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)

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 37, Number 4

[ Page 13627 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Although it's delightful to see the Canucks on a three-game winning streak, if they ever need a backup goalie, I see in the gallery today Bill Goodacre, a former member of this place from Bulkley Valley–Stikine. If Luongo goes down, next time I'm certain Bill will get the call.

Hon. G. Abbott: As members of the assembly know, we have been graced today in the Legislature and in the precincts and in Victoria by many volunteers and leaders from the Canadian Diabetes Association. I wasn't able to attend the breakfast this morning, but I know a number of members were and were very pleased by that opportunity. I want to take an opportunity to introduce some of the guests we have in the gallery today from the Canadian Diabetes Association. I know other members will be introducing guests as well.

[1335]

I want to begin by introducing a constituent who is a volunteer extraordinaire and has been recognized as such by the Canadian Diabetes Association. She regularly attends my constituency office and is a relentless and fearless advocate on behalf of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Nel Peach is from Salmon Arm. She's the president of the Salmon Arm branch of the Canadian Diabetes Association. Welcome, Nel.

Also from the Canadian Diabetes Association, Jean Blake, the executive director for the Pacific region, is here. We are also joined by a number of B.C.'s regional directors for the CDA, including Julie Holder, Tom Orie, Donna van Welligan, Jane Glenn and Fiona Knight. I'd ask the House to please make them all welcome and thank them for their great work.

M. Karagianis: I have some guests I'd like to introduce today in the House. They are here again to help promote the Canadian Diabetes initiative that's taking place in the Legislature. From my constituency I have the Bleseki family: Maureen, her husband Mark and their daughter Rachel. I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome.

I see my friend Des McCambridge is here as well. He's been a tireless advocate on behalf of diabetes and solutions to help especially young people. I'd like the House to make him especially welcome as well.

Hon. S. Bond: We're always delighted to have northern constituents join us here in the precinct. On behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, we want to welcome three guests to the Legislature today. They're also here celebrating the good news about insulin pumps in the province.

We want to welcome Darwin Cassidy and his daughter Dezirai, a young woman who uses an insulin pump, and also Paula Bass. Paula is the mother of a child who has type 1 diabetes and recently received an insulin pump. So on behalf of my colleagues, welcome to the precinct today.

S. Fraser: Similarly, from Port Alberni today we have Rudi van den Broek and his son William, who also lives with diabetes and is using an insulin pump himself. I'd like everyone to help them feel welcome.

I notice the member from Nanaimo is not here, so I will take the liberty of also welcoming Brian Petit and his son Ian, who are here today. Brian is a well-known Nanaimo writer and avid history buff. They're also here because of the issues of diabetes awareness. Please make them all feel very welcome.

Hon. W. Oppal: Also with the Diabetes Association are three people from my riding: Lesley Lopez and her two daughters Mya and Marissa. I want to thank them for what they're doing in the Diabetes Association. I very much appreciate you attending and all that you're doing. Would the House please make them welcome.

C. Wyse: Via modern technology, friends of Gloria Loewen, who was a longtime employee in the Williams Lake forestry office, are joining us today, along with Gloria's mother Helen in Prince George, to celebrate Gloria's life. I would ask the House to join with them in recognizing this longtime employee of government services, and do make them welcome.

Hon. J. McIntyre: It's not too often that I have visitors here in the precincts from the Sea to Sky corridor. Today, by coincidence, I have two visitors I'd like to introduce and hope that the House will make them feel welcome.

First is William Roberts, who is an acquaintance of mine from Whistler. He leads the Whistler Forum for Dialogue, affiliated with the Aspen Institute in Colorado. William has made some very interesting links with China, among other activities, but is really helping to support our Asia-Pacific gateway.

Welcome, William.

Peter Gordon from Cascadia Consulting is also joining us today from Squamish. Peter's daughter Heather worked briefly here at the Leg., I think, one summer and is now a teacher in Squamish. I'm delighted to have them both join us today.

[1340]
[ Page 13628 ]

Hon. M. Polak: I am pleased to be joined in this House by a visitor from Langley. Like previous guests who have been introduced, Sheila Jack is here to help raise awareness about diabetes, and I'd like us to thank Sheila for her efforts and those of the group around her. Will the House please make Sheila welcome.

R. Hawes: Well, not to be outdone by those who have already made introductions, I, too, would like to make some from the group that was here today. This morning in our caucus we had a number of very, very moving presentations. One that was particularly, I think, meaningful — all of them were meaningful — was one from Catherine Turner, who is the chair of the board of directors for the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association. She did point out how diabetes among the aboriginal community is a particularly troubling disease.

Also, there are two children here that were introduced to caucus this morning. Fiona Kern, age 7, whose life has been dramatically improved because of the insulin pump, is here with her siblings and her mom. And at the expense of a double introduction, William van den Broek made an unbelievable speech to our group — very, very moving. This is a young man who, I think, is going to be sitting in this chamber maybe ten years from now. He is an unbelievable young man whose life has been changed also through the use of an insulin pump. With that, please make them welcome.

J. Nuraney: I, too, want to add my welcome to the members who are visiting us today. We have in the gallery Nigel Terrett. Nigel Terrett is the senior vice-president and the interim general manager of LifeLabs, which was formerly known as MDS, British Columbia's largest medical lab. With 85 collection sites around the province, LifeLabs does more than three million blood lab tests every year.

LifeLabs is also working with the Canadian Diabetes Association to draw awareness to the struggle against this global disease. Mr. Terrett is here today with the Canadian Diabetes Association delegation, which has done blood testing and measuring of sugar levels in the blood for all MLAs. I ask the members of this Legislature to please accord him a very warm welcome.

Hon. R. Cantelon: I was apparently 24 hours early in my introduction yesterday. However, that should not diminish our welcome to these people who I'm about to introduce. They have been mentioned, as well, by the member from Port Alberni-Qualicum. But let me further extend our welcome to Rudi van den Broek and his son William from Port Alberni, and Brian Petit and his son Ian from Nanaimo. These two families know firsthand the challenges with diabetes.

I would also like to welcome Catherine Turner, chair of the National Aboriginal Diabetes Association, who is joining us from Courtenay. I've been to one of her presentations. She's done such excellent work in promoting diabetes awareness among first nations.

I'd like to thank these individuals for being with us today and for creating awareness of diabetes. I'd like to add my welcome to those in the House, and I invite you to join us in welcoming them.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to join with others in welcoming a number of individuals from greater Victoria with the Canadian Diabetes Association — certainly a very active chapter here in greater Victoria. I've met with them a number of times and personally know people who have benefited from the use of insulin pumps. So it's a very good initiative, and I'm sure one that all in the Canadian Diabetes Association families appreciate.

From greater Victoria, I would like to introduce and have the House welcome Zoe MacDonald, Rowan MacDonald, Kerry Walsh, Erin Thorpe, Art Penson and Genie Wright. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: I, too, would like to welcome two guests to the Legislature from the Canadian Diabetes Association: Meredith Scroggins, who is a youth volunteer; and Susan Lui, who is a pharmacist and diabetes educator from Sidney. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1345]

R. Lee: I, too, would like to recognize Norma Page, a volunteer from the Diabetes Association. She is from Burnaby North. Actually, she took my glucose meter reading and also my blood pressure.

Tributes

JIM FULTON

G. Coons: It's an honour for me today to rise and pay tribute to a friend, a distinguished man and a great parliamentarian: Jim Fulton.

Jim, who was 58, passed away just before Christmas on December 20 after a three-year battle with cancer. He was Skeena's Member of Parliament from 1979 until retiring from politics in 1993. In his 14 years, Jim was shocking but always fearless. He was an environmental activist and a huge advocate for first nations rights. The outspoken former NDP MP will always be remembered when he threw a dead salmon on then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's desk during a debate about the sockeye fishery in the Skeena Valley in 1985. I'm sure he'd be throwing more than that these days in the House in Ottawa.

Jim had a deep sense of humanity. He was respected by all, and he will be truly missed.
[ Page 13629 ]

Statements (Standing Order 25b)

EXPANSION OF
RIDGE MEADOWS HOSPITAL

R. Hawes: On Thursday, January 29, the Premier and the Minister of Health were on hand in Maple Ridge for the official opening of the new Greg Moore emergency department and the Betsy Bilodeau Ambulatory Care Centre in the Ridge Meadows Hospital.

This wonderful 45,000-square-foot addition to the hospital is already making a tremendous positive difference to patient care in the Fraser Valley. It was made possible thanks to the incredible work of the Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation and the many donors, big and small, who raised $3 million towards the overall $21 million cost of the project.

Of particular note are the extremely generous donations from Rick Moore on behalf of his son Greg and from the estate of Betsy Bilodeau. Each donated $500,000. What's particularly noteworthy about this new addition is the planning process that went into its construction.

As noted by Shauna Archibald, patient care coordinator in the ambulatory care centre, and by Sandra Chosevelt, emergency room RN, there was complete consultation at the ground level to ensure the new space would be as functional as possible. "If we said a wall switch should be in a certain place, it quickly appeared there," Sandra told me. It was like that through the whole process.

I'm told that morale is up, patient flows are much better and overall care is improved. The Ridge Meadows area has much to be proud of, from its generous community-minded citizens to its dedicated hospital staff. This is a community that has it together. Watch for the soon to be opened expansion of the psychiatric department that's made possible through an incredible $1 million donation from Mr. Ron Antalek.

Congratulations, Ridge Meadows, and I'm extremely proud to have represented you for the last eight years.

HENRY NEDErGARD

S. Fraser: On January 8 the Alberni Valley suffered a tremendous loss. Henry Nedergard passed away, survived by his wife of 50 years, Gunber; two daughters, Brigit and Glenda; two grandchildren, Matthew and Sarah; two brothers, Elmer in Vancouver and Herbert in Finland. Henry Nedergard will be dearly missed but never forgotten.

Henry moved to the Alberni Valley from Finland in 1951, where he worked in the forest industry. Henry served as a union officer with the IWA, as president of the Port Alberni and District Labour Council. He also served on city council and as a representative on the central Vancouver Island health authority. Public health care was a passionate cause for Henry. He fought hard when local representation was being diluted at the time when VIHA was taking over from the central Vancouver Island health authority. Henry Nedergard helped bring us the new hospital in Port Alberni, although he would never take credit for that. It just wasn't his style.

Henry was recognized two years ago as a lifetime member of the NDP. And putting aside politics, that sort of dedication — lifetime — for any political cause is rare. Henry was a founding member with Wolfgang Zimmerman of the National Institute for Disability Management and Research, or NIDMAR. Last year Henry was able to see NIDMAR receive formal recognition and university status through this Legislative Assembly in one of the few bipartisan efforts that I've seen or been involved in, in this House. I know Henry was very pleased to see that happen and witness it.

[1350]

Henry Nedergard set the bar to its highest level when it came to community activism, and his efforts shine far above and beyond the Port Alberni area. Henry Nedergard will be missed but never, ever forgotten.

DIABETES

H. Bloy: I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes about 15 years ago. It's a daily challenge to keep your blood sugar regulated and stay healthy. I don't shy away from talking about it. I believe my experiences help a lot of other people. I have a very simple solution to this: eat less food, eat better food and exercise every day.

But today I and other members of the House had the pleasure of having a healthy breakfast with members of the Canadian Diabetes Association. We had the opportunity to hear about what they are doing in communities across our province. I met a young man, William van den Broek — type 1 diabetes — who spoke about his experiences. He's already been mentioned as a great speaker, and I was very impressed with his composure.

In November of 2008 our government provided $1.5 million to B.C. Pharmacare to enable 200 children like William to have access to insulin pumps and supplies. The Canadian Diabetes Association has quite the legacy of providing healthy living and delivering programs and services for people affected by diabetes.

I also had the opportunity this morning to speak with Jean Blake, executive director of the Canadian Diabetes Association. I appreciate all the hard work that she, her volunteers and staff do for all people of our province. At the meeting this morning, at the breakfast, a number of our members had the opportunity to have their blood sugar tested, courtesy of Nigel Terrett of LifeLabs, a company from my home city of Burnaby.

I'd like to leave you with one final thought from a fellow diabetic: life is not over because you have diabetes. Make most of what you have and be grateful.
[ Page 13630 ]

A. Dix: Like many members…. And I think we heard it during introductions today. We just heard it from my colleague from Burquitlam. Many members have been impressed by the extraordinary advocacy of parents of children with diabetes and of children with diabetes today.

A quarter of a million British Columbians are like the member for Burquitlam and myself. We suffer from this disease, and I think it's an extraordinary thing when parents and children who struggle with it themselves come and speak to us and advocate for others. The lead advocates to get insulin pump coverage in British Columbia were parents who themselves had provided the insulin pump to their children and felt that that shouldn't be based on income, just as it should not be based on income for adults and other people.

I think it's an extraordinary thing. We witnessed an extraordinary thing this morning and over the past several years, as parents and children and people in the community have advocated to extend coverage. So we celebrate that today.

This morning members on our side of the House and on the government side of the House heard from Brian Petit, who's one of those advocates, from Nanaimo. His son Ian was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, he says, on July 27, 2007. He remembers the day; he'll remember it his entire life. He asked himself that day: who will advocate for children such as my son? And then he became one of the leading advocates on Vancouver Island in the last two years, painting Nanaimo blue during diabetes month. He does an extraordinary job.

We heard, as the member for Burquitlam said, from William van den Broek, who is in grade 6 — he's 11 years old — and who also uses the insulin pump and talked eloquently about his daily struggles with diabetes. It almost cost him his life in a drowning accident, and the insulin pump makes him able to live a life like all his friends.

Catherine, Brian, Ian, William and all the advocates we heard today suffering from type 1 and type 2 diabetes remind us that the equipment, the nutrition and the supplies that children with diabetes need should not be based on income. We thank them for what they told us today.

[1355]

CANADA EDUCATION PARK

J. Les: Today I would like to update members of the House of the progress that's being made in the development of the Canada education park in Chilliwack. As members may know, the property I'm referring to was once known as Canadian Forces Base Chillwack. However, today it is becoming a major centre for education, but in a way and perhaps of a scale that we had not dared hope for at the time.

The RCMP have established their Pacific regional training centre on approximately 60 acres of the land. Every day many hundreds of RCMP officers from across Canada receive their in-service training at this facility, which includes classroom space, tactical training facilities, hotel accommodation buildings and other facilities.

Recently the federal Treasury Board has advanced $15 million for the construction of a new indoor firing range. The University of the Fraser Valley was next on site, as it acquired 85 acres of land with some of the excellent buildings that were there for their new Chilliwack campus. They immediately converted what had been a massive storage facility into western Canada's largest trades training facility, which opened in September. The university's long-term plans indicate the potential for approximately a million square feet of classroom space at this campus.

Next on board was the Justice Institute of British Columbia, when they recently purchased six acres of land at the park. They will be building in the near future and, as with all other users at the park, availing themselves of the significant collaborative opportunities that exist between themselves and the other agencies on campus.

More recently the Canadian Border Services Agency has established their western Canadian learning centre there. Already they are accommodating 10,000 student days per year, and they, too, have opportunities to collaborate with other campus agencies.

As well, discussions are underway to attract a foreign university to the campus in conjunction with the University of the Fraser Valley, building on our province's gateway initiatives and Asia-Pacific economic opportunities.

