2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th 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)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number 3

[ Page 13583 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure today to welcome two longtime friends of mine who have come down today for the throne speech, which was originally scheduled. They couldn't change their travel plans and other arrangements, so they are here to see us. With that, I would like the House to extend an extraordinarily warm welcome to two of my lifelong friends from the Williams Lake area, Josh Williams and Al Matthews.

Hon. R. Cantelon: I'd like to introduce five individuals to the House who are joining us from up-Island: Rudi van den Broek and his son William from Port Alberni, and Brian Pettit and his son Ian from Nanaimo. These two families know firsthand the challenges of living with diabetes.

In addition, I welcome Catherine Turner, who is joining us from Courtenay. Catherine is the chair of the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association.

I thank these five for being with us today and creating awareness about diabetes. In Canada we are fortunate to be leading the way in diabetes research, but that doesn't mean that living with it doesn't pose its own challenges. Through awareness and prevention, we can work to reduce the risks and challenges of living with diabetes.

I ask the House to please give them a warm welcome.

D. MacKay: Sunday when I flew down, there were two people on the aircraft from Smithers, and I see them sitting in the gallery today. I would like the House to welcome for the first time into this chamber, into the House, Mike and Lisa Bovill from Smithers.

Welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I have three special guests in the gallery today: my wife Lesley, my mother Irene Abbott- O'Brien and my stepfather Lloyd O'Brien.

[1335]

I've promised that I would be well behaved in the Legislature today. That is something my mother saw relatively few times during my youth. But given that being well behaved still sets quite a low bar in the House, I'm sure it will be a lively day. Please, would the House make the guests especially welcome.

J. Rustad: I'm very pleased today to introduce to the House Judy and Gary Blattner, some good friends of mine from Vanderhoof. Gary has travelled down as part of the Farm Assessment Review Panel meetings. They're here to watch how things proceed in the House today. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's my great pleasure to be able to introduce to the House the crop of interns who will be working with our caucus this year. Following in the tradition of great interns who have worked for us in the past and have always done a terrific job, we look forward to working with James Bagan, Shawn Courtney, James Cybulski, Michael Gudaitis and Niya Karpenko. Would the House join me and our side in welcoming every single one of them.

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

PACIFIC NORTH COAST
INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT AREA

G. Coons: It's an optimistic time to be living and working on the coast of British Columbia. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as mandated through the Oceans Act, is now working collaboratively with all of us who have vested interests in our area. From the beaches of Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert's coastline and south to the passages of northern Vancouver Island, this is the Pacific north coast. Forging ahead with a planning process for PNCIMA, which is the Pacific north coast integrated management area, we now have an avenue that will provide local community members and other stakeholders with a vital forum for dialogue.

I'm sure we all agree that we must participate with all levels of government in an integrated way to manage our coastal resources. A recent poll found two pertinent things — that nine out of ten British Columbians are not only concerned about the state of our oceans, but they also believe that we can have both a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

The intent of the marine plan for PNCIMA is to establish an ecosystem-based management plan for the region, one that provides for the long-term sustainability for future generations. But this cannot be done without the involvement of all levels of government.

In December 2008 a memorandum of understanding was signed by DFO and coastal first nations. This provides a model that guides planning efforts between DFO, coastal first nations and the North Coast–Skeena First Nations Stewardship Society working together.

This is a fantastic first step, but to date, believe it or not, not all stakeholders have signed on to fully participate in this important process. Many on the north coast and central coast are surprised that our provincial government is absent from this MOU. Given the considerable role that the province normally plays in these kinds of governance arrangements, including the jurisdiction they
[ Page 13584 ]
have over the thousands of kilometres of marine foreshore as well as tenures and licences, many believe that the province cannot stand idly by and be an observer. We must sign on and become a full participant of PNCIMA.

TOURISM RICHMOND SERVICE AWARDS

J. Yap: On Sunday, January 25, I had had the honour of attending the Tourism Richmond Service Awards that were held at the Gateway Theatre in Richmond. During the evening these individuals, who had given so much of their time and effort to delivering service excellence in Richmond's growing tourism sector, were formally recognized.

Richmond is the fourth most popular British Columbia tourism destination after Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler. Those persons involved in the Richmond tourism industry are second to none.

Eight awards were given out during the course of the night, and I'd like to recognize the winners for their accomplishments. Carol McGannon of the Days Inn Vancouver Airport won the service excellence award in the accommodation sector. In addition, the Days Inn's general manager Christa Park won an award in the tourism spirit category. The service excellence award in the attractions sector went to Dave and Lesley Kemp for their work at the Picture Perfect Bed and Breakfast. Adonis Brigola and Simon Grecica, both drivers with Universal Coach Lines, won the service excellence award in the transportation category.

[1340]

Sous-chef Kyo Lin won the service excellence award in the food and beverage sector for his culinary skills at the River Rock Casino Resort. The service excellence award went to Patrick Li of T Booth in Richmond Centre. Ted Townsend, senior manager of corporate communications with the city of Richmond, won the Partnership Award, and Gerry Weisner, chef at The Boathouse Restaurant, won the Extra Mile Award.

Mr. Speaker and all members of the House, please join me in congratulating all the winners of the Tourism Richmond awards. They exemplify the great customer service that is essential for Richmond and indeed for our province to grow our tourism economy, especially as we work these coming months towards welcoming the world to the 2010 games.

REPORT ON SURREY SEX WORKERS

S. Hammell: When we think of our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts or wives or partners, most of us do not have to consider the horrors of drug addiction, homelessness, violence or abuse or worry every day about dangers of life on the streets. Unfortunately, this is not the case for families of street sex workers in the city of Surrey.

I would like to bring to the attention of members a report entitled "Every Life Matters: Voices of the Street Sex Workers in Surrey, British Columbia." With funding from the Vancouver Foundation and the national crime prevention strategy, Surrey Women's Centre and Surrey girls published this report that describes the working and living conditions of the women who engage in sex work on the streets of north Surrey.

The report is written as much as possible in the words of the women who participated. As I read, I was touched and awed by the ability of the women to survive.

For each woman, poverty is the economic imperative, and money for sex is the transaction created by the imbalance of social and economic power between women and men. Eighty-five percent of the women on the streets were sexually abused as children. In the case of the Surrey street sex workers, this power imbalance is compounded by poverty and drug addiction.

The recommendations in this document place responsibility on each level of government. Only by working together can we make a difference in the lives of the street sex workers not only in Surrey but in all of British Columbia.

I asked Sonya Boyce, executive director of Surrey Women's Centre, what she thought was the most important message within this document. She said that these women are not expendable.

Yes, women are not expendable, hon. Speaker. The families of the daughters, mothers, sisters, wives and partners would agree with her. I invite all members of this House to read the report and take a copy back to their communities.

LUNAR NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

R. Lee: Recently hundreds of millions of people around the world, including many in British Columbia, celebrated the lunar new year and the arrival of the Year of the Ox. For many of the world's people, the lunar new year is the most important holiday of the year. As more newcomers of Asian backgrounds make their homes in B.C., this colourful and lively celebration takes on more importance here as well.

That's why I'm so pleased to see many members of this House, including the Premier and the Lieutenant-Governor, join in the Vancouver Chinatown celebration by participating in the lunar new year parade. Many members also attended the dinner in the evening.

I'm sure all members will help me thank the organizers: the Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver, Chinese Cultural Centre of greater Vancouver, Vancouver Chinatown Merchants Association, SUCCESS, Vancouver Chinese Freemasons society and the Shon Yee Benevolent Association.

It's important to note that while we celebrate the traditions of Asian Canadians, we also recognize the history
[ Page 13585 ]
of Asian settlers in British Columbia. Recent history records that 50 to 70 Chinese from Macau arrived in Nootka Sound in 1788 to help construct a schooner, the North West America, and built a two-storey fort. To put it in perspective, only four years thereafter, in 1792, did Capt. George Vancouver make his first journey to Burrard Inlet.

[1345]

When we gathered in Vancouver's Chinatown for the new year's parade, we celebrated more than just the arrival of a new year. We celebrated what for many is a new life in B.C. but also the long history of Asians in the best place on earth.

RANCHING INDUSTRY IN B.C.

H. Lali: According to the Agriculture Ministry's own data, the provincial government's expenditures in the agrifood sector have been steadily declining since the 1980s as a percentage of the agrifood and agriculture GDPs. It has dropped from 17 percent in 1986 down to 4 percent today.

Ranching is a renewable resource. The beef industry's annual contribution to the B.C. economy totals $1.4 billion, and the annual sales of cattle and calves is $350 million. My constituency of Yale-Lillooet, known as ranching country, is home to the largest single-holding ranch in the world, the Douglas Lake Ranch, with its 20,000 head of cattle.

Ranchers are telling me that the ranching industry of B.C. is in big trouble and is looking for help. Urbanization, fragmentation and unbridled development have encroached upon agricultural lands. Growing communities, global warming and dwindling water resources are hurting ranching in B.C., especially in the southern Interior.

Without adequate water resources, the grass doesn't grow, cattle lose weight and ranchers lose money. Population growth and the conversion of cattle-grazing grasslands into farmlands for growing crops have impacted negatively on the beef industry and ranching. Lately pestilence and diseases like mad cow, BSE, have given a scare to B.C.'s ranching community.

The meat industry regulation is stifling the ranching industry in B.C. Small-scale rural meat producers dependent on farm-gate sales of their meat to help their bottom lines have been selling their product for generations without health-related incidents or government interference. Now hundreds of local ma-and-pa producers have been driven out of business due to MIR.

Local ranchers dependent on 4-by-4 vehicles, large trucks and machinery for daily operation of their ranches in Yale-Lilloet are telling me that the carbon tax may be the straw that breaks the camel's back as hundreds of ranchers across B.C. face the real prospect of bankruptcy. Ranchers never ask for help. Ranchers are angry, and they now want help from their governments in Victoria and Ottawa.

FORESTRY INITIATIVES

J. Rustad: The forest industry is going through one of the worst downturns in B.C.'s history. Combined with the economic challenges we're facing, it's hard to be optimistic about the future of forestry. However, there are some bright spots that are helping to support families and communities.

B.C. is well known for quality forest products, and we continue to be one of the largest exporters of wood products in the world. This has led to some great announcements that will continue to expand export opportunities. We've been working with the Mongolian government for the past 18 months to supply 48 townhomes worth $4 million through a Forestry Innovation investment project.

In Shanghai the government approved a plan to renovate 10,000 city apartment buildings and to utilize wood. This is an example of the inroads we're making into China's market. Exports of B.C. wood products to China were valued at more than $166 million in 2008.

Closer to home, the people of Fort St. James are celebrating Conifex's recent announcement that it will begin production at the old Pope and Talbot mill in March. This is great news for my constituency as well as an example of budding optimism in the forest industry. More importantly, close to 200 people who have been out of work for more than a year will begin going back to work.

On other fronts, our government is leading the way in bioenergy. The B.C. bioenergy strategy offers a great opportunity to diversify our forest industry while helping B.C. return to being self-sufficient in electricity. It's also a critical component of helping us to capitalize on opportunities created by the mountain pine beetle infestation.

Success comes when opportunity meets preparation. Our government is working with the forest industry to help it get through today's challenges, to set the stage for future growth and build the opportunities that'll bring future success to our forest industry.

Oral Questions

government Action
on gang violence

C. James: Yesterday the Premier called gang violence appalling. What's appalling is his Attorney General's hands-off attitude to gangland killings. Yesterday the Attorney General blamed the public for the problem. "It's everyone's fault," he said.

My question is to the Premier. When is his government going to stop blaming others and start taking action to end gang violence on our streets?

[1350]
[ Page 13586 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: What we've seen over the last few days and, frankly, over the last few months has been simply unacceptable. The level of violence that's taking place on our streets is doing serious damage in people's lives. Families like the Schellenbergs live there, and they have to deal with the damage of this incredible activity to them.

We have to make it very clear, and we will make it very clear. We have made it very clear. In British Columbia gangs are not acceptable. We're going after gangs, and we're getting them out of our province.

Let me say that we have to take action on this. We've added 915 police officers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: We have an Integrated Gang Task Force. We have an integrated homicide task force. We are bringing together all of the players, and it's obvious we need to do more. We will need more police officers. We will focus them on gangs, and gangs in British Columbia should know this: if you're here, we're coming after you, and you're not acceptable in our neighbourhoods, in our communities — anywhere in our province.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to ask the Premier where he has been for the last two years. We've seen…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …the appalling numbers in the last few weeks, but this isn't an issue that has just happened in the last few weeks. This issue has been going on for at least two years.

Let's take a look at this government's record: ten correctional institutions closed, youth services cut, fewer courthouses in British Columbia. No wonder B.C. has become Canada's safe haven for organized crime.

So again to the Premier: why won't he table today the gun violence report, and when will he actually act — not words, not platitudes, actual action — to deal with gang violence today?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think the question the Leader of the Opposition should ask herself is: where have she and her party been? In the last two years we have added literally hundreds of police officers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Premier, just take your seat for a second.

Members. We're not continuing until we can all hear. Members.

Premier, continue.

Hon. G. Campbell: In the last years we've added over 950 police officers. The thing that distinguishes our side of the House from that side of the House is we've added hundreds of police officers. They voted against every single one of them.

We have brought together the integrated homicide task force, the Integrated Gang Task Force. We have added 16 prosecutors that are focused specifically on gang-related activities.

We need to add more, and I hope that this time the opposition votes for the resources so we can keep our communities safe in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: This is what we always see from this Premier and from this government. When something becomes a political problem for them, they all of a sudden put words out there, and there's absolutely no action behind them. It's time for action, not words for the people of British Columbia.

Two years. I'll give the Premier a list of things he could have done. He could have worked with…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …the federal government to get tough on sentencing. He could have actually established….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1355]

C. James: The Premier could have established a dedicated team of experienced Crown prosecutors whose mandate is to put these violent criminals in jail. He could have actually listened to the police who wanted change. He could get serious about regional policing to fight regional gangs. So again my question is to the Premier. Why now has he stepped up with words? Why has he failed to act for the last two years on this serious issue?

Hon. G. Campbell: Well, that's incredible. Here we have a Leader of the Opposition who claims to be concerned
[ Page 13587 ]
about gang violence and activities in the province, and she doesn't even know what has been taking place. What has happened is….

Let's work with the federal government. This government has been advocating that the federal government have stricter crime laws for the last four years. What has the opposition done? The NDP has fought every single one of those changes in Ottawa.

So I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will call her boss, Mr. Layton, in Ottawa and say: "Get on with it and have stricter laws so we can keep people where they should be." The Leader of the Opposition…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Campbell: …says we should have a dedicated group of professionals. We have an Integrated Gang Task Force. We have an integrated homicide task force. We have an organized crime task force, and it's made up of exceptional police officers from the RCMP and independent police forces so we can focus on those things.

The Leader of the Opposition says: "Call for changes in federal laws." We have been advocating that. We would love to hear the opposition advocate that, so we have changes in bail laws so if you're caught with a gun when you're on bail, you're put in jail in Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat for a second.

L. Krog: Yesterday the Solicitor General said: "I reiterate that gun violence is the number one…issue for the Attorney General and I. We are calling on police, Crown counsel, the judiciary — everyone involved in this justice system — to act appropriately…." I had no idea he was setting the Premier up for that weak theatre today instead of real action from the government on the issue of crime violence.

A decade ago there were ten active gangs in British Columbia. There are 129 today — 129, hon. Speaker. So I'm asking this question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

L. Krog: The Solicitor General has called on everybody but the government to do something, to pitch in. So what is he going to do today to confront gang violence in the streets of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: Well, let's be clear. As I said, we've added hundreds of police officers. If we need to add more, we're going to. We're going to add additional special prosecutors. That's important as well. We've already done that, hon. Speaker. We're going to do more.

We have to do more in the courts. We have to work with the courts. So the opposition, the critic, can stand up and say: "We all have to do it." It's time for the opposition to get on side. Here's the House Leader for the opposition: "We need to have criminals off the streets, behind bars for a long time." And then the opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we're not going to continue.

Minister.

Continue, Premier.

[1400]

Hon. G. Campbell: It's big talk from the opposition. The government is going to invest $185 million in building a facility that will house 360 criminals, and what do we hear from the opposition? An opposition candidate that opposes it; a member of the opposition party, who happens to be a mayor, who opposes it; the opposition, who opposes it.

We're going to build it, because you actually have to get these people off the streets. That's what we're going to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: That's pretty rich, coming from this Premier. Terrace Community Correctional Centre. Rayleigh Correctional Centre. Hutda Lake Correctional Centre. Mount Thurston Correctional Centre — I'm looking for a glimmer of recognition from the government benches — all facilities that this government closed.

This Premier stands up in this House and says: "We're going after the gangs." Hon. Speaker, where are you going to put them if you've closed all the prisons?

So just maybe this Premier would stand up and admit today in this House that it was his government's policies of closing correctional centres, of closing courthouses, that helped contribute to crime and gang violence on the streets of British Columbia today.

Hon. G. Campbell: Here's the fact. We have a piece of zoned land for a correctional facility. The government is ready to invest $185 million in that correctional facility. That correctional facility will take 360 criminals off the streets and out of our neighbourhoods. It will make our streets safer.

So the question is actually very simple to the Leader of the Opposition: are you for it or against it? Is the party going to fight it, or are you going to fight crime?
[ Page 13588 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: Well, it's nice to see the Premier on his feet addressing this issue after what has been an eternity of silence on this issue from him. It's gang violence that we're talking about. It's gun violence that's running rampant in communities across this province, and the public wants action.

I'd like to give, for the Premier's edification, a quote this morning from one of the police chiefs on the front line of this issue, from the chief of West Vancouver police, Kash Heed: "This is arguably the most pressing social problem in Metro Vancouver, and what we've been doing for the last five years hasn't been working." This government's policies have failed for the last five years.

This Premier stands up here, and he says: "Oh, go call Jack in Ottawa." Well, I've got news for him. Why doesn't he stand up…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: …and talk to his own Solicitor General, who once ran for the federal Liberals, and tell him to talk to his counterparts? Why doesn't he stand up and tell his caucus that it's unacceptable to have a Solicitor General stand up in this House one day and say, "We don't need any more resources to fight gang violence," and the Attorney General stands up a week later and says: "Yes, we do"?

Mr. Speaker: Question.

M. Farnworth: So my question…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: …to the Premier is simple. When will he stand and deliver a strategy in this chamber that addresses the issues of gang violence in this province today?

[1405]

Hon. G. Campbell: Here's the strategy. More police officers — the opposition's opposed to it. Stricter, tougher federal laws — the opposition has worked against them. Jails that we can put criminals in — the opposition's against it.

We all have to work on this, including the opposition. It's all very well for the House Leader to get up and pump himself up and get all red in the face. The fact is that people want action. We're going to provide them with that action. We have. We're going to keep doing it, and we're going to get our streets safe.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

CALL FOR BAIL PROCESS REVIEW

M. Farnworth: We want more police. We're short 600 RCMP officers in this province. We have called….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just sit down for a second.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If members want to ask questions back and forth, we can just continue that way.

Continue, Member.

M. Farnworth: We've called for greater resources for the Crown, yet there is still no dedicated group of Crown prosecutors whose focus is solely on organized crime.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Sorry. Your Attorney General will tell you otherwise.

We have called for tougher sentences, and we have still yet to see any action from this government. Instead, we get mixed messages.

My question to the Premier. He says he wants to do something. Well, will he offer this one thing to British Columbians today? Will he at least commit to a review of the bail process in British Columbia and making it more stringent?

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: It's one of the things that we could be doing, hon. Member. I know you don't think it's enough, but the public is asking for it.

My question to the Premier is: will you commit to a review of the bail process in the province of British Columbia today to tighten it up, to seek changes that keep people off the streets, behind bars?
[ Page 13589 ]

Hon. G. Campbell: As I said earlier, there are 16 dedicated prosecutors. We will add to the number of prosecutors. We think it's important. There are over 950 new police officers. We will add to the number of police officers.

The member stands and says: "We're for them." They just vote against the dollars that will actually pay them to go to work.

We've been working. We've been calling on the federal government to change bail requirements. We've been clear about that. We've said that if someone is on bail and they're caught with a gun, then we have to reduce the remand situation. We've asked the federal government to make those changes. We are demanding the federal government make those changes. We are working with the federal government to get those changes.

There is one group in the federal parliament who is opposing those changes. It happens to be the NDP.

TOURISM MINISTER COMMUNICATIONS
WITH CONSTITUENTS

N. Macdonald: After refusing to stand in the House yesterday…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: …the Premier tried to excuse the conduct of the Minister of Tourism out in the hallway, saying that the minister's most recent e-mail is in some way different from the one that got him fired two years ago.

