2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, February 29, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 33, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Polak

Bill 21 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. Polak

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Carbon capture and clean energy projects in Squamish

J. Sturdy

Small Business B.C. Awards

J. Shin

SPCA Cupcake Day fundraiser

J. Martin

Welcome playgroup program at James Bay Community Project

C. James

Lunar new year celebrations

R. Lee

Youth solutions contest

D. Donaldson

Oral Questions

Government spending priorities and bus pass program changes

J. Horgan

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

M. Mungall

Court ruling on asbestos removal company and WorkSafe B.C. regulations

S. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Capital funding for Bayside Middle School roof replacement

G. Holman

Hon. M. Bernier

Dairy farm abuse case

L. Popham

Hon. S. Anton

Placement of Métis child and permanency plans for children in care

D. Donaldson

Hon. S. Cadieux

C. James

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016 (continued)

H. Bains

A. Weaver

N. Macdonald

D. Routley

L. Krog

S. Simpson

M. Mungall

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 14 — Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Bill 11 — Food and Agricultural Products Classification Act

Hon. N. Letnick

L. Popham

Hon. N. Letnick

Bill 5 — Miscellaneous Statutes (Signed Statements) Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. S. Anton

L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment (continued)

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

S. Chandra Herbert

V. Huntington

K. Conroy

[ Page 10801 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2016

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: We know that the Alzheimer Society of British Columbia does some excellent work here in the province. We know that as our population ages, Alzheimer’s is a disease where we have to be ever present, ever vigilant and to make sure we have supports in place. We have a tremendous working relationship with the Alzheimer Society, supporting the First Link program and many of the other programs that the Alzheimer Society of B.C. is involved with.

I had the pleasure of meeting with Maria Howard, the CEO of the Alzheimer Society, and Barbara Lindsay, the director of advocacy and education for this organization. I know members on all sides of the House are very familiar with the work of the Alzheimer Society. I want to congratulate them for their work and ask all members to help me welcome Maria and Barbara to the House here today.

C. James: I have three guests in the gallery visiting us today: Kaye Kennish, who is the executive director of the James Bay Community Project; Nancy Smith, who is coordinator of the family centre; and Camilla Nordberg, who is a parent from Finland who uses a program at the project, which I’ll speak a little bit more about later. Would the House please make our three guests very welcome.

Hon. S. Anton: Joining us from the idyllic pastures of North Cowichan is my friend Wendy Porteous. Wendy Porteous is the granddaughter of J. Wallace de Beque Farris, who came to British Columbia in 1901 as a city prosecutor from New Brunswick. He was the Attorney General from 1917 to 1922, so one of my predecessors.

His wife Evlyn, Wendy’s grandmother, was a formidable woman who liked to make her mark. I’ll mention two different ways she made her mark. Way one was that she had a protest on the front lawn of the Parliament Buildings with all the women that she brought over from Vancouver — so much so that Premier Duff Pattullo came down to her husband, Mr. Farris, and said: “Would you tell your wife to go home?”

[1335]

She said, “I will not go home until I get what I want,” and what she wanted was funding — the Minister of Advanced Education will be interested in this — for the new University of British Columbia. Well, she was a formidable woman, as I said. She got the funding.

The second way she made her mark is a rather famous way, because she was impatiently waiting for her husband one day in the Attorney General’s office. She took her diamond ring and carved his initials. I don’t know that we should be following this example, but it is a famous carving. She carved his initials, JWDeBF, on the window in my office, the Attorney General’s office, the office that I’m honoured to occupy at the moment. The initials are there to this day.

Wendy herself, as I said, from the Cowichan Valley, had a distinguished career as a deputy minister in the federal government and was sent out to British Columbia in the latter part of her career to work as the chief federal negotiator on treaties. Would the House make Wendy very welcome.

J. Sturdy: In the spring of 1984, down by the railroad tracks in Prince George, a bunch of young tree planters were milling about, myself among them, when I spied a very pretty girl. Over the intervening years, we got to know each other well, as one can only do working together in farming and in marriage and with children. Despite all that, she has come to Victoria today to spend even more time with me. Clearly I am a lucky man.

It’s with pleasure that I’d like to introduce to the House my wife, Trish Sturdy. Trish is accompanied by her cousin Jillian Kerrigan. Will the House please join me in making them feel welcome.

C. Trevena: In the House today are two former presidents of the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union. Jackie Miller and Chris Abbott are here to observe question period. They are former presidents but still assiduous and strong campaigners for our marine highway, the B.C. ferry system.

They continue to fight very strongly and very clearly for equality in the provincial transportation system, our provincial transportation policy, to ensure that ferries have equity and are treated like any other highway so that our coastal communities can play the full part they should play in B.C.’s vibrant economy. I hope that the House will make Chris and Jackie very welcome.

R. Fleming: I’d like to introduce a few people who have joined us in the gallery this afternoon. First of all — I call her Madam President — Trish Richards, who’s

[ Page 10802 ]

the president of my constituency association in Victoria–Swan Lake. She’s here with her daughter Caitlin Croteau and a friend and relation, Trish Stirling.

Now, Trish Richards is not a stranger to this House, but her guests I don’t believe have attended question period before, so I hope our members won’t disappoint, on both sides. I would ask the House to make the two Trishes and Caitlin welcome here this afternoon.

J. Sturdy: I’d just like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House Amninder Sibia, a new assistant legislative assistant with government caucus.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — GREENHOUSE GAS

INDUSTRIAL REPORTING AND CONTROL

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

[1340]

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. The amendments will support the creation of a strong liquefied natural gas sector in British Columbia, with the cleanest LNG facilities in the world. The amendments arise from ongoing discussions with industry and the LNG sector and also make a modification to transitional…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Polak: …provisions that facilitate the implementation of the new Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.

Specifically, the amendments create a new entrant period during which new regulated operations can perform commissioning and testing activities to optimize their production, adds authority to allow any person to hold an account and conduct transactions in the B.C. carbon registry and to buy and transfer funded units from government, and enable offsets purchased by government under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act to be transitioned to offset units under the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act and used to meet government’s carbon neutrality needs.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 21 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. M. Polak presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. M. Polak: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak: This bill contains amendments to the Environmental Management Act in order to enable a new spill preparedness response and recovery regime in British Columbia. The new authorities will enable preparedness requirements to be placed on specific industries or businesses before a spill ever happens.

These authorities include the need to have a spill contingency plan in place. The aim is to have a consistent standard across different sectors so as to reduce the risk of a spill and an environmental emergency.

In the event of an actual spill, there will be new obligations and duties for the spill cleanup and to ensure that the full impact of the spill is addressed. These include restoration activities to resolve the harm done to a variety of species, their habitats and the ecology of the affected area.

The new framework will retain the authority of the government to take direct action in response to a spill. In addition, the bill provides clarity as to who is responsible for paying for all the costs of responding to a spill, especially when government has taken the spill response actions.

A comprehensive spill preparedness response and recovery regime is dependent on having the right capability and capacity to deal with spills. The bill enables the government to certify a preparedness and response organization that can provide spill preparedness and responses in British Columbia.

Finally, the bill enables greater transparency, accountability and participation. The aim is to have a spill preparedness response and recovery regime that is strategic, collaborative and inclusive.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to

[ Page 10803 ]

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CARBON CAPTURE AND CLEAN ENERGY

PROJECTS IN SQUAMISH

J. Sturdy: Carbon Engineering’s game-changing atmospheric carbon capture and renewable energy project on the Squamish oceanfront is one of those potentially disruptive technologies that could alter our energy future.

That it is the only Canadian finalist for the $25 million Virgin Earth award speaks to its unique attributes, and the fact that the company has recently relocated from Calgary to Squamish speaks to their need to look to the future.

Carbon Engineering is scaling an industrial process that captures ambient carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Together with UBC’s Clean Energy Research Centre as a technical partner, Carbon Engineering is advancing an air-to-fuel demonstration plant with a short-term goal of powering Squamish’s transit fleet with synthetic fuels captured right out of thin air and, longer term, developing a cost-effective carbon capture and air-to-fuel technology that could globally change the way that we live, work and play.

The district of Squamish, Squamish First Nation, Carbon Engineering, Newport Beach Developments and UBC’s Clean Energy Research Centre last week formalized an MOU last week to continue to expand the collaboration with the goal of creating a provincial clean energy innovation and educational hub on the Squamish oceanfront.

Beginning this spring, redevelopment by Newport Beach Developments of this 100-acre brownfield site will create a place where people will come together to work, to play, to live and to learn.

[1345]

The Sea to Sky already has an amazing cluster of heritage and modern clean energy projects. Adding a centre of clean energy technology, education and research to this new Squamish hub of mixed-use, residential, commercial and light industrial is as smart a smart-growth idea as can be imagined for a as can be imagined for a re-emerging Squamish.

Squamish is not just hard-wired for adventure but increasingly hard-wired for knowledge.

SMALL BUSINESS B.C. AWARDS

J. Shin: Last Thursday, on February 25, I joined a room full of fellow British Columbians to celebrate our top B.C. entrepreneurs at the 13th annual Small B.C. Business Awards ceremony. For two months between October 1 and November 30 last year, Small B.C. Business, which is the go-to resource centre for entrepreneurs, asked British Columbians to nominate and vote for their favourite local small businesses. The businesses with the highest number of votes in each of the ten award categories were announced as the top ten semi-finalists on December 11, and the top five finalists then moved on to face a panel of judges in a ten-minute Dragons’ Den– style pitch.

Over 4,000 entrepreneurs have participated in the Small B.C. Business Awards since its inception. With a record-breaking 535 nominations from across the province this year, it is clear that we love small businesses in B.C.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the ten winners: Shiraz Café in Prince George; KYBE Electrical Contracting and North Construction, both in North Vancouver; COCO Café in Nanaimo; Filaprint in Tumbler Ridge; All Inclusive Marketing and Big Bro’s Barbershop, both in Vancouver; Republica Coffee Roasters in Fort Langley; Glitter and Spice in South Surrey, Left in Maple Ridge; and of course, I’ll be remiss if I don’t mention Vital Body Weight Loss Centre in Burnaby, who made us very proud by making the top five.

Entrepreneurs work 365 days a year. Today being February 29, I do wish — as I often did for my parents, who poured much of their time along with their heart and soul into their small business — that our entrepreneurs spend the extra 86,400 seconds that we get in this leap year this year for some well-deserved family time. Although I have this feeling that it will be business as usual — another busy day at their best — as they continue to work for their families and their employees who count on them and for their communities that rely on their products and services.

SPCA CUPCAKE DAY FUNDRAISER

J. Martin: It is my delight to remind the House that today is National Cupcake Day. This delicious annual cross-country event is an important fundraiser for the SPCA and for other humane societies — great organizations that do outstanding work to protect the animals we love and care for.

Across the province, pet lovers are holding their own Cupcake Day parties to raise funds for these societies and build awareness about the humane treatment of animals. I’m pleased that this year Team B.C. Liberals are baking and selling cupcakes with the goal of raising $1,000 to go directly to the B.C. SPCA.