Ultimately, it's anticipated that as many as 10,000 students will be receiving education on this campus on a daily basis. The Canada education park represents the opportunity of a lifetime for students of all ages from across the province, the country and abroad.

ELIZABETH KELLIHER

J. Kwan: Last Sunday at a small Catholic church in the Downtown Eastside on Cordova Street, the organ music that filled the room for the congregation was played by a very special woman.

Sister Elizabeth Kelliher, an 85-year-old nun with the Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement, was about to end her hunger strike calling for the re-establishment of a national housing program. She had just gone through seven days on a liquid diet as part of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay.

Sister Elizabeth is a pillar in the Downtown Eastside, where she tirelessly gives of her time and continues to be a source of inspiration for many, many people. She operates a soup kitchen that feeds between 300 and 500 of the city's most poverty-stricken people each day.
[ Page 13631 ]

The Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement have been living in and serving the people of the Downtown Eastside for over 80 years. The sisters first arrived to serve the Japanese community, which was then living around Powell Street. When the internment of their neighbours occurred, the sisters opened their convent for safe storage of goods and possessions belonging to those families being sent to the prison camps. Some of the sisters accompanied the internees to Greenwood, B.C., and stayed with them.

After the service on Sunday, Sister Elizabeth took time to eat and then marched over to the second annual Poverty Olympics at the Japanese language school, where she was recognized by her community. Some of those in attendance included Itchy the bedbug and Chewy the rat.

Asked privately how she felt during her fast, she said: "I didn't even get hungry." In the Downtown Eastside we're now calling this a miracle. We will hold off calling for the beatification of Sister Elizabeth and everyone else at the Franciscan Sisters of the Atonement while she's still performing miracles right here in British Columbia.

I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing Sister Elizabeth, an inspiring woman who continues to be a trail-blazer in her 80s.

Oral Questions

OLYMPIC GAMES CONTRACT
WITH FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP

C. James: B.C. taxpayers are demanding that the B.C. Liberals finally come clean with the real cost of the Olympics. In Vancouver, as we all know, city taxpayers are paying hundreds of millions to get out of a bad deal with a New York hedge fund. That same hedge fund owns Intrawest, and Intrawest controls the use of Whistler and Blackcomb mountains.

[1400]

To the minister responsible: with a year to go until the first competitor skis down the face of Whistler, why is the deal with Fortress still incomplete, and why has the government once again put B.C. taxpayers at the mercy of Fortress Investment Group, the troubled New York hedge fund that is behind the athletes village fiasco?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, we all understand that the Leader of the Opposition did not support the Olympics from day one. But I think it is unfortunate when the Leader of the Opposition continues to denigrate the good work that's being done to organize the Olympics by spreading the kind of misinformation that she spread just now in her question.

We gathered in this House. We sat around the clock to pass emergency legislation to empower the city of Vancouver to actually go out and borrow money to ensure that the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver were not put at risk to any extent that would be otherwise necessary.

I can tell you that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat. Sit down.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can tell you that John Furlong and his team at VANOC are doing a first-class job of organizing what will be the most successful Winter Olympics ever.

That team at VANOC has responsibility for making arrangements with all of the partners, including Intrawest, and I have every confidence that they will do that in the best interests of all.

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

C. James: This sounds familiar. It's the same answer we keep getting from this minister and this government, which is: "Trust us. Everything will be fine."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: "Don't worry, taxpayer. It's only $600 million."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Member.

C. James: We hear it again and again and again from this minister — whether it's security costs, whether it's the Olympic village. Now it's the rental of the mountains.

My question again to the minister: is the agreement in place, and if not, why not? And how much will it cost the taxpayers?

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC just recently released their latest budget, their latest financial report. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition actually read it, because what she will discover is that out of a budget of $1.7 billion, there is a very small portion that is funded by the taxpayers either federally or provincially. The vast majority of the revenues that flow into the operating
[ Page 13632 ]
budget for VANOC come from ticket sales, from the international broadcast rights and from private sector sponsorships that VANOC has lined up.

VANOC is doing a first-class job of managing their budget and delivering on what will be the best Winter Olympics ever.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, the minister either knows and won't tell, or he doesn't know. Either way the taxpayers are on the hook, and they want to know the truth from this minister.

We're talking about negotiating with Fortress, a troubled New York hedge fund in desperate need of cash. Their ownership of Intrawest is at risk. They're laying off employees. Their stock value has hit bottom, and the minister is saying to us today: "Don't worry. The negotiations are ongoing."

Well, they now have taxpayers over a barrel because of this government's incompetence. So tell us today: what is the cost of that contract, and when will it be completed?

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC has responsibility for negotiating with all of their partners and all of their suppliers that will be tapping into their operating budget.

[1405]

What we have committed to as a provincial government, for the obligations that we have to deliver on, on the staging of the games…. First of all, we are providing half of a $580 million budget for venues around the province, and I can tell you that every single one of those sports venues is now finished and complete and ready for the celebration. That is the first time in the history of the Olympic movement that we have actually seen the sports venues finished so far ahead of the official opening ceremonies of games.

The Olympics are going to be a tremendous economic generator for British Columbia. There is not a jurisdiction in the world that wouldn't give their eye teeth to be hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2010.

A. Dix: So what the minister is telling us today is that he's been Minister Responsible for the Olympics for, oh, the last three years — and I use the term "responsible" loosely…. Is the minister saying to us today that there's no deal on the mountain? Is that what he's saying today?

This is the minister who said, until a couple of months ago, that Olympic security costs were $175 million. That's what he said until a few months ago. Now here he is today. This is the minister who says that Olympic secretariat costs are not an Olympic cost. If South Korea had won the bid, presumably we'd still have an Olympic secretariat.

The question is very simple to the minister. Is there a deal on the mountain, and how much does it cost?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I have indicated, VANOC is a federally incorporated, not-for-profit corporation. They have responsibility for negotiating with all of their suppliers, including the mountain at Intrawest, including other facilities that they are negotiating with or have contracts in place with.

But I think it's incumbent on this opposition to actually state for once: are you in favour of the Olympics, or are you opposed to the Olympics? Are you in favour of the jobs, or are you opposed to the jobs?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Sit.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We know where the Leader of the Opposition stood in 2002. She opposed the games. On this side of the House we support the games, because it will be the best shot in the arm that this province has ever seen and a great economic stimulus for British Columbia.

OLYMPIC GAMES SECURITY COSTS

H. Bains: Wow, a year to go, and we still don't have…. It's very clear right now, listening to the minister, that we don't have any clue how much it's going to cost us to rent the mountains. It's clear.

It's very clear that we don't know what the total security cost is going to be. It's very clear. We don't know how much we're going to get fleeced on the Vancouver village deal.

On Monday the minister said that the security budget will likely go below the Olympic budget. Yesterday he backed away and said it was very complicated and couldn't say.

My question is very simple to the minister. Can the minister assure this House that when he finally comes clean on the security budget, it will include every security-related cost in that budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find that question both troubling and surprising, because this member purports to be the Olympic critic for the official opposition, and I would have thought that by now he would know that it is the RCMP and the federal government that have responsibility for the security budget. If he would like a briefing, I will arrange it for him.

[1410]

But the member is right on one thing. It's one year to go. It's one year to go until 8,000 of the world's best athletes are going to be descending on British Columbia. It's one year to go until 10,000 journalists from around the
[ Page 13633 ]
world are going to be coming to British Columbia. It's one year to go until 250,000 visitors are going to come to British Columbia to help us celebrate, and it's one year to go until approximately three billion people will be watching the British Columbia winter games.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: You know, with answers like those, no wonder people are worried sick about the total Olympic costs. They're worried sick out there. They continue to get surprises after surprises on the Olympic costs from this minister. It's a complete B.C. Liberal runaround. It's about time that that stopped.

Again to the minister, and I'll be a bit more specific this time. This is a clear question. Will B.C. Gas customers pay more to cover the security costs — yes or no?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the question was: will B.C. Gas customers pay more for the Olympic Games? I have no idea what he means by that question.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, let me help out the minister a little bit on this one...

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Horgan: …because goodness knows, he needs it.

In October Terasen Gas applied to the B.C. Utilities Commission to create a deferral account to cover unknown security costs as a result of the Paralympic and Olympic Games. They said: "Large-scale events such as the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games present unusual and discrete challenges over and above the normal level of security and reliability for our utilities." The commission said, "Create a deferral account for $3.8 million" — at a bottom, at a base of $3.8 million.

What that says is that the commission has approved security costs to the ratepayers of B.C. Gas or Terasen Gas, and this minister didn't even know about it. When is it going to be B.C. Hydro? When is it going to be TransLink? It's $3.8 million and counting for customers in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let me share with the member some of the benefits that are going to flow from the games. You're going to have 250,000 visitors coming to British Columbia. It is estimated that the winter games in 2010 will pump about $6 billion worth of economic activity into the B.C. economy. We also know that this is going to be a tremendous showcase, as we broadcast British Columbia to the television sets of three billion viewers around the world to showcase what British Columbia can offer.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I know that will be cold comfort to those who have to increase their gas bills as a result of Olympic security costs.

Terasen further wrote to the commission in response to the approval for the deferred account, saying: "Terasen Gas has confirmed that there is no likelihood of recovering these costs from any external agency. VANOC has advised that it does not have any financial resources to contribute to the utility provider's games operational costs."

My question, again, is to the minister. When he finally comes clean and tells us the honest cost of security, will it include the cost to Terasen Gas? Will it include the cost to B.C. Hydro? Will it include the cost to TransLink? When will he be honest with the people of British Columbia? What's the bill?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the opposition critic wants to have a briefing arranged for him, I'd be pleased to include the member as well. I think, as I explained earlier, the security plan and the security budget for the Olympics are the responsibility….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat again.

Continue.

Hon. C. Hansen: The security plan and the security budget for the Olympics and Paralympic Games are the responsibility of the RCMP and the federal government. The provincial government, under the security agreement that we have signed with the federal government, has a 50 percent responsibility for a small portion of those costs. I invite the member to go onto the website and read the security agreement, and he will see exactly the provisions that are provided therein.

STAFFING OF INTEGRATED
CHILD PROTECTION TEAMS

M. Farnworth: Can the Solicitor General confirm that the integrated child exploitation team, which was planned to have 54 members working for it, actually
[ Page 13634 ]
only has seven people working for it? And can he also confirm that the integrated sexual predator observation team, which is supposed to have 16 positions filled, only has eight positions filled?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I don't know the details. I'll take the question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

REDEPLOYMENT OF POLICE
AND JUSTICE SYSTEM RESOURCES

M. Farnworth: The government announced those programs with great fanfare over a year ago.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just to remind you that the minister did take the question on notice.

M. Farnworth: This is a new question, hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

M. Farnworth: The government announced these programs with great fanfare over a year ago — resources to protect children from exploitation in Internet pornography, resources to be able to monitor sexual predators. They are failing in that commitment.

Yesterday the Premier stood in this House and said that he was going to redeploy police resources to fight gang warfare. If they can't honour that commitment that was announced last year, how can the public have faith that they're able to honour this commitment that the Premier said yesterday?

My question to the minister is this. What other areas of public safety are going to be affected by the Premier's redeployment comments of yesterday?

Hon. J. van Dongen: When it comes to policing, let's look at the record. Our government since 2001 has increased provincial policing by 89 percent. Since 2001 we've put 950 additional police officers on the street. We have invested $66 million in integrated police teams. And all of these increases the NDP opposed.

S. Simpson: This minister and this government can't even honour the commitments they made a year ago to protect children. How can we believe they can honour these commitments now?

Before the last election the government made a number of promises on crime. What we know now is that they don't amount to much — over the last ten years from ten gangs to 129 gangs in this province. Now the Premier is talking about redeployment that will draw away from already understaffed policing and prosecutorial services.

My question is to the Attorney General. Which prosecutions will be dropped so that staff can redeploy for the Premier's plan?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I've listened to some of the questions and some of the rhetoric that's taken place in this House the last three days. In my previous life I prosecuted probably 40 to 50 murder cases. I sat on the Supreme Court, and I heard that many or more. I was on the Supreme Court in the 1990s, which was a decade that saw incredible violence take place on our streets.

[1420]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The 1990s saw the infamous Dosanjh-Johal murders take place in broad daylight. There were shootings taking place at 33rd and Victoria, 33rd and Main.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: There was an innocent man walking his dog, who was killed.

You know, I listen to the puffery from the other side, and I wonder where they were in the 1990s, particularly the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain who huffs and puffs here every day. He was a member of that cabinet. If he has that expertise now, where was the expertise then?

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, 129 gangs in this province today, weekly if not almost daily occurrences of gang violence on the streets.

Maybe this Attorney General, since he doesn't seem to be prepared to do this job, could go help out with prosecutions, because he's not acting as an Attorney General to protect British Columbians. Our communities deserve to know that they're safe from dangerous, violent criminals, but all this government has offered to do is shift resources that are inadequate today.

My question to the Attorney General is this. Was there any research done at all into the effects of the Premier's so-called redeployment plan? If there was research, release it to this House today. Or is this another fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants exercise of the Premier that he does on every issue of significance?
[ Page 13635 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll tell the House about the research. In the mid-1990s, that government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Attorney.

Hon. W. Oppal: The government of the day asked me to conduct a commission of inquiry into policing. At the conclusion of that we made 222 recommendations. Some of the recommendations dealt with deployment of policing, regional policing and integration of policing. That government of the '90s ignored those recommendations. They ignored the recommendations on regional policing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We're not going to continue until we have some silence. Your choice, Members.

PUBLIC RELEASE OF
REPORT ON GUN VIOLENCE

R. Fleming: You know, a year ago we were standing in this very House demanding answers from the government on criminal gangs. Since then, this crisis has gone from bad to worse.

There's a report on gun violence that's gone before cabinet. The minister said he'd release it. What possible reason can he offer to keep sitting on that report, given the current daily crisis that's going on in British Columbia on gun violence?

My question is to the Solicitor General. Will he table that report today?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I said I would release the report this week, and that's what I will do.

[1425]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, you know what?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: What this government doesn't get is that when the Premier stood up in the hallway the other day and said, "The answer to gang violence is redeployment," we the public of British Columbia deserve to know if a report that the government has in its possession agrees with that or whether that's something that the Premier made up on the fly.

So my question again. It's not good enough for the Solicitor General…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Fleming: …to keep delaying on this. The public deserves to know. The Premier has outlined a plan. Let's see if the Premier's plan that he made up in the hallway, which he blurted outside these walls, agrees with the recommendations of the report's authors. Let's have that report tabled today so the public can know.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The Premier has made it clear that our government will invest whatever dollars are necessary to deal with the serious gang and illegal gun crime issue that we have.

We have put more money into policing, Member. We intend to put more money into policing. We have put money into specialized Crown prosecutors, and we have put significant new money into prisons — $185 million.

But if the opposition is to have any credibility on the crime issue, they better get their position straight on the construction of new prisons in appropriate locations such as the Willingdon facility in Burnaby.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

REDEPLOYMENT of Police
AND justice system resources

J. Kwan: The Premier has said that there would be redeployment. My question to the minister is this. How many people would be redeployed, from what sector, and where are they going to come from?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's because I know the importance that all members attach to this question that perhaps I can be very clear about how the government intends to respond and how it has been responding — a recipe that includes more police, more prosecutors and more jails to put the unsavoury characters that engage in illegal activities in British Columbia streets in jail.