Now let's compare these e-mails. In the first, the minister calls the president of the Fernie Rod and Gun Club a self-inflated, pompous American know-it-all and an American spy. In the recent e-mail he calls an award-winning Fernie tourist operator a bigot, ignorant, shortsighted and of questionable intelligence.

So my question is to the Premier. How is this type of conduct now acceptable for a member of cabinet?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm happy to respond to the member, although I wonder whether the people of British Columbia really think this is a matter that's important enough to be debating in the House today, given what we just discussed.

[1410]

Let me say that I am proud to represent the riding of East Kootenay. As I said yesterday, there will be a choice, a clear choice, for people, and we'll get on with that fairly shortly and know the result of that on May 13.

For now I think what's important is for me to say that this province has, in fact, since we were first elected, doubled the budget for tourism. We took it from $25 million to $50 million. We also gave UBCM $25 million. They have disseminated that money out to communities. We gave destination marketing organizations an extra $12 million, and we also created legislation from which resort communities could also access hotel room tax.

In short, I would put our record up against the opposition's record when they were in government any time on our support for tourism.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: That is a minister being cut loose. The Premier wouldn't even stand up and defend him. He wouldn't even stand up and defend him. I am confident that the people of Kootenay East will pass judgment. I also know that it is the Premier who chooses cabinet, and with his choices he sets a standard.

The House Leader, in a visit to Cranbrook, twice described the Minister of Tourism as "nasty." Being nasty is discouraged in most leadership positions, but clearly in this Premier's executive council it is not only tolerated, but it's a point of pride.

To the Premier. He said that this conduct was unacceptable in 2007 when he accepted the minister's resignation. Will he stand up today and explain why he now thinks the minister has the right to attack citizens? What has changed?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: The member knows quite well what nasty is, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker, I was in the tourism industry for over 20 years. I know how it works. I can empathize with all tourism operators in the trials and tribulations of that industry.

But I also know, having been minister now for about eight months, from talking to the Council of Tourism Associations, from talking to the wilderness tourism organizations, to the cruise industry, to the airline industry, to the hotel industry, to the restaurant industry, that every single one of those components of the tourism industry will tell you one thing. They will tell you: "Please, don't take us back to the 1990s. Please don't give us an NDP government." They know that this government has been so much better for the tourism industry than those guys ever were in the 1990s.

JORDAN'S PRINCIPLE AND
FIRST NATIONS HOUSING

C. Trevena: Last year the Premier made a very big announcement when his government signed on to
[ Page 13590 ]
Jordan's principle, which puts the health and safety of first nations children above jurisdictional squabbles.

So when I brought to the House last year the appalling conditions of housing on the reserve at Tsulquate, asking for Jordan's principle to be enacted, the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw First Nations hoped there'd be action, but instead the Minister of Children and Families said it was a federal issue. Three months on we've still got kids in overcrowded, mould-infested homes at Tsulquate, at Ahousat, at any number of first nations reserves across B.C. and on the Island.

I would like to ask the Premier: when will your government act and put Jordan's principle in place to put children first?

Hon. T. Christensen: We are day in and day out acting on Jordan's principle and putting children first across British Columbia. If any situation comes to our attention where a child on reserve requires services and a jurisdictional dispute between the federal and provincial government is interfering with providing those services, services will be provided.

[1415]

We are working with the band on an ongoing basis, meeting weekly with respect to children from that band who are in care of the province so that we can have the band engaged in trying to find solutions to the challenges that face those families. But as the member well knows, these are complex issues, and housing is not the reason that children have been removed from homes, from their families. We are trying to reunite children with families, and we will continue working closely with the band to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: So the housing on the reserve is just fine. The fact that people are living in overcrowded, damp, mouldy houses, including many children — that's okay too. You may be meeting the band regularly, but you're actually doing nothing. It's been brought to your attention back in November and ever since then.

The minister's colleague last May, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, said in this House: "Jordan's principle is about the fact that it's child first, safety first." He said: "Let's not get mired in jurisdictional disputes when the life or safety of a child is at stake." Mr. Speaker, I think the safety of children is at stake if they are living in overcrowded, mouldy housing because of poverty and because of inaction by this government.

So again to the minister — or preferably to the Premier, who actually celebrated Jordan's principle, as we all did: when will he live up to his government's commitment and put these children first?

Hon. T. Christensen: I can confirm for the House and for this member that the province is providing all services and ensuring that all services that are available off reserve are also available on reserve so that aboriginal children are treated the same as non-aboriginal children across our province and can be confident that they're receiving the services they require.

This government is working actively with the federal government to ensure that they are aware of housing issues on reserve and that they are dealing with those issues together with the province and with first nations so that we can all be confident that the legacy of poor housing on reserves is addressed.

OLYMPIC GAMES SECURITY COSTS

H. Bains: Yesterday the Minister Responsible for the Olympics admitted that the price tag for security will be far greater than $175 million. He admitted finally — finally he admitted — that his ridiculous claim that the Olympics would only cost $600 million is just an Olympic myth.

Now that the minister has admitted that he has not been upfront with British Columbians…. The minister knows the full and real cost, but he still won't come clean. My question to the minister today is this: will the minister let the people of British Columbia know today how much the total Olympic security cost will be?

Hon. C. Hansen: The federal government through the RCMP have responsibility for the security plan and for the security budget. It is up to the federal government officials or the RCMP to decide at what time they would share that number with Canadians. From our perspective, we have responsibility for a 50 percent share of a small portion of the security budget, and we are working with the federal government to finalize the arrangement in terms of how we accept that responsibility.

I can tell the member that I have been totally upfront. I would suggest that he go back and read the Hansard from estimates last year and the year before and refresh his own memory of some of the answers that I gave him, because clearly he has forgotten.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

OLYMPIC Games Costs

H. Bains: This minister should be given a new title: the minister of Olympic cost overruns. That's what fits this minister right away. Yesterday he said that we know the total Olympic cost except for security.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

[1420]
[ Page 13591 ]

H. Bains: Yesterday the minister said that we know the total Olympic cost except for security. He said that's the one outstanding item that isn't included in the overall cost. Well, Mr. Speaker, what about the Olympic village? What about the convention centre? What about the Sea to Sky Highway? What about the athletes village? What about the RAV line? What about the other Olympic-sized cost overruns? The minister knows the cost.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: The minister knows the cost, but he's still hiding the total cost.

Will the minister do the right thing today and finally tell British Columbians the true cost for the games?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: And what about the Olympic village? Today it's creating jobs for 1,700 men and women in British Columbia. What about the Sea to Sky Highway that's creating thousands of jobs in British Columbia? What about the Olympic and Paralympic Live Sites that are located in communities across British Columbia from the northeast to the northwest to the southeast to the southwest, creating jobs for British Columbia?

What about the 250,000 visitors who are going to come to British Columbia for the Olympics? They're going to be spending money on hotels and taxis and restaurants — the biggest economic stimulus this province could hope for.

Mr. Speaker, I know that it pains the opposition to know that their leader opposed the Olympics from day one. I know that the NDP cannot….

Interjections.

Hon. C. Hansen: They have to find any opportunity to slag the Olympics. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they're out of sync with British Columbians, because British Columbians are getting excited about the Olympics. We've got the 12-month countdown coming this Thursday.

It is going to be an exciting time for British Columbia. It's going to be the biggest economic shot in the arm that this province has ever seen, and it will truly showcase to the world that British Columbia is the best place on earth. [Applause.]

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF sERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Hon. M. de Jong: Over the past couple of days services have been rendered in this chamber under false pretences, and we need to address that by formalizing the appointment of our new Sergeant-at-Arms. So with leave, I move, seconded by the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain electoral district, that the appointment of Gary Lenz as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Legislative Assembly by order-in-council 952/2008 be ratified in accordance with section 39(2) of the Constitution Act. [Applause.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 48.

Second Reading of Bills

Finance Statutes (Deficit
Authorization and Debt Elimination)
Amendment Act, 2009

(continued)

N. Macdonald: I rise to continue with the debate on this legislation and to just speak from the context of one of the things that was said when the debate began, which is about the need to do this to protect things that are important to British Columbians, such as health and education.

[1425]

The point I would make is that there's precious little example in the last seven years that that has been a priority of this government. I've spoken about a number of items, but I would like to continue in the approximately five minutes I have left to talk again about a few of the things over the past seven years that would point strongly to the fact that this has never been a priority for the B.C. Liberals.

I left off talking about the need for a new funding formula that would recognize the challenges of rural districts and to point out that if you look over the past seven years, we had — quite inconceivably or surprisingly — school districts that for purely financial reasons were unable to have school for five days. Instead they had to run it for four of the five days to save money, which is an incredible fact.

What is also, I think, important to note is that all of those districts were naturally rural districts. So not only
[ Page 13592 ]
are the 177 schools predominantly in rural areas, but you also have schools unable to run for five full days, and that was predominantly in rural areas too.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The last thing I would speak to is this fact, which I think is pertinent right now. To run the education system effectively, you need to make the best of the talent and skills that we are all paying for. As the Speaker would know, the bulk of cost for an education system is with those that we hire to look after our children and to make sure they're properly educated. So it is incredibly important to make sure that that investment is wisely used and that we show respect and make sure that we draw out the talent and skills that these people have.

In the last seven years I can hardly count the number of times this government has purposefully mismanaged that workforce. The cuts are very brutal not only on students but also on professionals. The series of half-thought-through initiatives that this government has initiated are brutal as well. Teachers, educators and parents will be familiar with "the portfolios are in, the portfolios are out," without warning or any chance to prepare or plan; the College of Teachers reorganization; the 30-minute PE, which sounds quite interesting but in practice wasn't thought through.

So when the minister talked about this government stepping forward with this legislation to protect health and education, it's clear that for the past seven years this government has never had those as priorities. It's simply not the case, and we see it in other examples of mismanagement: the school planning committees that were not properly thought through — a concept that might work if they were thought through, but initiated without the proper consideration; BCeSIS, which is the provincial reporting system that simply has not worked in the way that it was.

I was told, when I became a principal, by Ian Robinson, who is an experienced and very well respected principal, that my job was to meet the needs of teachers, and that they would meet the needs of children. When I think of my experience, I had the privilege of working with some incredible professionals who did just that.

So in terms of dealing with education, the conclusion that you unavoidably come up with if you have followed public education in British Columbia at all in the past seven years is that this has not been a priority, is not a priority and in the future is not likely to be a priority for the B.C. Liberals and for this government. Those are the wrong priorities, and the NDP and this caucus certainly have different priorities. We would make sure that the problems I've identified are problems that would have solutions in the future.

I also want to talk about health for the few minutes that I have left. My experience in my part of rural British Columbia representing Revelstoke, Golden, the Columbia Valley and Kimberley…. I represent communities, like many in rural British Columbia and I think across this province, that have suffered terribly under this government related to health care.

[1430]

In my area we had the Golden and District Hospital degraded. We had the Invermere and District Hospital degraded. We had the Kimberley hospital closed altogether. It was the manner of doing that that was not only poorly conceived, but also the manner in which it was done was highly offensive.

The removal of local say — with the Interior Health Authority removing any local say in how these decisions are made — has led to decisions that simply don't make sense in the communities that I represent.

We can talk…. And I'm sure that the Health critic will raise concerns around food, home care, seniors care, cleanliness. All of these issues are things that are of critical importance to people in the area that I represent, and all of them are things that need to be improved, that we hear again and again are simply not up to the standard that people need.

This new legislation comes into place. It points to a two-year deficit. Given that only two months ago we were assured that the finances…. Two weeks ago we were assured that we wouldn't be in a deficit. It seems a bit absurd to be talking about what will happen in two years.

I think there's no question that when you look at the initial legislation that we set out to change, it's essentially a stunt. As soon as the government wants to go into deficit, they simply change the legislation when they do. So it's a meaningless piece of legislation and, like I say, one of many stunts that we've seen from this government that does much to disillusion the public but very little to help them.

So with that, I'm going to take my seat, and I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak on Bill 48.

J. Nuraney: I rise today to speak on Bill 48, which is before this Legislature. Before I speak about the merits of this bill, let me talk a little bit about what has made us come to this stage.

The last two years have seen some unprecedented economic conditions. Recession throughout the industrialized world came about because of several economic downturns. Some of the elements that brought about this state of affairs were the high oil prices, high food prices and substantial credit crisis. These led to drastic bankruptcies of large and well-established investment banks, as well as commercial banks, in many nations around the world.

This crisis has led numerous economic indicators to swing downwards. One of the most damaging results has been the massive unemployment, with loss of income and declining revenues. Any economic measure that
[ Page 13593 ]
one must take must counter this economic tragedy and must address the issues of jobs and the welfare of people, and not just rescuing banks from their difficulties.

This government, when it assumed office in 2001, made a conscious decision to be financially responsible and prudent. We managed to eliminate a large structural deficit, which we inherited from the previous government, and to steer our way through by making some very difficult decisions.

Once we regained the confidence of our people and put measures in place to create a momentum of investments and job creation, we realized a very healthy economic outlook, resulting in surpluses which were invested for the benefit of all British Columbians.

[1435]

Let me digress at this stage and refer to some of the remarks that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke made earlier today. In his remarks he claims that we have underfunded education. He says that public education was not, is not and never will be a priority of this government. Let me talk about some of the facts on this issue.

This government has invested the highest amount of dollars ever in education in this province. Today the total investment in education stands at $5.67 billion. This is a 23 percent lift from the amount spent in 2000 and 2001. That is a fact. Another fact in this matter is that this funding has resulted in an $8,118 per-student funding — again, the highest ever in the province.

The member also talked about class sizes, saying that these class sizes are too high. The fact is that all 60 school districts have once again complied with the legislation to ensure a balanced class size and composition. More than 95 percent of classes in British Columbia — let me repeat; more than 95 percent of classes in British Columbia — have 30 or fewer students, and 99 percent of classes have 32 or fewer students. A fact.

Another matter that he referred to was saying that we are not doing enough on school construction. The fact is that since 2001 the province has spent more than $1.4 billion to complete 73 new and replacement schools, 147 additions, 25 renovation projects and 20 site acquisitions across British Columbia. Let me add that in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon, we have benefited from this investment. The latest one is a $50 million new secondary school that will be built in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon.

The member also referred to perhaps not enough progress being made in the matter of seismic upgrades. Fact: in March of 2005 the Ministry of Education announced a $1.5 billion seismic mitigation program. This is the most comprehensive approach to school seismic upgrades ever undertaken by a government in British Columbia.

He also talked about supporting the needs of students who have special needs. Fact: once again this government has invested the highest amount of dollars in support of the needs of special needs children. This government has now allocated close to three-quarters of a billion dollars — $739.5 million — to mitigate the problems and to address this matter of special needs for our children.

[1440]

We have done more in the field of education than any government has ever done in the history of British Columbia. All this, Madam Speaker, did not happen by accident. We had a plan. It is important. In order to achieve long-lasting benefits, we must have a plan which not just the government but the experts in the field help to devise.

Our Premier, over the years, has set up various boards, round tables and public congresses and has consulted a very broad scale of experts who have helped us to develop these plans, which this government has implemented. We have seen the benefits of this exercise in matters of health care, education, transportation, social services, homelessness and many other endeavours of this government.

Madam Speaker, true leadership lies not only in applying your successes for the benefit of all people but to be able to rise to the challenge every time we have a crisis. We fought the crisis of the tech meltdown. We fought the crisis of SARS. We fought the crisis of forest fires and also of the avian flu. These crises were overcome by sheer determination to face the problem and to find a solution. Once again, we are faced today with a crisis which, if not dealt with responsibly, will result in permanent long-term harm to all British Columbians.

Bill 48 deals with such a crisis. We believed, and still do, that it is the responsibility of all levels of governments to live within their means. There are, however, services such as health care, education and social services, which must not suffer and must be protected in any event.

What we are facing today in terms of declining revenues makes it virtually impossible to maintain the services without going into deficits. Deficit financing in today's economic situation becomes critical to create jobs and to protect the welfare of our people. This bill will allow the government to deal with this crisis.

In my opinion, this bill has provisions which do not give us a carte blanche. We are proposing a two-year exemption to section 2 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. This amendment includes an automatic repeal in the year 2011. We are also proposing an amendment to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to require that an annual increase in consolidated revenue fund cash must be used to pay down the direct operating debt.

The amendment also includes a prohibition against supplementary estimates until the direct operating debt is eliminated. This prohibition means that every penny of future operating surpluses under direct government control will go to eliminating the direct operating debt.
[ Page 13594 ]

We strongly believe in balanced budgets, and we are proposing these amendments today to ensure that this government returns to a balanced budget as soon as possible. This is a very responsible thing to do. Madam Speaker, it is my strong belief that when our country or our province faces such crises, it is the solemn duty of us all to come together.

[1445]

We do understand that the opposition may want to play their roles as politicians, but this is not the time to play politics. I have always said that there is no room for politics when there is a serious matter of public policy. This is not the time to criticize and belittle the other. For if that is the order of the day, I can stand here in this House today and remind us all of the disastrous years of the NDP government when they took away every single opportunity from us and our children.

This is not the time. I repeat: this is not the time for politics. As I said, if it was, this is what I would be doing, but I'm not. This is the time for action. It is the time to save our province from falling into an abyss because of conditions that are beyond our control.

Every nation of this world is seriously pondering how to deal with this unprecedented economic crisis. It is also our duty to take action that will help us ride this out and to ensure the future of our province and a future that is desired by us all — that of prosperity, opportunity and optimism.

C. James: I rise today to speak to Bill 48, a bill that gives the B.C. Liberal government the authority to break its own law, a bill that undercuts almost everything the Premier told British Columbians that he believed in, a bill that severely damages the Premier's credibility and the remaining trust that British Columbians have in him.

Bill 48 is more than simply an amendment to the balanced budget act; it's an indictment of this government's record. This is a symbol of this Premier's profound hypocrisy, a Premier who built his political career railing against deficits; a Premier who, as we all know, sacrificed services to the most vulnerable in the service of his rigid and uncaring ideology; a Premier who made ordinary British Columbians pay with deep cuts to their services.

Now this Premier wants them to believe, when his back is to the wall and on the eve of an election, that he really cares too much about education and health care to balance the budget. Well, British Columbians aren't buying one bit of that. They understand the difference. They understand the difference between a pragmatic and principled leader who adjusts to circumstances and an opportunistic Premier who will break with one of his deepest principles one day to hold on to power the next day.

British Columbians deserve better from their government. They deserve principled and pragmatic leadership in difficult times. They deserve a government with the right priorities, and in three months, when British Columbians go to the polls and they pass judgment on this government's record of arrogance and neglect, that is exactly what they'll get from this side of the House in a government. They will get a government that puts them first from this side of the House. They will get a government that understands their needs.

The B.C. Liberals' core argument for this bill is as simple as it is deceptive. They want British Columbians to believe that they didn't see this economic downturn coming. It was such a surprise. The economic situation got so bad so quickly that despite everything they said up to three weeks ago, now all of a sudden they have to run a deficit.

[1450]

Well, let's take a minute to examine that claim. Last week the Premier said he only realized a deficit was possible two weeks beforehand. He said that he'd never faced a more difficult decision in his public life. Now, let's all remember in this Legislature that this is a Premier who gave big tax cuts to the few and paid for them by cuts to the most vulnerable children in British Columbia. Apparently, he didn't lose any sleep over that. But running a deficit in difficult times…. Well, that kept him awake all night, tossing and turning. That says something about the character of this government.

But let's put aside that deep emotional pain. Let's put aside that deep emotional pain that this is causing the Premier. Is the claim that he woke up just a couple of weeks ago believable? Is it credible? No. No, it's not credible. It's preposterous. And if it were true, if the Premier didn't really realize that a deficit was necessary until a couple of weeks ago, then the B.C. Liberals are more arrogant and out of touch than any of us thought possible.

This economic crisis didn't take hold three weeks ago. It's been going on and gathering steam for months. Tens of thousands of jobs lost. In January alone, B.C. lost 68,000 full-time jobs — 68,000, the worst loss in all of Canada. In Interior communities layoffs have been mounting for years — 20,000 forest jobs gone, 60 mills shut. The multiplier effect is astounding.

These aren't simply numbers. These are individuals. These are families. These are hard-working British Columbians. I have stood with those workers. I stood with their families and communities across British Columbia. I've heard their stories, and I've watched as they've tried in vain to get this government to pay attention.