Last chance I had to log on, we had already eclipsed that by 50 percent. The day is still young. For just $5, you can get yourself a tasty treat and the satisfaction of helping a puppy, kitten or even a pony in need. What more could you ask for?

As a dog lover with two beautiful shelties back home, Blue and the Dude, this is a cause that is very close to my heart. Unfortunately, not all pets have the good fortune of

[ Page 10804 ]

living in a caring and loving home like my boys do, and that’s why I’m incredibly pleased our government has announced strengthened measures to ensure that animals we bring into our homes are born and raised in a safe and humane environment. We’ll be working with organizations such as the B.C. SPCA to make sure that breeders treat animals with the love, the care and the respect they so much deserve.

Today I encourage my fellow members to contribute what they can toward this great cause. Together, we can bake a difference and improve the lives of animals who need our help the most.

WELCOME PLAYGROUP PROGRAM AT

JAMES BAY COMMUNITY PROJECT

C. James: I’ve spoken often in this House about the amazing James Bay Community Project, and today I want to recognize another valuable program they provide. For the last three years, the James Bay Community Project family centre has been a place of welcome for newcomer families.

[1350]

Through its welcome playgroup program, 118 families from 31 countries have made new friends, discovered resources for themselves and their children, and built connections to help them settle into their new lives. These new arrivals to our country exchange baby items, maternity clothes, contact information and, yes, even recipes. They’ve attended each other’s children’s birthday parties, picnics and potlucks.

Once a month the public health nurses and a dental hygienist visit the welcome playgroup program. They’ve proven very popular, and often the hygienist stays longer than planned to accommodate all the families who want her to check out their children’s teeth.

The space at the family centre is child-friendly, full of books, puzzles and engaging activities for young children. Families are encouraged to support their children’s learning by being hands on, engaging and supervising them at play. They always finish the group with a singalong circle-time activity so that the parents can learn the songs along with their children.

Once parents come for the welcome playgroup, the staff and volunteers at the centre introduce them to the other wonderful programs that help them connect to the community. As one parent put it: “We have made friends, and my children are happy. I’ve realized that I’m not too much different in a new society and in a new country.”

This fabulous program has been funded for the last three years by a grant from the Vancouver Foundation, but that funding runs out next month. Unless another funder is found, the program will come to an end. But I’m an optimist, and I’m hopeful that the welcome playgroup will continue.

Congratulations to executive director Kaye Kennish and her amazing team at the James Bay Community Project. They are making a difference in my community, and I’m so very grateful for their dedication and contribution.

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Lee: Another successful month of lunar new year celebrations has come and almost gone. The lunar new year is celebrated in Asia-Pacific regions, including Korea, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

I want to share some of the incredible celebrations that have taken place in the Lower Mainland over the past month. Lunar new year celebrations starts with a countdown at Richmond’s Aberdeen Centre. In Burnaby, I had the pleasure of attending new year celebrations at Confederation and Bonsor community centres as well as the Crystal Mall. Annual celebrations were also held at the Brentwood Town Centre and along Hastings in the Heights area, with colourful lion dancers performing special blessings to bring luck and prosperity to the community.

This year I also enjoyed attending the annual Chinese New Year Cultural Fair in Coquitlam hosted by the Tri-City Chinese Canadian Association. The event was based on the classic Chinese novel Journey to the West , to mark the Year of the Monkey.

I can’t forget to mention the Chinese New Year Parade which returned for the 43rd time in Vancouver’s Chinatown. The rain didn’t dampen the enthusiasm of the participants at this spectacular parade, which featured groups like the Burnaby North Secondary School marching band; the Sikh Motorcycle Club; The Sky’s No Limit — Girls Fly Too; and much more, including many multicultural dancers and martial arts.

Although each lunar new year’s event was unique, they all gave local residents a chance to explore and celebrate promoting a more multicultural, inclusive society. Would the House join me in wishing all those celebrating a very happy and prosperous year.

YOUTH SOLUTIONS CONTEST

D. Donaldson: We often talk about solutions in this chamber. It tends to roll off the tongue easily. But how often do we actually ask young people to share their solutions with others? That is why this year’s annual contest that our MLA offices are running in partnership with Vancouver Canucks’ defenceman and Smithers-raised Dan Hamhuis is called Score One for Solutions.

It’s the sixth year we are running a contest. Previous themes included Don’t Let Cyber Bullies Score and last year’s Score One for Mental Wellness. This year we ask asking teens aged 13 to 18 to submit a 500-word essay or poem sharing solutions they have found or are currently

[ Page 10805 ]

trying to implement to an issue they find most pressing in their lives or the lives of their friends.

I visited schools to promote the contest, and the topics students have spoken about show a lot of diversity. Rather than setting a theme, this year we are leaving it up to teens to let us know what is on their minds and what they find challenging.

In my classroom visits, some have spoken about relationships, others about the pressures around drug and alcohol use. One grade 8 class talked about the struggle to achieve a balance in life. Imagine that: the pressures normally associated with adults yet being felt by someone as young as in grade 8.

[1355]

The entries will be considered by three independent judges. The winning entry will be posted on my MLA website, dougdonaldson.ca. The entry deadline is near, March 3.

Thanks to our media sponsors, the Interior News and Moose FM, the word is out. The prize is pretty sweet: two tickets to a Canucks game later this month, courtesy of Smithers’ Dan Hamhuis; plus two return airfares and two nights’ accommodation, thanks to our sponsors, the Gitksan Government Commission and Central Mountain Air.

Score One for Solutions — it’s a great contest where we hope to share some stories and solutions from teens and part of an approach we take of those most impacted by an issue being the ones, first and foremost, listened to for solutions.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT SPENDING PRIORITIES

AND BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

J. Horgan: Every day that goes by since the tabling of this year’s budget, more and more people are talking about just how callous this government has become. And we’ve got some fairly graphic examples of the choices that the Minister of Finance talked about on election day.

The Minister of Finance had a choice to give a meaningful increase to people on disability pensions for the first time in nine years. Instead of doing that, the Minister of Finance gave with one hand and took away with the other. And the government had the gall to say that this was about choices. I don’t know anyone else in this place who would agree that the choice between being shut in or using the most basic form of transportation is in fact a real choice.

The Premier, of course, has choices as well, and the Premier chose, rather than using WestJet, to spend $500,000 on private jets. My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Can she explain to the people in this House and, more importantly, to people on disability assistance why it’s okay for the Premier to find the highest-priced option and it’s okay for you and your government to take away the most basic of options for transportation for people with disabilities?

Madame Speaker: I’ll remind all members to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The member opposite seems offended that we would actually provide choice to people with disabilities, as if they’re not able to make choices for themselves. We on this side of the House actually think that people are able to make their own choices. That’s why in our ministry, here in Social Development and Social Innovation, we continue to refine policies to increase the independence of people with disabilities so that they can attain their full potential.

Again, for clarification for the members opposite, who certainly don’t seem to understand — and as much as they continue to say it over and over again, it doesn’t make it right: the subsidized bus pass program is still available to those individuals with disabilities. They can have it, and they will receive a $25 rate increase. That is what we are able to do, on this side of the House, to provide assistance for people with disabilities.

J. Horgan: The government was able to find 236 million bucks to give to the richest people in British Columbia, and they’re taking away bus passes from the most vulnerable. It’s reprehensible. It’s reprehensible for the minister to talk about choice.

What’s the choice? The choice is to stay home, “or do I get a bus pass…”

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: “…or do I buy food, or do I keep the lights on?” because hydro rates are going up again as well.

This is a government that is completely and utterly detached from reality, absolutely detached from reality. To the Minister of Social Development: why is it okay for the Premier and her entourage to get private flights wherever they want to go, and it’s not good enough to give a basic bus pass to the most vulnerable people in our community? Why that choice?

[1400]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s just wrong, and the member opposite knows it. The investment is $170 million to increase the rates for people with disabilities across this province, giving 45,000 people money that they didn’t have before, that they didn’t get, that other people did get.

It’s about equity. It’s about fairness. And for the members opposite, who always say that’s what they’re all about — fairness and equity — this is what change is doing in

[ Page 10806 ]

our ministry: making sure that everybody is getting the same thing across the board, as well as keeping their subsidized bus pass if that’s what they choose.

It’s not just about the rates. It’s about the other things that…. We wrap supports around individuals: free MSP, free dental, optical, medical equipment, supplies and subsidized daycare. We wrap all those supports around people to ensure that they can reach their full potential.

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

J. Horgan: For the minister to recite programs that have been in place for decades is not credit due to this government — not at all. Quite the contrary. Now, if the Premier needs to fly to Whistler, the private jet is there. If she needs to go to Kelowna to remind the people there that she is their MLA, the private jet is there. But what do we do for the most vulnerable in society? Well, $52 a month from $77 a month isn’t a lot, and some of that’s going to go into the pocket of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro so he can transfer it to the Minister of Finance to balance the books. This government is completely and utterly out of touch.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: When you can stand and defend private jets to the tune of half a million bucks when there are multiple flights a day…. If the Premier does like to visit the constituency she represents….

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Minister of Health.

J. Horgan: Nine years and nothing from the bunch over there. But the rich got their piece last year. The rich got their piece again, and the Premier gets to fly to her sometimes constituency in a private jet. Unbelievable. To the most out-of-touch government I’ve ever seen in my life, will you do the right thing and restore bus passes to the most vulnerable people and shut the private jets down?

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order. Both sides of this House will come to order.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: If the member opposite wants to talk about reality, let’s talk about the reality that they provided in their 2013 election platform: $20 of an increase for couples and singles. Nothing for people with disabilities. Let’s talk about the reality that the members opposite cut income assistance rates when they were in government — cut them.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It was the members opposite who, in their ten years of time in government, raised the rates a mere $10. It is this government that continues to make investments for people with disabilities. It’s this government that came up with the single-parent employment initiative. It’s this government that came up with technology at work to provide supports for individuals, to remove barriers and create opportunities so that they can get into the workforce. We know that the best thing for individuals is to get a job, become independent and take care of themselves and their families.

M. Mungall: You can only imagine the outrage that people with disabilities feel after hearing….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: You know, Madame Speaker, I’m getting tired of…. Every time I get up, this side of the House over here just has to get outraged, and they have to shut these questions down. These are the questions from people with disabilities in this province, and that attitude is wrong.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. This House will come to order.

Please continue.

M. Mungall: As I was trying to say, you can only imagine the outrage that people with disabilities feel after hearing about the Premier’s travel choices.

[1405]

One trip was over $16,000. Now, compare that with the $11,700 that people with disabilities get to live off in a single year. Now $624 of that is going to be clawed back for the Liberals’ new bus pass fee. And it is a new bus pass fee.

The minister talks about choices, and it’s pretty clear that choices are being made — luxury travel for the Premier, and a bus pass clawback for people with disabilities. My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Clearly, she doesn’t get it. Why does she not get that this is wrong, and when is she going to end the clawback of bus passes for people with disabilities?