I have also seen the theatrics in this place. I know a thing or two about theatrics. It's easy to come here and talk the talk. Sometimes it's tougher to walk the walk. I have trouble reconciling what I hear from this opposition and this opposition leader with what the member
[ Page 13636 ]
for Burnaby-Edmonds says when he writes to his paper: "As the MLA for Burnaby, I will continue to fight against the plans for a new jail."

You can't have it one way out there and one way in here. More police, more prosecutors and more jails will get this done.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: Coming from a government that closed ten correctional centres, that closed 24 courthouses, it is just a bit much for them to suggest that they're on top of the game.

Let us be clear. The Premier said that he was going to redeploy the resources. So my question is this to the Solicitor General, who supposedly is on top of this file. Where are the deployments going to come from?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Kwan: Is it going to be from the local police force? Is it from school liaison officers? Is it from the theft department? Is it from traffic? Is it from community crime? Is it from property crime?

[1430]

Which sector are those officers going to come from to address the gang violence problem that's happening right under this government's nose?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: It actually speaks volumes that for nothing more than theatrical reasons, members opposite would try to equate a minimum security work camp with the kind of maximum security facilities that are required to put these characters away in. This component of a complex problem is actually pretty simple. If you want to talk the talk, walk the walk.

Will this Leader of the Opposition say to her member of caucus that the time for talk is over and end his opposition to the facility we need to put unsavoury criminal elements away in British Columbia? That's what we're going to do. That's what we have been doing, and we're going to continue doing it.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I'd like to table a petition from 220 people from Malcolm Island and other north Island communities, who are requesting a change in the B.C. Ferries schedule so that Malcolm, Cormorant and Vancouver Islanders have access to early morning employment opportunities and early morning medical transportation supports.

Reports from Committees

J. Rustad: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner for the fourth session of the 38th parliament.

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

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Rustad: I move that the report be adopted. In moving this motion, I'd like to make a few brief comments.

It was a great pleasure to chair the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee members for their work and commitment. I'd also like to thank the Clerk's office for the work that they did. It was outstanding. I'd also like to thank all of those who had submitted their resumés and applied for the position.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it's really hard to hear.

Continue, Member.

J. Rustad: We had a great field of candidates that applied, and I'd like to thank all of those who did apply. Lastly, I'd also like to thank Dirk Ryneveld, who did an outstanding job as our current Police Complaint Commissioner for a number of years.

With that, I'm also very pleased to say that Mr. Stan Lowe, who is the candidate we have selected, is an outstanding candidate. He comes with a great background, and I think he'll make a great Police Complaint Commissioner.

L. Krog: I just want to rise to support the motion. As vice-Chair of the committee, I think it's also appropriate to thank the Chair who conducted the hearings in an efficient and timely manner. I think British Columbians, who were very well served by Mr. Ryneveld, will be equally well served by Mr. Lowe. He has an outstanding record of public service in British Columbia, and we are fortunate to have him in this position.
[ Page 13637 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: I just want to thank Stan Lowe for his service to the Ministry of Attorney General. He joined the Crown office in 1991. He was involved in some major criminal cases. He worked with the public. He was a communications officer. Many members of the public have grown accustomed to seeing Stan over the years.

[1435]

I want to congratulate him and thank him for the many years of service that he gave to the ministry.

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion is to adopt the report.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: By leave I move that this House recommend to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, pursuant to section 47.1 of the Police Act, RSBC 1996, c. 367, the appointment of Mr. Stan T. Lowe as the Police Complaint Commissioner in the province of British Columbia.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

J. Rustad: I ask for leave to do an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Rustad: I would ask that the House please welcome our new Police Complaint Commissioner, Mr. Stan Lowe.

Orders of the Day

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

Second Reading of Bills

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

(continued)

J. Yap: I rise to take my place in this debate on Bill 48, the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, 2009. To say that we live these days in extraordinary global economic times is probably an understatement. Terms and words like Lehman Brothers, credit crunch, financial meltdown, sub-prime mortgages, stimulus package…. These are words that are now in the common lexicon for British Columbians and all Canadians who follow the news.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

We're in an economic recession globally, and as a country, as Canada, British Columbia as an open trading province is not immune. This is a serious global economic downturn, which no one — no experts, no prognosticators — predicted would have the scale, the severity and the synchronicity that it has. We've heard how quickly and sharply revenues have fallen. We've heard, for example, that in one day the revenues for the province shifted downward by a scale of $300 million — something unheard of in our history.

While the economic measures, the statistics and indicators can seem the focus, we're really talking about people, about families. People are worried. They're concerned about their jobs, about meeting their mortgage payments and looking after their families. As other members have, I'm sure, I've heard from my constituents as I travel through my riding, as I talk to the people of Richmond-Steveston. At the doorstep with constituents, the number one issue that's on people's minds when they have the opportunity to talk directly to their MLA is the economy and concern about their jobs.

Our government is responding to reassure British Columbians. With Bill 48, the provincial budget will be allowed to run at an operating deficit for two fiscal years. This, as has been noted by my colleagues who have spoken, is a departure from our traditional approach. This is an exceptional change for our B.C. Liberal government.

Generally, our philosophy is to abhor, to not accept operating deficits. But now with exceptional times calling for exceptional policies and leadership, we find that we have to make this change. Hence, we are here to debate Bill 48, which I support.

During this period of economic uncertainty our government will protect the programs that people need, which people have come to rely on — whether it's health care, education or public safety, to name a few.

[1440]

B.C. Liberals are not turning away from our commitment to fiscal prudence. We will balance the budget again when the economy strengthens, but right now the economy and jobs are what my constituents and most British Columbians are concerned about.

We will create jobs with our plan. We will invest in infrastructure. We have a $14 billion plan to invest in needed infrastructure throughout the province — infrastructure projects like the ten-lane Port Mann Bridge, which will produce 8,000 jobs; like the South Fraser perimeter road, which will produce 7,000 jobs; like the Sea to Sky Highway, which has produced 6,000 jobs — projects, by the way, which the NDP unfortunately oppose.
[ Page 13638 ]

B.C. is well positioned. We have the borrowing capacity, whether it's for capital or for operations. Thanks to the fiscal management of the past few years and the hard work of British Columbians, we have regained a triple-A credit rating, the best possible, as a province. This high credit rating will ensure that we will be able to get good terms when we go to the capital markets.

We will continue to ensure that B.C.'s economy is well managed and competitive. As my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission talked about yesterday, we have a great professional public service that has really worked hard to try and rein in controllable expenses, to trim discretionary spending, to generate efficiencies and fiscal savings to the province. With all of these efforts, unfortunately, with the serious decline in revenues to the province, any further changes to our expenditures would affect needed program spending.

Now, another way to balance the budget is, of course, to hope for higher revenues, to forecast higher revenues than are realistic, but we will not provide a budget that fudges the truth. We will provide a truthful budget. Above all, people know that they can rely on the B.C. Liberal government on commitments to the economy. We have the proven record. We will get through this economic downturn. Trade will recover. The U.S. economy will recover. Canada's and our own economy will recover. It is a matter of getting through this time.

In fact, I understand that just yesterday the Bank of Canada's Governor Carney predicted, with all of the expertise available to the governor, that we may see a recovery in 2010. That was his prediction. I believe many economists and forecasters also expect a recovery in 2010.

We also have, in 2010, the Olympic and Paralympic Games to help our economy at just the precise time when we need, as a province, an economic boost. Now the opposition, we hear almost on a daily basis, is negative on the Olympics, which is a shame. They should know better.

The 2010 games are generating investments and will continue to generate investments and positively impact our economy these next 12 months. The spinoff benefits will be felt throughout the province for years to come.

Now, what about the NDP government record? What about that record, Madam Speaker? Let's not forget that after ten years of NDP rule, the NDP left a $4 billion structural operating deficit to the province of British Columbia. They governed British Columbia with eight consecutive deficit budgets. The NDP had five debt management plans and missed every single one of them.

[1445]

The NDP doubled the province's debt between 1991 and 2001. They managed to mismanage the economy so badly that B.C. became a have-not province. During this time there were two credit rating downgrades.

Of course, as my colleagues have reminded and we should continue to remind British Columbians, the NDP were responsible for that most deceitful and shameful act, that fudge-it budget, when the NDP misled British Columbians when they knew they could not deliver a surplus. But on the eve of the 1996 election they put forward that fictional budget only to bring in another one, the real one, after the election.

What have the NDP planned, if they should form government? Well, it'll be equally disastrous. We know that the NDP want to raise the cost of doing business with a new wage policy, a $450 million impact. We know they want to scrap the softwood lumber agreement, which would cost members of the industry $2.4 billion.

They want to ban independent power projects, which will cost $4½ billion in investments throughout the province. They want to increase royalties on the oil and gas sector at a cost of a billion dollars in revenues. They want to tear up the TILMA agreement, costing up to 78,000 jobs.

I know that British Columbians will reject the NDP platform, which is a recipe for economic failure. With our B.C. Liberal government British Columbians can have confidence that the budget, which the Minister of Finance will bring in next Tuesday, will be credible.

Bill 48 will allow B.C. to get through these difficult economic times while preserving the programs that our citizens need. Bill 48 will require government to maintain fiscal prudence and, when the economy recovers, eliminate the operating deficit.

Bill 48 is principled and is right for the times. We will get through these economic times, just as we got through the economic challenges that were brought on our province by such crises as the tech meltdown, 9/11, SARS, forest fires…

R. Hawes: The NDP in the '90s.

J. Yap: …and the NDP in the '90s. We got through that.

In closing, British Columbians can be assured that our government will continue to be the proven, steady stewards of their economy, and Bill 48 is part of our strategy to move B.C. forward. It has my support, and I will be voting in favour of Bill 48.

S. Fraser: I am rising today to speak to Bill 48, the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. I notice in brackets it has to say "deficit authorization." That's got to be ironic and something of a bitter pill for the government members who have been preaching the evils of deficit financing. I understand the turmoil and the volatility of this House during this debate, which I have been watching closely.

Well, we're here, back finally in the Legislature, after the Premier cancelled the democratic parliamentary process known as the fall session during arguably the worst economic meltdown that we have seen in recent history. The Premier cancelled the Legislative Assembly,
[ Page 13639 ]
ducked the responsibility and accountability while the world alarm bells were ringing. They were ringing on the economic front, and it seemed that up till just a few weeks ago deficits were considered evil, even though all over the world we were hearing warning bells ringing.

Throughout this economic meltdown this House did not sit — well, we did; we sat for five days since the end of May — at a time, I believe, when all constituents, regardless of political affiliation, would expect us as legislators to be here addressing the economic crisis that was looming on the horizon and was being warned about by all kinds of indicators and all kinds of experts.

[1450]

Throughout, the Premier and the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance, kept it simple for British Columbians. They denied the impending storm cloud.

Interjection.

S. Fraser: Head went in the sand, I guess. This was happening while alarm bells were ringing all over the place in local media. All over the province, media outlets were blowing the alarms on this one.

On CKNW in early January, when there was still denial that there was a problem in the province and still denial that a deficit budget may be necessary, it says — this was a Christy Clark show, an interview: "There may have been a thought that British Columbia would be exempt from a severe downturn in the economy. We're not that much better off these days than the U.S. I wouldn't use the language 'good fundamentals' when we're probably in a recession. The days when the west was sort of riding on the coattails of a global commodity boom have definitely ended."

On the radio we were hearing this sort of thing daily. The alarm bells were ringing loud and clear, but all was well according to the Premier, the minister and this government.

The Globe and Mail — again, early January: "It is very conceivable B.C. could be in recession. Forecasters are gloomier today. That tells you how quickly things are shifting." These are quotes from the Globe and Mail. "The economy has slowed. It is a bit academic if it is a zero or a bit below that. The export sector is struggling, and the pillars that kept us growing, housing starts and consumer spending, are weakening and stalling."

These are pretty stark reminders of a potential problem in the province of British Columbia, but we had no session, except for five days. There was denial from this Premier and the minister and this government, and no planning that took place to address this at all, because there can be no planning when there's denial of an impending disaster.

The Vancouver Sun, January 24: "Given the extraordinary rapid deterioration of the economic outlook for all countries, the synchronized nature of a full-scale global recession and all the lingering problems in the financial systems and credit markets, there is nothing that can be done to forestall a recession in Canada over the next 12 to 18 months."

"Jock Finlayson, chief economist for the B.C. Business Council, said the B.C. Liberal government is just catching up with what business has been coming to terms with for weeks. He questioned if the province can really rebound in just two years' time."

So we in the province, the people of British Columbia, had plenty of warning and time to plan — a time when we should have been called back to this place, to this Legislative Assembly, to address the economic crisis. We've been playing catch-up ever since, according to Jock Finlayson.

With Bill 48 it's about deficit authorization. It's a colossal deficit in leadership. That's really what this bill is about, and the hallmark of this Liberal government. Bill 48 is legislation that allows the Premier to break his own law. It kind of reminds me of Stephen Harper bringing in, if you recall, legislation on fixed election dates, the rationale so that Prime Ministers could not call an election based on crass political opportunism, and then the Prime Minister turns around and calls an election based on crass political opportunism.

I think we're heading down the same road. There seems to be a parallel there between the B.C. Liberals and a flip-flop on positions, and that was certainly made by the Prime Minister recently.

So let's just recap, because we certainly heard some other versions of history here that I'd like to address. This Bill 48 is a Liberal bill to undo a Liberal bill that made it illegal for the province to run a deficit.

[1455]

This is actually hard to grasp — a Liberal bill to undo a Liberal bill that would do away with deficits. I guess it didn't work, the first bill. How absurd is it that we're standing here this week debating a bill to undo a bill brought in by the same government? How absurd is that?

Just weeks ago this Premier considered a deficit…. Well, it sounded like it was evil. Now, I understand that he lost sleep over this, twisting and turning in bed, because he had to do a complete and hypocritical back flip.

He didn't mention losing sleep over engineering the worst child poverty rate in the country five years —the sixth year, this year — in a row, according to StatsCan. He never mentioned twisting and turning at night over 20,000 forestry jobs lost in this province and the families that have to figure out what to do next without any government leadership, and denial from this Premier.

He never mentioned any personal insomnia, Madam Speaker, over the quadrupling of homelessness in this Liberal golden decade. I note that the Liberal members and ministers and Premier no longer use that slogan very much at all anymore: this golden decade.
[ Page 13640 ]

Let's look back a bit, Madam Speaker. The previous Liberal bill, which Bill 48 is designed to overturn, the bill to forbid Liberal deficits, actually had a loophole when the Liberals brought it in. It was a loophole, a pretty big loophole. It may be a misnomer, but I'll use the term "loophole" because I can't think of another one.

The Liberal government brought in a bill to make it illegal to run deficits, but the loophole allowed them to run back-to-back-to-back deficits. This was a promo stunt at taxpayers' expense, and it was greatly misleading to taxpayers, because it did not prevent this government from running back-to-back-to-back deficits, the highest in history. I believe it was the 2002-2003 budget that was over a $3 billion deficit.