Yes, the scale of this downturn is unprecedented. We haven't seen anything like it in our lifetimes. Bankruptcies on the rise. EI claims rising. Retail sales plummeting. Revenues disappearing. Home values plummeting. But the scale of this downturn only makes the Premier's claim to ignorance even more absurd. It only makes his inaction all the more inexcusable. He must be the only leader of a government anywhere in the developed world who looked around at what was happening and decided that he was such a genius that deficits weren't necessary.
[ Page 13595 ]

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising, because the Premier's entire political career is centred on the idea that deficits are evil. They're more than a fiscal decision; they're a moral decision. Leaders who run deficits are delinquents, addicted to spending, the Premier said, regardless of the ultimate cost.

In fact, to prove how tough he was, in 2001 this Premier changed the balanced budget legislation to eliminate any provision that allowed for an unforeseen drop in revenues, to handcuff a government in exactly the circumstances that we now find ourselves in. The Premier played those kind of cheap politics right up until the end when the circumstances overtook him. Madam Speaker, the Premier should be ashamed. He should be ashamed.

To save face, to prove it to himself, to prove it to his party that he was infallible, the Premier pretended that he had everything under control. Time and again he stood up and told British Columbians that B.C.'s economic position was sound. There wasn't a problem here. He actually went on TV in October and said deficits will never, ever happen. He implied that B.C. was immune to the worst. He said the revenues were holding up, and he offered a meek plan with very few specifics.

As other leaders started taking action, all this Premier could muster were a few accelerated tax cuts and some empty promises. The Premier's so-called plan didn't even mention education. It had very little for struggling families, even less for forest communities. It didn't talk about affordable housing. It didn't talk about affordable transit. It said nothing about community infrastructure.

[1455]

Like so much of what this Premier does, his plan was little more than a communications exercise, delivered with great fanfare one day and completely forgotten the next.

The Premier's economic plan wasn't followed by action on the economy, but it was followed by something. It was followed by a plan to spend $365 million on a new roof for B.C. Place. It was followed by millions more dollars flushed away on TV ads. It was followed by taxpayer bailouts of failed privatization schemes. It was followed by more of the same — the same kind of arrogance and neglect that is the hallmark of this government.

The Premier had a responsibility to lead, and he failed. He had a responsibility to act, and he hid. He had a responsibility to level with British Columbians, but he ran from the truth. He ran from telling the public what was going on. He abdicated his responsibility. He didn't lead. He didn't level with the people of this province. He abandoned British Columbians at precisely the moment they needed leadership, and that's why on May 12, when British Columbians go to the polls, they're going to return the favour, and they're going to abandon the B.C. Liberals when it comes to this election.

On May 12 they are going to reject eight years of broken promises. They're going to reject eight years of the wrong priorities. They're certainly not going to be fooled by pre-election promises to protect health care and education. The Premier can't go back to that well again. Bill 48 allows the Premier to break his own law to run a deficit, but you'll notice in the bill there's nothing there that commits the Premier to keeping one single promise once the election is over.

British Columbians know very well that this Premier writes his health and education promises in sand. Let's run through a few of them: health care where and when you need it, a plan to reduce wait-lists and put patients first, 5,000 long-term care beds for seniors, smaller class sizes, more special education teachers. Those are just a few of the broken promises that littered the B.C. Liberals' new-era platform. British Columbians couldn't believe the Premier in 2001, they couldn't believe him in 2005, and there's no reason on earth they should believe him right now.

Now, this Premier can spend millions of dollars on TV ads, promising up and down that health care and education are going to come first. We've seen that before. He can unveil hundreds of hospital models with thousands of little tiny beds in those models, promising that every last one of them is going to be built. He can deliver a budget next week that's going to forecast big budget increases for health and education.

But as we all know, and as the people of this province know, every one of those promises is going to be measured against this Premier's record, against the heartbreaking stories of seniors who are separated after years and years of marriage because of this government's neglect and cuts.

These promises are going to be measured against the daily reality experienced by patients in overcrowded emergency rooms: code purple after code purple after code purple, brought on by years of B.C. Liberal neglect. Every election promise this Premier makes will be put to the test by parents whose children learn in overcrowded classrooms with too few resources and by post-secondary students who carry around crushing debt loads. It will be measured against the shameful inaction to help forest communities in their time of need and against this government's eight years of arrogance and neglect.

The Premier can write his own get-out-of-jail-free card with Bill 48, but Bill 48 can't erase the damage that he's done. It can't rebuild the trust that he's lost. How could it?

[1500]

Bill 48 doesn't retract the huge pay increases that the Premier gave his top aides, the same ones that he now says he's going to lay off. Bill 48 doesn't take back the $365 million that the B.C. Liberals are spending on a retractable roof for B.C. Place. It doesn't pay back the millions of taxpayer dollars the government spent on partisan ads.

Bill 48 doesn't house a single homeless person or help a single vulnerable child. It doesn't fund those long-term
[ Page 13596 ]
care beds the government hasn't built yet or a single new care home, and it certainly doesn't improve accountability or commit the government to come clean on the true cost of the Olympic overruns.

Bill 48 allows the Premier to run a deficit. That's it. In doing so, it makes a mockery of everything he said he stood for. It makes a mockery of his deepest political convictions.

What Bill 48 doesn't do is absolve the Premier of his record. It doesn't restore lost trust. Only a new government with a renewed agenda can do that. Only a new government with the right priorities for difficult times can stand up for ordinary families. Only a new, progressive, pragmatic and principled government can bring British Columbians together around a shared vision for a better future.

On this side of the House we are determined and we are ready to provide that leadership to British Columbians. The Premier's brand of politics is worn and outdated. The events of the last few months have made that very clear. Bill 48 symbolizes the fundamental hypocrisy at the heart of this Premier's politics.

Yes, at this difficult moment in our history British Columbia does have to run a deficit. That's clear, and that's responsible. But at this moment in our history British Columbia needs more than Bill 48. At this moment in our history British Columbia needs a new government with new priorities and new direction that will stand up for it. In these difficult times the people of this province deserve a government that puts them first, that focuses on the fundamentals.

That moment for change is fast approaching. In just three months the narrow and worn vision that marked this Premier's time in government will come to an end. A new chapter for the people of British Columbia will begin on May 12.

Hon. I. Chong: I am very pleased to rise in my place and speak to what is a very important piece of legislation, to speak to second reading, which is the principle of why we're gathered here, why we're talking about this bill — to allow this government to bring forward a credible budget. It's one that will, in fact, have a deficit but one that ensures the protection of health care and of education, areas that I believe both sides of the House know need to be preserved.

However, it sounds very much — like when I heard the rhetoric from the Leader of the Opposition — that they're not for the protection of health care, that they're not for the protection of education. Because it would seem that they don't want to see a deficit budget. She talks about it, but she didn't actually say she supported the legislation.

I'm still wondering where the leadership is on the other side of the House. I'm still wondering whether she can actually take a position on anything, whether any of them can take a position, because we have only seen flip-flops on major decisions for the last four years.

[1505]

It just takes one person in that caucus to be a little uncomfortable. Then they all change their minds, and then they all have to flip back when a few others convince the rest. That's what seems to go on in that caucus room. But I can tell you that in our caucus we work together. We deal with the difficult decisions, and we bring them forward. We bring them forward in this House.

It sounded like the Leader of the Opposition felt that it was important to not change the legislation. She felt that it was important to leave it as it is so that they could, if they wanted to, change the balanced budgets into deficit budgets behind closed doors. That's what it sounded like to me — that they don't have to come to this House, that they don't have to bring forward a piece of legislation.

That's not what we are doing. We actually are bringing in the legislation to allow us…. We're telling everyone. We're telling the public and we're telling the opposition that we are going to bring in a deficit budget.

It sounds like they don't think we need this legislation. It sounds like they think they can just deal with this behind closed doors, and that's a pretty sad state of affairs on that side of the House — to admit to that kind of behaviour.

I want to talk a little bit about deficit budgets, because it's no secret that on this side of the House that is not where we want to be. I have been here now for close to 13 years, and I can tell you that I've worked very hard to ensure that we have a government that can turn around an economy. That's what we did when we formed government in 2001.

We said we would deal with the structural deficit. We said we would ensure that we could bring in balanced-budget legislation so that within our third full year we would have a balanced budget, and we did it.

Now Bill 48 once again makes a commitment that within our third full fiscal year we in fact will bring in a balanced budget. We did it once before. We'll do it again. British Columbians can count on that.

So what can they count on from the NDP? Well, I'll tell you what they can count on. In 1996, on the eve of an election, they brought in a so-called balanced budget. What did it turn out to be? Say it with me: fudge-it budget. That's what it turned out to be. We're not going to be doing that.

Interjection.

Hon. I. Chong: Oh, I hear "nonsense." That is a little too rich, even for that member, because in fact, it was a fudge-it budget. In fact, the Premier of the day, Glen Clark, said: "I guess we needed a little wriggle room." In fact, it was the Finance Minister — who had to take the job over from the Finance Minister of the day, who I
[ Page 13597 ]
actually defeated — who said, "Oh well, I guess we didn't quite have the right numbers," although all the officials, all the professionals in the public service, were telling them: "No, I don't think you can put in that number. I think that forecast might be a little too high."

But that's not what happened. The minister of the day overrode the officials. Then the subsequent minister did the same thing. I didn't expect it from that member, but he did, when he became the Finance Minister. Then just after we finished debating that budget in that period in June of 1996 — July, then — he said: "Oops, a little wriggle room," and "I guess it's not really balanced after all." And there we got the term that was coined: the fudge-it budget.

What are we doing today? We said no to fudge-it budgets. We said that we were going to reveal to the public exactly what needs to take place. We are going to say that we are going to change the legislation to allow us to bring in a deficit budget so that we can protect health care, so that we can protect education.

That opposition should heartily support Bill 48, each and every one of them. As they rise to speak, the first thing out of their mouth should be: "I support Bill 48." But they're sounding a little reluctant in their seats. They're even sounding a little reluctant in the hallways.

I really, really wonder where they're coming from. I really wonder what their plans are for British Columbians. They say they want to take the leadership helm. They say they want to bring in credible budgets, but they haven't done it before.

Our record stands, and I will stand on the record that we have. That is balanced budgets. That is to ensure that we add the dollars to health care and education. Some $8.3 billion in 2001 — that was the operating health care budget when we formed government. What is it today? It's over $14 billion — soon to be, I'm sure, over $15 billion. That's almost doubling.

So what would the members opposite do?

[1510]

An Hon. Member: Vote against it.

Hon. I. Chong: Sounds like they're going to vote against it. Sounds like they're not in support of ensuring that health care and education budgets are there.

I heard the comments that were made by our Finance Minister and Premier when they made the announcement a week ago about bringing in deficit budgets. Very difficult choice for both the Premier and the Finance Minister — in fact, for all of us on this side of the House.

They said the only way we could bring in a balanced budget was to make massive reductions in health care and education. Is that what the opposition would have us do? I would hope not, not when we have major expansions that are being planned to allow for better health care, to allow for good education, where the aboriginal students graduation and completion rates are, for the first time, rising.

In my own area here in greater Victoria we have a massive expansion of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, a new 500-patient tower, which is long overdue. You know, it's not the newest hospital. In fact, I think it's the oldest hospital in all of British Columbia. If it's the oldest hospital, you wonder what happened in the 1990s. Why was it not dealt with back then? Why was it neglected? Because, you know, there were a number of members that were elected, and there were a number of cabinet members that were elected in the NDP of the day, but none of them saw fit to see the Royal Jubilee Hospital renovated the way that we're going to see it renovated.

I can tell you that all the physicians and all the health care professionals, all the workers are anxiously awaiting that. Would they have us suspend the infrastructure spending in that area? All of us who work here, all of us as MLAs who come to this precinct for a number of months of the year…. If something should happen to us, we need that hospital. We need to be taken care of there, as do all the citizens in the greater Victoria area.

The $18.8 million being spent on the Victoria General Hospital emergency department will triple the size. Now it might not sound like a lot of money, but it's important dollars, important dollars that need to be invested. But would the NDP have us stop those investments? It almost sounds like it.

I want to also go back to what we've done in the last number of years, the last seven years while we've had the honour of serving as MLAs and government members, in particular. Over 100 tax relief measures have been introduced across a broad spectrum. Individuals' personal income tax reductions cumulatively total….

I've calculated it right here: $64.13 is the net amount we pay if we started with a base of $100. With a 25 percent reduction, with a 10 percent reduction, with a 5 percent reduction…. So a person who might have paid $100 in B.C. taxes back in 2001 now only pays $64. Someone who paid a thousand dollars would now pay $641. Someone who paid $10,000 would now actually pay about $6,400.

What do they do with that money that they've saved? That money is best used in the taxpayers' hands, and they can put it back in the economy, which is exactly what we need to do in this turbulent time — to have taxpayers have confidence to spend money to get our economy moving again.

So with the tax measures that we introduced, economic measures that were introduced in October, that's going to allow that to happen — to allow a retroactive tax reduction.

Tax relief for small business. We all say that small business is the engine of the economy. They hire the people. They get our economy going. The tax rate for small businesses now — 2.5 percent. Now, that's the
[ Page 13598 ]
lowest it's ever been. Before coming to this chamber, many of you know my profession was an accountant. I did tax returns for a number of corporations, and I've never seen it this low. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever expect that that is how low we could reduce the tax rates.

But you know, all of us who ever worked in small business and with small business know how important that is. It allows those small businesses to reinvest it in hiring people, again providing for more confidence in the economy. It allows for them to reinvest it in assets, to allow them to expand their business.

[1515]

There's one thing that's been said time and time again as we've gone through this economic slowdown, that others have said, third-party people have said, and people who have endorsed exactly where we're headed. They've all said one thing: "Thank goodness British Columbia diversified its products. Thank goodness British Columbia diversified its markets. Thank goodness British Columbia had vision and looked ahead because, if not, we would not be the one jurisdiction in all of North America that they are pointing to that is in the best position to weather this economic storm."

Not Ontario, not Alberta, not even Canada as a whole. British Columbia, right here, right now — our province. We're ready, and we're going to ensure that when the economic slowdown reverses itself, British Columbia will once again take its rightful place in the lead as always.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about credibility. Credibility is about a truthful budget. The only thing that the NDP were able to bring in was a fudge-it budget, not a credible budget, and we're going to hear a lot more about that because people will remember. They will remember that they depended on that government of the day to bring in a balanced budget, because they went out on the election trail. It was in 1996. That's what they said they did, but it wasn't truthful, and it didn't happen.

You know, I also recall the number of plans that they had. First of all, I think it was called the Debt Management Plan, then the Debt Repayment Plan, and then the "we'd like to have paid down the debt" plan. I don't know how many names and iterations there were, but finally, you know, they just gave up. They didn't even have a plan to deal with the debt, and why was that? They didn't have a plan to deal with the debt because they had no idea on how to deal with the debt.

So what have we done in seven years? We have reduced our operating debt by almost a half. When we formed government in 2001, the operating debt was just over $15 billion. We've paid down that operating debt by over $7 billion. There's another $8 billion to go, but it was that government that built it up and had no plans to bring it down, which is perhaps one of the reasons why their claim to fame is credit downgrades. That's what we saw — credit downgrades.

An Hon. Member: They were good at it.

Hon. I. Chong: They were very good at it, as my colleague said, because one after another, they'd get the next bond-rating agency to say: "Okay, we'll give them a credit downgrade. Oh, and we'll give them another one, and we'll give them another one."

But that's not our way, because we know that to be credible, to ensure that we could pay the least amount in debt servicing so that we can save those dollars and put them into critical, vital services that British Columbians depend upon, we needed to ensure that we had a credible budget, but at the same time, a debt repayment schedule. We worked on it, and I'm proud to say it worked, and that's why in 2006, after 20 years, finally a credit upgrade to triple-A for the province of British Columbia — only matched by the federal government and Alberta.

That is a great position to be in. That is a position that we should be proud of, and that is what leadership in this province showed can happen.

I just want to ensure that people who are listening to these debates know that this government is absolutely concerned about what is happening globally. Everyone has been pulled into this economic downturn. It was not in any jurisdiction in Canada, that I believe, of our own making, but because we trade and because we are also a very dependent trading country with other jurisdictions — of course, when they are hit with these changes, we will also be impacted.

We are not going to be immune to that, but we do have a sound banking system, and that's what I want British Columbians to know. Everyone has indicated and the International Monetary Fund has said we have a sound banking system. That probably is what is also going to bode well for Canada as a whole, but even so, Canada as a whole is comprised of many provinces so each province has an obligation — an obligation to do what they can to continue to instil that credibility, to continue to instil confidence in its people, and that's what we're doing here in British Columbia.

[1520]

That's what Bill 48 is about: protecting health, public services, education. British Columbian families are depending on it, and British Columbian families know that we can deliver on that.

Also Bill 48, as I mentioned at the very start of my remarks, is about a commitment to return to balanced budgets by 2011-2012. Again, you know, the NDP caucus, opposition members, may not believe it, but everyone who has seen our track record, everyone who has watched and monitored the fiscal discipline that we've had on this side of the House should know that commitment is sound, and that commitment will be kept. We are going to balance our budgets by 2011-12, because we have the fortitude to do so. We have the will, the determination, the fiscal discipline.
[ Page 13599 ]

The reason why I know this is because I've seen that fiscal discipline not just by the members on our side of the House but by working with the very professional Finance official staff that we have — the Ministry of Finance staff. They bring us information. We actually listen to them. We work with them. We work with the Economic Forecast Council, and we will continue to do that over the period of the next number of years. We're going to do it because that is what bringing in a credible budget is all about.

No one could have predicted what the impact of the global economic forces would have been. No one could have predicted how quickly those forces would have hit British Columbia. So when I hear the opposition members scoff — and that's what they're doing — about how we would not have known about this, well, we have relied on the officials. We have relied on the economic forecasts, and even in December they predicted that B.C. would still have growth.

It was only in January that they said zero growth, perhaps because of the loss of $300 million of revenues in a 24-hour period. No one could have predicted that. Yet the NDP really thought that they could have predicted that. Then they probably should have been able to have predicted that they wouldn't have had a fudge-it budget, yet they did.

So let's be clear. On our side of the House a commitment to return to balanced budget is there in this legislation, and that's how strongly we believe it. That's where we're going to get to.

Again I ask: do they support this legislation? The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, when he spoke, said that Bill 48 is a meaningless piece of legislation. I hope he doesn't truly believe that. He said that it is a meaningless piece of legislation. So is he going to vote for it or against it? Now, that would be novel. He says that it's a meaningless piece of legislation. So if he votes for it, it sounds like he believes in meaningless pieces of legislation, and if he votes against it, well then I guess he doesn't support the protection of health care and education.

It's a bit difficult to really find out where the NDP caucus, the NDP opposition, is coming from on this debate. Are we going to see another major flip-flop this week? Well, it wouldn't be surprising. We've seen them before. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I guess we'll wait and see how the other members respond to this piece of legislation and if they all agree with the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke that it's meaningless.

I don't think it's meaningless. I think it's very important. I think it's very real, and I think it deserves support. It deserves support from all members of the House, because it allows this government to run a temporary budget, allows us to return to a balanced budget. It allows us to protect health care and education.

When we formed government in 2001, hon. Speaker, you will recall we went through a number of things within four months of being elected. Then 9/11 hit, and we all saw the devastation of what 9/11 did to the world and how we changed our lives to deal with that. Not long after that we were dealing with SARS, which had a huge impact on one of the top three economic drivers of our economy — tourism. Tourism was ranking in the top three, and SARS hit.

People said that how they dealt with it in Toronto versus how they dealt with it in British Columbia here, in Vancouver, were two totally different stories. There was no one in the streets. The stores were empty. You could hear a pin drop, because they didn't know how to deal with that.

[1525]

Here in British Columbia, again, we knew how to deal with it. We had leadership, and we also had the benefit of working with a very, very sound professional ministry staff to ensure that we could get out the word to show that you could still be safe here. We went through SARS. There was a bit of an economic downturn in that particular sector, but we went through it, and we survived.

We also dealt with, for the first time, the BSE–avian flu situation and went through that again. We really thought that gosh, after all those major setbacks, we couldn't possibly have any more things that could occur that could cause a disruption to our financial situation. But then, guess what: a tragedy of all tragedies, the record forest fires in the Okanagan, and family after family being affected.

You know, the NDP had none of this to deal with. In my recollection, they had one — one — item to deal with, which was the Asian tech meltdown. I think that was in '97 or '98, but they blamed that for the next three years as to why they couldn't balance their budget. But it wasn't about that. It was the fact that they had no fiscal discipline, no fiscal strength and fortitude to make sure that the difficult decisions that had to be made were made but, at the same time, protecting health care and education. They introduced programs that there were no foreseeable revenue streams for.