[ Page 10807 ]

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: What needs to be shut down are the inaccuracies that the member opposite continues to spread across this province, for people with disabilities. What I truly don’t understand is how the member opposite wasn’t advocating for her constituents in her own community that weren’t getting any transportation subsidy and who are now getting a $77 increase.

On this side of the House, we have made investments across ministries: $3.2 billion in health care over the next three years, $217 million in MCFD, $456 million in SDSI, too, not only to provide the rate increase and the bus subsidy to individuals across this province with disabilities, but also for those who are CLBC clients — $36 million. Those are investments that are making a difference in people’s lives each and every day.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: If anyone in this House is misleading the public, it’s that minister, right there, every time she says that people with disabilities did not pay $52 a month for their bus…. They did not pay $52 for their bus pass prior to this clawback instituted by this government. That’s the truth, and every time they suggest otherwise, they are the ones misleading people across this province.

And on one day — on one day — the Premier charters a flight for her and her entourage to Kelowna for a photo op. Now, she enjoyed that photo op so much that guess what. She went and did it the very next day again. Bills sent to the taxpayers.

But if Alex Carey, a young man with disabilities, needs to get to his classes so that he can get a job…. If he needs to get to his classes at Douglas College in New Westminster, guess what. He has to pay more, or he has to drop out, and that doesn’t sound like much of a choice at all.

So, Minister, here’s the reality. You’re forcing people with disabilities to choose between a bus pass, getting to classes, getting to work, getting to doctor’s appointments or food. That’s the reality. Why don’t you get it, and when are you going to end this bus pass clawback?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: It’s been about two weeks since the budget came out and we announced the $170 million investment that we’re making. The member opposite has yet to come to me to ask for information or a briefing on how to understand how this is affecting and benefiting people with disabilities around this province. I welcome her to come for information if she needs it, because obviously she doesn’t get it.

I’d like to help support her in that if she chooses, because my role as minister is to ensure that people with disabilities are supported. And these changes are supporting them more today than they were yesterday.

[1410]

COURT RULING ON

ASBESTOS REMOVAL COMPANY

AND WORKSAFE B.C. REGULATIONS

S. Simpson: Last week the Supreme Court overturned the contempt charges against Seattle Environmental Consulting regarding their asbestos removal business. This company has a disturbing record of ignoring worker safety in an industry that can have very serious health consequences for workers who are not appropriately equipped or trained. This court decision is of great concern to those who work in the health and safety field. Will the minister assure this House that there will be an appeal of this disappointing decision?

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly share the member’s concern that worker safety in British Columbia must be a priority, and particularly in regards to the issue of asbestos. We have seen the impacts of latency in workers as a result of contamination with asbestos. As the member knows, the judge, at this point, has issued an oral judgment.

WorkSafe continues to wait for the formal written judgment, but I can assure the member opposite that WorkSafe will be considering all of its options — including, most specifically, an appeal.

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

S. Simpson: We know the court did not overturn the order itself, and there’s little question about the conduct of this company. The issue is the complexity and the clarity of the regulations that implement this decision. The regulatory regime that provides oversight and enforcement is fundamental to the operation of WorkSafe.

What action does the minister intend to take to ensure that WorkSafe’s procedures and regulations protect workers and ensure consequences for bad actors, like Seattle Environmental, regardless of the final decision about an appeal?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite, the first thing we’re going to do is wait for the written judgment. I’ve asked that WorkSafe thoroughly examine all of the issues that have been raised by the decision. They’re going to wait to see what the written decision says. In fact, I’ve had several discussions over the past number of months about the whole management of the issue that’s related to asbestos in the province.

WorkSafe, as I’m sure the member knows, has an expanded demolition compliance team. They absolutely recognize the importance of ensuring that regulations are followed, that compliance is absolutely critical. So WorkSafe will examine the written judgment and will look at the issue of whether or not the regulatory regime is an issue here. But worker safety is a priority, and WorkSafe

[ Page 10808 ]

fully understands that. I can assure the member opposite that this decision will be taken extremely seriously.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR BAYSIDE

MIDDLE SCHOOL ROOF REPLACEMENT

G. Holman: Bayside Middle School now has a bigger problem than just a leaky roof. It now has a mould problem that’s so bad that the library and the art class had to be quarantined last week. The costs of mould removal will now be added to the $400,000 school district 63 has already spent trying to patch the leaking roof and to fix the water damage.

Needless to say, teachers and parents are worried about the health of children attending the school. The school district has now told the minister they can contribute $1 million to the $2½ million cost of roof replacement.

How bad do the problems at Bayside have to get before the minister understands the urgency of the situation and commits to replacing the Bayside School roof to protect kids in the classroom?

Hon. M. Bernier: I find this quite disappointing to even have to stand in the House to answer this question, especially since the member opposite has met with me numerous times on this issue. I’ve explained it to him numerous times. In fact, I even stepped out and met with the people from the PAC group. The hon. member knows very well what’s happening in this situation. He can exaggerate all he wants in this situation to say that there’s mould everywhere.

In fact, the member actually knows the answer to the question. There was mould found on Thursday. By Friday, it was fixed and students were back in the classroom and the library. He knows that answer.

The member opposite also knows the answer that I committed to work with the school district, that my staff has actually been working on this issue long before that member brought it to this House.

[1415]

So although the member would like to try to make it look as if he’s doing something, I’d like to thank the parents in that area, and I’d like to thank the school district. The school district is the one who actually brought it forward, and we committed to working with them to find the answer, to find the resolve.

Madame Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.

G. Holman: Well, the minister can spare me the outrage.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

G. Holman: I’m quite aware of….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Member, excuse me.

The House will come to order before we continue.

Please proceed.

G. Holman: I’m quite aware of the process that the school has to go through. I’m quite aware that kids are slipping on the gym floor. I’m quite aware that the mould problem has been fixed.

What the minister….

Interjections.

G. Holman: The point here is that if the roof doesn’t get replaced…

Interjection.

Madame Speaker: Member.

G. Holman: …we will continue to have mould discovered in the walls.

School children are dodging buckets on the gym floor, and the only way to fix that is to fix the roof. If the minister does not make a commitment soon enough to replace the school roof, we can’t get the work done, completed, in the summer, which is our window of opportunity to complete this.

Will the minister commit today — commit today, Mr. Minister — to replacing the roof? Let’s get to yes.

Hon. M. Bernier: First of all, let me thank the parents that are in that school — and the school district, which has been doing amazing work. I want to thank them because they’ve been dealing with this situation far too long.

The member opposite knows the situation all too well. In fact, when this issue came to me a week ago and I researched into this, I found out that my ministry staff had actually been working for quite some time with the district to try to do this.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. Bernier: I’ll make this very, very, very simple for the member opposite. The member opposite actually knows the answer to this because I’ve met with him. We committed to working with the school district. This has been going on far too long. We’ve committed to making sure that the parents have the roof fixed.

That’s why the school district and the ministry have an architect who is looking at the issue — to make sure

[ Page 10809 ]

that we don’t waste money fixing a roof and having it leak again. The member knows this. I know they don’t care about wasting money, but on this side of the House, we do. So we want to make sure it’s done properly.

That’s why we have the architect giving us the numbers. That’s why, on this side of the House, we committed to working with the school district to make sure that the roof is repaired.

DAIRY FARM ABUSE CASE

L. Popham: My question is to the Attorney General. Can she tell this House why, after 19 months, no charges have been laid in the case of the horrific abuse of dairy cattle in Chilliwack?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a question properly directed to the criminal justice branch, because they are the independent prosecution service. They are not directed by the political arm of government.

What I will say, though, is that the criminal justice branch takes all charges extremely seriously that come to them. They take charges — in this case, involving animals, livestock — extremely seriously. They treat them seriously.

[1420]

They have a charge approval standard. There must be a substantial likelihood of conviction. It must be in the public interest. They assess those two matters, and they draw a conclusion as to whether or not charges should be laid. We are very well served in British Columbia by our prosecution service, and as I said, they are an independent prosecution service.

PLACEMENT OF MÉTIS CHILD AND

PERMANENCY PLANS FOR

CHILDREN IN CARE

D. Donaldson: The news that a 2½-year-old Métis child from B.C. is about to be moved to Ontario, away from the only family she has ever known, is causing a lot of concern — the main one being, of course, the impact of the move on the child.

The ministry’s care standards make it clear that every child in care under five should have a permanent plan within 12 months. So why was this child in care for 2½ years — think about that — before the ministry made permanent plans for her?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Well, after a couple of years of this, you would expect that the member opposite would know not to raise questions about individual cases in the House, because I can’t answer them. While we can’t speak directly to any case about any child specifically — and certainly not one that is before the courts — what I can say is that in any circumstance where there is a child in care who we are looking to place for adoption, the best interests of the child are first and foremost in any planning for that child.

Madame Speaker: The member for Stikine on a supplemental.

D. Donaldson: Last week the minister pleaded for questions, and this week she again refuses to answer.

The government claims to be concerned about the workload of social workers, but the facts say otherwise. The government has left social workers understaffed and overworked. When there aren’t enough social workers, they are left to deal with emergencies. Adoptions aren’t emergencies, so they get put to the back of the line.

Here’s a 2½-year-old who is impacted by staff shortages. How is that putting, in the words of the minister, the concerns of the child paramount? How is the minister going to ensure that the right decision takes place for this child?

Hon. S. Cadieux: Firstly, I will say, for the members opposite, that no decision for any child in the care of the government is made by a political person. They are made by folks who are delegated the authority to make those decisions, as per legislation.

Let me just address a couple of other things that the member raises. First off, our social workers — 2,500 people on the front lines that do incredibly good work under incredibly difficult circumstances all of the time. In November of 2014, I committed to boosting the front line by 200 people, and I can confirm for the member that that has indeed happened. In addition, Budget 2016-17 allows us to hire an additional 130 front-line people.

This House is well aware of my commitment to adoptions and improving both the timeliness and the number of adoptions in British Columbia. That plan has been underway for a couple of years now, and we have committed an additional $3 million over the next three years to further improve those processes.

C. James: An infant who has been in care from the start of their life should not be waiting 2½ years for the government to make a plan for her. What has been done cannot be changed, but it’s all the more reason to ensure that this child is not further harmed. That means working with the current foster parents. That means making sure that the best decision is made.

After everything this government has put this child and these foster parents through, my question is to the minister: will she ensure a thorough review of all children without permanency plans and put the resources in place to fix this problem?

[1425]

Hon. S. Cadieux: I agree with the member opposite that timeliness for children in care is absolutely important,

[ Page 10810 ]

and it’s why we’re making improvements in the ministry. It is why we’re hiring additional staff so they have more capacity to do the important work that they do. It’s why we’ve put an increased emphasis and focus on adoptions and guardianship and why last year we were able to increase the number of adoptions and the number of guardianship placements significantly over the year before.

That work will continue. Permanency plans for children in care are absolutely a priority, and that is work that is improving every day.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is the former member for Vancouver-Kensington, the affable, the charming — and the ever-present today — David Chudnovsky. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, it’s Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of Environment — and in this chamber, continued second reading debate on Bill 10.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2016

(continued)

H. Bains: I’ll continue on with my comments about the bill before us, Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016.