So now we are here with Bill 48 to bring in the fourth, by my count, Liberal deficit — maybe the fifth, if you take the next year they're planning on a massive deficit. So it appears that the Liberal legacy — the norm, if you will — is running deficit budgets. This government's been in…. This is the eighth year. This would make four deficit budgets, despite the fact that this government, to much fanfare, brought in legislation, which we are now working to overturn, to make it illegal to run deficits. Didn't work very well.

You know, I know people that are very cynical of this place, the political process in the province, of politicians of all of stripes. I think that's unfortunate, because I believe many of us are here, regardless of political stripes, in an attempt to do something good for this province.

But when you bring in vacuous bills to much fanfare which are designed to mislead the public — which have no teeth, which have no meaning — in fact, that leads to not just public apathy but to distrust. I believe that type of action dishonours all of us in this place and the role that we all try to play as MLAs and, I daresay, as ministers. It doesn't serve any of us very well, Madam Speaker.

[1500]

We're here debating a Liberal bill that overturns a Liberal bill that says it forbids deficits. How ironic. How absolutely ludicrous. Where was this government when there was a surplus? Because there was a surplus; there were surplus budgets. By my estimation, with this bill and a deficit budget, that would mean that half of the Liberal budgets were arguably surpluses.

We remember when world commodity prices went through the roof, and royalties did roll into the treasury, into the government vault. There is no question. But this government and this Premier were pompously taking credit for international market conditions that they had absolutely no control for. No wonder this government's credibility is shot.

If the Liberals took credit for their few surpluses that they had nothing to do with, then they should take responsibility for deficits too. Instead, they portrayed them as evil. Yet they have engineered four or five deficit budgets in the last…. Well, that'll be eight or nine years.

What did the Liberal government do to prepare us in British Columbia for this economic turmoil? Well, since the minister and the Premier denied that we were going to have a problem, denied that we would even consider a deficit budget, we haven't been preparing at all. If there's denial that there's a problem, that there may be need for a deficit, then that's admission that there was no planning, because you'd have to acknowledge that there was a problem looming on the horizon.

This government set us up to wear…. This is what they did with surpluses. They set us up — the public, the taxpayer — to wear the massive costs of botched megaprojects. Wouldn't $500 million for a building…? It's the overruns on the Vancouver Convention Centre. Wouldn't that go a long way towards helping the needs of British Columbians now?

Now, as we saw in question period, we'll probably never get a straight answer out of this government about the massive cost overruns associated with the Olympics. They're in denial there too. They have disagreed with three consecutive Auditors General on that front. The Auditor General, for those who don't know, is the independent, non-political body that oversees public spending and protects the taxpayer of British Columbia.

So the only response we get — three Auditors General in a row — about massive cost overruns, and I would dare say misleading the public about those…. The only response we've got from the Premier and the minister and this government was denial. Again, the same sort of denial that denied the impending storm of this economic crisis and the potential need for deficit financing.

This government, when there was a surplus, was spending and mismanaging like drunken sailors, guzzling from the glass of self-delusion and arrogance.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: I see I have got the attention of the ministers and members opposite, the government members.

That is out of line, I would suggest, but understanding that there are sensitivities, I will qualify that. I meant that, unqualified, with absolutely no disrespect to drunken sailors everywhere.

During the surpluses, this government brought B.C. the dubious and shameful distinction and legacy of having the worst child poverty rate in the country for six years in a row. A complete misuse, I believe, of their public role to protect those that are the most vulnerable in this province.

[1505]

When there were surpluses, homelessness increased almost 400 percent under this government's priorities — skewed priorities that are not the priorities of British Columbians.

When there were surpluses, this government led us to a position where we have some of the worst crime on
[ Page 13641 ]
the streets that we're seeing today — shootings, gangs.Nothing to prepare us for that. When this government had surpluses they brought us new terms like "hallway medicine," and these are not things to be proud of. These are shameful legacies of this government: skewed priorities, mismanagement and spending on pet megaprojects instead of protecting the public interest, which is the job of any government.

Now, I remember the statement from — I guess I can use her name, Madam Speaker — Carole Taylor, the previous Liberal Finance Minister. Last year she told the media that when it comes to the forest sector, forestry, the Liberal government have been spectators. I always thought that was odd coming from a minister of the Crown, making an admission like that. But that, I think, was the best she could come up with. That was an optimistic view of how this government handled that sector. They orchestrated and engineered the worst crisis in forestry in the history of this province.

So last year she told the media that the Liberal government were spectators when it came to forestry, as the crisis for those families that made a living in this supposedly renewable resource were losing their jobs and got no support from this government — not even an admission that there was a crisis. They were spectators, according to the Finance Minister.

Well, I submit that the Finance Minister stopped short, that she never finished the statement. I submit that she meant that the Liberal government has been watching from the bleachers as spectators since they were elected to office instead of protecting the public interest. They have been cheering with slogans rather than acting with substance. When they do act, it is to the detriment of the people of British Columbia.

The fear of British Columbians that I'm hearing all over the province, certainly in Alberni-Qualicum, in my constituency, is palpable. When this government had surpluses that had nothing to do…. An orangutan could have been in office and would have had surpluses when commodity prices were through the roof, but they took credit — fair enough.

When this government had surpluses, they did anything and everything but protect the public interest. So the great fear of the public today in Alberni-Qualicum, in the Pacific Rim and across the province, is what will this government do with the authorization of Bill 48?

I acknowledge that there are times when governments must go into deficit, but this government…. How will they manage a deficit budget when, with a surplus, they helped dismantle this great province? That's shameful, and it causes great fear for most people in this province.

What will they do? How will they manage a deficit when they did so much damage trying to manage or sitting in the bleachers while they had a surplus? In Port Alberni, in the Alberni Valley in 2004 — this is when there was a surplus; I think it was the first surplus of this government — the Forest Minister of the day, now the House Leader of the government, gave away 80,000 hectares out of tree farm licence 44, completely ringing the Alberni Valley with private managed forest land against his own staff's advice. And he waived, against his staff's advice, the requirement to pay the Crown, the community, back, that that company should have done at the time.

[1510]

Hundreds of millions of dollars squandered that could have helped the people of Port Alberni, the industry in the Alberni Valley and the workers of Port Alberni. So when there was a surplus, they gave it away to friends that paid B.C. Liberals, well, about $500,000.

I hope whoever negotiated that great deal for Weyerhaeuser and their shareholders got a bonus for that deal. So $500,000 bought them hundreds of millions of dollars at taxpayers' expense and at the expense of my constituents. That's what this government did when they had a surplus, instead of preparing us for an inevitable downturn in the economy, which has become a storm cloud of unprecedented measure.

When there was a surplus, this government pulled funding from Fir Park, Echo Village, a seniors facility in a complex care facility in Port Alberni. It's a non-profit facility. It's part of the community. That facility, Fir Park, Echo Village…. I met with the residents, the families, the staff, the administration, the community on this. We are losing — what do they call it? — the pink wing, the secure wing for people with dementia, people that wander, people that need that security. We've lost that in the Alberni Valley.

This happened when there was a surplus. They took that away from the people that needed it the most. They abandoned our seniors that helped build the health care system of this great country and this great province. They cancelled the psych ward at the West Coast General Hospital when they had a surplus. What will they do when they have a deficit? It sends shivers up my spine.

I fought hard to get a hospice, a palliative care facility, in Port Alberni open, and I fought hard on behalf of all hospices on Vancouver Island. There are nine stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island — ten if you include Victoria, which has its own separate organizational setup. But this government, when they had a surplus, failed to even provide core funding for hospice, for quality end-of-life care on Vancouver Island, for the people that need it most. That core funding — I think it amounted to $450,000 for all the stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island — would have covered all their core costs.

This government, when they had a surplus, didn't even provide that amount of money. That's about the amount of money that the CEO for the Vancouver Island Health Authority makes. One wage would fund all nine of those stand-alone hospices on Vancouver Island and allow
[ Page 13642 ]
them to not spend their time fundraising but actually help them to provide the quality end-of-life care that our residents and our seniors deserve.

When times were good, this government failed to provide even a primary health care facility in Qualicum Beach, in Oceanside, on the east side of Vancouver Island. The highest percentage of population of seniors in Canada, and there's no primary health care. It's 40 minutes in any direction. I don't know how many times I've raised that in estimates in this House — and nothing. We've got no investment when the times showed a surplus. Under this government, they abandoned those that needed it most. That's shameful.

What will they do with Bill 48 and this deficit? Now, most people understand the need to run a deficit in trying times. The question is: how will this government manage it when they've mismanaged and they've botched so many things while there was a surplus that they had, that they take credit for and that they had nothing to do with?

They took away obstetrics in the Tofino hospital. Clayoquot Sound. The Tofino hospital is the only public health facility on the west coast. That includes all the Nuu-chah-nulth communities and, in the summer, sometimes 20,000 tourists. This government wouldn't put enough funds in that hospital so that they could keep obstetrics.

[1515]

There is some consistency under this government's lack of consideration for public interest. They won't support those that need it most with end-of-life care, and on the other end of the spectrum, they take away the services needed for the beginning-of-life care. And that's when they had a surplus. What will they do with a deficit? It's terrifying.

In a time of economic downturn it is so important to invest in our future, in education, in post-secondary education. Now, this government, when the times were good, made an art form of taking away the availability of that post-secondary education. They gutted skill-training programs — a scathing report from the Auditor General, which will just be denied by this government, just like they denied the Auditor General's reports on other issues, like the cost overruns on the Olympics.

In my constituency there's a college known as North Island College, in Port Alberni. As they prepare to train and retrain people for their future education or retraining opportunities that must happen during this time — this economic downturn, with the high rates of unemployment that are being created by this economic catastrophe, by some estimations…. This is the time to retrain them.

This government and the minister, who seems to be smiling over there, pulled the 2009-2010 budget of North Island College. They pulled 2.6 percent out of their budget, based on the five-year plan, weeks before North Island College had to have its budget in last year. How does that help with retraining? It does not. They're doing the exact opposite. They did that with a surplus. What will they do with a deficit?

They need to restore that funding to North Island College, and they need to provide additional funds. I know North Island is looking for an additional 5 percent to help address the economic needs of this unprecedented time we're going through, and it's not happening. It didn't happen when they had a surplus. My God, what are they going to do next, when they're authorized for a deficit?

North Island College needs a $1.75 million bump-up, and that'd be the best investment that this government can make in retraining in the Alberni Valley.

The Alberni Valley industrial review. This government's own report said that retraining was essential, and the response from the minister and the ministry was to cut their budget when they had a surplus. My God, what will they do when they have a deficit?

Now, I would normally be able to support Bill 48. I may well vote in favour of it. The great fear is what they will do with that deficit.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 48. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, as I've sat here and I've listened to NDP speaker after NDP speaker talk about issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the bill that is before this House…. It is rather extraordinary, because once again I find myself in this bizarre situation in this House. It is rather historically extraordinary that once again we are going to be here listening to the NDP spout off for hours and hours on a bill that they're going to support.

You know, we just went through this recently to deal with the situation with the city of Vancouver. We just went through this in November, when we were talking about the Premier's ten-point economic plan to give a shot in the arm to the economy to make sure that British Columbia will have the resources and tools it needs to ride out the economic storm. The NDP went on for, I think it was, about 16 hours, and then they voted for it.

Even going back to the Tsawwassen treaty, for goodness' sake, I remember we listened to about 30 or 40 hours of nonsense. Apparently, it was the worst treaty in the world. What did they do? They ended up voting for it.

This is just bizarre. I thought that this chamber was supposed to be about people speaking against something and then following through and voting against it, but apparently, that doesn't work in the NDP world.

[1520]

So what are we doing here today? We are listening to speeches. We just heard the member for Alberni-Qualicum, on the one hand, say that this was a government that was spending like drunken sailors and then, on the
[ Page 13643 ]
other hand, give the Minister of Advanced Education heck because he dared to have a 2½ percent reduction in some dollars that went to a college he mentioned.

It is truly incredible. On the one hand, spending too much. On the other hand, "My God, you're not spending enough," and then he listed off a bunch of projects that he thought we should have been spending like crazy on.

That is classic NDP, and that's one of the reasons why we're here today. We're here today to talk about the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, and why is that?

Well, it's because in 2001 our government brought in a bill called the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. We brought in a bill to replace a bill that the NDP, in the dying days of their government back in 2000…. They decided, after a decade of some of the most reckless, irresponsible spending deficits, that they had to pretend that they had suddenly found religion. So on death's door they introduced what they called — what did they call it? — the Balanced Budget Act.

The problem with the Balanced Budget Act was you could have driven a truck through all the exemptions that were in that act.

Our government said: "No. We're going to restore financial credibility to this province. We're going to introduce a balanced budget and ministerial accountability act that is actually and specifically designed to be difficult and tough. If a government faces a situation as our government does today, where we are going to have to say to the public of British Columbia that the situation and circumstances that our province and our country find ourselves in are so significant that we are going to be forced to go before the House and the public and say that we are not going to be able to balance it, we're not going to be able to fiddle with the budget as they did in the 1996 fudge-it budget fiasco. We're not going to lie to the public and bring forward something that there's no chance on earth that it's going to be honest or going to be balanced. We are going to be forced to come forward and make a very difficult declaration about how we're going to deal with it."

We did that because we were trying to restore credibility, especially financial credibility, in the province of British Columbia. You know, financial credibility is important. You'll remember in the 1990s; most people remember the Clinton years. The economy was booming. It was booming around the world. It was booming everywhere except this one little economic black hole called British Columbia.

Amazingly enough, in a time of economic expansion everywhere else, where President Clinton was able to balance his budget…. He was able to talk about the great strength of the American economy. Europe was doing well. All around the world everything was doing well. Suddenly, in British Columbia what happened? What was the record?

The record was that in spite of the fact that in 1991, when the NDP ran for office…. Remember they ran those commercials that said, "We won't spend one nickel more than we take in," and they had a little piggy bank that they dropped that nickel in. And what happened? Every single year, deficit budgets. Every single year. It was embarrassing in the scale and the scope of that.

Then what did they do? Then they said: "Well, okay." They were getting embarrassed because they were having all these deficits. So then they brought in what they called debt management plans. They missed every single financial target they set in five debt management plans. And you know what they did after that? They just stopped. They scrapped the whole debt management plan completely, as it was becoming so embarrassing for the government.

They had two credit downgrades. The triple-A credit that they inherited they managed to downgrade on a number of occasions through the '90s.

We also in British Columbia faced a situation where, rather extraordinarily, if you think about it, because British Columbia is where everyone wants to move to…. This is the province that everyone really wants to be part of. They actually managed the feat of singularly driving more people out of the province than were coming to the province.

Some of our best and brightest were fleeing the province — net out-migration in the province of British Columbia year after year. They managed to put into place…. British Columbia had the highest marginal personal income tax rate in North America. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wanted to pay the highest rate, almost 54 percent, move to British Columbia under the NDP, and you were paying it.

[1525]

That was the situation that we inherited in 2001. So what did we do? Well, the first thing we did was we introduced the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The second thing we did is we said we were going to balance the budget within the first three years. Now….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Is there an echo in here?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, would you sit down for a moment, please.

Members, order. Order, Member.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm going to address the comments that the member keeps piping up about over there. But I think the critical thing to recognize is that when
[ Page 13644 ]
we brought in the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, we said we would balance our budget within the first three years.