That's not going to be the part of our regime. We will ensure that British Columbians do receive leadership, and Bill 48 is about leadership. Bill 48 is about ensuring that we can go forward and that we can continue to build this province in a way that will see us best weather this economic storm, as everyone is predicting.

If there are unforeseen circumstances, once again I would ask the NDP how they would have dealt with this. They wouldn't have changed the legislation. They would have sat back, or they would have dealt with it behind closed doors. That's what it sounds like.

If, in fact, they believe that this legislation is meaningless, as the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke just indicated, then I have a question. Does that mean that they would repeal this legislation immediately? If they're going to repeal this legislation, it means, then, that they would have to balance the budget.
[ Page 13600 ]

Where would they find the extra $2 billion for tax relief? Where would they find the extra billions of dollars for health care spending and the commitments that have been made to keep that infrastructure in place? What would they do to those economic drivers that are currently within our province? Would they shut down the oil and gas industry? Would they shut down the mining industry, which they did so well in the '90s?

Interjections.

Hon. I. Chong: Yeah, we'd have two days of work done and devastate the economy. What would they do for the rest of the week? What would they do to our transportation infrastructure?

We have now a reputation in British Columbia. We are Canada's Pacific gateway. That brand didn't happen overnight. We worked on that — the Minister of Transportation, in collaboration with his federal counterparts in Ottawa, with the Prime Minister and the Premier — talking about ensuring that we take advantage of our geographic location so that we can be an economic powerhouse. That didn't happen overnight. It was working together with others.

I've seen how this NDP party works, because I was here in the '90s. They don't work with other people. The only people they listen to are their cousins in Ottawa. They have no intention of working with the federal governments of the day. I've seen them bash the federal government of the day. It doesn't matter what party. That's what they did. It's only their leader that they're listening to.

Let's have a look at what their leader, their NDP leader, has done for this country. They're trying to create a coalition. They're not supporting changes to tougher legislation on crime, which we were discussing earlier today. It sounds as if they want to reach into the pockets of taxpayers, take back all the relief that was once there and then put it to their pet projects.

Even during the last election, and I hope they've now fervently changed their mind on this, the NDP in Ottawa, which was then supported by the NDP here, said that they would bring in an inheritance tax. Let's forget that that happened in the last election.

[1530]

What do they have for British Columbia? What plans do they really have? They want to repeal this legislation? They want to drive investment out of this province? They want to drive people out of this province?

I know there have been job losses, and we all know how devastating that is on families — to lose a job, to not be able to support your family. But the NDP would have that happen tenfold if, in fact, they were ever given the reins to form government. They would, in fact, drive jobs out of this province, as they did before. They have that record.

I saw so many of my friends going to Alberta. What was the example? That moving-trucks were going to Alberta, but they were coming back empty. That was the only company that was making any money in the '90s, because they were driving people to where there were more prosperous economies.

We turned that around, and even though, as I say, there have been job losses, and even though it has been difficult, what I do know is that since 2001 we still have seen the creation of close to 400,000 jobs. And that is still a strong measure of success by anyone's record.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

What are we going to see from the NDP? Credit downgrades? More job losses? More cost to service the debt as a result of the credit downgrade? No dollars that can be invested in health care and education? Is it going to be a "B.C. closed for business" attitude once again?

We worked very hard to return us to a "B.C. is open for business" attitude. We worked very hard to make sure small businesses had opportunity in this province. We had four years of strong surpluses, and I'm proud of those four years of strong surpluses in this province.

I do find it very difficult, especially with the profession that I have been trained in and the counselling that I used to provide for small and medium-sized businesses. I find it extremely difficult to run a deficit, but I am at least comforted by the fact that it is a temporary deficit. It is put in legislation that it will be temporary, and it is put in legislation that within two years we will have it back to a balanced budget.

We are in unprecedented times. Governments around the world have been quick to react. Governments around the world need to react, and we're doing so as well. For many economies, the deficit financing is a financial option to cope with today's economic challenge, and we're doing just that. For British Columbia, it will mean the protection of health care and education programs that British Columbia families depend upon.

I recently attended two British Columbia economic summits. I see my green light is on, so I will just have a couple of minutes to wrap up. But I want to talk about these economic summits — the one in Prince George, Opportunities North, and the one in Vancouver.

Person after person who spoke or offered their comments said the same thing. British Columbia is in the best position to weather this economic storm. British Columbia has leadership and vision. British Columbia has shown fiscal discipline. British Columbia will once again be the leader in Canada when it comes to coming out of this economic situation. Speaker after speaker actually applauded our government, and on May 12 citizens will also applaud this government.
[ Page 13601 ]

L. Krog: I'm delighted to follow the Minister of Small Business. She started off talking about the principle of why we're here, gathered in the Legislature to debate. It has nothing to do with principles. The principles that supposedly drove the Premier throughout his political career, that formed the backbone of this government's political position and posturing, was all about fighting the deficit and eliminating debt.

And here we are, gathered early — ahead of the throne speech, ahead of the budget speech — to talk about a bill that gives the government a get-out-of-jail-free card for having ignored completely all of the collective wisdom of the western world when everybody else knew we were sliding into serious economic troubles.

[1535]

Guess what. This government ignored it. So here we have this government today announcing through this legislation that — golly, gosh — we're in some economic troubles in British Columbia. Well, it must come as a complete surprise.

You know, when I heard the Minister of Finance speak in second reading debate earlier today, it struck me that I've heard him give longer answers in question period than he spent defending this legislation.

He was followed by a much-chastened Minister of Housing. Now, I have never heard the hon. Minister of Housing speak in such dulcet tones — speak so softly and speak so quietly — and clothe himself in the seriousness of our situation and how we had to pull together and how we didn't want to turn this into a political debate. I mean, after all, that's the last thing the opposition should do.

I wonder where that wisdom was in the '90s, when you heard so much hyperbole from what are now the government benches when they were on our side of the House, talking about the ruinous days and the dismal decade. Well, I notice that the Minister of Housing today took us back to the '80s. We skipped the dismal decade to go right back to the '80s to talk about difficult economic circumstances.

The really touching part was when he talked about 9/11, clothing himself in the death shrouds of those who died in 9/11 in facing the great crisis that we do today and how we've all got to pull together. We're going to pull together.

Well, what this is all about is credibility, pure and simple. It is about credibility, it is about hubris, and it is about arrogance. That is why we're here today. That is purely and simply why we're here today. We have listened to the members of that party talk about how they would never, ever, ever bring in a deficit, how they could ignore the whole world. Now they come here humbled and begging for cooperation and support from the opposition after they've got themselves into this mess.

I've got to tell you, I am fascinated by this sort of late revelation to the government that British Columbia might not actually escape economic troubles. All you had to do was listen to the Minister of Housing. Now, I assume he's loud in the cabinet chamber. I may be making a wrong presumption. Maybe he sits there quietly and never says a peep. But I suspect somehow he might speak up on occasion.

I want to quote from Hansard, May 6, 2008 — last year. This is what the minister had to say:

"I just had a conversation with some people, a couple of the major chartered institutions, in the last two weeks where actual business cases have been brought forward by their money market guys — the guys that actually go out and seek this business out as the places for the financial institutions to invest. Quite frankly, they've been told no. 'We're not lending. We're not going in. We're not moving any dollars.'

"That's not just in forestry, by the way. It's in a number of things, because the crunch in the United States in sub-prime is evidently deeper on the available cash than most people thought it was going to be."

May 6, hon. Speaker.

Now I wonder. Were the members on the government benches not listening to the Minister of Housing? Was he being ignored? By what arrogance did this government think that we were going to be unaffected?

Let me give some statistics to the government side — those free marketeers, those people who believe in the world economy, those people who love globalization, those people who believe you want to get into the stream, and we all swim together. So 80 percent of our trade goes to the United States; 42 percent of Canada's gross domestic product is in trade.

[1540]

You can do the math, hon. Speaker. What that means is that a third of Canada's economy is dependent on trade with one nation — our neighbours to the south — a third of our economy. This government, knowing that…. And don't tell me that the mandarins in the Finance Ministry — the intelligent, capable, able public servants in this province — don't know those numbers and didn't tell this government what the numbers were.

This government stood idly by and did nothing — announced that tepid response of the Premier after the market crash in September. September.

You know, I hesitate to overwork the old cliché about the Titanic, but this government, like the Titanic with its captain, just pushed on through those icebergs when the whole world knew we were in trouble — popping the champagne corks, announcing a $365 million roof for a stadium in downtown Vancouver…

An Hon. Member: In this weather. In this climate.

L. Krog: …in this climate, in those circumstances — and just drove on through because we can do it.

The Premier himself in a moment of confession has expressed that "he had many sleepless nights over the fact that the government would have to run a deficit."
[ Page 13602 ]

You know, hon. Speaker, I wonder. As the Premier put his head down on his pillow at night in a comfortable bed with a roof over his head, as he thought about what he'd been spending the government's money on, as he thought about the decisions he'd made, as he thought about putting a roof over people who can afford high-priced tickets for sports events, I just wonder if he gave a thought about the 15,000 British Columbians who don't have a place to sleep, the 15,000 British Columbians who are homeless.

I wonder if he gave a thought to the fact that this country, for the fifth year in a row, is led by British Columbia in child poverty — this province.

Hon. K. Falcon: Nonsense.

L. Krog: You know, the Minister of Transportation can make all the cute remarks he wants, heckling from the back corner, but the fact is that it's nearly eight years since this government came to power. We've got more homeless than we've ever had. We're now going to run a deficit for two years. They've given tax breaks to their friends. The cupboard is bare, and they're begging this Legislature to give them permission to run us into deficits to help solve the problems that they should have been avoiding.

It just is not credible. It is not credible to talk about caring about British Columbians. It is not credible for this government to talk about it when you look at that record.

The Minister of Forests said earlier today: "I have nothing but respect for the …people who work in B.C.'s public service." Now we love the public service. Well, there's one campaign promise they kept when they came into power. They were going to reduce the public service, those respectable people they now purport to love, and they did. They did, and it led to a crisis in child welfare in this province and apprehensions and child deaths. We've now got a crisis in gang violence in the streets, and we've got closed institutions.

The chickens, as they say, have come home to roost. The decisions that this government has made are now bearing the bitter fruit that we are all going to have to eat, and unfortunately, it's not the members in this chamber who are going to be suffering. It's the people sleeping in the streets of British Columbia. It's the people who sleep in the streets of my constituency. It's literally the people who sleep in the streets outside of my constituency office who are going to pay the price for this government's mismanagement.

It wasn't so long ago that this government, in an act of beneficence to the major financial institutions of this province, gave a $200 million tax break to them.

An Hon. Member: To the banks.

L. Krog: So $200 million to the big banks. You know, that would have paid to house a quarter of the homeless in British Columbia. That actually, if you'd put it into tourism, might have produced some real jobs. That would have produced some real jobs.

So what we have in front of us today is a government…

[1545]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, Members.

L. Krog: …like their federal cousins that have completely abandoned the basic principles on which they sought and obtained power, and that is that we'd never run deficits. We'd never run deficits. Because in their arrogance they believed that they could somehow ignore the rest of the world, that they could continue to give breaks to their friends, they failed to meet the social and real needs and economic needs of British Columbians.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, just one moment.

Can I remind all members to have respect for everybody in the House. No first names are to be used, and you'll all have an opportunity to speak, I'm sure. So we'll allow the floor to the member to continue. Thank you.

L. Krog: You know, the former Premier of this province, Bill Vander Zalm, built this wonderful thing in Richmond. He called it Fantasyland. But the difference was that that Premier understood that's what it was. Bill Vander Zalm never pretended it was anything other than a theme park. It was a fantasyland. It's a place to go and live in an imaginary world and be happy.

Now what we have in British Columbia is a different fantasyland, except it's really more of a nightmare brought about by this government's failed policies. We have 129 gangs identified in the province of British Columbia. A decade ago there were ten. We have 15,000 homeless. We've got the worst child poverty rate in Canada. We've got increasing ferry fares. Fees, licences and charges are up everywhere. We are now in a period where unemployment is increasing, and this government continues to pretend that they're credible with the people.

You know, I listened to the Minister of Small Business today. Now, I hate to remind this government. I hate to remind them, but the Auditor General, hired by an all-party committee, certified that when the NDP were last in power in this province, we left two balanced budgets, including a $1.4 billion surplus.

What did this government give us the very first year they came into power? Just like their political ancestors, the Socreds — when we came into office and inherited a $1.4 billion deficit — in the first year in power they ran a deficit of over $3 billion.
[ Page 13603 ]

Hon. K. Krueger: We inherited a $4 billion deficit from you.

L. Krog: You know, Hon. Speaker, I'm listening to the minister, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, and I'm delighted that he continues to repeat those kinds of remarks, because the fact is that the Auditor General says he's dead wrong. But that ability to continue to promote a myth about what this government is supposedly good at and how this opposition and my party was so bad is precisely why this government has no credibility with the people of British Columbia anymore — because no one believes them.

No one believes that they really do care about public education and public health care or about poverty. No one believes them anymore. If we didn't come up with the phrase, I've got to tell you, the public figured it out themselves. When we say that this government is arrogant and out of touch, we believe it, and the public of British Columbia knows it.

We're now focused on a debate around a deficit, and you know what? I want to satisfy the Minister of Small Business. I don't want to have her leave this chamber disappointed today. The last thing in the world we want is a cranky Minister of Small Business. Gosh knows, the way they're running the B.C. economy, she's going to have a far bigger ministry next week than she did last week if they keep it up this way. There won't be any big businesses left in British Columbia.

[1550]

The opposition will support this bill. [Applause.] Do you hear it? And you know why? I'll tell the Minister of Small Business why. Because this opposition and my party understand the necessity of government spending in tough times, and they understand, unlike this government, that this is not a business we run here.

This is not a mom-and-pop operation, where if we go out of business there's another corner grocery store down the street or if the auto repair shop shuts down, there's another one down the street.

The people of British Columbia have only one provincial government to turn to when things are tough — only one provincial government. So you can't run it like you run a business. Sometimes you have to run deficits to maintain the services on which the most vulnerable who live amongst us rely.

I'm proud of a party that is prepared to not only acknowledge but accept that as a fundamental responsibility of governing in British Columbia — unlike this government, which has arrogantly maintained since it took power that it can continue to run, in perpetuity, surpluses as if it was some gift from some all-seeing Aztec sun god.

You know, it's the arrogance of this government, the belief that they could ignore the rest of the world, that's led us here today to have to waste the public's time passing a bill which should never have been worded the way it was in the first place.

The legislation as it existed once said that in difficult times the government could run a deficit. But oh no. This government got elected. It wanted to drive home that it would never have to be subject to the powers of the market or the world.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Holier than thou, my friend from Esquimalt-Metchosin says — holier than thou.

So we're here having to do it today because next week we don't want to see any of those poor Liberal cabinet ministers have to take a pay cut. We don't want to see them suffer the numbers that this legislation would otherwise require. We need to ensure that things will go smoothly for the governing party. Well, at least until May 12. At least until May 12, because there might be change in the province of British Columbia on May 12. One never knows.

You know, the voters just might decide that perhaps this government hasn't done the good job that it keeps saying it's done, that people might actually look around and say: "You know what? I don't remember the social issues facing the province of British Columbia a decade ago. I just don't recall the number of homeless. I don't recall seeing that kind of gang violence. I don't recall a government that, as late as the fall, kept pretending and telling us that everything was fine."

It's of great interest to me that one of the most forthright and honest members of that side is no longer with us in this chamber. She's no longer here. Now, I'm sure she had very good reasons for leaving. I can use her name now because she's no longer a member. Carole Taylor said: "…because so much of our revenue comes from natural resources and they're cyclical — commodity prices, we all know, have big fluctuations — we really try to be perhaps more conservative than some other provinces."

That's the truth. That is the God's honest truth. In a province that has not been diversified the way this government would like to pretend it is, we rely on that. So when copper went from what it was in the late '90s to five times that amount, this government took credit for sound fiscal management. They take credit for everything that's good. But somehow when there's an economic downturn…. You know what they say about success? It has many parents, and failure is an orphan. There's a rougher version of that, but I hesitate to use that language in this chamber.

So now the government reaches out for the help and support of the opposition, because the truth is known. What Carole Taylor said is true. The economy is cyclical. Oh, my goodness gracious me. The truth is out. The economy is cyclical.

[1555]
[ Page 13604 ]

So understanding that basic principle — the worst student in an economics class would understand it — when this government enjoyed high resource prices, did we put in place infrastructure that was really important? Did we fund public education the way it needed to be funded? Did we build the beds for those seniors who need long-term and extended care? Did we set aside money for the future? No, no. Did we house the homeless? The weakest and the poorest amongst us? No. No. Did we resolve child poverty? No.

No. We just kept on playing on the deck of the Titanic until the reality hit home, and we're here today to save the bacon of this government by allowing it to live with deficit budgets.

You know, what's really wonderful about this bill is that at a time when the government could have stepped up to the plate and acknowledged that it's not all powerful, that the Premier is not Louis XIV — that he's not the Roi du Soleil, that he's not the Aztec, that he's not responsible for the sun coming up every morning — and that the golden decade, by the way, is probably off again for a little while and that the golden goals might be a bit of hyperbole, I would have wanted to hear just one tiny, tiny recognition by one member of the government benches that maybe they were just a little bit sorry they hadn't put aside a few shekels for the tough times — just a few, just a few.

But you know, not only could they not do that, in the very body of this bill, the government that was so prescient, the government that ignored the whole world has now determined in legislation that this will be over in two years. It'll be over in two years. Well, where the heck were all their great prognosticators a couple of months ago? You know, they were telling us that we'd avoid the recession. We'd avoid the depression. We wouldn't have to worry about balancing budgets. Where were they, hon. Speaker? I want to know where they were.

On the moment of Judgment Day, so to speak, with this bill, this government could have actually said: "You know what? Like the rest of the world — like the great Barack Obama, like Gordon Brown in Great Britain, like Mr. Sarkozy in France, like Mr. Putin in Russia — we don't know where the bottom is." We don't know where it is. Except in British Columbia we know it's two years away. It's two years away. One tiny chance to grasp a shred of credibility, and they couldn't bring themselves to do it.

That is why I'm delighted to speak in support of this bill, to allow this government a further opportunity to continue to make the mess so that on May 12 the people of British Columbia will get their opportunity to pass judgment on this holier-than-thou, arrogant and out-of-touch government.

Hon. J. McIntyre: I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important bill preceding our 2009 budget, especially after the theatrics and the conspiracy theories of previous speaker. May I just say one thing in answer to his last little point in his closing argument? We've got one thing that those countries and jurisdictions don't have, and that's the Olympics in 2010.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I'd really like the public to know that this was not an easy decision for me or for my colleagues to bring in and to support this legislation, this Bill 48, that allows for government to temporarily run a deficit to cover government operations.

Our Premier, our government — in fact, all of us on this side of the House — have railed against spending more money than the province is bringing in. We've railed against the practice of forwarding our debt on to our children and our grandchildren. This runs completely contrary to the way we run our household budgets — at least, I do — and the way I managed my business for decades.

But we are facing a situation that no one planned for, not even the opposition, particularly as displayed by their leader in her response to our Premier's ten-point plan, who in November and December were still calling for balanced budgets that in fact, actually, nobody believed she'd deliver anyway.

But we've come to the conclusion, after much soul-searching, that we need to take action beyond ideology to protect services in the short term that will make us stronger in the long term. We owe this to those we represent.

[1600]

Distinguished David Emerson, at our province's economic summit last week, quite rightly reminded us that Canada and, by dint, B.C., got in this downturn by global forces, and it will be a global recovery that lifts us out. Anyone thinking that there is a made-in-Canada solution, much less a made-in-B.C. solution, is likely living on another planet.

We have no choice but to cope with the global forces beyond our control, but there are steps that we can take here in British Columbia to protect families. I agree that these are not statistics or figures we hear about. These are real people facing job losses and a decrease in their ability to care for their families the way they might really like to.

We have already enacted legislation last November following on the Premier's ten-point plan that he announced at the end of October when our finances had already started to deteriorate. He showed leadership, and he took action right away.

