as Vancouver Island.

It’ll be challenging for Confederation as we go forward. Let’s look at B.C. How are we doing? Well, we have a diversified economy, whether it is in agriculture, whether it is in forestry, mining, tourism, clean energy. We have areas where we concentrate on — in education. We also want to make sure we don’t rely on just one market. We

British Columbia Debates10510 Thursday, February 18, 2016 have tried so hard to make sure that we grow our markets in the United States, in Japan, in China. We’re now look- ing, as you saw in the budget but also in the throne speech, to expand and grow our economy into India as well. We have been able to balance the budget, not once, not twice, but four times in a row for the benefit of our chil- dren and our economy. On top of that, we are going to have a surplus of $264 million projected for the coming year.

We’re leading the nation in economic growth, and we’re the only province to maintain and keep a triple-A credit rating. Y ou know what? Have we done it by doing nothing? The answer is no. We’ve continued to actually be fiscal- ly prudent but also make key investments. Some of the areas I wanted to highlight…. For example, we have been able to invest $2.9 billion in this budget in terms of health care projects and $3.1 billion in transportation projects. Post-secondary has seen $2.5 billion of investment. K-to- 12 schools — we’re seeing $1.7 billion in investment. [1445] I’m also really pleased to see….

The Minister for Housing and the Premier were talking just recently about a $350 million investment for 2,000 more new or renovat- ed units in British Columbia, which makes it the highest, most impactful investment in housing that the province has done in the history of the province as far as I am aware — unbelievable investments and, at the same time, not making our children pay back for those investments. Now, the other thing is…. Oftentimes we want to talk about the bricks and mortar that we build. This budget doesn’t just do bricks and mortar.

It also makes key in - vestments in that social sector which I’m very proud of. I saw — if you looked through the budget, when the Finance Minister was speaking — that over the next three years, the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation and the Ministry of Children and Family Development will receive 673 million new dollars to make sure they provide services for vulnerable British Columbians. I’m incredibly proud that we have found that balance in this budget. Let me talk about some of those areas. Starting on September 1 in 2016, the income assistance rate will rise by as much as $77 a month.

Now, just for the members opposite, I know there are ways people want to spin that we haven’t done enough. But this is 170 million new dollars that are being invested in the Ministry of Social Development over the next three years. On top of that, Community Living British Columbia…. They look after persons with developmental disabilities, some of our most vulnerable people in our society. They’re going to be receiving 36 million new dollars in the next three years, which will allow them to provide supports for up to 2,600 people — an incredibly import - ant investment and a population that is growing.

There is no doubt about it. I was also pleased to see that in the Times Colonist to- day there was some commentary on this area. One of the key advocates is a lady named Faith Bodnar, who works for Inclusion B.C. and is a tireless advocate for persons with developmental disabilities. What did she have to say about the $36 million investment in CLBC? Well, accord- ing to the Times Colonist, she said: “We’re pleased to see CLBC being supported in a manner that reflects the ac - tual needs of the community. ” That’s taken right out of the document today.

It’s just another example where, yes, we can actually build schools, we can build universities, we can support roads and bridges, and we can make key social investments. I’ve noticed in question period — the last couple of days it’s been a topic — about bus passes. There is some confusion about the changes. Because the changes were only announced two days ago, I think it’s important that we, basically, understand how this impacts individuals. Now, remember this as I go forward. The bus pass is only in British Columbia. No other jurisdiction in Canada ac- tually has a bus pass program. It is important.

The bus pass still remains. The question is: who is eligible, and how are you eligible? Well, if you are a senior on the guaranteed income supplement, you are still eligible for a bus pass. It’s still there. If you are a person with a disability, there are some changes. I will admit this. What’s going to happen is you get to make some choices. Under the old program, you could pay $48, and you would have your bus pass for the year. Under the new program, you will get $77. How do you use those moneys? For $77, you can make the choice. Do I want to buy a monthly bus pass?