[1430]

I talked on Thursday, before my time ran out…. What are we talking about in this bill? One of the things that is being proposed here, $100 million — they call it the prosperity fund. And I said: “Is it really a prosperity fund? Where did this idea of this fund come from?” I touched on that on Thursday, and maybe it is good that we just start there.

Before the last election, 2013, we all saw what the Premier was running around and announcing. She announced…. On the side of the bus, actually, was written: “Debt-free B.C.” She said that the LNG industry is going to be here, and she was promoting that. By 2015, we will have a number of operations of LNG. The money will come in, and we won’t even know what to do with it. She talked about eliminating our debt altogether.

She knew that the debt, under her watch, was increasing more rapidly than ever and under any other Premier in the history of British Columbia. She knew that because, under her watch…. She knew that the debt, when she took over, was around $45 billion. She knew that…. By the time this fiscal year ends, our British Columbia debt will be $72 billion — from $45 billion only two years ago to $72 billion. Never in the history of this province has debt risen that fast — never, under any Premier.

For her to say that it’ll be a debt-free B.C. because…. All the revenue will come from LNG, and all the plants will be on line. They’re coming. In 2015, they will be in operation. Debt-free B.C. — all debts gone. Then she said, in fact, that our sales tax will be eliminated. Can you imagine that — a day in British Columbia when we have no sales tax? She also said we would set aside a prosperity fund. Because there’s so much money, we are saving for the future.

People believed her. They believed her. They voted her in. Now 2015 has come and gone — nothing to show for as far as the LNG plants are concerned, nowhere to be seen, nowhere, not even a sign. Company after company after company, who were proponents under her proposal, are saying: “We’re not making that decision until later, maybe never.” That’s the decision that is coming.

I mentioned why people should have been skeptical about her. She knew. Her own advisers were telling her that the United States is sitting on the largest deposit of natural gas of any country in the world. She was advised that the United States, within ten years, will be energy self-sufficient. She also was advised that the United States, the largest importer of energy in the world, would not only be self-sufficient; they would be in a position to export.

Now, can you imagine? When the largest importer of energy is actually exporting, what will happen to the prices of that commodity? I mean, it’s basic economics. When you have so much availability of a product, the prices are going to go down, and they knew that. When she was making those assertions, she knew that. That information was available to her.

What happened? Who cares about the facts? She simply said: “I’m just continuing to go on and continuing to promise all that.” Now an election is coming near, just around the corner. There’s an election coming up. She knows that the people of the province will be saying: “Madam Premier, you said there will be a prosperity fund. You said our debt will be eliminated. You said the sales tax will be gone. What do you have to show for it?”

[1435]

The creation of this fund, the $100 million prosperity fund, was supposed to be paid and invested with LNG revenue. Not a single penny came from LNG, but now she will have a prosperity fund. I call it a fantasy fund.

[ Page 10811 ]

You can call it a fictitious fund or even…. Lawyers will say it’s a frivolous fund.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Let’s talk about investment in the future. Actually, the member for Delta North the other day called it a saving account. Wow. It’s like, in any household, you have debt increasing at a record level. Your debt is increasing for the family at a record level. Your spouse is saying: “Hubby, what’s going on here? What are we doing here? How are we going to pay that debt?” You say: “Honey, don’t worry about it. I have just started a saving account. We’ll put money through the saving account. The money will come in, and we’ll pay our debt.”

Brilliant idea. She will throw you out of the house if you try that at home — and rightfully so. You should be thrown out of the house if that’s the kind of snake oil you take home and say to your spouse: “I’ve got all the answers for you. The debt is increasing. I have no answer to how I’m going to pay down the debt, but I have a saving account here. Money will come in; money will go out.”

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order, Member.

H. Bains: That’s what they’re doing here. It is frivolous.

Interjection.

H. Bains: You know what’s hogwash? It’s this fund. This fund is hogwash. I think the member for post-secondary education coined the right term for it. It is hogwash. This fund…. I thought it was fictitious. I thought it was fantasy. I thought it was frivolous. The member corrected me. It is hogwash. I agree with him. This fund is hogwash.

That’s what we are facing here — money that is not there. Just because we are creating a fund, right here in the document…. The government document shows there’s $100 million, and 25 percent is already committed to something else. Another 25 percent is allocated to something else, and then the remainder is also allocated to something else. So there’s nothing left in the account — none whatsoever. That’s why I think it is frivolous. It is frivolous. It is hogwash.

Let’s talk about what’s not in this bill. I want to talk about some of the real, serious issues that we are facing in British Columbia. There’s no answer here about B.C. Hydro rates going up. There’s no answer here about ICBC rates going up. There’s no answer here, in this bill, about MSP premiums. It’s all about taking more money out of the hard-working taxpayers’ pockets and giving tax breaks to their friends, the top 2 percent of British Columbians — a quarter of a billion dollars last year, a quarter of a billion dollars this year. You’re talking about almost a half-a-billion-dollar tax break to some of the richest in the province.

The top 2 percent will get a half-a-billion-dollar tax break between these two years, $1 billion over a four-year cycle. That’s $1 billion at a time when the government is saying we don’t have enough money to invest in the forestry industry, in our seniors, in our schools, in our post-secondary education, in a crime reduction strategy — none whatsoever. But they have found $1 billion, over four years, to give to the richest 2 percent of British Columbians.

Then they came here and said: “Well, we had to make some tough choices.” That is the choice that they made. For the ordinary people, the hard-working middle class and those who are on fixed income, their rates continue to go up in B.C. Hydro, ICBC, MSP premiums and even park fees. You go and drive south of Fraser. The tolls are going up. That’s what’s happening. On the other hand, the richest 2 percent will get a tax break to the tune of $1 billion over four years. Well, very tough choice. A very tough choice, I might say. That’s what it is.

[1440]

Let’s take a look at the industry that actually built this province, the forest industry, the industry that fed my family and looked after me and thousands of other families in British Columbia for the last 150 years. What do we have? Let’s take a little baseline test here. One thing for sure that I’ll pass on is these facts. So 31,000 fewer workers are working in the forest industry today than when this law took power in 2001 — 31,000 fewer forestry workers. Over 150 mills have been shut down during this period of time since they took over.

What do they have to propose to bring that industry back on its feet again so that we can actually encourage our forest industry, our forest companies, to invest here in British Columbia, rather than leaving British Columbia as they are doing now? All of our British Columbia…. Not all of them but many major industry companies are purchasing and investing in the United States right now.

In 2001, when the B.C. Liberals took over, there were maybe one or two mills south of the border owned by B.C. companies. In fact, it was the other way around. The U.S. companies were coming and investing in British Columbia — Weldwoods of the world, Weyerhaeusers of the world. They were coming into British Columbia to invest in B.C., to utilize our trees, processing them here and creating jobs here in British Columbia, as was established by governments decades ago.

The people of this province, through the government, said: “We will allow you to go in there and harvest those trees, and you, in return, will process them here in British Columbia to create jobs for British Columbians.” That was a social contract that existed ever since the forest industry came into commercialization.

[ Page 10812 ]

But this government, when they came into power, under the so-called forest revitalization act, cut that social contract. There’s hardly any social contract left. They said to the forest industry: “You can do whatever you want with our trees. You can do whatever you want. You don’t have to process them here in British Columbia.” As a result, they are shipping those logs raw. So 7 million cubic metres of raw logs have been shipped in each of the last few years. Seven million. That’s what is happening here in the British Columbian forest industry.

In the meantime, our British Columbian forest companies are fleeing British Columbia right now. There are over 40 mills in the United States invested in by British Columbian companies now, compared to one or two back in 2001-2002. That is a trend, and they don’t see that.

They don’t think that the forest industry needs a major investment so that our industry can stand on its feet again, so that we invest in forest health and so that generations to come will benefit from our forest industry as this generation and the generations before us benefited from it. It makes a lot of sense. It’s common sense but not from this government. They said to the forest industry, “You can do whatever you want,” and yes, they are doing it.

When they brought in the forest revitalization act, back in 2003, the promise that the industry made at that time was that they will be investing, in return, $2 billion to $3 billion in their operations in British Columbia to make them world competitive. That’s what they promised. They got everything that they wanted from this government. Did we get, in return, our part of the contract? They invested but not in British Columbia. They’re investing in the United States. That’s where they’re investing.

What do we have in this budget to deal with that? None whatsoever. What does that mean? Lack of leadership, lack of vision, lack of direction by this government. As a result, the forest industry will continue to suffer.

Interjection.

H. Bains: I think the Minister of Jobs is making some comments out there. Maybe I will remind her that in her own backyard, here’s what people are saying. This letter was printed in the Prince George Citizen .

[1445]

This is what was printed in the Prince George Citizen , right here. Let’s see here. Let’s talk about the forest industry.

Interjections.

H. Bains: We’ll get to those points. Let’s talk about forestry. I know you don’t want me to talk about the forest industry. Let’s talk about the forest industry first. Here’s what was printed in the Prince George Citizen , just recently, only a week ago, February 19. They say: “B.C. Has Poor Record of Resource Management.” That’s the heading. I’ll read the letter so that the minister will actually know what’s going on in her backyard.

“It is rather ironic for the Premier to point out the track record of Alberta’s lack of focus with their resources.”

Remember what the Premier was saying here when she delivered the budget? She was attacking Alberta. It’s ironic that she would point out the track record of Alberta’s lack of focus with their resources.

“In B.C., we have shown a great lack of foresight regarding our natural resources.”

This is in Prince George.

“In 1912, the provincial government had the foresight to establish the Forest Service. This was to manage all forests on Crown land belonging to the people, to secure a sustainable land base. One hundred years later, we can look back on a legacy of total mismanagement.

“Not only have they destroyed a large percentage of the forest land base, but we have virtually no new stands ready to harvest, except for some private lands on the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. Now that the government, in its wisdom, has terminated the Forest Service, who knows what will happen to all the Crown land in their charge?

“With our coal resources, we have seen previous governments having the taxpayer subsidize coal costs so they could sell the product overseas.

“B.C. Hydro has been mismanaged for several years. By being allowed to bypass the Public Utilities Commission, they have been able to ride roughshod over the requirements of First Nations and other groups. Site C should never have been started prior to all court challenges being completed. Greed is the only reason this is going ahead at this time. The hope is that Alberta will bail them out.

“Oil and gas development should have been managed differently from the start. Fracking is a big concern to many people, not only in the use of water but the long-term effects on groundwater and seismic complications. For the government to freeze tax increases to large global companies for a period of 25 years is atrocious and should be rescinded.

“Ecotourism can be an important source of income to the province, as long as we can maintain our natural scenery and resources.

“I feel that it is time for the taxpayers of this province to stand up against many of these extreme policies and have a greater say in the handling of resources in beautiful British Columbia.”

It’s signed by Harry Coates, Prince George.

How do you argue with that? I would like the Minister of Health, who has been chirping away when I was reading this letter — and the Minister of Jobs — to stand up and argue with this letter.

How can you argue with this letter? You know, it’s the truth. I know it hurts on that side. It hurts over there. I know that. That’s why they continue to shut people down when they question them.