I'd like to remind people that with legislation we've already moved to do things like accelerating personal income tax relief, with a total 5 percent income tax cut that's been retroactive all the way back down to January 1, 2008. That step alone, which we took last November, puts $144 million back into the pockets of our people and into our economy. We've accelerated tax relief for B.C.'s small businesses with that same legislation back in November.
[ Page 13605 ]

Effective December 1, 2008, the rate was dropped to 2.5 percent, a full two years ahead of schedule, and that is injecting $146 million back into the B.C. economy. We established a new property tax credit to help industry stay competitive, where 50 percent of school property taxes are going to be rebated to light and heavy industry, lowering their costs and helping them in some of the rural areas of our province.

We're providing help to homeowners by maintaining the lower assessment value, 2007 or 2008, to give them a little relief on property tax. We've also created a new temporary financial hardship tax deferment program to allow some homeowners who have at least 15 percent equity in their homes a little relief during this economic downturn.

Also, we're protecting them in their pensions. We're protecting RRSPs and other similar plans, no matter where they're held, from being seized from creditors. We've taken action.

Additionally, let me remind you that we've also in the last seven years of government laid a very strong foundation for recovery, as my colleague pointed out. We've had over a hundred tax cuts. We have the lowest personal income taxes in the country for the first $111,000, with no tax on the first, at least, $16,000.

We've been paying down that operating debt by 47 percent from its peak — $7.4 billion over the past five years alone — a debt, I'd like to point out, that the NDP racked up, doubled, when they couldn't balance the books even in the good times.

Hon. L. Reid: Reckless and irresponsible.

Hon. J. McIntyre: Definitely.

We've continued with a huge variety of social programs like Fair Pharmacare, and StrongStart centres for our youngsters so that they get a good start as they approach school and develop a love for learning. We have rental supplements for lower-income families and seniors. There's a whole host of programs we've been doing — looking after the homeless in shelters, and transition homes for battered women. Our record stands.

But fast-forward. Despite getting this economy firing on all cylinders and the 400,000-plus jobs we created — where we had jobs looking for workers, instead of the other way around under the NDP — we unfortunately find ourselves in the House today debating this bill. I think, as you all well know, this situation was precipitated by the extremely rapid decline in projected revenues, throwing basically the fall budget planning out the window.

Unfortunately, these declines are still occurring. Our economic growth, as recently as January, was projected to be just zero, and I think the Conference Board of Canada last week at the summit said maybe 0.6 percent. But it's nothing like the growth that we've been experiencing under our government for the past few years.

I think you've also likely heard tell now that the worst situation that our senior finance officials had seen was a decline of $100 million in one week. Recently we experienced a downward shift of $300 million in one day. That's the magnitude of the problems we found ourselves faced with.

So I'd like to actually take the opportunity to thank the officials that have been working so diligently throughout the fall and right through to budget day to figure out how we can reign in our spending and preserve our core programs that are so important to us. We're all indebted to the hard-working, dedicated professionals we have in our ministries under the leadership of the deputies and ADMs.

[1605]

Back to the bill. We could have tabled a balanced budget. The Finance Minister could have brought that in but not in good conscience. With rapidly evaporating revenues, we realized we would have to reduce significantly the investments in our key areas, such as health care and education, and we were not prepared to do this. We're not prepared to do this to British Columbia and to those who depend on us for protection.

We've built our reputation on being prudent and forthright about our finances and on managing our fiscal affairs with discipline. Mr. Speaker, we're going to continue to do so. Our credibility and our integrity are absolutely key to maintaining public confidence. This is why we are before you today asking for support in the House and amongst the public for a short-term measure to allow for a deficit.

Let me reassure you that we have planned to return to balanced budgets by April 2011, and we have a track record, to answer the member before me. We have a track record in establishing that. In the first term of government, against all odds, this government managed to turn around the economy. They got the ship of state around, and it was despite all that thwarted us.

As was noted by my colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head, we faced 9/11, all the consequences of 9/11, and SARS and all that that did to tourism and the economy. Avian flu, SARS, fires. We turned the economy around when nobody believed we could do it.

We've also built into the legislation a commitment that any surplus cash will be put towards paying down the remaining operating debt, which is now in the range of about $7 billion, a debt that — I'll reiterate again — was doubled by the NDP in their reign of fudge-it budgets when they could not meet one financial target and that we're now paying down and have been paying down. We were just finally digging ourselves out of that hole the NDP put us in.

So this bill does not affect our capital budget and our plans and our ability to build infrastructure going forward. In fact, we're accelerating infrastructure. To coordinate those projects with the federal government dollars that are now flowing into British Columbia, we're
[ Page 13606 ]
attempting to take full advantage of 50-cent dollars — i.e., the matching federal and provincial programs.

The federal government is in sync with our Premier and our government on the need to keep money circulating in the economy and, most of all, to keep people working. It's all about jobs. Jobs have been first and foremost on our economic agenda for eight years, and we're proud of it. We're proud of our track record — the projects we've been building and planning, to help open up our province and keep people and goods moving within and in and out of our province, and that are creating thousands and thousands of family-supporting jobs.

We've got great examples: the Kicking Horse Pass; the William R. Bennett Bridge; the Port of Prince Rupert; widening the Port Mann Bridge, which of course, the Leader of the Opposition still opposes, or maybe she's in one of her flip-flops. We're not quite sure. But she's been quoted many times about "wrong bridge, wrong time." I'd like to know what her plans are, because she won't ever come clean about it. "Wrong bridge, wrong time," I guess…. Like the ads that are on TV, I think it's "wrong leader, wrong party, wrong time."

However, I'd also like to talk about another project — the award-winning Sea to Sky Highway that links all the communities in my constituency that I represent. The benefits have been absolutely tremendous. Not only do we have safety upgrades, making that trip much safer and easier to negotiate so parents can feel relieved when their youngsters are travelling that highway and when we're inviting visitors, but we have a much safer highway.

We've had hundreds of jobs. We've had apprenticeships for first nations. We've had the first nations providing aggregate, and we've been opening up that corridor for families and commuters. I'm very, very proud of the work and the workers on that project, something that the opposition continually rails against.

Most of these projects have been successful — what we call P3s — partnerships with the public and private sectors, where we have successfully leveraged taxpayer dollars. We've transferred risk, and we've met budget and schedule deadlines, all the while creating those thousands of jobs here in British Columbia.

Yet, the NDP, at every turn, continue to oppose any type of partnerships that involve the private sector and their expertise. "Oh, why would we put that to work in British Columbia?" I still can't figure it out. I've spent the last four years in this House hearing the members opposite rail — rail against business, rail against expertise and rail against investment in our province that creates jobs. No, they're opposed to everything, and they need to be exposed for what they're opposed to. The public needs to know.

[1610]

The same for independent power projects. I see the member across who…. We often have these debates. He and his colleagues spend all their time raising fears amongst the population, fearmongering about our rivers, trying to shut down an industry.

If they were elected — they have come out right on the record — they would shut down that entire industry, put all those people out of work, and they would divert the billions of dollars of investment in the province away from the schools and hospitals that we've been building. They don't even understand the difference between renting and owning.

Anyway, the only conclusion I can come to is that it is ideology. It's nothing but ideology and blind support for their big-labour agenda and for the public sector unions that dictate their theories. Oftentimes it's against the better interests of the public and the taxpayer, and that's you and I. That's the average British Columbians that they actually claim to represent. I just hope the public will not be fooled.

The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke just before me calls Bill 48 a meaningless piece of legislation. Well, what does that mean? I'd really like to hear the answer to that. It means that the NDP supports balanced budgets? Well, they've never been able to produce one, so I'm confused about that.

Does it mean they don't support this bill? In which case, I'd like to know what exact cuts to health and education they're planning. How can they do this when their Health critic is running around wanting to add $2 billion at the drop of a hat? The NDP's answer to every problem is to spend more, just simply spend more money. They don't actually solve the problem; they just try and throw money at it. It's reckless, it's irresponsible, and for that I say it's reprehensible.

I call on the Leader of the Opposition to articulate her plan. What exactly is her plan? What services is she planning to cut, or how much deficit is she contemplating? What billions of dollars will all her false promises cost? To what extent would she actually mortgage our children's and our grandchildren's future?

Another thing could be: how high will the taxes go? How high will they soar? Because the NDP's pattern, and we saw it for ten years, is tax and spend, tax and spend. I'd like to hear in this very House what she would actually do — not what she actually opposes but what she supports. What action would she actually take? Not just words, because you know what? Talk is cheap.

She said in this House this afternoon that this bill damages our government's credibility. Well, I think just the opposite. It does exactly the opposite. It underscores our government's credibility and our Premier's credibility. We have come before this House with a true picture, completely unlike those fudge-it budgets where they jacked up the revenues. They had revenues that weren't going to be there. They had fudge-it budgets that went on and on. They never met a target.
[ Page 13607 ]

In unforeseen circumstances, we've decided that we should be here, right in this Legislature, facing the House just as we are. The Leader of the Opposition actually implied, if you don't have legislation for this…. She's actually implying that these major fiscal decisions should be done behind closed doors. I'd like the public to know that's what she actually stands for.

That's what separates us from them. We're standing before you and, for all the viewers at home, openly asking for support to allow the government to protect our core programs for British Columbians and to allow us to plan for economic revitalization to ensure that we're preparing to take full advantage of global recovery of an economy that will be tied to Asia-Pacific markets.

As has been said — and as it has been said by my colleague; it was at the economic summit last week — everyone is acknowledging that British Columbia is the best province in Canada to withstand this downturn. We have laid all the groundwork. We have put this economy on solid footing, and we're proud of it. With the support of the public, and hopefully on May 12, we will continue providing good, sound, fiscally disciplined government for this province.

[1615]

I'll be supporting this bill, and I urge the NDP to put their ideology aside and finally do what's right. For once, could they please support our Premier and government in genuinely caring for B.C. families — not just going through the motions and not just talking the talk but actually giving some credit where credit is due — and support us in what we're trying to do. Because it will be very important for the public to see that their leaders are making the right decisions and generally care for the future of this province.

M. Karagianis: I'm happy to stand here in the House and speak to Bill 48. I have the good fortune of having a constituency that's only a few minutes from here, so every single day I get to have real and meaningful contact with the constituents that live in Esquimalt-Metchosin. I never forget for one minute what it is that they've sent me to do here in the Legislature, and that is to be here to stand up and have their voices heard here in this Legislature.

Never has that been more important than during this spring session, which is being kicked off with a repealing of a bill and replacing it with Bill 48 and putting a deficit in place here in British Columbia. I will say that I have found over the last four years that my constituents are a pretty smart group of people. They are a pretty savvy group of individuals raising their families in my community.

When I talk to them on their doorsteps, when I knock on their doors — which I do frequently — I ask them what they think about government's actions, about some of the various things that take place here in this Legislature. Certainly, moving into a budget cycle, you know, I talk to my constituents and say: "What are the things that concern you? What do you think government should be doing?"

We're in economically difficult times right now, and we're about to go into a budget. The government has had some kind of epiphany here in the last few weeks on the economy, which most of my constituents have been well aware of for a very long time.

I've asked my constituents: "What do you think about this idea of a deficit budget?" And you know, in reality, time and time again my constituents have told me that they are very concerned. They were concerned long before they heard about a deficit budget. They are very concerned, and the number one thing that comes up, first and foremost on the lips of almost every constituent I talk to, is Olympic cost overruns.

When I say, "What concerns you right now in your household?" they talk about affordability. They talk about the need for child care. They talk about the concerns for affordable housing. And they talk about the Olympics in the same list of things that are critical to them.

If you think about it, for families that are worried about getting from paycheque to paycheque and families that are more concerned about how they're going to get their kids to school or how they're going to get themselves to work, the fact that the Olympics cost overruns plays so heavily on their minds says that they are very smart and savvy people, because in fact they are watching the government's actions. They are watching what this government is doing and how it's spending their money, and they're very smart about what it is that they see and hear going on here.

I think that over the last eight years we've seen some very good times here in British Columbia, and certainly we've seen how the government has comported itself during those really good times, what kind of actions it's taken since 2001 when the government was first elected. I think that's laid the framework that's allowed those very smart people in my constituency to have a list of concerns and conditions that they live with every day — and challenges. They're very real, based on what this government has done, what kind of behaviour and what kind of actions this government has taken over the last eight years.

What we saw. In a time of extremely good economy when commodity prices were high, when lots of houses were being built, when the economy was on a roll, we actually saw a government that started off their term in office by making severe cuts to much of the social programming and services that our communities really depend on. We saw hospital workers laid off. We saw a continuation of this ideology, which has been pushed by the current government, of privatization. We saw it in the hospital services. We saw it in cleaning services and in food.

[1620]
[ Page 13608 ]

We saw school closures — one very significant school closure right in the heart of my community. One of the oldest schools here — in fact, the oldest school in the lower Island — was closed by this government.

We've seen class sizes be a continuing concern for families with special needs children. Throughout my constituency, because of school closures, we've seen greater class sizes in the neighbouring schools around that as a result.

We've actually seen tuition increase, and we've seen student debt the highest ever here in British Columbia — a real barrier to many of the young people in my constituency who are concerned about the ability to get through school and not be burdened with debt for most of their working years, certainly for the first ten or 15 years of their working career.

We've actually seen home care cut back in my constituency at a time when we know that seniors in fact could live better and richer lives with more home care. At the same time, we've seen no appreciation in the number of long-term care opportunities for seniors in my community. We've seen, certainly, some assisted living, but that's not long-term care. My seniors know it, and they worry about that. They worry about that a great deal.

Of course, we've heard other members of the House here talk about the very blatant things that we know occur in all of our communities now, which is the face of homelessness and the growing concern about child poverty. Those things all have occurred and grown and been huge problems during the best years that this province has seen in, probably, several decades.

When I talk to the people in my community and they say that they're very now concerned about the actions of government and what it means and the credibility of government, then I take them very seriously, because all of the things that I have talked about have been very real and tangible in my community.

I know that my constituents are smart about connecting the dots and seeing that five years of the highest rates of child poverty are a direct result of government actions. In fact, we had the best of times, the best of years here in British Columbia — high commodities, lots of money moving in the province — yet child poverty affects many of the people who live in my community, which is only a few minutes away from here. People can connect the dots and understand that the government has not done the right thing by them.

In reality, when I heard the Premier talk about being kept awake because the deficit was weighing heavy on his mind, I have to say that in my constituency my constituents are kept awake at night worrying about much more immediate things. They are worried about much more threatening issues in their lives. That is about their kids, that is about how their parents are going to get care, and that is about how they are going to make it from payday to payday in an environment where the economy is changing and undermining jobs within my community, jobs here on the Island.

Statistics here. We look and see job losses. Forest jobs have been disappearing for years on the Island here. Mill jobs have been disappearing right across this province, but there are layoffs occurring right here in the capital region that are now affecting people's security.

It would seem to me that up to this point in time…. We've seen no solutions from this government in good times. We've seen no opportunities put forward here by this government to do the right thing in good times. What can we expect during bad times?

[1625]

Really, the heart of the issue here is that during really good years we saw so many cuts, so many changes to the very fabric and structure of our communities that my community is very fearful about what happens now in economic bad times. If the government can go through and close schools and slash social programming and not solve things like homelessness and child poverty in good times, then where in the world would we ever get any kind of confidence that the government would do this in harsh times?

In fact, the government has shown very clearly, not only by their cuts and actions but by their priorities over the last eight years, that it's not about any of those things that my community worries about. The government is indifferent to the fact that my community loses sleep at night about paying the bills, about whether there will be a job next week, whether they will be one of the thousands of people in this province who have had a full-time job reduced to a part-time job and whether that part-time job is being paid at a minimum wage of $8 an hour.

Of course, in the good times this government has refused categorically, for eight years, to raise the minimum wage in British Columbia. So we now have people who have lost full-time jobs for part-time jobs that are at minimum wage. You know what? We all know that that doesn't put a roof over your head or food on the table for your family. At the end of the day, if the government couldn't do that in good times, my constituents are smart enough to know that the government is not going to do any of that in bad times.

When we sit here and talk about deficit budgets, I think we need to look at what the government has really been doing rather than what they've been saying.

It's funny. I think one of the previous speakers made an allusion to something about not putting problems onto future generations. Well, that may have applied originally to something the Premier said about deficits, but let me just talk about the fact that all of this proliferation of privatized schemes that the government has got us into has put debt onto the taxpayers of this province for 30 and 40 years into the future. The government has no hesitation about doing that — right?

Future generations have been burdened by all kinds of privatization schemes, and the government thinks
[ Page 13609 ]
that that's just fine, because in fact, that's hidden debt. So when I hear the hand-wringing over, "We are now going into deficits," and "We didn't know this was coming," and "It is a difficult decision because it will burden future generations," I say hogwash to all of that. The government has had no problem indebting us for 30 years into the future with infrastructure projects that are dubious at best and risky — much riskier in these days than they ever were in the past. I'll talk a little bit more about that shortly.

The reality is that I think most families here in British Columbia know that the reason we are here today debating deficit budget financing is because our credit card is now maxed out. The government was not prudent in those eight years, and now the credit card is maxed out.

It's not going to halt the spending, though. I can tell you that. As we know, the Port Mann announcement here the other day…. A billion and a half dollars higher than it was previously, and we're going to plunge ahead with that. A new retractable roof on B.C. Place — a retractable roof in this climate, if you can imagine — and we're going to proceed with that because that is obviously more important.

What is the implied threat here? Well, health care and education. "We may have to have a harsh look at them, but we're going to continue with sort of unchecked spending here."

I just want to look at another detail here about, really, the government's record, because I know we're sitting here talking about deficits — about this unprecedented environment that has put us into a situation of having to amend and change the law to allow for this deficit. Let's just actually look at the last eight years.

We know there have been a lot of good times, but the reality is that the B.C. Liberal government ran three deficits in their first three years — right? — and four surpluses, 2004 to 2007. Now we're going into, again, two years — maybe more…. Because it's easy to change the law. You just have to come in here and put a new law through. Ram it through. Put a closure motion on it so that nobody actually even gets to scrutinize it, and you can slam that through in a couple of hours here if you're really ruthless about it.

[1630]

The reality, if we look at this, is that this government's record is actually five years in the red and only four in the black. So the reality is that this is not necessarily new. The only thing that's new is that the government put a law in place, and now they need to find a way to break that law, so we're going to have to amend it.

But the reality here — cold, hard facts — is that this government has in fact had about a 50-50 ratio of running a surplus versus a deficit. Hardly brilliant financial and fiscal management here. There it is. The record speaks for itself.

You have to say to yourself, hon. Speaker, "What did the government know, and when did they know it," because we have been watching the economic meltdown south of the border and across the world for a very long time — a very, very long time. In fact, the government itself had all kinds of indicators. They had a bit of a hint that it was coming for a number of years, but apparently they didn't know until a couple of weeks ago that it was a reality.

You have to say to yourself: "Now, what kind of fiscal management is that?" I mean, first of all we have a government that's really run a balanced budget only four years out of eight — possibly four years out of nine, if we look at where this amendment is taking us.

This is a government that said they didn't know it was coming. Of course, that's a little bit specious on the surface of it, because we have many, many indications that the government has known for a very long time. The previous Minister of Finance talked about economic downturn in the fall of 2006. That was several years ago, the fall of 2006. We had some early indications then that a deficit could be in the offing.

Same Minister of Finance again, Carole Taylor, February 2008, a year ago. Again, several statements — one in the budget speech and again in the Globe and Mail — prescient about the fact that maybe the economy was in a downward spiral and that there was trouble in the offing.

The minister who is now the Minister of Housing makes reference in May 2008, last spring. He acknowledges the fact that the free fall in the U.S. over sub-prime mortgages was having an effect here on the economy of British Columbia.

Yet we hear from the Premier that it was a revelation about a week ago, that "Oh my God, the sky is actually falling, and we're going to have to do something about the economic downturn."

Well, there has been no secret in the rest of the world that an economic crunch has been occurring for a long time. Why in the world our present government tried to hide this from us, make it a secret shrouded in some kind of secrecy, is beyond me.

I'll go back to my original remarks about the fact that my constituents are a savvy group of people. They know what the effects of the economy have been on their own pocketbooks. They've seen their RRSP statements over the last year. They've seen what kind of effect the economy elsewhere in the world is having on their pocketbooks.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, for the government to have the audacity to say, several weeks ago, "We're going to have a problem here in British Columbia. We're going to actually have a problem…." It goes back to this idea of whether or not there is strong fiscal management going on here.

I say not. I say that for eight years the government rode the gravy train while times were good, and now
[ Page 13610 ]
they're fresh out of ideas. They're fresh out of inspiration. They didn't sock away anything for a rainy day.