If you choose to actually buy a monthly bus pass at $52, you will have 25 more dollars in your pocket. If you are a person who ac- tually takes advantage of the special transportation sub - sidy — which I believe, off the top of my memory, is about $66 a month — that’s a much smaller number. Y ou will make that choice, and you will have $11 more a month. Under this change — the bus pass — 45,000 individ - uals will receive $77 more a month. Now, that’s not go- ing to necessarily be life-altering. They’re going to have perfect lives, and every bill will be paid magically. No, I’m not saying that.

But when you actually make a policy change and a financial change, when you actually are im- pacting the lives of 45,000 individuals, that is substantial. These are individuals who will get $77 a month times 12 months a year. The quick math is that you’re looking at about, almost, $900 in someone’s pocket. These are dol- lars that they can choose to spend, whether it’s on trans- portation, food, quality of life. This is an improvement. I am really proud that we have made that balance between infrastructure investments and social invest - ment. It is the right thing to do.

No matter how you play it, 100,000 people will see their monthly rate increase, whether it’s $11 a month or $25 a month, or 45,000 people will see their monthly rate go up by $77. [1450]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10511 I’m really impressed that the Minister of Social Development and Social Innovation was there to cham - pion that for these individuals. I’m not surprised when I say that. This is just one in a long line of improvements that this government has made in, we’ll say, the last 12 months. Many members opposite…. Is it just the $77? No, no, it’s not. It’s much more. The single-parent initia - tive, I must say — incredibly well received. When it was brought in, 15,000 single parents were deemed that they would be eligible.

Well, through the hard work of Work B.C. offices and individuals and advocacy groups, 2,000 single parents have taken advantage of the single-parent initiative. Whether it is to have transportation covered or tuition covered or MSP covered, it’s a chance for a parent with children to have a chance to better themselves and better their family’s life. Two thousand have taken advantage of it. There are 13,000 who have not. We’ve got to keep working and making sure people are aware of this all the time.

As I talk to more and more service agencies and communities, I hear more and more people being aware of it and doing their best to make sure those who they support are there. I also want to compliment the minister and the gov - ernment for some other changes. Some 3,200 parents have had their child support payments exempted. That is a policy that I think we’ve worked hard on in this gov- ernment. We want to make sure that child support pay - ments go where they’re most needed. Where are they going? They’re going to children and families that need them the most.

I want to again compliment the Finance Minister and the Minister of SDSI. We’ve also seen income exemptions increase. We’ve also seen annualized earning exemptions increase. So $9,600 a year is able to be earned by a person on PWD payments. They can keep the dollars, whether they earn them over 12 months or they earn them in a shorter per- iod of time. The asset levels have also increased — from $5,000 to $100,000 for individuals. When I see issues like what we’ve done in the past and what we’ve done in this budget, I’m confident that our work is not done.

We will continue to make those key investments for vulnerable British Columbians. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do, just like it’s the right thing to do to build a new school, to build a bridge, to build a road, to make sure that post-secondary institu - tions are constantly being upgraded. But wait. There’s more. One of the things I often worry about is that good news doesn’t travel fast. I know some- times the rating for this chamber isn’t what we want it to be. But we have to remember: what else are we doing to support vulnerable British Columbians?

Many seniors are aware of the $1,000 home-renova - tion tax credit. But what has changed in this budget…. It’s really important that people understand this, because, again, up to 100,000 people could be eligible for this. Persons with disabilities are now eligible for this $1,000 home-renovation tax credit. Seniors, yes, but now per - sons with disabilities are also eligible for this. If anybody has any experience with this, whether it’s a family member or whether in advocacy or whether you’re an MLA….

Y ou want to make sure that when per- sons with disabilities are coming in and if they’re mak - ing adaptations to their home, this is an opportunity to put a few more dollars in their pockets, which is really important. As MLAs, it is incumbent upon us…. Whether on this side of the House, which is government, or that side, which is not government, we want to make sure that those in need are aware of those programs. Again, well done. Again, we’re making those investments. It’s not just for persons with disabilities.

I know the minister for the Ministry of Children and Family Development is always working to make sure there are more supports. I am also pleased to see that over the next three years, that ministry will receive $217 million. Those dollars will, I think, be targeted in ways that are really important. I know $152 million over the three years will be used to hire 100 new social workers across British Columbia and, I think, 30 support workers on top of that. Again, people on the ground who are supporting vulnerable people in need — really important investment. But not just there.