Then the Premier will say: “If you’re not on my side, you’re my enemy. If you don’t agree with what I’m saying, the position that I’m taking, the policies that I’m developing here, no matter how political it is, well, then you’re saying no to all of those projects.” I mean, if you don’t agree with her, you’re against everything. That is how they like to portray everyone in the province, including the opposition.

Well, they will come to their senses one day, I hope. I hope that they will say yes to building schools in Surrey, in south of the Fraser and Tri-Cities. They’ve been saying and

[ Page 10813 ]

making promises for the last ten years — every minister. I think it’s the fourth or fifth minister that we have today — Minister of Education. They all made the same speech for the last ten years. What have they done? Nothing.

[1450]

I hope that they will say yes to building public transportation in Surrey and in Vancouver — the extension of SkyTrain. I hope they will say yes to that, rather than continue to put those things through referendum — make political decisions.

I hope that they will say yes to investing in the forest industry, into forest health.

Interjection.

H. Bains: Well, I think the Minister of Jobs should know better, because I think she’s quite knowledgable in this area.

They continue to allocate $63 million for fighting wildfires every year when they know that for the last ten years, the average cost to fight wildfires was $300 million. But they continue to allocate $63 million, and again this year.

I hope that they will say yes to building light rail in Surrey. I hope that they will say yes to inviting investment in natural resources and using B.C. workers, instead of allowing them to bring their own workers, temporary foreign workers. I hope that they will use our natural resources to create jobs for British Columbians, rather than allowing them to ship raw logs and not have any restrictions on those. I hope that they will say yes to the taxi industry, instead of saying yes to the Uber.

I hope that they will say yes to students from south of the Fraser to affordable access to post-secondary education. It’s getting out of reach.

I hope that they will be more prudent when they build these megaprojects than what they have been on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges. On Golden Ears Bridge, thanks to this government, we are paying $40 million each year for promised traffic that isn’t even there. They used the same company to forecast future traffic volumes on Port Mann. No wonder Port Mann is now losing money — hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

That’s the kind of mismanagement…. When we question them, we are somehow against all projects. That’s not the case. We are for building British Columbia with British Columbians and using our natural resources to create jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians.

That’s the difference that we have between them and us: what kind of British Columbia we want to build. We want to build British Columbia with the help of British Columbians, rather than what they’ve been doing with temporary foreign workers and allowing the companies to exploit them.

A. Weaver: I was busy booking a flight to Vancouver, expecting a Liberal member opposite to stand up and defend their budget, offer insight as to why this budget implementation act is a good one. Instead, all they resort to is chirping little bits here and little bits there.

I rise to speak to Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016. As you know, this bill essentially lays out the implementation across a diversity of bills — amendments here, amendments there — to implement government priorities as outlined in the budget speech.

There are a number of aspects to this. Number one, of course, is the introduction of the prosperity fund, the so-called $100 billion prosperity fund, a fund that was promised to British Columbians in the last election during a Hail Mary pass of hope that was given by this government to British Columbians in a desperate attempt to try to get elected — 100,000 jobs, $100 billion prosperity fund, debt-free B.C., elimination of PST, thriving schools and thriving hospitals, and on and on. A pot of gold at the end of the LNG rainbow was promised to each and every British Columbian.

In a desperate attempt to try to fulfil this outlandish promise — this promise that anybody in the natural gas industry knew was absurd, this promise that only the Liberals themselves convinced themselves had any dream of reality — when it finally….

[1455]

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I hear some sighing coming across the benches over there. The reality is that if you go back and look at the presentation given by the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines to the clean energy conference in 2012, you would see in that presentation natural gas prices projected to increase into the $20 to $30 range in the months and years ahead.

There is not a single person internationally who would ever have thought natural gas prices were going to increase like that, in light of the fact that everybody has discovered horizontal fracking technology, that Russia is so close to China and has reserves almost 20 times those of natural gas, that Iran, which has the largest reserve in the world, would have its….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Advanced Education is truly quite pompous over there. What is so remarkable is that I know his own colleagues think he’s a pompous person as well. So it would be quite…. It’s very difficult to actually continue with this.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m glad to have some order back in here.

[ Page 10814 ]

The prosperity fund is, as I pointed out, a desperate attempt to try to look like government is responding to its promise in the provincial election. When you actually look at this $100 million prosperity fund, it really is only $25 million, because 50 percent of that is going to be used to pay down debt. That’s $50 million. Another $25 million is going to be used for government priorities. What are those government priorities? Let me lay them out for you.

We’re going to see, over the course of the next year, a bunch of little tidbits — election tidbits — offered to British Columbians in the same vein as was offered in the last election, promises of this and promises of that. Say whatever it takes to get through lunch. Then say whatever it takes to get to dinner, and say whatever it takes again to get through to the next day.

There is also the Property Transfer Tax Act that’s being modified in the budget implementation act — government’s response to an affordability crisis in Vancouver, rather than standing back and recognizing that there are three reasons for this affordability crisis, or the speculative housing market. Number 1 is lack of enforcement of the Real Estate Services Act. Number 2 is a preponderance of vacant homes and owners of those vacant homes not being required to pay the true cost, the social cost, of leaving vacant properties.

Now, I know the Minister of Advanced Education has a hard time when I start to use economic language. The externalities associated with vacant homes have not been internalized to the people with those vacant homes. Those externalities are a social cost. The third reason is the existence of loopholes that allow people to avoid paying property transfer tax or register on title where they live.

It was with the latter that I do appreciate the government introducing two aspects of policy. One is with respect to bare trustees now being required to say who they are. The second one, of course, is that on title, you will now have to declare if you are a Canadian citizen or not. The problem with this is that should have been extended to also require you to list if your primary residence is in another province, as other provinces do in British Columbia.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Sorry — as other provinces do in Canada.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: My goodness, I could only imagine having to live in a house with the Minister of Advanced Education. While I am straight, I would have divorced this man within a matter of moments, as he is simply intolerable. His hubris, his pomposity, his arrogance is so intolerable, it makes one want to be ill. But with that, I will move on.

Even the ministers opposite are laughing, because they all agree with me as well, I know.

The property transfer tax. The government’s response, rather than dealing with the issue, is to incentivize further speculation. How do I say that? Well, one piece of policy that’s introduced is an elimination of property transfer taxes on new homes under $750,000. At first glance, one might think that’s a good thing.

[1500]

But what is this incentivizing? What it’s incentivizing is the purchase of older homes, the ripping down of those older homes and constructing townhouse developments. Creating more supply may sound like a good thing, but unfortunately, it’s not addressing the critical issue, which is internalizing the social costs of leaving homes vacant.

It simply incentivizes our speculative economy, an economy that this government thinks is actually diversified and stable but, I would argue, is very, very flimsy, because it is being buttressed by an artificial, speculative housing market in greater Vancouver and now coming to the CRD. That is not a healthy situation. We only have to go to Scottsdale or Phoenix, Arizona, to see what happens to an economy that is built on a speculative housing market. It keeps going, and then there’s the big crash. And this government, like it has done with LNG, will blame global market foes that we have no control over. But they do have control. There are things that could be done now.

This government should be investigating putting a price on leaving vacant properties empty. Putting a price on those vacant properties does two things. One, it incentivizes renting of those properties. It makes people want to rent those properties, which puts downward pressure on rental prices. Two, it actually reduces, then, the demand on new homes, because there are more people in rental homes.

Internalizing the externalities — making vacant homes have to pay the social cost. This can be done in a revenue-neutral fashion. The money raised through the tax of vacant homes could be used, for example, to help house the homeless. It could be used, for example, to give rental subsidies. It does not have to be a money grab for government.

Government has a responsibility to use the tools it has to ensure that the market is fair. The housing market in Vancouver is not a free market. It is a market failure. It’s a failure because the social cost is not being paid, and the only way to do that is to actually put a price on leaving your homes vacant.

Bare trust is another one that I’ve mentioned over the last couple of years as a loophole that was originally put in place a long time ago — back in the ’80s, I believe, even before the so-called dreaded ’90s.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Bare trust has been around since the 16th century.

[ Page 10815 ]

A. Weaver: Maybe it was around in the 16th century, but I don’t believe anything the Minister of Advanced Education says, because he’s so pompous. Everything he says, you’re supposed to believe. And I believe none of it. He loses credibility when he continues to chirp that way.

The problem with registering properties in bare trusts and then flipping beneficial ownership of a bare trust means that you don’t change title. There is no change of title in the land title office, and that means there is no property transfer tax paid. Government has proposed to study this. But we know what result we’re going find out. We’re going to find that there are a lot of houses out there that are flipping not on title but through beneficial ownership.

Now, Ontario understands this. They are the other jurisdiction in Canada that has a property transfer tax. But where they apply the property transfer tax is on beneficial ownership change, not on title change. They don’t apply it on title change. They apply it on beneficial ownership change.

If I am a foreign company and I’d like to buy a property and speculate it in Vancouver, here’s what I might do. I might purchase the property and put it in a bare trust. Then I might start flipping this bare trust, the ownership or the corporation that owns this bare trust, and sell it. It can be….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Hon. Speaker, may I ask you to please address the Minister of Advanced Education and ask him…? I have a right to speak in the Legislature without having to listen to his pomposity. Frankly, enough is enough.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, order.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I agree with the Minister of Health. They have to listen to him, but I don’t have to listen to him.

Coming back to the bare trust, coming back to the example I was giving, a company can put an individual…. I know that a whole bunch of entities can own the bare trust, and they can sell it. They can flip it a multitude of times. They can start to flip it amongst shell companies themselves. But never at any time are we changing title, and no property transfer tax has changed.

[1505]

This government has no idea who owns it, because they’re not tracking…. At least they will, coming up. But they were not tracking the bare trustees and those who have beneficial ownership. But rather than spending time tracking it, they should be actually disincentivizing by applying the property transfer tax on transfer of beneficial ownership.

Now, with that said, there are, of course, aspects of this budget implementation act that I do support. I mean, continuing the flow-through mining share credit, the flow-through share agreement, for another year seems reasonable. It has been working quite well to incentivize investment in the mining sector in British Columbia.

The Tourist Accommodation (Assessment Relief) Act changes are responding to a UBCM resolution to extend the assessment relief to rural regions.

The B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit — extending that to individuals with a disability. It’s hard to find anything wrong with that proposal.

The food donation tax credit — it’s an interesting idea, but I worry. I have spoken to people at Mustard Seed and elsewhere, food bank agencies. There’s a worry here — that has to be, actually, carefully regulated and examined — that this could be misused for the dumping of product that has no value and is being used as a loophole to get a tax credit.

For example, let’s suppose I’m a company that has, in reserve, 10,000 barrels of molasses, and I can’t sell it. But now I give it to a food bank at fair market value. The market value is essentially zero because I can’t sell it, but there will be some nominal fee attached to it. This food bank is then ending up with 10,000 barrels of molasses that it has no use for.

What matters with this food donation tax credit is that the devil is in the details — that is, implementation is not being used as a means and a way of avoiding dealing with product that no one wants. How many litres of molasses do we need? And there are other examples that can occur like this.