[1635]

So here we are having to amend legislation because the government didn't manage the affairs of this province in a fiscally responsible way and certainly seemed to have a revelation, long after the rest of the world knew, that we were in trouble. I'm quite concerned. I mentioned earlier that our credit card is maxed, and the government seems still unable to come to grips with that in any meaningful way.

This implied threat to health care and education spending, I think, is another distraction away from what the left hand is doing. Distract with the right hand; pull some magic with the left hand. It's what magicians do all the time. You know, we've seen these privatization schemes that the government is involved in. They are now throwing a billion dollars around like it was pocket change — right? I mean, a billion dollars seems to come and go here without very much concern at all.

The government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last few months on advertising. Again, in a time when lots of people knew that the crunch was coming, the government is spending our tax dollars on advertising. So billion-dollar P3 projects, lots of big fancy ads, pay raises….

Let's be clear. At a time when we have thousands of people getting laid off their jobs and having to take part-time jobs at a minimum wage that this government has categorically and systematically refused to raise for eight years, we have a government that has given huge pay raises to their senior advisers — not once but several times during the course of their time in office — and given huge fat pay raises to themselves as well.

I'll tell you what keeps my constituents awake. The Premier may still be under the illusion that he's the only one who has suffered angst here, but I will tell you that what keeps my constituents awake at night is that they have no faith anymore that this government is looking out for them. They have no faith anymore that this government has put them first.

They've watched for eight years a government that has been so arrogant and out of touch with their needs that they have refused to raise the minimum wage, reduce tuitions to make life easier for people, reduce all of the excessive fees, protect them from increased hydro fares, put in place some transportation solutions on the Island here that we really need so that people can get back and forth to work in a reasonable way. They've seen the government categorically ignore that for eight years when times were good.

During the good times this government neglected and ignored my constituency, and what keeps them awake is wondering what's going to happen now in a deficit situation. What other kind of hit are they going to take in their lifestyles? Are we going to see more fees? Are we going to see more problems with our health care, more wait-lists? More dirty hospitals and bad food?

I had an e-mail the other day from a constituent of mine who told the most appalling story about a short stay after an accident that he had in the yard. He went in with a foot injury that had to have surgery. He had the most appalling story about the conditions in our hospital. I would have thought that he was telling a story about a bush hospital in Africa or a Third World hospital somewhere in a country that has no health care system, but it was our health care system here that he was talking about. It was an experience here in the capital region.

Now, if those are the conditions that we have found ourselves in after eight good years in this province, then once we spiral down into deficit with a government that has run deficits 50 percent of the time that they have been in office — that during good times cut and slashed programs that are necessary in my community, that have habitually underfunded the things that my community think are important like child care and education and class size and low tuitions for their kids and a raise in the minimum wage….

If in the good years that's what they got from their government, I can tell you that what keeps them awake is the fear of what's going to happen here under a deficit government, a budget that at this point will have to feed the priorities of this government at the expense of my constituents.

[1640]

I'm here to stand up and say that we will accept that we have to go into a deficit. How else is this province going to proceed? They cannot cut any deeper than they've cut already. The big fear is that without a deficit, this government will go right to the heart of the things we hold precious in this province, which is a public health care system that is reliable, public education that is reliable and affordable, and a social system that provides services to the most vulnerable in this province.

We cannot allow the government to go and cut services yet one more time. So while my community is fearful, I am here to stand up to the government and say we will not accept those cuts. You will not squander our taxpayers' dollars and cut from the very essential services that we expect in this province.

D. MacKay: I'm pleased today to stand up and support Bill 48, but my goodness, how short memories are. I heard the member who spoke previously talk about the credit card being maxed out. Have they forgotten that in the ten years when they were government, they doubled the provincial debt from $17 billion to $34 billion? That's not very good fiscal management, in my view; $17 billion they added to the provincial debt.

When we became government, we had a challenge ahead of us. We had to overcome a structural deficit approaching $4 billion that was left to our government.
[ Page 13611 ]
So talk about fiscal management. Boy, what a short memory.

I have to say, when I listen to the member from Nanaimo talk with indignation about the fact that he's here in this House earlier than we were supposed to be to discuss the bill that is before this chamber today…. He's talking about indignation over having to talk about wanting to amend a piece of legislation that would allow us to go into deficit financing. But he did say…. And I've heard other opposition members talk about the fact they're going to support the bill. So talk about indignation.

Why are we here if they're going to support the bill? Let's call the question now and get on to the committee stage of this bill. I would challenge the next speaker who follows me to stand up and call second reading so we can get on with this bill and get it passed — because it is going to pass.

I have a financial adviser at home to help me with financing, because I admit I'm somewhat challenged when it comes to finances, but I do understand the basics. I understand that when my expenses exceed my revenue, I've got a challenge. I can do one of two things. I can reduce my expenses, or I can increase my revenue.

But governments can't do that. If we're going to reduce expenses and stay within the balanced-budget legislation that we have before us today, we're going to have to cut services someplace, and I don't think we want to cut health care expenditures. I don't think we want to cut costs to education, to post-secondary education. People in our province rely on the health care system, and we want our kids to be the best educated that they can be. So we're not going to cut services.

We do have a bit of a challenge. In my case, as I said, I can do one of two things. I can reduce expenditures, or I can increase my revenues. But that's not the case with the government. We're not spending my money; we're spending the taxpayers' money. And $17 billion of provincial debt under the NDP is not what I call fiscal management.

We as a government can do it in one of two ways. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time lamenting on the pros and cons of this bill. I support the bill, as do the NDP. So I'm not going to spend a great deal of time wasting members' time sitting in this chamber talking about what we're doing here.

As a government we can do one of two things. We can say we're going to have a balanced budget and fudge the budget. Has anybody heard that phrase before? I think if we go back to 1996, when the NDP were in power, they introduced a budget prior to the election showing they had a surplus. After the election they introduced a second budget where they actually had a deficit, and that was called a fudge-it budget.

That's not being honest with the people of this province, and that's not what the B.C. Liberal government is going to do to the people of this province. We have a credibility rating with the people in the province. They know that we are good fiscal managers and that we will continue to be good fiscal managers.

[1645]

We can do it in one of two ways. We can be upfront with the people and tell them that we're going to introduce an amendment to a piece of legislation that we produced several years ago saying that we would balance budgets. And we've done that. The previous speaker spoke about it.

That, to me, is good fiscal management. We have a Premier who…. Every time we have a caucus meeting, he speaks about fiscal responsibility with taxpayers' money. I don't think there's a member on our side of the House that doesn't support him on that.

There are other things our government does that I don't necessarily support, but I do agree with fiscal responsibility with the taxpayers' money. If we start going into deficit financing forever and ever, like the previous government did, you're going to start spending my grandchildren's money, and I have a problem with that. I'm not going to start spending my grandchildren's money and put an imposition on their credit card rating down the road because we couldn't stop spending.

The accountability act that we introduced a couple of years ago said we would balance budgets and we wouldn't spend more than we take in, and we've done that. But we're living in a world today that we've never experienced before. I don't think there's a person alive in this chamber who has experienced the downturn in the economy that we're going through today. We just need to look around, listen to the news. It's happening all over the globe, not just in British Columbia.

But one of the other things we have done as a government is that we actually have people…. As I explained, I have a fiscal agent in Smithers that I go to when I'm looking for some financial advice. In government we have a bureaucracy. We have a lot of very talented people forecasting what the revenues and expenditures are going to be for the province, and we listen to them.

We listen to them intently — unlike the previous government who, when they introduced the fudge-it budget in 1996, probably sat around in a corner and discussed amongst themselves what they thought was best for the province, rather than listen to the experts who knew what they were talking about.

I suspect that if you go back far enough, you will find documentation showing that the NDP government of the day were actually warned that their projected revenues were far beyond what was realistic and that their expenditures were out of line. But they didn't listen to those people, and they ran into that fudge-it budget scam back in 1996. We actually listen and pay attention to what the people are telling us.

In 2001, when we took over government, there was a government-appointed fiscal review panel. This goes
[ Page 13612 ]
back to the budget that they introduced in 2000-2001. They found that the NDP's election budget tabled in March of 2001, projecting balanced budgets for 2002-2003, was not a reasonable forecast. These are the experts that are giving the non-experts some economic advice, and they chose to ignore that. The panel found the revenue targets to be overly optimistic and the spending levels underestimated. That just goes back to what happened in 1996.

When we were elected as government in 2001, we had a $3.8 billion structural deficit that we had to overcome. When the balanced-budget legislation was introduced, we said we would balance the budget within the third fiscal year, and we did that. And we continued to do that until the world started falling apart, when the trust in the economic activities that were taking place around the province and around the world started to collapse — not just in B.C. but around the world.

We have listened to the economists and those who understand what's going on. Up to just a short time ago they had no idea what was going to happen, just how dramatically the commodity prices were going to drop. And are they dropping? Well, just let me give you a couple of examples of what's happening with commodity prices. This is just since September.

Forest products have dropped 13.4 percent; agriculture has dropped 16.1 percent. The commodity prices in metals and minerals have dropped 27 percent; oil and gas, 41 percent — for a total of 27 percent drop in revenues that the government uses to spend for services that the people of the province want.

[1650]

Lumber prices are interesting as well. I heard other members talk about the commodity prices dropping and the fact that we ship a great deal of our lumber south of the line. Well, there's been a $150 drop per thousand board feet of lumber that we normally send into the United States — $150. We could give the trees away without charging any stumpage, and I suspect you would still need a market in order to sell your product, and we can't do that.

So let's look at natural gas prices in recent months. As recent as June of 2008, gas was selling at $9.34. Today it's down to $5.99 — in December of 2008.

H. Lali: Too bad.

D. MacKay: Thank you very much, Member for Yale-Lillooet, for your input. Would you like to come up to the microphone and take over the microphone for me or wait your turn?

H. Lali: I will be doing that.

D. MacKay: Oh, you'll be doing it. That's very good. Thank you.

Just for the record, the actual cost to the provincial coffers…. Every time there's a dollar increase or a dollar decrease in the cost of natural gas, the revenues fluctuate by $300 million. So that's quite a big dramatic drop in the revenues that the province was expecting to see.

Of course, when you look at the amount of lumber we sell or move south of the border, we have to look at the housing market. Everybody knows what's happened to the housing market in the United States. Actually, in 2000 the housing starts in the United States were 1.5 million housing starts every year. So it's no wonder they needed lumber. We were shipping that lumber south of the line. In December of 2008 that has dropped down to 550,000 housing starts per year. So that's a pretty dramatic drop in revenues for the province to pay for the social programs that we all want.

Now, we talk about what the government's plan is. Well, we're going to spend some money on infrastructure programs. We're going to actually dip into our children's credit line here for a few years before we move on. So we're going to see some major infrastructure funding spent on the Port Mann Bridge, the perimeter road and the Sea to Sky Highway.

If we stop and compare that with what the NDP's plan is…. Let me just talk to you for a moment about what the NDP plans on doing. They talk about increasing the minimum wage, which will be a $450 million hit to small business. They're talking about scrapping the softwood lumber agreement, which will result in a $2.4 billion hit to industry. They're talking about banning independent power projects that are investing $4.5 billion and creating thousands of rural jobs. They want to get rid of those.

They want to tear up the TILMA agreement, which would create about 78,000 jobs. That's what they want to do.

I seem to recall the jobs….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Order, please.

D. MacKay: I'm sorry; I can't hear you, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Go ahead.

D. MacKay: The jobs and timber accord under the previous administration was supposed to create somewhere around 32,000 jobs. But I think that under the previous administration those jobs actually disappeared right off the face of the map. They added a great deal of debt to the forest industry with no net new jobs.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Excuse me.
[ Page 13613 ]

Member, it's very difficult when someone is sitting that close, and….

D. MacKay: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was thinking about getting a muzzle for him, but you've done a very fine job.

As I said, I'm not going to spend a great deal of time here and talk about things that have already been spoken about.

Am I happy about this piece of legislation? No, I'm not happy at all. I'm not happy that I'm having to spend my grandchildren's money.

H. Lali: That's what you're doing.

D. MacKay: That's exactly what I'm doing, and I'm not happy about that. But I do understand the need for it given the economy as it is today, and it's going to get worse, I suspect, as we move into the fiscal year.

At the end of the two years, in 2011-2012, this amendment to this bill that we're debating today will be repealed, and we will then have to start balancing budgets again.

Is it a good bill? In my view, no, it's not, because we're having to spend money that we're not collecting. Is it necessary? Yes, it is necessary so that we can retain our credibility with the people in the province of British Columbia.

[1655]

Interjection.

D. MacKay: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'd love to get a muzzle for the member for Yale-Lillooet.

G. Gentner: I'm here to address Bill 48, the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act. It is, of course, an act that is very reactive. It's reactive to an ideology that this government has been putting forward for so many years. Once again I find that as the NDP opposition, we are bailing out the government. We're bailing out the government in the fact that we are now following suit reluctantly with their reactionary plan, which is a denial of everything they've stood for since 2001.

We were here earlier regarding another bailout. That was the Olympic village, which certainly wasn't properly thought out by this government. It did not put any proper constraints on how it was going to finance these projects — in particular, giving out basically an open cheque for its city government.

Here we are again bailing out this government regarding a flip-flop. This is known as the flip-flop bill, frankly. They're flipping around. They're basically into flipping. They're flip when it comes down to financing, and they're a flop when it comes down to governing.

We've seen the flip-flop with regards to climate change. This government had a big initiative, a big, big discussion, a big talk and big brash announcements on how it was going to deal with climate change. And we know now that the Premier and his office have moved that whole initiative somewhere else, giving it less priority than it really should.

So here we are again. You know, we talked about — last fall we were here — another reaction to the economy, so to speak. The government looked at this Assessment Act to address what they thought was wrong in the economy — an Assessment Act that now gives two different assessments that you can choose from. Of course, it also introduced deductions from certain businesses regarding a school tax.

It's a very reactionary nature opposite, and it's one whereby we see there's very little leadership. That's something that we've got to address coming up in May: the lack of leadership in this province. Certainly, what we're looking at here is….

What the Premier has suggested is that he was up all night. He couldn't sleep well when he came forward with this Bill 48. You know, it's kind of like sleep deprivation. This sleep deprivation has been happening for a very long time with the members opposite. I mean, can you imagine the Premier saying: "I was tossing and turning all night. I didn't sleep at all last night"?

That's the Premier. The Premier couldn't sleep. He couldn't sleep when it came down to worrying. He was pacing the west wing, worrying about how he had to change ideology suddenly. He suddenly now had to leave this whole notion of building surpluses. Let's not forget that this government has never balanced a budget. It has never balanced a budget. It's had four deficits, and it's had four surpluses.

The Premier said that the concept would keep him up all night and he would lose sleep over it. But all the caffeine and all the stimulus this government thinks it can put forward is not going to work. We've seen all the expenditures all of these years. We've seen the fat cats, the big bureaucrats making the big salaries, the expenditures, the allowances.

[1700]

They've had this sort of big-burger-and-fries mentality for the last ten years. Those types of carbs keep them awake all night. Maybe now they should take a little bit of milk before they go to bed, and maybe the Premier will finally sleep. Maybe it's time that the Premier and his gang opposite should have a little heart instead of spending money flagrantly, spending money on all that fluff — $20 million in that needless advertising. Fluff — that's all we've heard from this government.

This sleep deficit that the government now is encountering because it had to change its ideology, this insomnia, really…. Where was this insomnia when it came down to all the code purples all these years in the
[ Page 13614 ]
hospitals, the endless wait-lists? I'm sure the members opposite weren't up all night relative to that.

There is no insomnia when it came down to what they've done to our hospitals. And what kind of sedative? The sedative we're seeing here tonight is Bill 48. It's now going to put everything to rest. Perhaps the Premier should have taken a sleeping pill on this issue. Maybe this is what this is all about, because he certainly was not up all night when it came down to the time when this government separated seniors into various homes in the Kootenays.

What kind of compassion, what kind of heart does a government have when seniors have spent all their lives together and suddenly they're torn and ripped apart, all because of a budget that this government did not consider to put towards the needy and looking after seniors? Where was the government then? Now, all of a sudden, there's nothing left in the pantry because this government has spent money on needless projects.

The Premier and the members opposite are a little groggy. They're lacking a little sleep because they're up all night. But you know, really, how much sleep was lost when they shut down our hospitals when they were first elected in 2001? From every corner in the province — whether they downsized Delta or whether they went to Nelson — it was a lethal knife that went into the hospital and health care systems. You can rest assured this government didn't lose any sleep over their callous, arrogant knifing of health care in this province.

You'd think that the Premier would be a little dazed and lacking sleep when he was pushing seniors out of their facilities — the shell game that's now being conducted by the Liberal government. We know how vulnerable the seniors are when they are moved from what now has become their home. We've heard statistics where up to 10 percent don't make it in the first three to six years of such moves. No compassion there. None. They certainly aren't losing sleep over that.

The Premier said that such a bill would keep him awake all night, but he certainly wasn't wobbly with the lack of sleep when it came to the way they've treated the seniors at Zion Park — an absolutely disgusting example. When they've had a surplus for all these years, where they could have put money into facilities that needed a little bit of upgrade and concurrently created more jobs — this would have stimulated this economy — they weren't there. Of course, this was a not-for-profit facility made up of a lot of volunteers, and suddenly seniors were being pushed out needlessly by a government that, frankly, doesn't care about seniors.

A government that doesn't sleep at night. That's hilarious. This government slept very well when it threw seniors out, including those of Zion Park Manor.

[1705]

Now we're looking at a situation at Zion where the government and the facilitator, who really has no other alternative…. They're under the gun by the government, by the Fraser Health Authority, to move seniors, because of a lack of subsidy from the province. Therefore, the facilitator has got to ask for an exemption from the medical health officer to move special care patients elsewhere.

This government sleeps well at night, and it's really unfortunate. You know, we can talk about the dizziness after lack of sleep, but there was no real lack of sleep when it came down to the extra costs added to seniors with the privatization schemes. When you move a senior from, let's say, Zion or from a publicly subsidized facility into a private facility, the added costs to seniors that were not incurred before….

Simple things. Seniors having their nails cut now is an added cost, and we're not talking $5. There are examples where some facilities are now charging $20; we've heard up to $50. That is the profit-making of what this government is supporting.

You are also looking at the fact that there's no sleep deficit when the government made a decision to move seniors into private facilities where pharmacy rates in these new homes are escalating every day, whereas before we had a situation where the health authority would buy drugs in volume. That's not happening any more.

Instead, we had a surplus, and the government chose the wrong projects. The government forgot that it's important to fix and maintain your infrastructure, fix and maintain the infrastructure that is also the social net, which this government has let out, has now left to deteriorate. That's abominable. That's disgusting. For them to suggest that they couldn't sleep all night because of Bill 48 is absolutely abominable.

Look at the extra costs for seniors who are now moved into private facilities. The cost to have a bath — not even a guarantee of a bath once a week. And if a senior did want an extra bath, it's going to cost them an exorbitant amount of money. I don't think the Minister of Health was losing any sleep over his move of seniors into private facilities. I think not.

We can talk about what the…. The other side would talk about good food in hospitals. They're not losing any sleep. They're not groggy about that one at all. We know that they've denied the necessary nutrients in hospitals and also nutritional values in some of the long-term care facilities. We know there's a lack of scrutiny, a lack of regulation to make sure that seniors get proper care in homes.

The members opposite and the Premier, they certainly aren't tired for a lack of sleep. We saw what happened at Cowichan Lodge — moved out for a private facility. Seniors were displaced. The story continues everywhere, and the other private supporters, friends of the government, are able to scoop up those seniors into their private facilities and charge more — a group such as the Ahmon Group.

You know, there's no sleep lost by this government. They don't care. They don't care how they treated seniors in this
[ Page 13615 ]
province. They don't care at all, and they can talk about being sleepy. They're not sleepy, when it came down to what they did in Kamloops at Ponderosa. Ponderosa's four floors of good care have now been reduced to one floor, slowly moving seniors into one of their friends' places, deliberately removing and dismantling, demobilizing a very good facility that, yes, probably needs a little bit of money, but the care in that facility is very good. It's very good.

[1710]

But why is the government doing that? It's because the profit motive of the private facility is what it's all about. It's not about care. It's not having a heart.

Is this government woozy? Was it woozy? Did it lose any sleep when a woman froze to death up in Kamloops at Pine Grove? Hardly lost a sleep. Hardly lost a sleep.

Interjections.

G. Gentner: I recognize the minister heckling me — from the Ministry of Community….

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

G. Gentner: The government did not lose any sleep relative to how it's dealing with long-term care, in particular up in Kamloops — the shifting around of seniors all in the name of privatization.