Now, we faced unexpected circumstances. That actually happens in government. As some other speakers have pointed out, we started out with 9/11. That wasn't an easy experience for the economies across North America. Then we had the SARS situation, a rather extraordinary health crisis that was facing British Columbia. We had the avian flu, and then we had forest fires ravaging one end of the province to the other. It was a challenging time.

We heard the NDP for the entire time saying: "Oh, my God, how dare you think about balancing the budget." I'll even say, in fairness to the NDP, that there were even members of the business community suggesting that they weren't sure we would be able to balance the budget. But I'll tell you this. The Premier stayed committed to that goal. He stayed committed to the goal, because it's always going to be easy to find excuses not to do the right thing. We balanced the budget in our first three years, exactly like we said we were going do. That was the start of rebuilding financial credibility in this province.

The other thing we did on our first day in office was we cut personal income taxes 25 percent. We did a further 10 percent tax cut two years later. We just did, most recently, another 5 percent tax cut in the Premier's ten-point plan.

For five years I listened to the NDP in this House talk about how we were gutting all the revenues of the province, and we wouldn't have any money for public education. We wouldn't have any money for health care. I listened to that chant continuously across there. You know what? They were wrong. Once again, they were wrong. They only have to go and look at the audited financial statements of this province and look under personal income tax revenues, and they will find that today they are far greater than they were in 2001.

I get that that's a challenge, because they still haven't figured out how to read financial statements. I've offered to give a course. I've offered to do it in crayon, if that's helpful. But the point is that they still don't understand basic finances.

So what did we hear? We heard that we needed to spend more. We had to spend on this; we had to spend on that. What have we done? Health care. When we were elected, an $8.2 billion budget. Today it's over $14 billion. And what do I hear from the NDP? That apparently, in NDP finance, is a cut.

Then we've got K-to-12 education, the highest level of funding today than ever in the history of K-to-12 education funding. And what do the NDP…? That's in spite of the fact that there are 60,000 fewer kids in the system. They still talk about cuts to education.

Then we've got post-secondary. If you travel to my old university, Simon Fraser University, you don't even recognize it today with all the new buildings, all the new programs. A 40 percent post-secondary increase in the budget from when we were elected in 2001, and still we'll hear the NDP talk about how there is a cut to post-secondary education. It is rather extraordinary.

After we balanced the budget like we said we would do within our first three years, we then started running up surplus budgets. What happened when we were running up the surplus budgets? Well, the hue and the cry from the opposition was that we ought to be spending it. "We should be spending it here. We should be spending it there. We should be spending it everywhere." That's what we heard from the NDP.

There was never any talk from the NDP…. Not once did we ever hear them say: "Maybe we ought to pay down some debt. Maybe we should put some aside for a rainy day." There was none of that. It was all about how we weren't spending enough — not fast enough, not big enough, not soon enough. That's all we heard from the NDP.

So what did we do? We reduced the operating debt….

Interjections.

[1530]

Hon. K. Falcon: The members opposite should know that they will get their time. I've sat and I've listened to them go on with their drivel hour after hour, and I'm afraid they're going to have to listen to facts. I know that the facts are uncomfortable to the NDP. But these are actual facts, because when the government talks about this, we know we're going to be held to account, we know that it's going to be in Hansard, and we'll say what is exactly a fact.

I know it's uncomfortable for the NDP. I know in the dour, negative, unhappy world of the socialists, this is a difficult message to hear. But they're going to have to hear it, because it's actual facts.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

So what did we do? We had surplus budgets. We paid down the operating debt 47 percent. That's $7.4 billion over the last five years. The NDP wanted us to spend all that. They didn't say that was a good thing. They didn't say: "Congratulations, government, for paying down that operating debt we ran up." They said we should be spending more on every other thing that they could dream up.

We created 400,000 new jobs in the province of British Columbia. We restored British Columbia's credit rating to triple-A. B.C., Alberta and the federal government are the only governments with triple-A credit rating in the country today. We are proud of that record.

Remember, when the NDP were in power, in addition to having the highest personal income tax rates in North America, they also thought it made sense to tax
[ Page 13645 ]
the lowest-income people in the province. One of the things we did was eliminate all taxes for those earning $16,000 and less.

In the NDP government days they thought it was appropriate to tax a single mother earning $13,000 or $14,000 a year. They felt it was important that they take money out of her pocket and spend it on their wild spending plans that drove this economy into debt and deficit. We decided that didn't make any sense, and we eliminated all provincial tax for those earning $16,000 and less.

As we go forward, the challenges that we face as a province are real, and they are significant. What is happening around the world today is very, very challenging for governments — not just here, not just in Canada, but in the United States, in Europe and around the world.

But I am amazed to find, as I've listened to the debate, that nothing has changed on the NDP side of the benches. They're still talking about imposing a billion dollars of new taxes on the oil and gas sector, thereby bringing to the knees one of the great revenue generators for the province of British Columbia. They're still talking about imposing over $400 million in new costs on small business, therefore just wiping out — chopping off at the knees — a sector that is so responsible for instilling confidence and for hiring people.

Just last week I heard their ferry critics, in the wake of our 33 percent fare reduction that we had in place for two months as part of the Premier's economic stimulus plan to try and put a shot in the arm for ferry-dependent communities over the holidays….

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, we've got a member…. The member from the Sunshine Coast is yammering away over there. This is a member that was coming to me complaining about the fact about fares….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, we don't refer to people whether they're in or out of the House.

Hon. K. Falcon: Some of the coastal ferry-dependent community MLAs have been whining about the fact that as part of the Premier's ten-point plan, we had a 33 percent fare reduction for two months. When the 33 percent fare promotion ended, there was a further 5 percent reduction in fares — quite happily — on the minor routes, including those from which some of the members heckle. Not only have all the fuel surcharges been taken off, but there was a further reduction of 5 percent for the benefit of the minor routes.

But I heard the ferry critic — in the midst, remind yourselves, of one of the most challenging economic circumstances we've faced — criticizing us for taking it off and saying that it should stay in place permanently. So in the drop of a hat the NDP ferries critic just made a spending commitment that will be at least $150 million a year.

It's like the NDP have their foot stuck on the spending accelerator, and they just don't know how to lift it. They don't understand that the world has changed 100 percent from just the last few months. Yet that was only a week ago that we heard the NDP talking about how the government should commit itself to $150 million more annually for years on end. It's just incredible.

[1535]

So what are we going to do? We're going to invest wisely. We're going to invest in projects that are going to have medium- and long-term economic impact positively for the province of British Columbia. That's why we're moving forward with investments in the Cariboo connector to open up that important corridor from Cache Creek to Prince George — over $100 million worth of projects underway this year alone. We are going to continue investing in the Kicking Horse Canyon — over $200 million to date, opening up that critical transportation corridor from British Columbia to the rest of Canada.

Again, projects that the NDP have opposed. The William Bennett Bridge, the new bridge again opening up ahead of schedule on budget — very important for the communities of the Interior. Again, a project that we heard consistent opposition….

The Sea to Sky Highway, a project I just visited for the 80 percent milestone in terms of the completion. They're going to be finished ahead of schedule on budget — again, a project that has employed thousands of British Columbians, one of the most successful major complex transportation projects ever being delivered in this province, and the NDP continue to oppose the Sea to Sky Highway.

But there are three others I want to mention, because I think what distinguishes this government from the opposition is that when we say we're going to do something, we actually do it. Whether it's saying that we're going to balance the budget within our first three years of our term and doing it or whether it's when we say we're going to build a piece of infrastructure — a road and a bridge — we will actually do it.

Under the NDP, they promised multiple promises. They promised on multiple occasions a new Pitt River bridge for the northeast sector of the Lower Mainland. They never delivered on it. Today we said we would do it. It is under construction. It is ahead of schedule. It's a $200 million seven-lane bridge that's going to open up opportunities for the northeastern part of the Lower Mainland for many decades to come.

Then there's the Port Mann Bridge. The NDP promised a new Port Mann bridge multiple times in the 1990s. I could read the quotes right into Hansard. Multiple times. And whatever happened to that? They did not deliver at
[ Page 13646 ]
all. So what did we say we're going to do? We said we're going to do it. The NDP opposed it. In fact, the Leader of the Official Opposition, for the first time that I can recall, actually took a position on a major project, and she said: "Wrong bridge, wrong plan."

I was excited about that because that's the first time I'd ever seen her take a position. But that position is now, I guess you would say in political terms, evolving. It would appear that maybe the Leader of the Opposition isn't quite so steadfast in her opposition to building this bridge.

But you know what? That isn't leadership. That's not leadership. That's just putting your finger up in the wind and saying: "Uh-oh. I realize everyone in the Lower Mainland wants this done. Maybe I'd better change my position on that." But I'll tell you this. We're building the Port Mann Bridge. Those 8,000 jobs are going to be important for the Lower Mainland. That corridor is important for the province of British Columbia. It's important to the Pacific gateway, and that's why we're moving forward.

On the South Fraser perimeter road, another project the NDP promised in the '90s…. It's been called for, for over 20 years as part of all the local and regional plans that have been in the Lower Mainland for many, many years, and we've got the member for Delta North in the NDP just in the last couple of months leading a protest against it. They're against that project.

Well, I can tell you today that it is under construction. There are hundreds of British Columbians at work because we said we're getting it done. We didn't waver in the opposition that the NDP had against that project and every other economic development project, and ladies and gentlemen, right now is exactly the right time we should be building those projects.

We need the jobs. We need those jobs. We need that economic development. Thankfully, we have a Premier who is a leader, who actually does have a vision, who says when he lays out that vision that he follows that vision, which builds the projects that we say we're going to build. When the Premier says that we're going to get a project like the South Fraser perimeter road or the Port Mann or the Cariboo connector or the William Bennett Bridge or the Kicking Horse Canyon, we get it done in spite of the opposition of that NDP.

I sit in this House, and I listened to the previous speaker, the NDP member for Alberni-Qualicum. He mocks the fact that the Premier was losing sleep over the decision we had to make to come forward before the House and say to the people of British Columbia that we are going to have to incur deficits for the next two years. He mocks that. He says he can't believe the Premier would lose sleep over that.

Well, I get that the NDP would never lose sleep about debt and deficits. They proved that more than enough in their decade of disastrous management in the 1990s when they doubled debt and ran up deficits every year but one. I totally understand that. But you know, it is important that the public know that it should be difficult. We designed the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to make it difficult for government.

[1540]

We wanted to make sure that if a government was going to make a decision to be bringing forward a bill like this, they would have to do it transparently and openly, and they would have to do it in the Legislature in front of the people of the province of British Columbia.

That is what we are doing today. With the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, we are doing that. I am proud of the fact that we are doing that. It is not an easy decision, but it is the right decision because it follows in a long tradition of our belief in government that there has to be a restoration of financial credibility in this province after the decade we saw in the 1990s.

The fact that we have to move forward over the next couple of years with temporary deficits is not something we are proud of, but it is something that we have said to the public of B.C. is necessary. It is necessary for us to maintain the services that we've put in place. It's necessary for us as we go forward as a province because we need to make very strategic investments now more than ever to invest in the economy, to invest in jobs and to invest in the future of the province of British Columbia.

We said we would come out of this within two years. Now, the NDP — and I heard them — have talked about: "Oh, oh." They're mocking that. "They say they'll come back in two years. They never will."

Well, that might have some resonance if we weren't the government that said we would balance the budget in our first term within three years and did it. It might have some resonance if we weren't the government that said we were going to build major projects, and we did them. It might have some resonance if we weren't the government that on occasion after occasion after occasion have said we were going to do things and have followed through and got them done.

I know it's an uncomfortable message for the members opposite, but right now in British Columbia what we really do need is leadership. We need economic stewardship of this province and leadership that will get us through these difficult times and will move us forward as we go forward to the good times when they return.

I can only think of the Olympics and the benefit that that is going to be at the most unbelievable time for British Columbia. Here is a time when we have an event taking place in British Columbia that is going to be celebrated as one of the great successes.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I hear a voice over there saying: "What is the cost?" Well, Member, why don't we just take a look
[ Page 13647 ]
at that for a moment? Actually, the cost is $580 million for all the venues, and this is one of the only jurisdictions hosting an Olympics to have the venues in place, built a year ahead of schedule in place for the Olympics.

They hang their hat on the fact that we've acknowledged a long time ago, at least a year ago, that the security costs are going to be more. Oh, they just wring, and they cry, and they talk about how the end of the world is coming. They can't deal with the fact that we are going to host an incredible event.

It's not just that we're hosting an incredible event. It just is that the timing of this event could not be better for the province of British Columbia. At a time when the economy could use a real shot in the arm, we will be seeing investments on a daily basis of about $3 million to $4 million every single day in British Columbia as we lead up to those Olympics.

The $4 billion that's being invested in this province is going to generate jobs and confidence. It's going to give us exposure around the world like we could never, ever possibly have imagined that British Columbia could have. It's Expo times one hundred.

Ironically enough, the NDP opposed Expo 86 too. Not a great surprise. They opposed the Olympics too. But they oppose every significant project that is an economic generator for the province of British Columbia.

Ladies and gentlemen, now is the time for leadership. It is a time in British Columbia where we do need strong leadership, where we've got a Premier who's not afraid to lead, who has stayed focused on the economy during the times when the opposition was telling us that we need to spend on every last-minute thought that popped into their head without any plan, without any vision, without any economic plan.

We have an economic plan. We're going to continue to follow that plan. We're going to deal with the challenges that we're facing now. British Columbia, of all the jurisdictions across North America, is the best-positioned to deal with this as we go forward.

Madam Speaker, as I conclude, let me just say that we are at a time that is challenging all of us as British Columbians. It is going to be a very difficult and challenging time. I think it's at a time like this, actually, when records do become very important. It is important for the public to look at records — the record of this government and our commitments, how we followed through, the financial discipline, the financial management, the paying down of debt, the restoration of a triple-A credit rating and surplus budgets.

Then there's the record of the NDP in the '90s — a record of deficits every single year during some of the greatest economic times around the world, a doubling of the debt, financial mismanagement from fast ferries to you know what. It just went on and on. That is the record that British Columbians are going to be thinking about.

[1545]

That is their economic record that we're going to oppose and make sure we continue to steer the ship of British Columbia through these stormy waters and make sure that we go forward in a confident position so that we can challenge the best in British Columbians and that as the economy recovers, British Columbia will be there leading the country as we move forward.

N. Simons: I thank the minister for his comments — some of them reasoned, some of them based on fact, some of them entertaining, some of them less so.

I think it's important to start by pointing out some of the hypocrisy of his statements, but those will probably come up as I speak. He said that when they say they're going to do something, they're going to do it. But we're here debating a bill that says: "We're not going to do what we said we were going to do."

In fact, it's the complete opposite of what that minister just told the House and told the people of British Columbia — that, in fact, we're going to pass a law because it sounds like good public relations, that we're never going to have a deficit, and then make a big brouhaha over that. When the time comes, when the people of British Columbia need to be protected by some of the economic forces that exist in this world, then you have to change the law.

I think some of the affront that is felt by the people of British Columbia is due to the fact that they so confidently, so arrogantly said that they would be good financial managers, and we've seen a litany of examples where that is just simply not the case.