There is $11 million going to support child care centres, $51 million to support children with special needs and $3 million to enhance adoption services. What are we doing? We are investing in social services. We are investing in new infrastructure, and we’re bal - ancing a budget. We are making those selective choices. Why? Because it is the right thing to do, and it’s the choice you get to make when you’ve actually balanced a budget and grown the economy. Now, there are also some other investments that I think need to be highlighted in this budget which are really important, especially in my community.

When I mentioned my three municipalities that I get to rep - resent — Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland…. One of the things that is important is that all three of those communities are deemed smaller communities. In other words, they have less than 25,000 residents. Well, in the budget, over the next three years, $75 million has been dedicated to small communities to strengthen and diversify their economies.

This is not good just for my three communities that I get to repre - sent in this Legislature, but it is good for a vast majority of communities on Vancouver Island and across British Columbia, as people look to try to diversify and take ad- vantage of a changing world. [1455] The Canadian dollar is not at record lows, but it is in- credibly low right now, which is making an opportun - ity for export in the resource industry that maybe hasn’t

British Columbia Debates10512 Thursday, February 18, 2016 been there in the past. It’s a chance for a small community like Woss — or a larger community like, again, the city of Courtenay, which is almost 25,000 — to take advantage and to bring some more employment and more supports to our community. As well, I think members opposite, too, will know that I also am a huge supporter and champion, if I can be, for agriculture. I was really pleased to see, in this budget, agriculture was again represented. “How was it represented?” you ask.

Well, $3 million was there in the next three years to support the Agricultural Land Commission, an incredibly important organization working across British Columbia. Where are those dol - lars going to go? Well, part of it is going to go towards en- hancing compliance and enforcement. Some of it can go to making sure that reviews are done in, perhaps, a more timely manner and to supporting some of the regional panels with the regional panellists who understand some of the nuances. Life in Fort St. John is far different than on Vancouver Island. I always laugh…. In Fort St.

John, some of the big sky area of British Columbia, you can watch your dog run away for a few days. A big farm could be many hundreds of acres or thousands of acres,

whereas in the Comox Valley, a large farm might be someone who is farming 45 acres, who may be growing vegetables or who has a dairy farm. Different farming in different parts of the province, but it’s very important to make sure that the ALC has the dollars and continues to see increases in dollars, going forward, to do the important work that they do. As well — again, maybe not sexy at all — I think it’s really important to talk about the farmers food donation tax credit program. Farmers at the end of the year may have some extra product to deal with. What do they do with it?

Well, here’s an opportunity to really incent them to do something good. Interjection. D. McRae: I didn’t say sexy. Farming’s hard work. If you start calling farmers sexy, it goes bad, member op - posite. But you know what? From the West End…We’ll leave it at that. Farming is not big in that area. I know Stanley Park is beautiful. Interjection. D. McRae: Urban farming. Well, this is what hap - pens when you go off topic, hon. Member. Y ou got me going here.

Now, what happens, though, is that individual farm - ers or corporations are able to donate their product and receive 20 percent of fair market value for qualifying agriculture products. Where do they go? Well, they go to registered charities that provide food to those in need or that go to help towards things like school meal programs. It’s a really important opportunity to take great-quality primary product and make sure it gets to the kids who need it the most, perhaps those who are in need the most.

I had the opportunity to say hello to the chair of the Vancouver Food Bank when he was in the Legislature just the other day. I’m incredibly impressed at what they’re able to do and leverage already. This kind of program will take a great organization like the Vancouver Food Bank and make them just a little bit more nimble, maybe a little bit more incenting of farmers to be supportive of what they do and who they support. I look forward to seeing that. I’ve talked so much about all the programs. There can’t be more. But you know what? There is, and I want to just dwell on this one as well.

Home-building in the Comox Valley is important. In fact, the other day I was talking to a realtor, and she was telling me we have fewer listings in the Comox Valley than we’ve had in a decade. Now, why is that? Perhaps people aren’t building homes as fast as they have in the past. Perhaps people are buy - ing them faster. The reality is that we want to see more homes being built. We have lots of land in the Comox Valley. Y ou look at the city of Courtenay. I know that there are subdiv - isions that are ready to be built out.