Was it worn out when it dealt with Retirement Concepts and Beacon Hill? A dastardly record. It didn't lose any sleep over what happened there. It's interesting, when that whole incident occurred — and there have been several — Retirement Concepts went out to recruit nurses, and I had a call from an RN from Nova Scotia who was headhunted and checked it out.

She said to me: "I thought I was going to come to British Columbia and see this opulent lifestyle, this beautiful area, and engage in a wonderful health care system." She said: "I now work in a facility in Nova Scotia with 120 long-term care beds, and we have three RNs in the day, in the morning shift, two in the afternoon and one in the evening. What was offered to me was the head nurse job on call 24-7, and that was it. That was the only nursing that was being offered." She said: "I thought I was walking into the Dark Ages. This wasn't the British Columbia I thought of."

That is the reputation out there that this province has relative to the staffing of long-term care in the province of British Columbia. This government does not lose sleep on how it treats its neighbours, its seniors.

It's interesting that when the Victoria Beacon Hill Villa incident occurred, seniors were left to fester in their soiled diapers, and this government did not lose sleep at all. A man claimed not to be bathed for 11 days, which put him at serious risk of infection. The Minister of Health did not lose any sleep on that one. A woman being doused with water to force her to take her clothes off by staff — the government did not lose sleep over that one.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members. Order.

Excuse me, Member.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, sit down, please.

Member, continue.

G. Gentner: I wish to address Bill 48 and the surplus that was built over the years that did not go into proper health care. Had it been invested properly, we would have stimulated the care worker community. We would have stimulated an economy, and we would not be in the fix we are today.

Again the lack of so-called sleep deprivation or the lack of sleep this government claims to have for having to come forward with Bill 48 and the most shocking case at Beacon Hill, where an unsupervised female resident slid off her wheelchair and was strangled to death on her own seatbelt….

It's quite disgusting the way this government continues to ignore the health care of seniors in this province. It has the audacity to ignore the fact that it's handpicked its own pet projects and has forgotten to put money where it should go. It most dearly should go into the real infrastructure of looking after the people, the children and the seniors of British Columbia.

[1715]

Let's not forget the secrecy around these appalling events. You know, on the Internet we heard about how the government was now going to tell us the rating structures and how open this whole transparent.... Share with us all the rating systems of these facilities. Not to be done. More wasted money somewhere else.

The public has a right to know, and this government has completely ignored openness and transparency, like all other regions and most regions in Canada have certainly done.

Let's talk about… It certainly wasn't drowsy or didn't lose any sleep on how it dealt with Newton Regency, a for-profit — yes. A mom and pop — yes. When they decided to move the seniors from Newton Regency into one of their friends'….

Again, interestingly enough, the Laurel House would certainly take the residents from Newton Regency, but most residents didn't want to leave. They were quite
[ Page 13616 ]
happy where they were. Perhaps a sit-down with the Newton Regency people, to try to find some subsidy, upgrade the facility…. But the care was there. The care was there, but this government didn't lose any sleep when it moved the seniors from that facility.

When it comes down to support systems, to community care, to Meals on Wheels, ensuring that…. What seniors want most in this province is respect, dignity. They don't want to be cuddled; they want to have their respect. This government didn't show any fatigue when it dropped the ball on support systems for seniors in their own homes.

Certainly, when it came down to weariness, they certainly weren't weary when we recognize today that when they had a surplus, and they ignored using that surplus, we have one of the highest poverty rates for women in Canada.

This government…. It comes down to sleep deficit — is not so. I mean, there is no sleep deficit. The Premier can pace all he says he did, but certainly there is no sleep deficit when it comes down to the Liberal math counting up the so-called long-term care beds.

Liberal math. They change the rules. There are supposed to be beds. Now they're changing them to units. They now call them units. It's a falsehood. It's a falsehood, what this Liberal government claims it does for seniors. When you talk about extended care….

An Hon. Member: You're a falsehood.

G. Gentner: When it comes to extended care…. Interestingly enough, when we had a surplus, it was refused to be put into our hospitals. Every given day in Surrey Memorial Hospital….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Continue.

G. Gentner: I know the members opposite and the Minister of Health certainly aren't losing any sleep when they know that there are 50 to 60 seniors now lying in beds at Surrey Memorial Hospital who want to go to long-term care facilities. For some reason, they're not opened.

I get reports every day in my office about wait-lists of three to four months, trying to move. But, lo and behold, the government didn't use its surplus and did not encourage special care beds at existing long-term care facilities. So there's a wait-list. A wait-list.

Not only that, it's the incompetence and mismanagement of a government that certainly could have seen some cost savings by putting money into long-term care beds as opposed to having seniors lying in extended care beds in acute care hospitals. Huge difference of money between $220 per diem to look after a senior in a long-term care bed as opposed to what the costs are. I'm hearing up to $1,800 in extended care.

[1720]

This government didn't lose any sleep on how it mismanaged the health care budget. Not at all. You know, maybe this government…. It doesn't sleep, it says. Rapid eye movement — a behaviour disorder. You know? The power of REM. They still get their proper dream work. It hasn't been interrupted.

You know, the government…. Actually, REM for this government means red-eyed movement. They're up all night. They're all up at night now with shifty eyes looking at each other, wondering: "Where did we go wrong? We are now into a deficit because we spent all our money. We spent all our money when it should have gone into proper care for our seniors, proper care for our children and for all the citizens of British Columbia."

During question period you ask the Premier a question, and he's so groggy. He couldn't sleep. He can hardly keep his eyes open. He couldn't keep his eyes open. You know, they all now suffer from a sleep disorder. I see they're getting a little ornery, because they're up all night and they couldn't sleep — all because they spent. The cupboard now is bare, and they spent it all. They spent it all.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Point of Order

Hon. T. Christensen: I know there's a certain latitude in second reading in terms of what members might want to contribute to the debate, but Bill 48 is a relatively brief bill that deals with finance statutes, deficit authorization, the debt elimination. Try as I might, I haven't actually heard any of those concepts even pass the member's lips. If the Chair could provide the member some direction with respect to second reading, it would likely be helpful to all of us.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Member, you need to confine yourself to the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, 2009. It would be helpful if you kept your remarks confined.

Debate Continued

G. Gentner: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the concerns of the member opposite that the bill may appear brief, but it's the huge implications behind
[ Page 13617 ]
the bill that we're speaking of. It's the huge implications of Bill 48 and the amendment to the finance statutes which is at discussion here, and how this government was not frugal.

This government was not frugal in investing money into where it should have gone, and had they done so, we may not be here today because we would have an economy stimulated with money dealing with the social net.

It's very interesting, too, that when times are tough, we can blame the American economy, we can blame the globalized economy, but when the times are good: "Well, oh my Lord, look how wonderful we are." It's quite remarkable.

Let's talk about Bill 48 and how they're now going to be granting themselves these new sedatives so they can sleep at night. These new sedatives…. They're going to sleep at night. They certainly aren't in a daze when we had all these convention centre overruns. They certainly weren't up all night worrying about that one, or the B.C. roof collapses.

On this side, we predicted it. We told this government: "If you put money where it's supposed to go, maintain your infrastructure rather than running around and cutting blue ribbons and smiling for cameras at $20,000 that they're spending on advertising…." If we'd put the money into the infrastructure where it should have been, that roof would not have collapsed, and we wouldn't be dealing with a $365 million retractable roof today. But, no, this government did not listen. They did not listen.

We're now looking at the out-of-control Olympic security costs. Deny, deny, deny. You know, they're now dropping this new type of barbiturate called P3 financing. That's why we're here today. It's to maintain a status quo here — coming forward with Bill 48 to maintain a status quo, to continue spending on pet projects such as P3s. You know, they can pop a P3, but it's not going to go away. It's not going to go away. The sedative that they're popping is not going to change things.

[1725]

What we need in British Columbia…. We've got to change this element that this side embraces. They're selling off this province. They're selling it off when it comes to rivers. They're selling our province off when it comes down to procuring projects rather than doing it ourselves. We're selling our province of British Columbia.

We need jobs in British Columbia for British Columbians. We have to finance. We can have the ability to finance our projects by British Columbia. And you know what? We should be in a position where we manage our projects by British Columbians rather than going offshore and getting somebody else who says they can do it better.

It's absolutely counter — counter — to what this province was built on, and that is sweat and equity that British Columbians have built and maintained this province and that this government has ignored. We certainly see it, and that's why we're here today with Bill 48.

We can talk about the tolls on the Port Mann Bridge. That's another example of P3. We're here to maintain the shaky road this province is going along with Bill 48 — to continue borrowing money when we could be borrowing money for needed infrastructure called maintaining seniors' health, maintaining people's health, maintaining children's health. But instead, we're going along with a notion that the Premier can't sleep at night. He's in a deep slumber somewhere right now, but you know it's the rest of us who are going to have a nightmare of picking up a debt — picking up a huge debt.

R. Hawes: I guess I'll start by saying that in the eight years I've been here, I don't think I have ever heard such a disjointed bunch of rubbish. I frankly am astounded by the last speaker. I'm not even going to mention it.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Interjections.

R. Hawes: The member for Yale-Lillooet — it appears like he wants to speak.

Mr. Speaker, as you know…. When you start with this, it's pretty rude, but I understand where he's coming from. It's the way he is.

I've listened all day to the opposition, and I'm sitting here trying to figure out why we are even here debating this bill, because we all understand…. All of us understand why what's happening today is necessary.

We are in unprecedented financial times. It wasn't, maybe, a week ago that Michael Levy — for many of us, I think, one of the foremost financial commentators in British Columbia — was talking on CKNW and said something to the effect that four months ago, any government in Canada that said they wanted to run a deficit would have the public out building a scaffold for them. "Today," he said, "any government that says they won't run a deficit will have the public running to build a scaffold for them." Deficits are necessary all across Canada. This is happening internationally.

The unfortunate part is that so many members on the other side can sit, and they can bellow, and they can yell. Their financial record through the '90s is so shameful, they've got nothing.

On Sunday the NDP House Leader was on CKNW, and he said that the only person saying that we will have balanced budgets, the only person who has said that — and consistently said it — was the Premier. In fact, he said: "We, on this side of the House" — the NDP side of the House — "haven't been saying that." That's what he said on CKNW.

[1730]

I just want to go back and look at some of the things that actually were said by the NDP, because all day we've
[ Page 13618 ]
been hearing: "Why didn't the Premier and the Liberal government know that there was going to be this unprecedented financial collapse? Why didn't they do something four months ago?"

Well, the Leader of the Opposition said in The Vancouver Sun on October 28: "I agree with balanced budgets. I think you have to live within your means." Quite reasonable.

October 27, CKNW, the Leader of the Opposition: "So the NDP's economic plan is very fiscally responsible. It's done within a balanced budget and will help middle-class earners." Balanced budget in October.

October 23 on CKNW, Leader of the Opposition: "I don't agree with deficits. I think a balanced budget is critical."

Again, October, CKNW, the Leader of the Opposition: "Well, the Balanced Budget Act is there. It's going to remain, and I believe we need to balance budgets."

October — same time — CBC, the Leader of the Opposition: "I believe balanced budgets are important. I think it's critical that we continue to look at spending within our means. No one knows what the future is going to bring, but certainly right now, when I look at the economy, we can balance our budget in British Columbia."

There are lots more of these. "We will come forward with a fully costed election platform, just as we did in the last election, and it'll be done with a balanced budget. It'll be done by maintaining the tax breaks for low- and middle-income families, the small business tax cuts that are already there in place, and you'll see exactly where every promise is going to come from, and that'll be found within a balanced budget." That's on the Voice of B.C. in October.

Yet there's been a litany from the other side saying: "Why it is that the Premier and the B.C. Liberal government didn't see months ago what was coming?" Well, clearly, the Leader of the Opposition didn't see.

The Finance critic for the NDP today read a litany of newspaper reports going back to September saying things like, "The economy is beginning to falter," etc. He kept coming back to the same theme. Why didn't the government see and take action? I'm going to come to that in a minute.

There are even quotes here, I think, from…. "Well gee, I think a balanced budget and fiscal prudence is vital to our economic health, and I'm not prepared to make a commitment, other than a commitment to run a balanced budget at this point," said the Finance critic for the NDP near the end of November. That actually was November 25 on The Bill Good Show.

How can he stand there and say that the B.C. Liberal government should have seen what was coming, read all this stuff from September and October and then make statements like that in November? This is just the height of hypocrisy.

But the truth is that nobody could see what was coming. I don't care who the financial forecaster was. The best economic minds in North America, in the world, didn't see, really, what was coming — the depth of the recession that we see and the speed at which it has happened.

In terms of what we did. In October the Premier laid out a ten-point plan to try to give a boost to the economy, because we could see that the economy was slowing, and we had to do something. We laid out, I think, a very fiscally responsible plan in October to try and spur the economy.

From that date forward I know that the Finance Minister and Treasury Board were working as hard as they could with all of the ministries to try to get rid of all spending that we could possibly pull back in government without really hurting services to people. Through all of that, it appeared that we could continue with a balanced budget right through until into January.

Now, the key here, to me, is that the government doesn't have just a bunch of MLAs and elected folks sitting in a room making plans. There are within the civil service extremely talented people. We're very fortunate in British Columbia, you know. We've got people that work for us — in fact, not just for the B.C. Liberal government. They are long-serving civil servants that have worked for years and years for British Columbia governments of all stripes and that are very talented people. I want to talk about a couple — one in particular — very shortly.

[1735]

These are people who are helping provide advice. They go out and seek the best advice they can find from all kinds of sources in business, right across the economy, and that is all used and rolled up to come with a financial plan for government.

These civil servants have given us what we consider to be the best of advice. They believed we could balance the budget until January, and in January we got hit with a bigger slide in revenue than what was anticipated. We're not alone.

At that point, as the Premier has said and as the members of the opposition know…. They know we're faced with tough choices now. We can balance the budget, but we'll have to make cuts to services that we think are the wrong thing to do — cuts to health care, cuts to education. They know it's the wrong thing.

The bottom line is that we are reluctantly moving forward with Bill 48, which is what we're here to debate. Speaker after speaker on the opposition side has got up. Not one has said that they support Bill 48. We have no idea what they're going…. Instead, we get this litany of basically nonsense that's got nothing to do with Bill 48, that has nothing to do with talking about….

As we move forward, we're going to have to go into deficit. We want only two years, and there are disciplines around that that I think are very important. It's very important that we not give the government, whether it's us or any government, a whole bunch of outs so they
[ Page 13619 ]
can have, as the NDP called it in the '90s, a lot of wiggle room. That's not the way we should be running. We need to run with tight discipline. We have done that.

In 2001, when we formed government, there was a structural deficit of over $4 billion. We said we were going to balance the budget by the third budget that we tabled. The NDP said, "Can't be done," and they repeatedly said that. You can check Hansard. That's many times in Hansard. The news media said it couldn't be done. We did it, and we did it through real discipline.

We are saying now that we are going to work our way out of this situation within two years. Right now we believe we can do it. We are hearing that the best financial minds out there right now are saying that in 2010 — at first they were saying 2009; now they're saying 2010 — we will work our way out of this. So that's what our plan is. We are, through very tight discipline, going to keep this deficit at the very minimum that we can keep it and still provide the services that people need.

I want to just go back, then, to…. The opposition rails on.

First, let me just say that we're here to talk about Bill 48. It costs the taxpayers of British Columbia hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for us to be here. In January we sat all night to talk about nonsense that they voted for the next day. What was the point? Why would we blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money for some lark that these people want to impose on the people of British Columbia? Now we're doing it again. Now we're sitting here going through a litany of nonsense. For what purpose?

I would suggest that at the end of this these folks are going to vote with the B.C. Liberal government and put this bill through, because they know as well as we do that these are unprecedented financial times that require very strong action, which is what this bill allows. They know that we have to move into some deficit, over the next couple of years at least, so they're going to support this. But they're going to get up and swan about.

Now, the part that really impresses me as I sit here…. The part that really strikes me — and I feel sorry; I really do — is how awful it must be to go through life seeing the glass fully empty, never mind half-empty. These people are so down and depressed, and it's just…. I can't believe how you can go through life like that. I want to give them all counselling. They need a lift here.

[1740]

The world is actually a pretty good place. Today we've got some tough times, but together as British Columbians we will pull together, as we have before. We're going to see our way through these tough times.

I feel for the people out there, the families that have lost their jobs or that are in danger of losing their jobs. They don't want to hear all of this stuff. They want to hear the government take some decisive action, move with a budget that at least gives them an opportunity to get a job. They want to see us move on with infrastructure spending. What governments…? Let's face it. The American government is in big trouble. Housing has stopped in the United States. They're not buying our lumber.

These guys keep coming, saying they've got solutions to the lumber thing and that we don't, etc. Well, we're not going to have a fix in our forestry in this province until the Americans start building houses again — or around the world and we find other markets, which we're working hard on. We've started doing that. It never happened in the 1990s.

The problem is that right now we're sitting debating something. We should have been finished with second reading, and we should have been having a throne speech this afternoon, and we should be moving on with the people's business. That's what they want. They want us to get on with it, not be sitting here with this silliness, and that's all I can describe it as.

Let's talk, then. As they go through this, I hope they'll think about this. I hope they'll remember it. First 1996. Does anyone remember the name Brenda Eaton? She was a very dedicated, hard-working civil servant who was the secretary to Treasury Board. She was fired for being honest. She wrote a memo that said to government of the day, the NDP government: "Your revenue forecasts are way over the top. This is not possible." And they got rid of her for it. They put that budget through, now known as the fudge-it budget. It was just bogus, but that's what they did. That's how they operate.

Well, we don't operate that way. We could have put through a fudge-it budget, said that it's balanced, moved on. But we won't do that. We will not impose.

I've heard them get up day after day here, speaker after speaker saying: "The B.C. Liberals can't be trusted." Man, I'll tell you who can't be trusted: the people who got caught not telling the truth, and that was the fudge-it budget of 1996. You can't find anything more clear than that.

Now what I want to do…. I hope the members opposite will not denigrate the name of Chris Trumpy, who has been a dedicated civil servant for government in this province since 1979. Chris Trumpy has been a Deputy Minister of Finance under the NDP government, under our government. He is a dedicated civil servant that has worked diligently for the people of British Columbia for 30 years.

He's retiring now. He has worked hard to help us try to bring a budget that was balanced. Chris Trumpy and his staff were working overtime through December and January. They were desperately trying to bring a budget that was balanced. They believed, as we did, that it could happen.

Unfortunately, as all of us know — and if the NDP were wanting to get up and be factual about what they're now talking about — no one really knows where the bottom is. The economic slide has been far more rapid, far more deep than anyone could have predicted.
[ Page 13620 ]

So after all of the diligent work by dedicated people like Chris Trumpy, we find ourselves now saying that we're not going to be able to balance the budget next year. We need to be factual about it, and we need to come in with a piece of legislation that allows us to provide services to British Columbia.

Now, what is this all about, then? Why are we here? We are here so that we can make sure that the people of British Columbia get health care and education over the next year and the year after.

They seem not to want it, the way they get up and talk. Why don't they get up and say: "We support this, we want to get on with it, we want a throne speech, we want a budget, and we've got to get to where we can get the money flowing out and the jobs happening in British Columbia." Yet we sit here, and we talk about the stuff that was going on here this afternoon.

[1745]

For me it's extremely frustrating. I know my constituents are watching this, wondering what is going on: "Why is my money being spent to keep the lights on in a place like the legislative buildings in British Columbia to have this kind of discourse?" It's nonsense.

Let's talk about Bill 48 and the reason that we have to get there, and let's find a way to say: "Let's pull together as British Columbians on both sides of this House and do what's right." What's right, right now is to pass Bill 48 post-haste, get on with the people's business — which we're not doing when they're getting up, speaker after speaker, as they did in January, talking a load of rubbish all night long, with staff being paid, money being thrown out the window so that they could vote for the legislation the following day.

Who understands that? What did we gain as British Columbians? Nothing. Nothing. The opposition has some duty here to at least be reasonable and provide reasonable debate. This isn't debate; this is nonsense. Bill 48 is necessary to provide services to people over the next year. We need to get on with it.

At the same time, I want to make sure…. This may be some of our last opportunity to recognize someone like Chris Trumpy, who has given his heart and his soul to the people of British Columbia, whether it be with the NDP government or with this government. He needs to be recognized for the contribution he's made. Every time this group gets up and talks about what should have been known and tries to pull apart the budget work that's been done, actually they're attacking civil servants like Chris Trumpy. I think that's wrong. It's shameful. It's absolutely shameful.