The discomfort we have with this particular session is due to the fact that we shouldn't really be here. We're here only because we have to change a bad law that they made six years ago, which they broke every year in a row by allowing every single minister to overspend when they were told…. What part of the ministerial accountability part?

Every single year they came into this House and changed the rules. The law was bad when they passed it, and the people of British Columbia were reminded year after year that it was bad legislation in the first place.

So here we are again making another excuse. I remember pitching a ball to my little sister, playing ball — you know, strike one, strike two. You give them an extra few, you know. But this is a government that's giving themselves an extra few. We're here. We're in a difficult economic time. We all recognize that. We all recognize that we have to protect the people of British Columbia from the forces that are stronger than this government is able to handle, and that's understandable.

But let me ask this: how is it that we've emerged at this time in this province in such a terrible state after having gone through a period of time when our economy was doing well due to circumstances that are far beyond not only the control but the understanding of this government?
[ Page 13648 ]

My suggestion to this government is that they stop doing this public relations exercise and start thinking about what's important for the people of British Columbia. We're in this session today and talking about Bill 48 today because their previous legislation was bad legislation to start with. It was public relations. It was based on the fact that they wanted to do style over substance, and the minister proudly talks about the cuts that he had to make in 2001-2002.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Speaker.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I know the acoustics in this place are good, and I know that the sound bounces around, but I should make eye contact with you. Thank you for the reminder.

What we have in front of us is Bill 48. Actually, I would like to correct the previous speaker. The reason that we're here is that we're pointing out to the people of British Columbia the fundamental hypocrisy of this government in its most pure and obvious form.

The legislation they passed back in 2003, I believe it was, which we are now changing completely for two years, was simply based on trying to endear themselves to the people of the province — mostly their friends in the province.

We remember the core review. We remember what this government did to the services, to the people of British Columbia. He can proudly state that he was the minister responsible for deregulation and that the deregulation sprint award was given to the Ministry of Children and Families.

[1550]

Despite the fact that we have example after example of how children's lives were not just badly affected, but worse than that, the government has shown no contrition. In fact, they spent three years arguing that everything they did was okay when we know, and the people of British Columbia know, that they were irresponsible with the cuts that they made. Those cuts were made simply to please their friends and try and endear themselves to a British Columbia population who knows better — thankfully, who knows better.

We're here because we're fixing some bad legislation, albeit temporarily. Their public relations exercise was a bad public relations exercise, and I hope that in the future they recognize that — that they stop themselves from touting legislation that purports to serve British Columbians. They should think into the future that perhaps one day they might have to come back here and hang their heads down and recognize that really all they're doing is trying to address something that was absolutely hypocritical in the first place.

We do talk about the Premier recently saying that he was going to lose sleep over the fact that we were going to run a deficit. Let's recognize one thing. There are children in the province who lose sleep because they know that their government has essentially abandoned their needs. They've abandoned their needs when they're taking an hour and a half to get to school and back. They've abandoned their needs when they're sitting on waiting lists to get assessments for special needs.

They've abandoned the children in this province when they've cut social services to such a degree that it's almost impossible for social workers to keep up with the demand. They've abandoned children in this province because we lead the country again — for the sixth year, mind you — in child poverty in Canada. You know, I take no pride in saying this. I am not glad that this is the case, but I'm saying it's the responsibility of government to address these issues.

Why don't you lose sleep? Why don't you lose sleep when you know for a fact that children in this province are suffering? They're suffering not because they're hungry, but partly because they're hungry because they can't afford healthy food, because they're living in mouldy houses, because they're living without support to their parents who need it.

Addictions services have been cut. Services for mental health have been cut. People who live on the street are relatives of these children. We are all responsible, but nobody loses sleep over that. That's why we bring it up. We're not mocking the fact that he's losing sleep. It's too bad he's losing sleep. If he had more sleep, maybe he'd be able to think more appropriately about the needs of British Columbians.

I don't want him to lose sleep. I don't want the Premier to lose sleep, but I would like him to at least — instead of pretending and instead of shedding alligator tears over the fact that he has to come back and fix a problem that he created for himself — deal with the issues facing British Columbians. We are already….

Interjection.

N. Simons: The member from somewhere on my left here is deciding that he's got something to say. I heard what he had to say, and all it was, was justifying his government's position — his untenable position — to change a law on a whim instead of actually thinking about the legislation before it came before the House in the first place.

I think we need to do what we have to do to protect British Columbians, because for the last number of years their needs have been put second. Their needs have been subservient to the needs of the friends of this government, the people who they gave corporate tax breaks to, the banks that got deals from them.

Meanwhile all across this province we've seen courthouses close, we've seen elementary schools close, we've seen classes overcrowded, and we've seen hospital beds that are full. The list is almost…. It's too long to say
[ Page 13649 ]
in the half hour that I've got, but the people of British Columbia know that this government's priorities have not included them.

They've included the people who pay them to get elected, the people who pay them to be part of the inside circle, the inner circle where regular British Columbians don't belong. I'm sorry, but Bill 48 should be just that. It should be a sign that says this government is all about public relations and not about substance.

[1555]

Unfortunately, that's the message that people have to put up with, but they know there are better days coming. There are better days coming, when a government will be in place in this province that actually cares about the people first. That shouldn't be a dream. That should be something we all attempted to achieve.

There are a number of things that concern me about this legislation because of the fact that it shouldn't have to be before our House today. We should be talking about how to address the needs of the population and not have to be fixing the mistakes, coming back and rewriting an exam. They should have studied the first time.

How many chances do they get? I think they've struck out. I don't think I'm going to pitch them another softball so they can try to hit it. I think they're out. They should go back to the dugout. They should go back to their dugout or maybe even to their showers.

I say it's time to call in a pinch-hitter. It's time to call in a whole new team, and that whole new team will not include members from this government.

If you want to look at government waste, we can look no further than the Minister of Children and Families and the mess that's been created in that ministry, the mess that started the first day they decided to deregulate everything. We know of the tragedies that occurred due to that, but we also have to recognize that a lot of money has been spent going after vainglorious titles and new relationship shimmer.

The truth of the matter is that first nations are in no better position today because of this government in terms of child welfare. They are in no better condition today, nor are any other children in this province.

They spent $30 million regionalizing services, and then they stopped that dead in its track. Thirty million dollars — I know that would go a long way to reduce wait-lists for children with special needs who need to have an assessment in order to access services.

Those are children that I meet on a daily basis. Those are parents who are worried for their children. Parents and their families know that it's this government's priorities that have left them at the back of the bus. It's this government's priorities that have left their children at the back of the bus, and it's this government's priorities that are continuing to cause hardship to people all across this province.

Interjection.

N. Simons: Oh, and the Minister of Transportation also mentioned something earlier, and I know I put him off….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you don't allude to whether somebody is in the House or out.

N. Simons: Madam Speaker, I apologize if I made any allusion to that. I don't know whether he's in this House or not.

The Minister of Transportation earlier stated that this 33 percent cut in ferry costs for two months…. Let's put that into perspective. For years and years this minister has been telling people in my community: "If you've got a problem with ferries, go to the commissioner." The commissioner says: "If you've got a problem with ferries, go to the CEO of B.C. Ferries." The CEO says: "Go back to the minister." It's like we're running around in circles, because nobody took responsibility until last year, when there was an economic downturn and they decided to give us a present for two months — a 33 percent reduction.

The minister should also know this. The people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast and the retailers of Powell River–Sunshine Coast would have liked to have been consulted. They would have liked to have been consulted. You wouldn't do it at the time of the highest retail sales, when you were encouraging people to shop in the Lower Mainland or on the Island.

The minister should know that, if he only asked. But did he? No, because he's got nothing to do with ferries until it's some sort of particular opportunity to make himself look good. Well, good luck, because that ain't going to do it — a 33 percent reduction.

Part of that ten-point economic plan, I might add, included the restoration of two sailings. Oh, that'll do. Yeah, that'll really help us in this economic time. Oh, are we finished with the economic crisis? Is that two-month shot in the arm going to do anything for any lasting period of time? I don't think so.

If the minister can intervene in B.C. Ferries for two months, he should be able to do it for a little bit longer. But he's failed not only coastal communities. He hasn't just failed the people of British Columbia. He's failed, specifically, the people of the coastal communities. And you know what? If he bothered to ask the community members, they would have said: "If you're going to encourage people to shop off the coast, don't do it at our most important time. We get a lot of our revenue during the Christmas period."

[1600]

He reduced fares by 33 percent. I'm sure that it encouraged people to visit their families, and there's nothing I would have encouraged more. But it also encouraged them to do their Christmas shopping off the coast, and I don't think that the retailers who have spoken to me
[ Page 13650 ]
or the chambers of commerce or the people in business said that that was a good idea, because they didn't talk to the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

N. Simons: Instead of offering a discount during the most important time of the retail cycle….

Interjections.

N. Simons: If the members opposite would maybe stop and listen for a moment, they would understand.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

N. Simons: I'm not in any way suggesting telling the minister what he should and shouldn't do. I'm suggesting that when he makes decisions that have a huge impact on the people of coastal British Columbia, he perhaps should consult with them. Maybe he should have had a consultation before they cancelled the Sunday morning sailing, where every athlete who is competing in a meet has to take the ferry into town, or the Saturday night back, so that people who have gone skiing along the beautiful highway that he keeps talking about and glowing about and turning red about can come back at night.

I'm just saying to consult with the people. That's what government is supposed to do. Don't go around like some guy who's just handing out money, hoping that it's going to make them feel good or make people think he's a nice guy. The truth of the matter is that B.C. Ferries' policies, if in fact the government can intervene, which they can apparently do only two months out of every eight years…. They should actually consult with the people of British Columbia, especially coastal communities. That's all I'm saying.

I'm sorry if any member opposite, present or not, is upset at the fact that I've pointed out the flaw in their policy decisions or their management style, which is pretty pathetic. I'm just pointing out a fact of life for coastal British Columbians, the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast — the only ferry-dependent community in the entire province, the only ferry-dependent constituency in the entire province — and I'm not referring to myself.

If we talk more about the Ministry of Children and Families…. Transformation. What happened with transformation? Strong, safe and supportive. What happened to strong, safe and supportive? Regionalization. What happened to that? Aboriginal regionalization. What happened to that? Where are all these family mediators that they talked about?

They've hired 45 social workers in the past two years, and I bet those figures are down because most people are quitting working for this government. I wouldn't want to work for this government as a social worker anymore. You have no tools. You have no ability to actually do something good for a family. Every interaction seems to be conflictual now.

They've cut to the bone. You know who hurts when they cut to the bone? It's the children of the province who hurt the most. It's the vulnerable parents in this province who hurt the most. Those families are the ones suffering under this arrogant government's regime, and I'm looking forward to May, because it's time for them to go.

The minister for deregulation at the time proudly cooed that they cut the ministry's budget, as if it didn't have an impact — as if it didn't have an impact on the quality of life of the social workers and of the children. And as if it didn't have an impact….

Oh, what about CLBC? Let's talk about this. This is the bad managers of the Liberal party, the bad managers. It's all shine. It's all shiny; it's all smooth. But the truth of the matter is that they failed. They failed to manage this file, and if they failed this file as badly as they failed forestry, which I know they did, or if they failed it as badly as they did agriculture, as I know they did, or if they failed it as badly as they did education, as I know they did, they failed a heck of a lot of people in this province.

We're the bottom four in social conditions. We're the number one in child poverty. And the government continues to crow as if everything is good. Seniors care. Seniors. Half the hospital in Powell River is occupied by residents who need long-term care. They're not getting the same kind of support they need as if the long-term care beds that this government promised ever came along.

So I'm just saying that we have a bill in front of us that is all about trying to undo a false promise they made years ago. We can't control the world economy. Did they think they could back in 2003 when they passed the legislation? I think they actually did. I think they actually took credit for everything good that happened in this world, because they seem to think all of a sudden that it was the NDP's fault in the past. It was always the NDP's fault. Well, if that's the case, we would blame them for the current situation.

[1605]

I'm not doing that. I'm not actually doing that. They might be defensive, but I'm not blaming them for everything bad. But I will blame them for putting us in a situation where we're entering or we're in the midst of a downturn economically at a terrible starting place. We are so behind going into this.
[ Page 13651 ]

What would have happened if we had actually thought a little bit ahead of time and invested in some of the social infrastructure that would have prevented the needs later on? But now, no, 38 people from legal services have to be cut. We're going to have two people answering the Law Line.

Maybe the ministers opposite don't care. Maybe they don't know anybody who'd ever have to use a lawyer that they wouldn't be willing to pay for willingly out of their pocket to defend them against some unfounded allegation.

Madam Speaker, I'm sure that you're aware of the circumstances in this province. Women are going to be the most affected by the cuts to legal services. Women are the most affected by the cuts to transition house funding. Women are the most affected by the cuts to social services programs, and it's women that have to recognize that this government doesn't actually think about that.

I'm just disappointed that I have to be here debating a bill that was actually just their own cover, their makeup, their false pretences. They put forward a bill in 2003 saying they were going to be perfect. They come along now and say: "Well, we can't be perfect. We're going to change the rules, so we're allowing ourselves…." Not to mention that we had reminders year after year when they had to allow ministers off the hook so that they could collect their thousands-of-dollar bonuses. That's just disappointing. That's why British Columbians are probably sick and tired of this government.

They've closed schools in every community. Education funding has disproportionately affected rural communities, communities that I represent proudly. Environmental protection. They've cut conservation officers. They've taken local government voice away.

This government talks about accountability. There's nothing to do with it. Accountability is the last thing on this government's agenda. In fact, if they can hide something negative, they're going to do it. You see it in question period every single day. They're going to say: "Take that on notice" or "Put that away" or "We'll answer with a question."

The fact is that British Columbians want answers. We ask the questions; they give nothing. They give nothing. I hope that enough people are able to access that channel way up high in those numbers where they can watch us day after day as we talk about issues that affect them.

One issue that affects them the most is Bill 48. It is the perfect example. It is the epitome of arrogance, and it's here we're talking about it. We're talking about it because we're pointing out the failure of this government. That's important to do as opposition, because you don't have a lot of opportunity to make the decisions that have an impact on children or families in this province. You watch them as they turn it into a destructive and horrible situation for so many people. You know, I cannot think of a sector in our society that isn't negatively affected by this government's priorities, except maybe banks and maybe some of the larger corporations.

Let's be realistic about it. We're here discussing legislation that should never have been placed before us or tabled in this House. They've sold out the people of British Columbia. They've sold out the lands and the resources of British Columbians. They've sold off our assets in record amounts, and still we're in a situation where we've got these deficits.

If maybe they'd thought a bit into the future, if maybe they thought that perhaps the day might come that we're going to have to problem…. "Let's be responsible." No. They squandered surpluses. Those surpluses are the legs you walk over on the streets of downtown Vancouver. Those surpluses are the children who are without safe and secure places to live. They are the mould in the houses on reserve and off.

These are the issues that this government has failed to address. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it's the government's responsibility to protect and support the population of British Columbia, and I think that they've failed to do that. They've done nothing but simply acquiesce to the demands of their friends and leave everybody else behind. So it's disappointing to me that we're here, as disappointing as the minister previously pretended he was, you know, crying about the fact that we were talking about Bill 48. He went on and on and on about what he thought the record of previous government was.