The opportunity here is, with the new program under the Ministry of Finance, that newly constructed houses under $750,000 will be ex- empted from the property transfer tax. Well, you know what? This is an opportunity for a family, whether they’re new in the market or, perhaps, they’re looking to upgrade, to save up to $13,000. Now in the city of Courtenay, chances are you’re build- ing a new house for far less than $750,000. It is an op - portunity, I think, to incent an industry to do good work, provide more stock for people to choose from and pro - vide employment across the community.

Not only do you need the general contractor; the trades and the sub - trades are important parts of our economy. This is a way you’ll benefit communities large and small across British Columbia. Lastly, we want to talk about MSP premium relief. One of the things I was impressed to see…. I always like see - ing that government can target individuals who are most in need, and vulnerable British Columbians. When you look at the budget, we’ve actually changed the thresholds for premium assistance. One of the areas that I’m really proud of…. I actually had a parent tell me this already.

For 70,000 single parents — because children will no longer be charged MSP — if they have one or two chil - dren or more, they will save between $800 a year and up to $1,200 a year. [1500] [R. Chouhan in the chair.]

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10513 Money in the pocket of parents is never a bad invest - ment, whether you make a little bit or even a bit more. These are areas where you can have supports for your children, whether it is providing a class or perhaps, if you need to, making sure that you’re having a bit better quality of food on the table. Putting $800 to $1,200 in the pocket of a single parent is never a bad investment. We were able to do that, and 70,000 parents will benefit because of this. Seniors as well. Obviously, many of them are on fixed income.

Well, if you are a senior couple and you’re mak- ing under $47,000, how do the changes affect you? If you’re making up to $47,000, you can save up to $240 a year, and as it goes down the sliding scale, I think it could be up to $290 a year — again, targeting individuals who have the least ability to pay. An opportunity to leave a bit more dollars. In the end, two million British Columbians will not be paying MSP premiums in the province of British Columbia. Approximately 40 percent of British Columbians are exempted from premiums for MSP .

It’s an opportunity, again, to target spending, target invest - ment to make sure those who are vulnerable are getting the best services possible. Again, I’m incredibly proud. I know that time is coming to a close, and I’m sure the members opposite are going to be ready to leap up and see the world a little bit differently than I see it with all these good things that I did talk about. Again, I want to preface it by saying: Y ou know what? We have made tar- get investments. We are trying to do our best, but there is no magic solution. We are not going to put our children in debt.

My chil- dren and the children thereafter are not going to be pay- ing for the investments that we have going forward. But we are making good investments, and at the end of the day, I think everybody on both sides of the House…. Is the life a little bit easier, a little bit better for hundreds of thousands of British Columbians after this budget? I will say, “Y es, it is, ” and I’m proud to support Budget 2016. A.

Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this debate, particularly after the member for Comox Valley, who classified the world in this House as one of two sides: the world of optimism on that side and, argu- ably, in his mind, the world of pessimism on this. I’ d like to quote Winston Churchill: “ A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. ” I am an optimist. I understand what it means to be an optimist, but unfortu- nately, I don’t think Winston Churchill was thinking of this government when he came up with that quote.

In fact, there is another quote attributed to Winston Churchill more applicable to the statements that eman - ated from the opposite side, and the quote is this: “The truth is incontrovertible.

Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ” What you’re going to hear from this side of the House is a truthful assessment of the Budget 2016, not one filled with rhetoric, not one filled with promises, not one filled with half-truths, but one that looks at it carefully and points out what is good and what is not good without the hyperbolic, hysterical rhetoric, so common, emanating from those on the other side. I rise in this debate puzzled by the direction this gov - ernment is heading.

Frankly, it’s become clear to me that this government is really out of new ideas — completely out of new ideas, lost, lost their way, given that LNG is not playing out the way they thought it would be. The budget speech we heard on Tuesday was high on self-praise but represents little in terms of fundamental change. We continue to chase markets we are not part of with LNG while bringing forward no clear plan to build on our strengths, let alone the challenges we face.