I understand that it makes sense that, perhaps, the local farmer here in North Saanich has a few extra crates of, say, apples and, you know, he’d like to donate those to the local food bank and get a small tax credit. That seems reasonable. Why not just deal with the problem, however, in the first place?

Why are we actually having to deal with giving away food to food banks? What is wrong with our economy? What is wrong with our social programs? What is wrong with our society when we even have to introduce this tax credit in the first place? That’s the real question.

The question is not the food donation tax credit, which everybody can get behind in some way. The real question is: why is it that we, in our society here in British Columbia, one of the wealthiest places in the world — not just in North America but in the world — have to introduce a food donation tax credit? What next? A used clothes donation tax credit? A shoe donation tax credit? A used sportswear donation tax credit? It’s a slippery slope, and it’s not addressing, again, the fundamental inequities in our province that this budget should be addressing.

[ Page 10816 ]

What’s not in this bill? A number of things are not in this bill, and I will look forward, in committee stage, to discussing some aspects of this.

I’ve had a number of people contact me, concerned about the increase in property transfer tax for homes valued over $2 million. That may seem like it’s a tax on the wealthy. It may seem so at first glance, but let’s suppose you’re living in Vancouver. You grew up in Vancouver, and you’re a family of four.

Mom and Dad get pretty old, and Mom and Dad are so old that they need to leave their house. But Mom and Dad want to give their children their house. There’s a concern that in doing so, those children, who could barely be affording to live in Vancouver anyway, would be subject to the increased property transfer tax and then move into a home that they couldn’t afford to buy, but it was a family home.

The problem, of course, here is that $2 million may seem like a lot, but it’s not a lot in Vancouver. So care has to be put in place to ensure that during the transfer of title between family members, this doesn’t occur.

[1510]

Now, I get that if the house was put in a trust and it was transferred within family members, nobody would pay tax. But most of us don’t buy our houses in trusts. Most of us buy them as individuals, and we leave them to others or we try to give them to our children. There’s a little element there that government needs to take some care over.

What is also not in this, in the budget implementation act and the budget in general…. There’s absolutely nothing to do with climate leadership. Now, I say that with some irony. I recognize that the Minister of Health has a Chevy Volt. It’s not a pure electric car, but it is pretty good. He lives in Kamloops — I get it — and he wants to drive to Victoria. I applaud him for a Chevy Volt.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: You have to. Yeah.

The electric car subsidy — that qualifies — is a good thing. I have a Nissan LEAF —100 percent electric. It’s a good thing.

Interjections.

A. Weaver: The Minister of Advanced Education goes off on a tangent again, because he wants to hear his own voice.

Do I pay road tax? Yes, I pay road tax. When I go over the Port Mann Bridge in Vancouver, I pay road tax.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

A. Weaver: Apart from the electric vehicle continuation, there is nothing, zero, about climate leadership. Why is that important? Because right now, today, in Vancouver, first ministers are meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss climate leadership.

What do we have here in this House on that day? An introduction of another bill to give away our resource to the LNG industry, as we are continually desperate to try to find ways and means that they don’t have to account for their greenhouse gases. Or we can change the international rules to pretend that some greenhouse gases are not really greenhouse gases. That is what this government thinks is climate leadership. The irony is that it’s on the day that we’re supposed to be talking about this in Vancouver.

What’s also not in here, in this budget, is anything of substance in terms of MSP reform. This tinkering around the edges in the budget, not so much in the implementation act….

Where, for example, are steps being taken to fulfil government’s promise that each and every British Columbian would have a GP by the end of 2015? Each and every British Columbian would have access — this is a promise — to a general practitioner by 2015. Well, I hope you aren’t looking for a GP in this area, because there is not a single GP south of Duncan that is accepting new patients.

While the government is quite desperate to fulfil its promise of wealth and prosperity through an industry that’s not going happen and basically gives away our resource in a desperate attempt to get an agreement, they’re not willing to deal with another promise — the “GP for everyone” promise.

I could go on and on, and I know the Minister of Advanced Education would love me to. But with that, I’ll just conclude with one final statement. When you look at this Budget Measures Implementation Act and you look at the individual boutique exemptions here or the little addition there, what you get is a sense of what this government is doing.

This government has lost its sense of vision. It has lost its sense of vision of what a prosperous British Columbia looks like. They’re fixated on a speculative housing market. They’re fixated on LNG. They don’t understand what a diversified economy is. It’s not an economy that’s propped up with an artificial, speculative, Scottsdale-style housing market until we can maybe get LNG ten years from now or 20 years from now. That’s not a diversified economy. They don’t understand what’s going on with the elements of our society that are struggling to make ends meet.

This budget, through its implementation, is something that cannot be supported for what’s not in it, not so much for the boutique tax credits that are in it but for what’s not in it: assistance to those who can barely make ends meet, structural changes to things like the MSP, dealing

[ Page 10817 ]

with the affordability crisis in means and ways that actually ensure that it’s dealt with instead of incentivizing the problem still further, and dealing with an issue that was simply not addressed in the budget — education.

Who are we as a society if we don’t value the next generation, the generation in our schools and colleges today, as the important asset of our future? LNG is not important in the big picture. Our next generation is important. They are the citizens of tomorrow. They are the ones who will build the economy of tomorrow.

[1515]

They are the ones who will take care of us when we’re older. They are the ones who will discover the cures for various diseases that you and I will get as we get older. But there is nothing — nothing at all — in this for education, whether that be K to 12, whether that be early childhood education or whether that be post-secondary education. That is the single biggest disaster of this budget: it does not do anything for the next generation. That is why I cannot support it.

N. Macdonald: Thank you for the opportunity. I enjoyed that speech. I thought it was very thoughtful. I’m just trying to model good behaviour for the Minister of Advanced Education. It costs nothing to be polite.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: That’s not pompous. There you go.

Well, that was my polite part of my speech, and then I’ll move on to my

section directed at the government.

Now, Bill 10…. Of course, the title is interesting. It’s the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. As with many things with this government, there’s something particularly Orwellian about the title, given that it creates what the B.C. Liberals will call the new and improved prosperity fund. Not the old prosperity fund — it’s something completely new. But hey, it’s the same title, so that might be confusing and probably deliberately so.

The bill, in fact, is not terribly transparent, and the reason for that is to escape accountability. So the title, as often is the case, the misnomer that we’ve come to expect when Liberals put forward something. As I say, there’s something quite Orwellian about it.

The reality here, in this bill, is that the prosperity fund is hardly recognizable, given what was promised by this government and continues to be promised. It has nothing in common, really, with what the Premier has been talking about for the last four years other than the title, which is an interesting thing.

The Minister of Finance, in the letter given by the Premier to the Minister of Finance, was supposed to create a $100 billion prosperity fund — billion, by the way, not million — and he was supposed to do it from LNG revenue — or, as Pamela Martin would say $1 trillion. But okay, that’s something different. If you’re wrong about $100 billion, you might as well be wrong about a trillion, right? There you go. Of course, Pamela Martin is a highly paid civil servant who couldn’t put anything into her….

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: She did work here, and now she’s working for the B.C. Liberals, just as the Minister of Advanced Education worked for the B.C. Liberals. In fact, if the Advanced Education Minister wants to…

Deputy Speaker: Members, order.

N. Macdonald: …talk about things, he was the original broken B.C. Liberal promise. He was president of the B.C. Liberals, and he came at a time when the government promised no political appointees in the civil service and became a deputy minister. So the original broken promise sits over there regularly interrupting speeches.

Deputy Speaker: Member, on the second reading of Bill 10.

N. Macdonald: Yes, I’ll get back to it.

Good job on the convention centre too. I think you were on the board of that one — $495 million up to $900 million. Good job. But hey, keep it up, keep interrupting, and we can have a conversation this way, if you like.

It’s not only the prosperity fund that was supposed to come from LNG funds; it was also supposed to get rid of the sales tax, which is — what? — $6 billion or $7 billion a year, and get rid of the $168 billion debt in contractual obligations. The Premier gave a letter to the minister to create that, but instead, we have here, in the Transparency and Accountability Act, something that looks an awful lot different.

Is it a significant fund from LNG revenues? Well, is there any LNG revenue to speak of? Nope. Looking at the budget documents that are here, that I have in front of me, was there any LNG revenue so far? Well, just look in the documents. It was zero. Is there any LNG money coming next year? Zero.

[1520]

It’s kind of nice. The documents lay out the next three years, so we can have a look into the future as this government sees it. Set aside the rhetoric. The reality’s in their books. Any coming the following year? Zero. The year after that? Zero.

What do we have? Instead, we have in this bill, the so-called transparency act, not what was promised. Instead, it is something completely different. It is put in place to escape the second part of this title, which is accountability, right? It’s to get away from those things.

Instead of LNG revenue, which doesn’t exist, we have tax dollars from, for instance, MSP increases, which brought in an additional $100 million this year and going

[ Page 10818 ]

forward, and hydro increases, ICBC increases — because, of course, Hydro and ICBC are regularly raided by the provincial government to pull into general revenue. That is what is actually going into the prosperity fund, not the nonexistent LNG revenues.

Now, let’s go with this theme for a while. So $100 million is actually 1/1000 of what was promised — 1/1000 of the so-called $100 billion prosperity fund that was promised. Maybe that’s a bit confusing for government — a million, a billion. If you read Orwell, then maybe Squealer went up on the side of the barn and wiped out the B and put an M up instead and hoped nobody would notice. That’s classic sort of switch-and-bait.

In any case, it has gone from $100 billion to $100 million. Hopefully, nobody will notice, but hmm. Of course, it’s not even really $100 million. If you look at subsection 7(6), in the bill note, the government can take out right way $75 million. For some reason, they’re putting $100 million into a fund that they can immediately take $75 million out of to spend on whatever they would like.

Now, why would they do that? Is it to be accountable? Is it to be transparent? I put it to you that it’s for exactly the opposite of that. It’s the hope to confuse people with the difference from $100 million to $100 billion. Squealer would be proud. You’re right on target — excellent stuff.

To me, $25 million would be a lot. But let’s compare it to some of the things that the government promises to do. Let’s refer to another fun document that we have here. It’s the government’s own document. They give one of these to all of them. It’s called the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2016-17–2018-19 . It lays out a lot of interesting things. If you want, you can go on line and get the same document.

Well, I’d ask people who are watching to just turn to page 43, if you have it there in front of you, or you can look this up later. There is a lovely description of the B.C. prosperity fund — not the one that was promised but the one that they’re slipping in here, trying to fool people with. On the second column, it says $100 million is going to go into the B.C. prosperity fund. It will “help eliminate the province’s debt over time.”

Oh, over time. What does that mean — over time? Well, that’s a nice little thing to slip in there. You’re going to get rid of the debt over time. We’re going to give ourselves a bit of time. Well, how much time? Let’s play with this for a bit.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, in the fullness of time. “Over time” is the exact quote. Well, $25 million per year. Let’s say we tuck that away. And by the way, in the bill they do it this year, but there’s no requirement to ever do it again. So let’s just presume that they do put in that $25 million every year. How long does it take to get rid of $168 billion in debt? Do the math.