[1610]

Well, we're here to say quite clearly that our priorities will always be the people of British Columbia first and foremost. It'll be the health care professionals. It'll be our hospital infrastructure. It'll be our transportation infrastructure. Instead of cutting maintenance and causing old people to stay in their homes because they can't get out for days and days and days on end, it's going to be putting back services that will actually serve British Columbians — enough teachers in the schools, enough language pathologists in the schools, enough social workers to meet the needs of our province.

You know, I think that the truth is this government can reshuffle the deck like they're going to try to do with the gang problem. They're going to try and reshuffle everything, make it look like it's a brand new story. We've known that story. That story has been repeated on and on, over and over.

People aren't buying that anymore. People are not going to buy that anymore, and I don't blame them. In fact, the truth is that they can come up with these exciting titles that look shiny and nice, and they look like they belong downtown in neon. But when it comes right down to it, you open the door and you got this gutted-out building with nothing in it but empty chairs. That's, unfortunately, the legacy of this British Columbia Liberal government, and it disappoints me.
[ Page 13652 ]

It's disappointing to me because it makes everybody's job in this province harder. Quite frankly, that's not going to help anybody. So I'd like this government to contemplate, in the future, the possibility that when they pass legislation or they introduce policies or they create a new name for a program, the time will come where we'll see the effectiveness of that legislation or that policy or that program.

I've just mentioned five in the Ministry of Children and Families that have been abject failures, and I know that the critic for Forests can probably name the same number that have been abject failures. The critic for social assistance can probably name the same number of abject failures. The critic for Education could probably name a number — even more — of failures of programs, and the critic for the Olympics, every day, is bringing up where the government has failed the people of British Columbia. In fact, even our critic for Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources is able to bring up issues that point squarely to this government's failure — energy policy and the like.

The truth of the matter is that we have to make sure that the interests of British Columbians are protected in all our policies, and not just purported to be accepted. So I think that….

Interjections.

N. Simons: I'll just allow them to continue while I….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

N. Simons: I got a chance to take a glass of water there. Good water. British Columbia water. It's still ours.

I think it's time that the people of British Columbia recognize that Bill 48 is a makeup exam for a government that has failed already. While we're contemplating their success on this makeup plan, what we hope to do is to convince them that in the future they consider legislation, and they consider it without the overemphasis on public relations exercises.

I think that I've covered the points I've wanted to make. I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I think the people of British Columbia need to know how this government has failed them, not just with this legislation, but in the litany of legislation that they passed and in the litany of programs that have caused people in this province to live in worse poverty than ever before with more homelessness and with less control over the resources of this province.

With that, I proudly take my seat.

H. Bloy: It's an honour and a privilege to stand up today and to be able to speak about Bill 48, to follow the passion of the last speaker, to listen to many of the speakers in this House — I believe somewhat misguided at times. I believe that we're here to talk about Bill 48.

I'm proud to be part of a government that said times are changing. The times are now. We have to react to it, and we have reacted. We had the honesty and the integrity in which to bring forward Bill 48 for the best of all citizens in British Columbia — not for a select few, but for every citizen of British Columbia. That's what I feel about this bill.

[1615]

I'm confident with it because of the leadership we receive. If you walk in the halls of this great legislative building, you'll see pictures of the Premiers. I guess from '96 to 2001, you can see three Premiers. But from 2001 to 2008, there's only one Premier. I think that shows stability in a continuous form of leadership in this province of British Columbia.

Bill 48 is really what we're here to talk about. Through various members…. They've been all over the ballpark to talk about many things. I can tell you that one of the most calls I've had in my office in a long time is about the BCTF and the teachers and the advertising they're doing. They ask me. They say that they hear there's more money per student, and I say: "Yes, and there's actually more money per district, so there's more money there." They say: "But closing schools. My child goes to a new school." I say: "That's right. We've opened over 100 schools. We've replaced schools."

They talk about cuts in funding. They're not there. There's no reality to it. In the teachers…. It's like a bunch of half-truths. They forgot to talk about the enrolment decrease. If you're going to stand up and talk about it, I think you have to tell the whole story. There are a lot more dollars in education, and it's because of the leadership of this province.

But the thing that I'm most proud of about Bill 48 is that we have the fortitude to stand up here and bring it to the House so everyone can speak about it. We didn't do something like the former Premier, who said — and the other members; the quotes have all been made: "Well, we made all those promises, but they were just a bunch of lies. We were never going to do them. We had a budget that was a fudge-it budget. We had a budget after we were elected that said, 'We just want wiggle room.'" You know you had already lied about the budget. The NDP brought forward something that wasn't true.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Bloy: So I'm proud to stand here and say that we had the fortitude to bring this forward to the House to say, yes, we want to change regulation. I wish I was a crystal-ball reader that I could have gone on for years and years. I may not have been here if I could have read a crystal ball — if I knew what the stock market was going
[ Page 13653 ]
to do. But we don't know that. The economy and the world has changed so much in the last few months that we have to move on.

So for us, I'm proud that we're able to bring this bill forward. I'm proud that we're able to allow everyone to debate in this House about what we're doing. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows was very adamant about what he thought of our government. Well, I think he's wrong. I think it's right what we're doing and that we're able to do it.

I believe that we have the ability to manage the economy. I want to look in my riding of Burquitlam and the cities of Coquitlam, Port Moody, Port Coquitlam, Burnaby, and the things that we're doing. The Evergreen line is coming. The Evergreen line is coming because we've invested money into it. How can we invest money into it? Because we've been good managers of the economy. We've been able to plan ahead.

We have the Canada line that's being completed. We have the new Port Mann bridge that's coming. We have ten lanes of the widening of Highway 1. We are about to move traffic in British Columbia. This bridge…. Thirty percent of the traffic on each end goes to Surrey, to Coquitlam — part of my riding. We are going to move traffic faster. We're going to get working people home sooner. We're going to keep families together. These are the benefits of a strong economy and strong leadership by this government.

We have improvements at all the hospitals: Burnaby Hospital, Eagle Ridge Hospital, Royal Columbian Hospital, Ridge Meadows Hospital, where there was just an expansion announced yesterday. Things that go on. We go from major multi-million dollar projects that we're doing to the money that we're able to give to PADS for new kennels, which is basically a volunteer group that train dogs to help people with disabilities.

[1620]

In Burnaby if it wasn't for our government purchasing housing to protect housing for those most in need…. We went out and bought the buildings to do it. We are working to protect those most in need and to work with them. If it wasn't for our government, for putting in the cold weather mat program, they wouldn't be there in Burnaby. We're the ones that went out and got the location. We're the ones that are providing it and working with them.

You know, one of the reasons I first ran…. People will say: "Well, you're right wing, Harry."

Can I use my first name, Madam Speaker?

"You're right wing. You're whatever you do." And I said: "Yeah, I have philosophical beliefs that I believe in. I work. You know, the deficit is something hard to take." But when I said I was going to run, I was running because I was upset with the previous government — as many people in British Columbia were. As a matter of fact, in the election of 2001 thousands of people never came out and voted because they were upset with the previous government. But I ran because…. I said: "I want to help those most in need."

When you have a strong economy and a strong society is when you can most help those in need, and it's one of the main reasons why I ran. With the strong economy we were able to give $10 million to Burnaby Lake for the dredging — Burnaby matched it — and $500,000 to the Red Cross in Burnaby for seismic upgrading. That's because of a strong economy.

Able to provide money for bike trails on Burnaby Mountain for recreational use. We were able to provide money for a new bike park for the younger people, much younger than me, to ride their bikes up straight walls and do a lot of cross-country riding.

We put $2 million into infrastructure in Burnaby, which included many bike trails, and for the entrance and exit off of freeways to be able to move that population. We've been able to help a lot of people in British Columbia and in Burnaby. Because of a strong economy, we have the British Columbia 2009 World Police and Fire Games coming to this province, to the city of Burnaby, this summer, July 31 to August 12. There will be approximately 15,000 athletes, 25,000 coaches and family members coming — 40,000 — to put over $100 million into the economy.

We were able to work with the World Police and Fire Games. I was able to travel to the last games with my wife at my own expense to view the games and to see the games and to receive the flag that travels from World Police and Fire Game events every two years and to bring it back to British Columbia. That's a proud moment for British Columbians, and I look forward to the proudness of having that flag unveiled and flowing this summer in British Columbia and in Burnaby at the opening ceremonies. We are going to have close to a thousand British Columbians, firefighters, police officers and correctional officers, and border-crossing, here in British Columbia competing against the world.

Burnaby has been well served by government, and it's because of this government that Burnaby has been able to flourish with some of the best building numbers and economy numbers that have been seen around the province in many years. We have Simon Fraser University. We just opened the new Blusson building, the health sciences building. We've opened computer science labs.

At Simon Fraser University our Minister of Advanced Education, a number of years ago, announced 25,000 new seats. Well, that's a nice announcement, but we've been actually able to build the space to house the 25,000 new spaces. Not only did we build the space; we're funding the space so that students can get the education they want.

When I was first elected in 2001, one of the concerns…. My daughter was just about to enter the University of Victoria that September. Parents were coming to me: "My children can't get into university. My child can't get
[ Page 13654 ]
into Simon Fraser University. We live at the bottom of the hill. You know, the entrance percentages — we're getting 87, 88 percent." It was hard for children to get in.

[1625]

Well, that's because the previous government had frozen tuition fees for a number of years. The universities weren't growing. They couldn't hire the professors. They couldn't hire the TAs. They had nowhere to put them. And on top of that, a university education was taking six years for a four-year degree.

The biggest cost of an education is the cost of surviving while you're going to school, and this was a big concern for many families. We've eliminated that problem. We now have students, all students…. We said that if you get 75 percent, you have the ability to get into an institution in British Columbia.

We've accomplished that because of a strong economy, because of strong leadership from the Premier, through the Minister of Advanced Education, to get more people into our education. Because of a strong economy, we've been able to deliver. We have a new residence at Simon Fraser University, a new residence cafeteria. We have a new school that'll open in September 2010, and we have opened a hundred new schools or more in British Columbia.

We have rebuilt schools. There are always a lot of half-truths that go out, so this is the amount of truth that goes into it. "I am opening new schools. I have rebuilt new schools. I have seismically upgraded new schools."

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Bloy: I'm proud of the work our Minister of Education has done. I am proud of the new schools that we open. I'm proud of the schools that we've rebuilt. I'm proud that eight school districts in the province of British Columbia get more money today as a district than they ever got before. They get more money on a declining enrolment — 60,000 less students, and they get more money.

I remember some of the early '80s in different ways than other people. I was starting out in the…. Well, I'd been in the business world, but I was starting to expand a bit. I remember when interest rates…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Bloy: …were 16 percent, and that was good. And then a remortgage comes up, and it's 22 percent, and they want you to pay it down in ten days to the old interest rate. I can tell you I missed a lot of paycheques in those days, because I got paid the same as my staff, except mine were sitting on the dresser — okay? I couldn't cash them right away.

But I worked through them, and I struggled. It's part of the business opportunities. There are good times and bad times, and you have to be able to work through them. You have to be able to make a commitment to keep going. You have to be able to make tough decisions.

That's the one thing that this government has been able to do. It's been able to make the decisions that are required now. Right leader, right time, right province. Those are the decisions that have to be made.

I'm torn about a deficit. What is a deficit, and how do you grow? Sometimes in businesses they have to operate with a deficit as part of a growth expansion on how they'll hold inventory and on different terms and how they'll do it. Our government has already proved that in 2001, when we came into government and we found out how much we were really in debt…. Until we got to see the books, we didn't know how much we were really in debt. But we made a commitment to have a balanced budget by the end of our first term. We worked at it, and we grew the economy, and because we grew the economy, we were able to come up with a balanced budget.

Times have changed. I guess if we were the bright you-know that said, "We know everything that's going on in the world," we would have predicted this and built it in and said: "We're going to do balanced budgets for three years, and we're going to be off, and then we're going to be on." But we didn't know that. How could you know that the world would change so dramatically as it has in the past few months?

[1630]

Based on past experience, I say that we have the ability to do this and that we will do it. Budget honesty is something that's really important, but I think you have to watch what you're saying. I think you have to be here to support it.

If you're going to be passionate and rhetorical but not talk about the budget and not say where you want to go in the future, you have to stand up. I think you have to stand up and say: "I'm going to vote for this. We have to move on." I think you should be doing that so that we can move on, so that we can best serve all the people of British Columbia.

I think we have to be honest about a lot of things that we say. We have the carbon tax. We're moving ahead with it. It's here. But your leader, the Leader of the Opposition, says she's against the carbon tax. Everything appears to be the wrong time and the wrong place, but she doesn't tell us the story about what her carbon tax will cost — the hidden carbon tax of billions and billions of dollars. Ours is a neutral tax that goes back to all British Columbians on an equal and fair basis.

There's a government here, an opposition here. We don't know who the leader is. We don't know if it's Jack Layton in Ottawa or if it's Jimmy Sinclair, my neighbour. Who really runs the NDP in British Columbia, and how are they telling you to vote on this bill? That's what I
[ Page 13655 ]
would like to know — where they're coming from. I think you have to be here to service all British Columbians.

I guess there's been a lot of rhetoric going on for a few days, and I look forward to the debate continuing and finishing, and that we can move on. But we always have to come back to Bill 48. Do you believe in the concept of being upfront and honest?

I think if you believe in that concept of being honest, we have a bill here that's honest. I think that you as opposition should be able to say: "Yep, that's right, Member. I'm going to stand up, and I'm going to vote with that." I look forward to you standing up and voting with all of us in unison to move forward for all British Columbians.

We have to go on. Should I go through and repeat that British Columbia in the '90s went from the best province to the worst province, but under our government we've been able to reverse that? We've been able to create thousands more jobs. We have over two million people working in the province and paying taxes, and as our revenues have come up, we have been able to help those most in need in British Columbia.

Again, I want to go back. There's the softwood lumber deal that the opposition is opposed to. We wouldn't have people working in forestry, as limited as it is right now, because there is a downturn.

Interjection.

H. Bloy: There are job losses in the forest industry. If you were aware of what's happening in the housing industry, you would realize what was going on. The jobs that we have we're protecting and working to protect those jobs that we have.

But why would they want to eliminate the softwood lumber deal? Do they want to put more people out of business? This is about special interests and not about the people of British Columbia and keeping everybody working that we can.

I look forward to the completion of Bill 48. Many members on the other side have talked about May 12. I can tell you that I look forward to May 12. I look forward to going out and talking to whoever may be running in my riding. I look forward to that challenge, to say what we have done in British Columbia and how we've served all the people of British Columbia.

I'm looking forward to meeting even more people in my riding where I haven't already knocked on their doors over the last two elections, where I haven't met them, to tell them what we as a government are doing — what we have done for Burnaby, what we have done to grow Burnaby.

[1635]

But I'm also looking forward to next week, February 16, and the throne speech. I think it's going to be an exciting day. I've never had so many requests for people wanting to come here and hear the throne speech. If the members of the opposition have throne speech tickets they want to give me, I have a lineup of people that want to come. They're so pumped about British Columbia that they believe we'll keep growing. We've proven it year after year, and we will. So this is an exciting time.