While it was encouraging that this government incor- porated some policy changes that British Columbians have been advocating for, for the most part, they repre - sented halfway measures that do little to attack the under- lying issues that are presenting challenges for so many British Columbians. First, let me discuss the issue of housing. To make good policy, you need good data. I was encouraged to read the government has adopted additional tools that will allow them to gather much-needed contextual information about the housing market.

The new requirement for property purchasers to iden- tify their nationality is a step forward that I’ve been ur - ging this government to take for two years. [1505] Frankly, I wonder how they’re going to do it without actually bringing the private member’s bill which is pre- cisely the same as what is being proposed by government. I look forward to debating the private member’s bill that’s before the House as we speak. I’m glad the government listened on this. Likewise, I was also pleased to see that bare trusts will now face more examination and that government will have the data it needs to address this.

Gathering more information about bare trustees is certainly better than ignoring the prob - lem altogether. But I’ d like to stress this: this loophole still remains open — open to exploitation. To say that we need to gather information from scratch implies we have an entirely different market to that of Ontario. Ontario’s housing market in Toronto is just as hot as that in Vancouver, with speculation running amok. Y et in Ontario, they have a mechanism to track this and actually generate revenue to limit the amount of specu - lation occurring.

While that may largely be true, for example, that we need to gather information from scratch for efficiency’s sake, I do think we have a promising opportunity to learn from what has happened in Ontario and to act pre- emptively to close this loophole.

British Columbia Debates10514 Thursday, February 18, 2016 For example, Ontario has a similar property transfer tax system in place, but they have plugged the loophole, and they did it very simply. All they did was apply the property transfer tax upon change in beneficial ownership, not just change in title registered at the land title office.

The wealthy offshore buyers can flip houses numer - ous times by simply registering the first purchase as a bare trust owned by a corporation and flip the corpora - tion shares from owner to owner to owner without ever changing land title and without ever paying a penny of property transfer tax. I know this is being done because I’ve spoken to people. I’ve spoken to developers, I’ve spoken to mortgage lenders, and I’ve spoken to those who are involved in the real estate industry. This change could and should be done in British Columbia to ensure that everyone is treated fairly.

However enlightening information may be in its own right, it’s meaningless without appropriate action. We need to get moving on these issues, and government doesn’t seem to have a plan, like so many other things. This also seems to be the case with the government’s change to the property transfer tax. Increasing property transfer tax rates to 3 percent on homes over $2 million is another adjustment that I agree with in principle. But with affordability as top issue on the minds for so many people across the province, making it more expensive to flip luxury homes is a progressive step.

There’s no ques- tion it’s a progressive step forward. Unfortunately, this too could be rendered meaningless if the loopholes in our housing markets are ignored. In fact, it may be that the government loses taxes in the short term as more sellers engage in and exploit those loopholes to avoid the increase in taxes. Furthermore, with the $750,000 property tax break for new homes, the government is incentivizing housing development while doing nothing to dampen specula - tion — again, failing to close the loopholes affecting the market right now.

Contrary to the minister’s dismissive comment that this is a Point Grey issue, the housing problem is affect - ing communities across British Columbia, and it is great- ly impacting our provincial economy. On my street alone, where I live in Gordon Head, a house sold. The sold sign came on when the house was listed. It was sold to foreign buyers. Two months later, the sold sign came on again, as the house was flipped. It was cash transactions in both cases. This is not a problem exclusive to Metro Vancouver. It’s a problem now emerging in the capital regional dis- trict and other markets in British Columbia.

The costs we are shouldering as society are not just eco- nomic; they’re social. The passionate, determined young people we need to support our communities and lead them into the future are being priced out by people who can afford to buy houses then leave them empty. Ever wonder why there’s a traffic jam on the Second Narrows Bridge in Vancouver going north? It should make no sense, because people on the North Shore work, by and large, in Vancouver.

The reason is because no - body who’s working in those homes — the electricians, the plumbers, the trades — are able to live in that region, so they’re commuting from halfway across Vancouver across bridges. The government’s response — rather than dealing with the affordability problem — is to start talk - ing about building bigger roads and bigger bridges. Again, not addressing the problem, it’s avoiding the problem be- ing dealt with and kicking the can down the road further. [1510] The role of government is to take direct actions and to direct the actions of citizens.