Now, I was sitting beside a professor, so I asked: “How much…? What is $25 million? How long would it take to get rid of $168 billion?” He did some quick calculations, which I think are correct. He said 6,720 years. I guess we could have put that in the document. “We’re going to help eliminate the province’s debt” — instead of over time — “in 6,000 years.”

[1525]

That is six times the B.C. Rail lease, I think. Isn’t it six times the B.C. Rail lease? You know, I saw Stockwell Day here. He was a guest of the Premier. So 6,000 years ago — I think Stockwell Day…. That’s how old he thinks the world is, right? We’re talking about a ridiculous amount of time.

So we can eliminate the debt over time. It’s here in the documents. It is something that, pretty clearly, is intended to be fictitious.

You know, there’s an old Scottish saying that I really didn’t understand for a long time, but I kind of do now. It says if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. I used to hear it because all of my family is Scottish. Like many things they said, I didn’t completely…. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. What does that mean? Of course, it means that it’s one thing to say things, but the complexity comes when you try to actually make them happen.

This is where the government has put itself — in a position where they misrepresented the reality completely. They have put this in the Legislature, in a place where for the past five years we have been talking about things that are not true and never will be true. We have had it consistently misrepresented by the government with all the resources that they have at their disposal — 250 people and a budget that has never been higher for political staff to spin on something that is never going to happen.

Instead of an honest debate about the issues that are real in this province, that need to be dealt with, we as legislators are forced to talk about things and forced to respond to the misrepresentation that consistently comes from government. This bill is another one.

The prosperity fund — in what way is that consistent with the promise that was made by this Premier, by this government, repeatedly? Look, go back, just read documents that are from Hansard . This is the throne speech from 2013, not that long ago. What is in it? “The Premier”— this is a story made from the throne speech, February 12, 2013 — “staked her political future on her approach to liquefied natural gas.” She promised that her government will “transform the province’s massive resource stores into a more-than-$100-billion fund, enough to erase the province’s debt” and to remove sales tax.

Well, how close are we to that? She actually gave a term. That was going to happen by 2020. It’s not this year, it’s not next year, and it’s not the year after. Does that mean that in the final two years, all of a sudden this is all going to happen? Specific promises have been repeated by each and every one of the MLAs and candidates around the following.

[ Page 10819 ]

The Premier said: “A liquefied natural gas industry would be running full steam in the province by 2020, and it should mean $4.3 billion and $8.7 billion in extra government revenue each year.” Well, it’s three years out. It’s not happening. So when we’re talking about transparency and accountability, where’s the accountability? How is a miss that bad allowed to stand? And still the government talks about the prosperity fund and puts this in front of us, hoping to confuse people rather than having an honest discussion about the realities that are out there.

Here, again — this is from the Premier. “We have to decide if we can forever ensure that the proceeds of natural gas, which is a product that belongs to the people of the province, are spent well and wisely,” and that means the prosperity fund. “Projections for the fund rely on the introduction of a new LNG tax to be applied in addition to existing royalties. With all these measures in place, the government is projecting the fund will collect a minimum of $100 billion.”

That’s what were told in the House: a minimum of $100 billion from LNG revenues.

Interjection.

[1530]

N. Macdonald: Well, it’s one of two things. It’s either that the Premier and government actually thought that — and that’s a scary thing, that you’re so wrong —or they didn’t think that at all but thought that it would work politically, which is just as bad. But it can only be one of those two things, and neither can be acceptable to people in British Columbia. But that’s where we stand.

Here’s another thing. The plan “hinges on the development of five proposed liquefied natural gas plants.” There are going to be three large ones and two small ones. They even break it down. Well, which three big ones, and which two small ones? Where are they?

The first one by 2015. Well, that’s come and gone. The government, with its jobs plan, is going to have three of the proposed plants up and running by 2020, guaranteed. Lest anyone stand up and say that it’s possibly not going to happen, well, wait for the abuse. The previous speaker stands up and says the most obvious thing in the world — that it was a Hail Mary at election time — and a stream of abuse came from ministers on the other side trying to shut him down.

It’s the most obvious thing in the world. All you need to do is look. Where is the LNG plant? Where is the $100 billion? Is this prosperity fund anything at all connected to what was promised? It is not. It is only the name, and it is intended to confuse and distort the reality of failure, failure, failure on this file — failure on this file.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please use parliamentary language.

N. Macdonald: Okay. I don’t know a synonym for “failure.” Can you maybe help me out with a synonym for “failure”? What else would it be? Well, okay. I think people watching will have understood my point.

Hey, here’s the LNG minister. Let’s hear what he has to say. Let’s hear what he has to say — the promises he made in 2013 and is still making. He put together a piece for one of the main newspapers, just talking about his certainty, which continues, that that prosperity fund talked about in this bill is going to continue. It’s exactly what he said in the House. The opportunity, he says, is fact. “We did studies. The fact of the matter is this. The total cumulative revenue to the B.C. government from five LNG plants…. That’ll be $79 billion, low-case scenario — that’s low case — likely $162 billion.” That’d be 2011 to 2038.

Anyway, there it is. It’s a fact. You know, the opportunity is fact. Well, when the time comes for fact to actually happen, it becomes less of a fact and more of a fantasy.

Oh, here’s the minister. We’ll use the Minister of Finance’s words because, of course, of all of the members, he’s the most settled in question period, the hardest to rattle. He did say some interesting things. He did say: “We know there is an opportunity to take advantage of a price differential that exists in the markets overseas for liquefied natural gas, and we’re going to get to those opportunities on behalf of all British Columbians.”

Now, there was a time…. This is not as far back as…. Well, this is 2013, and there was a difference. Even at that time, if you read articles from outside of B.C. on the natural gas industry, it was well known that that price differential would disappear quickly.

The member who spoke before me talked about the technologies that had allowed the price to be pushed down in North America. These weren’t state secrets.

In fact, there was an interesting interview that the Premier did in China where she talked about the technologies that we have here in B.C. to get liquefied natural gas, as if the Chinese did not know about horizontal drilling and the other technologies that are available. That was a bit of a startling piece. Nevertheless, they do, and they do have access to a market that is wide and was changing at the time.

That is the point that many people have made: the market was always moving, and the price differential that was there was always ephemeral. We always knew that. That’s what was so fantastic, in the fantasy sense, about what the B.C. Liberals were talking about and what the Premier was talking about. That opportunity wasn’t there.

[1535]

For members who voted this summer on the tax regime for LNG — all members here should be familiar with the tax regime that they voted on — they will know that that revenue stream that was supposed to produce this astronomical and unbelievable amount of money would only be collected after an LNG plant had been built, was operating and had operated for six to eight years. Even then it would only be $135 million.

[ Page 10820 ]

Just do the math on that, and tell me how you ever get to $100 billion. I can assure you that it’s pretty close to the 6,000-year mark. It’ll be something like that, and if it’s not that, it certainly is a figure that wouldn’t interest most people in their lifetime or their children’s lifetimes.

On this bill, the idea that we are still talking about a prosperity fund offends me. I used to say that the Minister of Finance, through just…. I guess if nobody was twisting his arm, he wouldn’t talk about it. I thought: “Well, good for you. At least you’re not sticking with that message point.” But I suppose that somebody made him put this in here, and no doubt he will defend it vigorously and with the caustic humour that often comes with it.

The reality is that this is a misrepresentation of what was promised. It is not a fund that comes from LNG. It is described as $100 million when only $25 million sits in it. The reality is that it is Orwellian in all ways, in my view.

As always, I thank the members for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to other members’ speeches.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. No, Nanaimo–North Cowichan.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. With boundary changes, it’s reasonable for people to lose track of where MLAs are coming from — at least in a geographic sense. I don’t think it’s had much to do with where we’re coming from in terms of principle or opinions of how this place runs and the quality and integrity of the government that we’re opposing.

If you look at the record, the record of the government is terrible, but it makes for a record of opposition that is extremely critical — for good reason, because that’s what we’re faced with. We’re faced with a government that has simply no regard for truth, simply no regard for the integrity and duty to represent citizens of B.C.

That’s what I think. It’s kind of a condemning thing to say, but after 11 years here witnessing this government’s behaviour, I can’t come to any other conclusion.

[1540]

We’ve endured so many broken promises. After people are snowed under by deceit, they tend to almost receive it as a white noise. It’s difficult to make sense of it. It’s difficult to know which deceit of government is most important.

You can go back, and I will go back, a long time ago, Mr. Speaker — back to the time before this government was elected under Gordon Campbell. They made promises then. They made promises not to sell B.C. Rail. As the previous member, for Columbia River–Revelstoke, pointed out, it’s a most Orwellian reality, this Legislature and the government that we’re facing. They didn’t sell B.C. Rail. They leased it for 999 years. So that’s not a sale. For sure, that’s not a sale, but I’d be hard-pressed to say that’s living up to the promise not to sell B.C. Rail.

They promised not to tear up the contracts of health care workers and teachers, but they did. They did, and that resulted in the largest mass firing of women in Canadian history. What a proud legacy for the government. What a proud legacy. It’s something that we need to remind ourselves of.

Then there was the HST, promises mere weeks before an election never to harmonize the tax. Yet, mere weeks after the election, that’s exactly what they did.

Those three examples characterize this government and its respect for truth and its respect for the integrity that British Columbians expect. I talk to people in my constituency and my family, and there’s still this…. It’s almost a charming naivety that people actually think that this government is going to represent them and do their best and actually fulfil some of the promises it makes. It could be said to be charmingly naive. But unfortunately, it’s something much worse than that.

This budget transparency and implementation act, as my colleague pointed out, by its very title challenges that same trust and the naivety that people express when they say things like: “They’re all the same.” Mr. Speaker, that’s one of the damages that the government has done, the government that you were elected representing, the government that these members represent. It’s something that we, I think, beyond any partisan division or any quest for power, would have an obligation to uphold. That would be the basic integrity of this place. Because it is so important.

If people don’t respect this place, do they respect the other institutions of this province? Do they respect the legal institutions? Or do we suddenly slip into a place where everyone knows that everyone’s not telling the truth, and everyone’s playing an angle and everyone’s cheating? I mean, what else could you take from a government like this? And that’s exactly what they do.

It would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic. But so often with humour, humour is tempered by the reality of the tragedy from which it evolves, from which it grows. It would be funny, perhaps, to say that with the budget currently and with this act, the government has done nothing to address the issue of real estate flipping in the Lower Mainland and the impact that it’s having on runaway prices — a huge concern for urbanites. Not so much

[ Page 10821 ]

for the people I represent, but it’s a huge concern for urbanites and therefore for the B.C. economy and therefore, at least indirectly, for the people I represent.

[1545]

We could say that the B.C. Liberal government has done incredible things to lower property values in rural B.C., where they have caused 31,000 fewer people to be working in the forest industry, where we see absolute dislocation of whole communities of people who can’t find work. Those property values are going down. They’ve done a great job to lower housing costs in rural B.C. Of course, there’s nobody to buy those homes. And of course, they’ve ignored the real real-estate threat to this province’s economy — the bubble that we see in the Lower Mainland and moving towards the capital region here in Victoria.