I'm hoping against hope that some sanity will come to this — that we will have the NDP, if they're going to continue this facade, get up and talk about Bill 48 — that they will talk about the necessity for running a deficit right now. We all know it has to be. It's got nothing to do with what was going on four years ago, or three. It's got to do with a financial collapse.

The B.C. Liberal government took our province from last in Canada to first in Canada with our economic oversight, our budgeting and our operation of government. I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to go out and you were to talk about the job engine of British Columbia being small business and family-owned business, and if you go out and ask....

Incidentally, what most British Columbians right now are worried about are their jobs. If you were to ask small business — who actually write paycheques, who actually provide the jobs, who are actually absolutely essential to our economy — who they think is doing the best job and who will do the best job after May 12, I absolutely guarantee you…. Well, I watch the ads on TV, the talking NDP sign. It's certainly not that group.

Small business in British Columbia recognizes who knows how to run government, who knows how to provide an economic base on which they can build their businesses, on which they can invest in British Columbia, on which they can feel secure. They're taking their own money out of their pockets, something these folks don't understand. If you make the investment in your business, it's your money. You're taking a massive chance, a huge risk.

We understand that risk, we appreciate the fact that there are people in this province who would take their own money and risk it, and we want to make as safe an environment as possible, and we've done that. Unfortunately, we are being told over and over that if that group comes back after May 12, small business will leave in big numbers. They will withdraw, as they did through the '90s. We will once again have an Alberta Premier saying, as they did in the '90s: "The best economic development engine Alberta ever had was the NDP government in British Columbia." That's what Alberta says.

[1750]

How shameful, and how can they sit here…? They can sit here and they can heckle, but they should be sitting there wallowing in shame when Ralph Klein as a Premier of Alberta says they were the best economic development engine Alberta ever saw. They should wallow in shame.

The people of B.C. understand it. Small business understands it. I'm just going to end here very quickly by saying…. I just want to end by saying that I dearly hope these folks will sit down and understand why we're here, show some respect for the people of British Columbia, and get on with passing this essential bill so we can get on with the other essential things that we need to do to help British Columbians.

We need to work together in this. These are very difficult times. It's time to pull together, and I know it will be difficult. But if we could get a commitment from this group that they would work together, I'm sure we could arrange to show them that British Columbia is a
[ Page 13621 ]
wonderful place, that the sun can shine again, and that by working together, we can build a wonderful British Columbia. We are building it. We do live in the best place on earth. I know they don't like to think that, but this is the best place on earth.

We are recognized. The Conference Board of Canada actually says we're the last ones affected by the recession, and we will be the first ones out because of the strong financial management of the B.C. Liberal government. They need to recognize…. The business world throughout Canada, the business world throughout the United States recognizes what we are doing in British Columbia. Eyes are on us, not on them.

The fear is out there that they might come back. The people of British Columbia know better. Let's, then, get on with doing the people's business. Maybe what we could do…. If they would just get a little positive, speak a little bit about the bill, we could even arrange probably to get many of them the counselling I think they need to get rid of that depression that they carry so deeply within themselves. You know, I feel very bad for them.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity of speaking. It's not a bill I really was hoping I would ever have to speak to, because no one wanted to see a deficit, but….

Interjections.

R. Hawes: I see the NDP are at least…. The fun thing is that if they heckle, they're listening, and if they're listening, they might learn something, which is a good thing. So with that, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity, and I look forward to the next speaker.

Some Hon. Members: More. More.

R. Hawes: They want more. Well, the only thing more I could give would be this. The Premier tabled a ten-point economic plan for stimulus in October. It was followed right after that with the Leader of the Opposition filing her plan.

Her plan was the one that was likely going to cost — what? — $3 billion, $4 billion. Nobody knows. "We'll cancel the carbon tax, but we won't cancel the tax cuts to people." Well, that's about $1.3 billion right there — gonzo.

How do you square that? "We'll take some money from the government's contingency funds and the forecast allowance. Oh gosh, the economy slipped, and that money isn't there. Oh gosh. We're going to raise the minimum wage." Never mind that it's going to cost thousands of jobs. Did anyone think of ever asking someone who's running, say, a restaurant or a small business what will happen to them, especially today, if we raise the minimum wage? Why would you ask them?

[1755]

They wouldn't ask them, and the reason they wouldn't ask them is because they have never respected the investment that's made by small business in this province, which is why we get such support from small business, why there's such panic and fear out there across this province within the business community that the electorate might even think about returning to these folks.

I see the light is on. This actually could go for…. Again, I'm going to make the appeal one last time to these members. Think about getting a bit positive. Think about sticking to the bill. Think about talking about working together as British Columbians to get through this tough time. Let's at least try to be a little factual. If we could do that, I'm pretty sure many of us over here that are quite positive could assist them to get over their depression and their negativity. With that, thanks very much.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

Before you start, Member, may I remind all members to allow the standing speaker to have the courtesy of making his presentation. Thank you.

M. Sather: I must say that what I just heard from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission is one of the scariest things I've ever heard in this House. The concept of receiving counselling from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission is truly frightening indeed. I'm sure he didn't really mean that. He surely didn't mean that.

It has been a sorry sight to see these Liberals stumble into this House, tail between their legs. Repentant? No, not really. No, too arrogant to ever be repentant. But the fact of the matter is that they've screwed up in a grand way, and they know it. They know they've screwed up. They're having a difficult time. They're having a majorly difficult time to come clean, but that's not uncommon for this particular group. They haven't been coming clean with the people of British Columbia for a long, long time.

You know, if it wasn't so significant, if it wasn't so important to the people of British Columbia, watching this charade over the last three or four months would be absolutely hilarious. Here you had the Premier of this province saying: "Hey, we're in a deficit-free zone here in British Columbia. We want you all to know that." And the Finance Minister was echoing those words: "Don't worry; be happy. You know, nothing could possibly happen wrong in British Columbia. We know that. You can take it to the bank."

Now they're having to come forward to this House with a bill, Bill 48, to allow them to run a deficit. Now, running deficits is something that this government is pretty familiar with, having run the biggest deficits in the history of this province. So what's this one going to be?
[ Page 13622 ]

Is this going to be a new record? Is it going to be number two of the biggest deficit in the history of this province? I don't know. But it's going to be a big one, apparently, and this government has a lot to be concerned about and a lot to be ashamed of because of the way they conducted themselves over the last number of months.

I heard the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, and I heard a lot of other members from the government side saying: "Oh, you know, we couldn't possibly have known any of this that was going to go on. Nobody knew, and it's ridiculous for anybody to suggest differently." Well, that's patently false, and they either know it's false or they're even more incompetent than we thought they were, and we knew they were completely incompetent before.

Let's look at some of the signs that there was trouble brewing in British Columbia. Let's take the forest industry, for example. This is not a new revelation. The forest industry has been in the tank for at least a couple of years in this province. The response of the government has been: "Well, let's see, now. We'll keep exporting raw logs and jobs. We'll turn you into a real estate company, all you forest companies." But they haven't done anything to support the workers that have been affected by that downturn.

[1800]

But at least they should have known that the industry that has been the number-one economic generator of this province for years was on life support, and that should have something to do with the future finances in this province. But remarkably, that seemed to have completely escaped them.

Nonetheless, we did hear the former Forests Minister say back in 2007 that the housing market in the United States has gone into the tank. This is back in 2007. So what does that mean? What should that mean to this government? It should mean that they would be aware that there was trouble brewing.

I'm sure that they had capable people advising them that told them just that, but they chose to ignore it. They're trying to come into this House and have the gall to say that nobody could have known. There was no indicator that the economy was in trouble in British Columbia. They still don't admit it. Some of them still don't admit that the economy is in trouble in British Columbia.

By the spring of last year, job creation in British Columbia had virtually halted. That's almost a year ago. Job creation in this province had virtually halted. That ought to have been a clue. You know, if job creation isn't happening, that could have an effect on the economy. But apparently not. Apparently, that didn't make one little bit of difference, because the Finance Minister and the Premier kept reassuring British Columbians that there was nothing to worry about, that British Columbia was somehow going to be protected from any of the gathering thunderstorms about the economy.

By June of 2008, B.C. saw the sharpest decline in worker incomes in 25 years. The incomes of workers had never declined so sharply as they did in the summer of this past year. But that didn't seem to be any kind of a clue to this government that there was a problem coming. "Nobody could predict it," they said. Nobody. There was no problem whatsoever.

I'm sure that they did know, but they weren't about to tell the people of British Columbia. In fact, the Premier got up with his ten-point non-plan and said: "Oh, you know what? We're going to have all these infrastructure works and spending." Nothing happened. He went on to tell the people of British Columbia: "You know, it's never going to happen here. We're not going to have a deficit." Now they're having to come to this House with their tail between their legs to make it legal to have a deficit.

By July of 2008, consumer confidence in this province was the lowest it had been in five years. Would that be any kind of an indicator that there was going to be a problem with the finances, that there was going to be a problem in having a balanced budget or a surplus budget? I should think so. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission went on about: "Well, the opposition is supposed to know all this stuff."

I mean, I don't know what planet he's on. They're the ones with the books. They're the ones with the advisers. They're the ones with the experts. They were the ones — and still are, for a short period of time — that were in government. They're the ones that are charged with knowing how to run this government, but we're seeing nothing but incompetence, neglect and arrogance on the part of this government.

Today the small business sector in B.C. has the least optimism for the future of any province in this country — the least optimism. The small business sector that drives our economy, that supports education…. They have less optimism about the future in this province than in any other province. That's how far things have fallen, and they're continuing to plummet, despite the denial of the members opposite. The economy is continuing to plummet, and we have big problems on our hands.

[1805]

B.C. is exporting less per capita than any other province except Nova Scotia — another serious economic indicator of the problems we have here in British Columbia. But oh no, you never heard anything about that from this government. You never heard anything about that from this Premier, who is supposed to be a leader. They didn't care. They don't care about the average British Columbian and taking care of their interests. They were, you know, operating on a wing and a prayer, hoping somehow that there was going to be a miraculous recovery. But none of the actual indicators suggested that there was going to be.

Our imports have been higher in value than our exports for the last five years or more. More bad news, all kinds of bad news, but these guys were not about to fess up, not about to put the straight goods on the table
[ Page 13623 ]
for the people of British Columbia to look at. Instead, they tried as recently as a couple of weeks ago to say that we were going to have a balanced budget in British Columbia. They knew that wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. Why did they do that? Why did they continue to mislead the people of British Columbia in the way that they have? They have a lot to answer for.

Our investment in machinery and equipment is worse than every other province except the Maritimes. Things are not good in British Columbia at all, but you never heard any of that from this government. They were trying to cover up. They were trying to hope against hope, I guess, that somehow they could finesse their way through this and not have to face the music.

By December of last year the number of EI claimants was up over 11 percent. What possible reason did the Premier and the Finance Minister have to express all that optimism they expressed last fall? The people of British Columbia don't want false optimism. They want realism from their leaders. They want a Premier who's going to give them the straight goods. They want the same thing from the other ministers, and they're not getting it.

The only thing that's been sustaining this government over the last number of years has been riding on the commodities gravy train — that and one other thing, of course: the tremendous spike in housing prices and the construction that goes along with that. It was totally artificial, but you never heard anything from the Premier or the Finance Minister warning British Columbians that this wasn't going to last, that this couldn't last.

No, quite the contrary. They pretended. Maybe they believed — they're all drinking from the same puddle — this was going to go on forever. No other serious economist that looked at this believed that, but this government apparently believed it — the Premier saying, the Minister of Finance saying that we're in a better position than any other province to ride out this recession.

Not true. We're in the worst position to ride out this recession. We are in for trouble big time, and the reason for that is that we have been riding on the artificially inflated housing bubble. That's the very same bubble that burst in the United States and triggered this massive recession-cum-depression.

We have the same thing happening here, but this government refuses to fess up to any of it. They don't want the people of British Columbia to know how they've helped to mislead, how they've helped to make things worse for British Columbians. It's been totally irresponsible. The profiteers, the people that got rich, got rich on the artificial bubble, the artificial housing bubble. They're the ones that have made all the money. They're the ones that have gone down the drain and are taking us with them.

[1810]

They're taking us with them — a very bad word when it's this government that's in charge, because there is no sense of moderation. There's no sense of honesty. There's no taking responsibility, and people in this province want to see that.

Unemployment applicants have shot up — in my constituency by 68 percent. They've gone up 68 percent in Maple Ridge, which is quadruple anywhere else in the region. We have problems on our hands, and one of the reasons that Maple Ridge is suffering so badly from unemployment is because we had a construction sector that now has few jobs. That housing bubble — which was aided and abetted without shame, without caution, by this government — has burst, and it's taking my constituents down to the bottom with no help from this government.

When the federal government brought in the "Oh, you don't have to put anything down to buy a house; yeah, you can have a 40-year mortgage and pay almost nothing," you didn't hear any words of caution from this Premier saying: "Oh, you know what? That might not be the best idea in the world. They're actually having some problems with that south of the border. Maybe we shouldn't follow that model." Oh, no, no, no. He said: "Go for it; there's profit to be made." There was profit to be made for some, and my constituents are suffering now as a result.

Mr. Speaker, 68,000 full-time jobs disappeared in this province in the month of January alone. And 53 percent of all the jobs that disappeared in the country disappeared here in British Columbia. That's a problem, and it's not going to get better anytime soon. But how can the people of British Columbia trust this government when they won't be straight with them, when they won't come clean with them?

The Premier said on the weekend or thereabout: "On Monday I'm going to lay it all out in terms of the Olympic spending so everybody can see what it is." Well, it's Tuesday evening now, and I don't see any accounting by the Premier. When is he going to come forward with these costs? We don't see the accountability; we just see the arrogance.

Now the government says they're going to run a two-year deficit. That's laughable. There is no reason that anyone in British Columbia should believe that. They have no idea how long the deficit in this province is going to be. Is it going to be one year, two years — it's going to be at least two years — three years, four years? They don't know, and the people of British Columbia have seen that they don't know. They have seen over the last number of months that they're clueless about the economy.

They don't take any responsibility. There's no accountability, just arrogance. The funny thing is that this government, while they've had the gravy train going with commodity prices and while there was a housing boom, did have money rolling in. But this government has spent, and they have spent like drunken sailors — $54 billion in contractual obligations, and going up and up.
[ Page 13624 ]

What is a contractual obligation? You contract with somebody to do something, and you have to pay for it. It's a debt by any other name, and the people of British Columbia are being saddled with debts that are the result of the privatization agenda that this government runs, that this government is totally wedded to and that is going to help to bring our province to its knees.

[1815]

This government says: "We didn't know what was going on. You can't blame us. We're faultless. We're innocent bystanders." They are not by any means innocent bystanders.

If the Premier and the Finance Minister can't figure out how this mess came about, well, I'll tell them how it came about. Greed. That's how it came about. Unabashed, unrepentant greed. It had to do with the agenda…. Yeah, it was started by George Bush, the big kahuna down in the U.S. of A., but it was the agenda that has corporations first, that has the most wealthy first, and that has regular folks — whether it's the U.S. or British Columbia — last.

That's the agenda that has caused the kind of destruction that we're seeing worldwide now. That's the kind of problem that we're seeing as a result of this ideology. Although George Bush has been the leading proponent of it, Mr. Harper in Ottawa is also an acolyte of "corporations first and people that have the most first and everybody else last."

But the biggest proponent in Canada at the provincial level is the Premier of this province, whose whole purpose is to push the agenda of corporations and those that have the most at the cost of regular British Columbians and at the total cost of people that have little or nothing.

The house of cards has fallen. They privatize…. And what are the pillars of the "greed, not need"? What are the pillars of that? Privatization, of course, is the big one. The tax breaks for corporations and those most well off. Deregulation. Those are the pillars that George Bush ran, that Stephen Harper runs and that this government runs.

Let's look at some of these privatization deals that this government is so proud of and that the hapless Transportation Minister is particularly fond of. Let's talk about the Olympic village. The Transportation Minister says: "Ho, that wasn't a privatization deal." He says that the risk wasn't transferred to the private sector, so therefore, it wasn't a privatization deal. You know, it wasn't like you had the city of Vancouver going to get the financing. No, the private company was getting the financing from a very undependable source, from one of the hedge funds — this one, Fortress Investment.

J. Brar: They were friends.

M. Sather: Of course they're friends. The member says they're friends. They're all friends. This government is particularly fond of foreign capital, of high-risk capital. The Transportation Minister is running around right now as we speak, trying to rescue some of this high-risk private capital, this time from Australia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let's look at what the Sauder school of business at UBC says about the privatization deals that this government is so fond of. They talk about bad reasons to do one of these privatization deals. They said that bad reason No. 1 is to hide government debt. And that's exactly one of the big reasons that this government loves it so much: to hide government debt, so it's magically not on the books. It becomes off-book, but it does not mean that the people of British Columbia don't pay for that debt. They certainly do.

[1820]

Reason No. 2, according to the Sauder school of business, not to do one of these privatization deals that this government is so fond of: to shift risk to the private sector. That's the No. 2 good reason not to do it. That's the favourite reason that this government always talks about, and how wonderful it is to do a privatization deal — because, don't you know, it shifts the risk to the private sector.

Interjection.

M. Sather: But not really; not at all. We saw that with the Olympic village. When the private sector couldn't complete the deal, guess who came into rescue them? The public sector. That's why we were here in January — to rescue that VANOC-oriented deal.

The third reason — bad reason No. 3 — not to do one of these privatization deals is to hide information from the public. Now, there's another thing that this government excels at: hiding information from the public. In fact, they have the second-worst record of any province in Canada — the second-worst. The worst must be really, really bad, because these guys have the second-worst record of hiding information. Try an FOI request in this province, and you get stymied at every turn.

It's a sorry record that this government has. It's no wonder that they're coming into this House with their tails between their legs. They have a lot to be concerned about. The emperor with no clothes is becoming plain.

One of the members on this side of the House said that she talked to her constituents, and they said they understand clearly the problems with this government not being open and honest over the Olympic cost overruns. They understand it. The people of British Columbia are getting it, and this government should be very concerned about that.

Let's look at one of the other privatization deals that the hapless Transportation Minister is so keen about, the Port Mann Bridge. Now, there's a winner. There's a
[ Page 13625 ]
winner of a successful finance project. It magically goes from $1.5 billion to $3.3 billion — poof, just like that. Just like that, it's more than doubled the cost.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members. Minister.

M. Sather: The private sector always takes the risk, the Transportation Minister said, except when they can't, except when they don't want to or except when they come to the Transportation Minister and say: "Bail us out. Help us out here. We're in trouble. Help us out."

The Transportation Minister can't wait to help out his private buddies. He can't wait to say: "Oh, yes. We'll pay for a third of it. What else do you want? What else can we do for you?" And they said: "Oh, there's one other thing, Mr. Transportation Minister. We don't like that idea that you said of twinning the Port Mann Bridge. We want one bridge." He said: "Okay. Okay, whatever you want."

An Hon. Member: This is really sad.

M. Sather: Whatever you want. It's a sad…. The Transportation Minister is right. This is a sad state of affairs that we have this kind of a Transportation Minister in charge and these kinds of projects happening that are ripping off the people of British Columbia big time.

An Hon. Member: You have five more minutes.

M. Sather: Five more minutes. Is that what it is, Member? Five more minutes. I want to say a few more words.

One thing I am glad about, however. On the financing fiasco of the Port Mann Bridge, at least the Transportation Minister and the Premier are coming forward with the finance costs as well. They've got the all-in cost for the bridge of $3.3 billion — not like when I have talked many times in this House about the Golden Ears bridge, the bridge that the minister has the gall to stand and say is on time and on budget. Totally wrong.

[1825]

This is why this government is totally unbelievable. That bridge was announced in 2004, to be done in 2007. It's two years late. That bridge was announced at $600 million. The capital costs alone are over $800 million. It's neither on time nor on budget. But the one thing I like about it…. At least, if it applies to the Port Mann Bridge, it should apply to the Golden Ears bridge, and we should have the all-in cost, including the financing.

I've talked to the Transportation Minister about this before. I said, "Your bridge cost at least $1.12 billion," and he went apoplectic. He jumped out of his chair, he got all red, and he ran out of the House. I hope not to see that again, because at least….

Let's talk for a minute about the tax breaks, the tax breaks that this government…. You know, it's part of their agenda — tax breaks for corporations and the most well-off. So what did this government do when they were first elected? They cut the taxes for those people that have the most by 20 percent. That is corporations. Then they followed that up this year by giving $220 million to the big banks.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. Sather: You're welcome, Mr. Speaker.

M. Sather moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Christensen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175