We incentivize what we like, and we discourage that which we don’t. We need to close loopholes and disincentivize the preponderance of empty houses, because as it currently stands, the government is failing to do an adequate job of either. There’s a glaring market failure. The preponderance of vacant homes in Vancouver has a social cost attached to it. That external- ity needs to be internalized so that vacant owners pay the true cost of that vacant home. The government’s response, rather than recognizing the market failure and internalizing externalities, incen- tivizes more development and further speculation.

This is a government that is completely out of control and completely at a loss or understanding of fundamental market instruments. That does not deal with the im - minent problem. It kicks the can down the road further, so to speak. The imminent crisis needs to be dealt with through the implementation of market instruments avail- able to government. Those instruments alone will correct this market failure. Frankly, the single most effective policy that govern - ment could do would be to implement a price, put a levy or a tax on homes that are left vacant.

This government is building the economy of Scottsdale in British Columbia as we speak. It’s an artificial economy, fuelled by specula- tion and requiring continued development and building of houses in order to sustain itself. Government is misleading British Columbians by sug- gesting that we have a diversified economy. Our econ - omy right now is being driven by wild speculation and offshore money coming into British Columbia to actually buy these homes, and developers build more — selling, flipping, buying, speculating.

There is only one end solution for that infinite growth in a finite system, and that will be a collapse, a collapse of pretty strong proportions that this government will start — as they have done with LNG — to blame on un - foreseen global forces. Well, we can see it happening right now, and there’s nothing unforeseen about it. What is unforeseen is any will or any policy emanating from the government to actually address the key issues of today in British Columbia. Putting up a levy on vacant homes will encourage more owners to lease their vacant homes, which in turn

British Columbia DebatesThursday, February 18, 2016 10515 will put downward pressure on rent costs in Vancouver and elsewhere. The revenue generated from this levy would and could actually be used to pay the social costs arising from non-affordability within Metro Vancouver and emerging here in the capital regional district — the costs of the homeless, the enhanced judicial system pro- cess that is required to deal with the increasing homeless problem in our province. The reduction of services for mental health can be addressed.

We can start to actually raise the living allowance, which hasn’t changed in I can’t even remember how many years. One of the saddest moments in this House since I was elected in 2013 happened about 20 minutes ago when the member for Comox Valley stood and truly believed that somehow $11 a month is actually a great step for - ward, after seeing no increase in fees for years and years and years. The people of British Columbia deserve better.

They deserve a government that’s honest to them, a govern - ment that actually does not try to sell itself as something it’s not, a government that recognizes that there is a so- cial problem out there and that $11 a month is not going to solve it. Frankly, the price of cauliflower has gone up $8, say, in about three months. Basically, what we’re say- ing is that you can almost meet the increase in your gro- cery bill but not quite, with this $11 a month. Shameful, truly shameful that this was lauded as a sign of progress. In

summary, the government’s balanced budget in - creasingly is relying on revenue from an artificial, over - inflated housing market. They are benefiting from the issues that are causing so many affordability concerns amongst British Columbians and taking no real concrete steps to address this. The government needs to address this market failure, and the 2016 budget represents an - other missed opportunity to do so. [1515] Now to MSP . On MSP , the government has brought forward a small, half-step approach to making this fee a little bit more fair for the people of British Columbia.

I commend them for taking that one small half step. It may not be much, but at least we are moving in the right dir- ection. Making children exempt from paying MSP pre - miums and increasing the assistance available are both positive changes to a fundamentally unfair system. Despite the changes to MSP premiums announced on Tuesday, we still have a system that doesn’t work, how - ever, for most British Columbians.

To use the Premier’s words, as the opposition did so well earlier today in ques- tion period, it’s a system that is “antiquated…old, and the way people pay for it generally doesn’t make a whole ton of sense. ” Those are the Premier’s words

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20160218pm-Hansard-v32n11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20160218pm Hansard v32n11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd987bb1df8c34d74bf76e6a66c48ac43a5fabf7

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