That would be funny if it weren’t so tragic, but it is tragic. The outcomes may be especially tragic if people are caught in a situation where this real estate bubble bursts and we wind up, as the previous member spoke of, like Scottsdale or Phoenix, Arizona, where the economy is built on real estate values and people undertaking huge debt based on the value of their real estate and they suddenly find that bubble bursting and themselves underwater, as they say, where they don’t have enough assets to match their debt. We may very well see that here in Vancouver and in B.C. at some point.

They say that we have a diversified economy when, in fact, they’ve just spent the last four years determining that everything this province does must have an asterisk that refers to LNG. The Premier, in fact, said that if it doesn’t have anything to do with LNG, “We’re not interested.” And when that blew up, and everyone in the province was saying, “What about the diversification of our economy?” suddenly the B.C. Liberals are bragging about a diversified economy.

It’s hard to have a serious debate in the Legislature, where the absolute disregard for truth and transparency from the government is so obvious, without it being some kind of a comic sideshow. It’s really sad. I do talk to people who are so dedicated to community, people who are servants to their community, volunteers. I talk to young people who still have hope. I talk to my daughter, who wants to hope. Then I’m faced with being the loyal opposition to a government that has a complete disregard for those values. It’s kind of unbelievable, really, and not something that I anticipated, coming here.

I at least anticipated that we would engage on the issues of the province. But this government, all the way through its existence, including the time of Gordon Campbell, has relied on bumper-sticker slogans that had no relevance to truth to get itself through electorally — you know, like the great golden goals of Gordon Campbell, all of which have been abandoned by this government, and some laudable exercises in public policy that deserve support, like the new relationship and the climate change initiatives.

Now, once the lustre and shine of political advantage is gone and the real, difficult work of governance and implementation are upon them, they’re all abandoned for new bumper stickers and new slogans.

This budget implementation act does a few things but one most significant thing: it establishes the prosperity fund. And the prosperity fund was the sparkle pony fantasy, which British Columbians have come to deride and ridicule, of this government in the last election, when they promised that we would have 100,000 jobs from LNG — 100,000. Then in the throne speech, they’ve resorted to begging British Columbians to agree with them so that they can protect the 13,000 that already exist.

L. Krog: And how many proposals — 20?

[1550]

D. Routley: How many…? Yeah, I think 20 proposals for LNG plants and a promise that we would have at least one up by 2015.

I don’t know about your calendar, Mr. Speaker, but that is the last calendar, and there ain’t no plant.

L. Krog: Twenty proposals and no engagement.

D. Routley: No engagement. And how many were we promised by 2020? Five. Five by 2020, and we would be well on our way to our $100 billion prosperity fund, which would eliminate the debt of British Columbia — in fact, eliminate the sales tax.

Well, you know, as I said: comedic but tragic. That’s kind of the definition of this government to me: comedic, farcical but tragic. On top of that, a good dollop of cruel.

We have to ask ourselves: once the government had realized and everyone in the province seems to have accepted that they weren’t telling the truth…?

Oh, everybody knew they weren’t telling the truth. That’s a dangerous resignation — isn’t it? — when citizens resign themselves to the fact that their government isn’t telling the truth. I mean, it’s the best outcome for a government like this — that has so little integrity and so little willingness to be truthful with people, that is so mired in scandal with former MLAs and former high-ranking party officials and current high-ranking party officials, all…

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you focus on the motion?

D. Routley: Yes.

…of them charged or convicted of crimes of fraud and election misdeeds. You know, that’s what we’re faced with. When people resign themselves to that, it’s so damaging for any of us to build trust back. Once people decide that their own government is corrupt and they let their own behaviour and respect for the law slip to the same standard, how do we pull that back?

[ Page 10822 ]

How do we pull that back to a state of integrity and respect for truth and law? That’s how dangerous this is. It is not comedic. That is tragic. That is beyond tragedy. That is, in my opinion, an emergency.

Now that we’ve been told these things, these mistruths about the prosperity fund and $100 billion from LNG revenues…. There are no LNG revenues, so they create their fantasy prosperity fund with this act.

On top of that, not only do they break their promise, their original promise, but they put $100 million of public money into this fund. And $25 million of that will be going to — how did they say it? — core government priorities. It will be a slush fund for a Premier addicted to photo ops, a year out from an election.

Not only did they not achieve the promise that they’d made 3½ years ago, not only did they not come anywhere close to achieving that, but they’ve decided to create this false version and fund it with our money — $100 million of public money.

They defend themselves by saying: “We’re taking it from our chequing account and putting it into our savings account.” Well, that’s awfully colloquial and simple and easy to digest — except when you consider that it’s not their chequing account they’re taking it out of. It’s the chequing account of the most vulnerable British Columbians.

[1555]

Taxpayers and citizens throughout the province are paying for the latest broken promise by the B.C. Liberals and their ridiculous attempt to build an excuse, to assemble themselves a ladder with which to climb out of the hole they’ve dug for themselves by the ridiculous promises that were made.

Who pays for this? Every British Columbian who pays MSP premiums. Those increased 4 percent on January 1, 4 percent next year. That’s $100 million per year, per increase. That equates, over three years, to $500 million taken from British Columbians through the most regressive tax instrument in the province, where the richest British Columbians pay the same MSP premium as a family making $30,000 or $40,000.

Hon. T. Lake: No, that’s wrong.

D. Routley: Oh, it is, is it? Well, the Health Minister says I’m wrong. Okay, so $50,000. So a British Columbian making $5 million will pay the same as a family making $50,000, and that’s how they’re funding this band-aid to their broken promise. It’s $500 million over three years that the Health Minister is taking out of the pockets of British Columbians through the MSP premium, the most regressive tax in this province.

Then they don’t stop there. Who pays for their broken promises? Well, every B.C. Hydro ratepayer. It’s gone up 28 percent since this Premier became Premier. In less than five years, B.C. Hydro was increased by 28 percent and will increase again next year by 4 percent. That’s another $150 million a year taken out of the pockets of struggling British Columbian families.

ICBC for every British Columbian who needs to drive a car and get to work, because of course, there’s such poor service and transit available to them that they really have no other option. With ICBC premiums up 5.5 percent last November and again next year, that’ll be another $130 million out of the average British Columbians’ pockets.

B.C. Ferries. They don’t stop with MSP. They don’t stop with B.C. Hydro. They don’t stop with ICBC. B.C. Ferries — the major routes have gone up 60 percent under the watch of this government, and the minor routes, several of which serve my constituency, have gone up by over 100 percent. We had the UBCM, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, do an economic impact study where they showed that these rampant increases in fares had deprived the B.C. economy, the coastal B.C. economy, of $2 billion in economic activity. Just the tax revenue from that economic activity would have paid to this government more than what they gained by punishing these communities with those exorbitant fare increases.

Who pays? Who pays most recently? Who pays most tragically? Who pays for this government to continue a $230 million tax break to the richest 2 percent? One billion dollars over four years to the richest 2 percent. Who paid most recently? People living on disability pensions, who see their bus passes clawed back.

At the same time, their Premier spends half a million dollars on private jets. Travels from Vancouver to Kelowna one day and back to Vancouver. The next day travels from Vancouver to Kelowna again. Half a million dollars in private airplanes, private jets. Who owns those jets? David McLean, who was the head of CN when this government sold…. Sorry, they leased B.C. Rail to CN for 999 years.

Interjection.

D. Routley: If the Health Minister wants to chirp…. Just imagine, Health Minister, what you would be saying if the NDP had done 1/10 of the deceit of your government — 1/10.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct all your comments through the Chair.

Thank you, Members.

[1600]

D. Routley: So who benefits? Who benefits from these B.C. Liberal decisions? The richest 2 percent, who get that get that $230-million-per-year tax break — $1 billion over four years. The Premier benefits, with her $25 million slush fund that she’s calling a prosperity fund. That’s a pretty big benefit. I mean, you can cut a lot of red tape

[ Page 10823 ]

and smile in a lot of photo ops for 25 million bucks, and that’s just from that source.

David McLean and his private jets that are leased and rented by our illustrious Premier. You know, he’s a good friend, heading up CN Rail at the time of the B.C. Rail scandal. Why shouldn’t he benefit?

The shadow flippers, those real estate agents who are deceitfully leveraging the market for their own gain at the expense of everyone else in this province. They gain, because there’s not a single thing in this budget or Bill 10 which addresses that serious problem, in the Lower Mainland, particularly. So it’s a little hard to be….

I mean, it is kind of funny — I guess, if you totally detach yourself from the outcomes — that the government would be so ludicrously deceitful.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

It is, as my colleague said, Orwellian. Less is more, and more is less. We’re going to give you 80 more grams of chocolate, increase your ration from 120 grams to 80 grams. If people are disengaged enough to believe it, I guess it could be said that that excuses a bit of what’s happening over there.

But I think that there’s an eerie echo of what happened in Alberta, where the Progressive Conservatives were so…. Every poll had them losing — not this last election but the election previous to that — and Albertans held their nose and voted one more time and elected Alison Redford. And what did they do? Did they take that as a warning that they should clean up their act? No. They became even more arrogant and even more miscreant.

That’s exactly what this government did. Last time, they were expected to lose. Did they take that as a warning? No. The Premier has a half-million-dollar bill for private jets, half a million dollars paid to a B.C. Liberal insider. They continue to deceitfully treat the voters of British Columbia. I hope that the next echo of that dynamic is the outcome that the Progressive Conservatives suffered in Alberta, very rightfully so.

Finally, the people said: “Enough is enough. We actually believe that your government should really tell you the truth; should really, when they examine an environmental project, put the environment first; should really, when they talk about people living on disability pensions, put them first.” That’s really what I think British Columbians expect and what I still, in my own naivety after 11 years in here….

The grain of naivety in my soul that has escaped outright cynicism still wants to believe that, somehow, government will act with integrity and defend the public interest, be the great leveller between the forces in society, make sure that there are equitable outcomes, at least an equitable opportunity for British Columbians.

Interjection.

D. Routley: I know. Isn’t it…? It’s like I’m almost embarrassed to admit that I’m that naive after 11 years facing this government. It is really…. I’m proud of that, by the way. I’m proud of that. I’m clinging to the last thread of naive belief that government can act with integrity. I think it’s possible.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, 2017. It may have to wait until then.

[1605]

Then we — if we are lucky enough to form government — or some coalition of forces will have to guard against the same kind of development of arrogance.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Yeah, we’ll have to be careful to not believe our own hype to the extent that this government does. You know, you’ve got a government that still wants people to believe that they’re establishing a prosperity fund that fulfils their LNG promises. All kidding aside, all criticisms aside, you kind of have to admire the pluckiness that lets someone actually stand up and defend that.

I’m trying to be generous, because I just find it in an entirely different way. But anyway, all these promises that have been made by this government — a $100 billion prosperity fund, 100,000 jobs…. “We’re going to eliminate the debt. We’ll eliminate the sal