Then the next day we have the budget. And then British Columbia will continue to grow. I look forward to the opposition putting out their platform, their budget, what they would do. You can only hear the negatives for so long. There has to be positive. You need suggestions. Always to be against isn't quite where we should be in life.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to stand and express my views on Bill 48. I want to let you know that I will be supporting Bill 48. I would expect all my colleagues in the House on both sides will be supporting Bill 48, and they will be moving forward.

H. Lali: I take my place in the debate that is taking place here before us today on Bill 48, the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act, 2009.

What a long name that is. There's an acronym. I guess it's DADE Amendment Act, or as it is being called by my constituents in Yale-Lillooet, the "dead" amendment act. As in, the Liberal government is dead in the water when it comes to May 12, 2009. They're going to be dead in the water. That's what this bill is about — the "dead" amendment act, 2009.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Interjections.

H. Lali: Well, I can tell that the folks across the way are already beginning to pay attention.

Let's just see what this bill is all about first. This bill allows the government to legally forecast a deficit for the years 2009-10 and also for the 2010-11 fiscal year.

Interjection.

H. Lali: Listen up, hon. Member. You might learn something new if you did.

Then it also repeals that permission on the first day of the 2011-12 fiscal year. It also requires — this Bill 48 — that once these two years have gone by, any extra revenue attributed to those years that is received as prior-year adjustments must be applied to the debt incurred during those years. Finally, it also makes additional reporting requirements to the public accounts, and quarterly fiscal reports as well.

Generally, it requires that direct operating debt be reported. This is debt that is incurred as a result of operating deficits by the provincial government itself. It excludes other forms of taxpayer-supported debt, such
[ Page 13656 ]
as debt incurred by the health or the education sector or by highways and public transit, all of which is mainly capital. Direct operating debt is much smaller than either taxpayer-supported debt or total government debt, which also includes Crown corporations. That's what this Bill 48 is all about.

I just want to talk briefly for a second about a definition of "hypocrisy." Hypocrisy usually means that if somebody says one thing and they actually go out and do the other…. They'll say something that applies to all the other people around them, the rest of the world, but when it comes to their turn, it doesn't apply to them — whatever it is that the rules set out. One rule for others, one standard for others and a different one for themselves to follow — that's what that means.

You know what, hon. Speaker? It is very hypocritical for this B.C. Liberal government to actually bring this into the House, and I'll explain to you why. This same Liberal Party here, when they were on the other side of the House — which would be this side, the opposition — opposed the NDP's 2000 Balanced Budget Act, saying that it had too many loopholes that would allow the government to sneak out or wiggle away from its responsibilities. All sorts of things were said by a number of those members who are still here on that side of the House.

[1640]

Now, they repealed that legislation when they came into office, and they actually introduced their own. But they didn't bring their own legislation in, not without actually giving themselves three years of record deficits — the largest deficit in the history of British Columbia. They did that first. Then they introduced their own. These deficits were in 2002, 2003 and 2004. The largest deficit in the history of this province was brought in by the Liberal government at $3.1 billion operating and a total of $3.741 billion accumulated deficit.

The reason they waited…. They repealed the act that was there, put forward by the NDP before. They repealed it because they wanted to give these huge tax cuts to large corporations, the folks who finance their campaigns. That's why they did that, you know, to let these tax….

They were given out, and now that their balanced budget legislation did not survive their own test, because the Premier and all of these Liberal ministers and some of them who are not ministers…. There are two of them sitting over there on the back bench.

Well, you're sitting in the House, and you're not ministers now. You're sitting on the back bench, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying you're not ministers. But when they were ministers….

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

H. Lali: When these folks were ministers, to the person, they got up on their rooftops. First they cancelled the fairer balanced budget legislation that was there in place since 2000. They cancelled that one. They said it wasn't good enough. They're going to bring one in after they run record deficits for three years in a row.

They bring in their own act, and then they get up on their rooftops or their stumps or their platforms — whatever you want to call it — but singing from the rooftops that that was it. They were going to bring in balanced budgets from here on in until eternity. They were going to bring in balanced budgets and surpluses. They swore on stacks of bibles that they were going to do that. They sang from the rooftops that this was what they were going to do.

You know what? When their balanced budget legislation didn't survive its first real test, guess what. They're back again. They're back here in this House. All of a sudden they're saying: "You know, that act that was passed by the NDP in 2000 doesn't look so bad after all." That's what they're doing. They're letting themselves off the hook. That's what they're trying to do. It is shameless. It is absolutely shameless what these Liberals have done.

The second thing the Liberals are saying is that deficits "push our problems onto future generations." That's what those folks are saying. All of these years when they were saying they were going to run surpluses…. These are being pushed into future generations, all of these problems.

When they made their massive cuts to health, education and social services between the years '01 and '04, that cabinet…. Most of them are still the same members. Most of these MLAs are still the same. When they made those cuts, just where do they think they were putting those problems, if it wasn't onto the future generations? All of those problems and the cuts they made.

They did damage in terms of poverty. It's the highest of any province in the country. It went from the lowest to the highest, including especially child poverty. There are family breakups that are occurring as a result of that. School truancy and dropout rates are up, as well as drug abuse and crime. All of those are up because these folks pushed their problems onto future generations.

I want to quote what the Premier actually said on February 17, 2003, in the National Post. He says: "For too long governments turned their backs on the north and our rural communities, and that's about to stop." But actions speak a lot louder than words.

[1645]

If you look at rural British Columbia, what you have seen is the systematic abandonment of not only folks who live in rural British Columbia but rural communities as well. If you look at community services, this Liberal government cut funding for B.C.'s women's centres and community-based rape crisis lines. They closed
[ Page 13657 ]
24 courthouses, resulting in the loss of local jobs, and also a direct loss of revenue, as well as higher policing costs, as officers had to travel further to attend court. Every courthouse in my constituency of Yale-Lillooet was closed by this Liberal government.

They closed legal aid offices. You know who used legal aid offices the most? Single mothers on welfare, poor people, the disadvantaged, seniors, new immigrants and, most importantly, first nations, most of whom live in poverty. The average unemployment rate on first nations reserves ranges from 50 to 80 percent. On some of those reserves up north it's even higher, and that's shameless.

This Liberal government closed 28 local welfare offices. They also forced the closure of local child care resource and referral centres. They also failed to provide adequate detox facilities in rural British Columbia. For example, the northwest region has no detox centre — none. It's forced to rely on the closest treatment centre, which is actually in Prince George. So if you live in Prince Rupert or further north, you've got to go all the way to Prince George, which is hundreds of miles away.

If you look at seniors services, they cut services to seniors as well, when they broke their promise to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds. They actually closed almost 2,500 beds to begin with, and still in terms of the 5,000 beds, it's not even halfway in terms of building. So we're no further ahead than we were in 2001, when they promised to build 5,000 long-term care beds.

It's hurting seniors and putting long-term care out of reach for thousands of average families as well. They've also forced seniors to move hundreds of kilometres away from their families who can't visit them on a regular basis in terms of accessing long-term care beds. They also cut home care for seniors and didn't replace it with the services that were necessary in rural B.C.

It even separated couples, forcing them into different communities. The Albos from the Kootenays are a prime example. When you look at it, they've closed hundreds of beds throughout the province. Ponderosa Lodge in Kamloops and Deni House in Williams Lake were closed, only to be reopened as a result of the bed crunch their closures actually created. Deni House was shut down for good in the spring of 2007. That's what the Liberals did.

If you look at health care, the Premier promised when he got elected as Premier…. He said: "British Columbians will have health care when they need it and where they need it." That's what they said.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I hear the member from Chilliwack saying…. Or is it Abbotsford?

J. Les: Chilliwack.

H. Lali: Chilliwack. Thank you for correcting me. The member from Chilliwack, the former Solicitor General.

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

H. Lali: The member says to me, as he's sitting there across the way: "When you need it, where you need it." He says that's true. Well, it's a farce.

I asked the member, and I asked Liberal ministers, to come on out to rural British Columbia and come into those small communities and find out if they're getting health care when they need it and where they need it, because they don't. They've stripped health care from all of those small, rural communities and put it into regional or urban centres, and even then there are not enough beds for all of those folks in the outlying areas who need it. That's why you have the crisis that takes place.

What they did, in fact, was close rural hospitals in Kimberley, Sparwood, Enderby and the St. Bartholomew's Hospital in Lytton. You know what they did in place of that? They put a telephone booth with a toll-free number on the highway. So if you got into an accident, and there's no hospital….

There was no hospital from Hope all the way to Ashcroft. What is it — well over a couple of hundred miles? There were none, but there was a telephone booth on the highway. So if you got into an accident and you needed emergency care, what did you do? You went to the tollbooth to call a toll-free number and ask for help. That was their idea of when you need it and where you need it. So you know how much of a farce that was.

[1650]

St. Bartholomew's Hospital in Lytton is in my riding. They also downgraded or downsized other rural hospitals, including — and I'm going to list the ones that are actually going to be in my constituency — Ashcroft and District General Hospital. The acute care beds were closed. That's going to be in the new riding of Fraser-Nicola where I will be running. Also, the Lillooet district hospital . The beds were closed there as well by this Liberal government.

The Nicola Valley general hospital in Merritt. Again, we had 24 acute care beds. There are only eight. They pulled out 66.7 percent of them — the beds in Merritt. Princeton General. It was downgraded. The operating room is gone. The ER is in a tenuous situation at the best of times. Hope, which is not going to be in my constituency any more…. The hospital there also witnessed some acute care beds that were closed and services pulled out into Abbotsford and Chilliwack.

If you look across rural British Columbia, you see that every community — whether it's Oliver, Summerland, Kootenay Lake, Nelson, Castlegar, Kitimat, Wrinch Memorial in Hazelton, MacKenzie, Chetwynd, Port Alice, Ladysmith, Cumberland, Mission and others —
[ Page 13658 ]
have all been severely downgraded. They also failed to provide sufficient paramedics in rural and remote communities and also abandoned rural ambulance service in outlying areas. That's what this Liberal government has done. If that wasn't inflicting pain onto future generations, I don't know what was.

Also, 32,000 well-paid, family-supporting jobs were eliminated by this Liberal government through their deliberate inaction on the forestry file of this province, as 63 saw mills and pulp mills were closed permanently by this government — 32,000 jobs lost and counting, most of those in rural communities all throughout British Columbia, including communities like Lytton and Lillooet and communities all over the province, in the Kootenays, in the north and everywhere else.

Also, this Liberal government not only killed jobs in rural B.C. by closing these mills, but they also eliminated the requirement that logging companies mill Crown lumber in the communities where it was cut. That was known as the appurtenancy clause. They got rid of that. This adversely affected small mills in rural communities with many closing or also being amalgamated into regional oligopolies.

Interjections.

H. Lali: Oligopolies — big, multinational corporations for the Minister of Forests over there, who might need a dictionary. But you know, they completely let the pine beetle get out of control. They can't even match the funding that the federal government over the years has provided to fight that problem as well.

In my communities — Lytton, Lillooet, Merritt and all those communities; the Cascades forest district based out of Merritt — there were 109 employees that worked for the forest service in 2001, but by the time the hatchet man got through with it and eliminated all those jobs, there were only 49 left by 2005 — 60 percent of those jobs eliminated for our number one industry. These folks were the stewards of our number one sector in this province, which was forestry.

Then they wonder why so many jobs are being lost in the forest industry, when they are responsible for killing jobs even in those offices where the stewards of our forest industry live. It went from 109 down to 49 in my constituency, for one example.

When you look at education, obviously they closed 177 schools, including in my communities of Hedley, Princeton, Tulameen, Lillooet and area and the South Cariboo. That would be a part of my constituency. They closed schools all over the province. They've taken, for post-secondary education, the tuition fees, which were the lowest in the entire country, and now they're the highest. Class sizes, again, were the lowest in the country. They're the highest. That's what they've done.

[1655]

I could go on. In environment and every other field, local government, as well as public safety, the record of this government is absolutely dismal. That's what their record is. It's dismal.

Then the Premier turns around and says he's having sleepless nights when he's thinking about deficits. He had sleepless nights. Sort of reminds me of a movie theme. It's sort of like Victoria's version of Sleepless in Seattle. The Premier was sleepless in Victoria. He said he had sleepless nights thinking about deficits, that he had so many over the fact that the B.C. government could run a deficit. That's what the Premier says.

I wonder if he had sleepless nights when he was thinking about the $500 million cost overrun on the Vancouver Convention Centre. Did he have a sleepless night?

The Premier announced that the Olympics were going to cost — what was it? — $600 million. The B.C. share would be $600 million. According to the Auditor General, he last year said it's already up to $1.6 billion. Now it's nearing a $2 billion contribution from the B.C. government. I wonder if the Premier had sleepless nights thinking about that.

At the same time, we've got the worst record in B.C. for child poverty and also on property crime and on homelessness. I'm wondering if the Premier has had sleepless nights thinking about those folks, and if he's had sleepless nights thinking about senior citizens, newly arrived immigrants, single mothers on welfare, students and all of those people, aboriginal folks and the disadvantaged in this province — the quarter of the population of this province who are having a tough time to even put food on their table.

I wonder if the Premier, sitting in his ivory tower in the west wing, has had sleepless nights thinking about those folks who were having a tough time to even put food on their plates. I wonder if the Premier has had sleepless nights about that. I wonder if the Premier would stand up in this House and actually answer those questions on behalf of those disadvantaged folks and tell them if he's had sleepless nights thinking about them. If he did, he would have done something about it — to eradicate not only poverty but to help those folks.

I also would like to share some other information with you. Here's what Carole Taylor said when she was the Finance Minister. In March 11, 2008, on CKNW, she said…. According to CKNW, Carole Taylor says that her latest provincial budget has received positive reviews during her annual investors tour of Toronto and New York. Experts had raised concerns about the potential impact of the slowdown in the U.S., but the minister describes the B.C. economy as "different from the rest of Canada." She's confident the strengths and protections in this province "will get us through this difficult time in the United States." That's what the Finance Minister said.
[ Page 13659 ]

She also said on Hansard, volume 29, No. 2, March 31, 2008: "We are withstanding some very significant international issues. We still anticipate growth of at least 2.4 percent going forward." That's what she said.

Here's what the present Finance Minister said in the Daily News, July 18, 2008: "I think B.C. is weathering some of those challenges better than most other jurisdictions." That's what he said.

Then also, in The Vancouver Sun, July 22, 2008, they say: "The Finance Minister" — and they name the Finance Minister — "looked The Vancouver Sun's editorial board in the eye late last week and maintained that, despite all the economic gloom and doom that's going around these days, the B.C. economy is doing pretty well." That's the present Finance Minister.

He also said to the Globe and Mail, August 20, 2008, that he — they name the Minister of Finance — "believes B.C.'s economy is essentially sound and that much of the worry is simply an echo from the woes of the United States and eastern Canada." He called them echoes. The Minister of Finance in August 2008 called those warnings echoes.

[1700]

Well, you know what? Those very echoes are coming back to bite that same Minister of Finance now. I wonder if he'll stand up in this House when his turn comes. He'll speak to those echoes. He'll speak to those echoes.

Well, let's go on to the Premier. Let's see what the Premier said at the UBCM speech, September 26, this last year, 2008. The Premier said: "We have some pretty dramatic events taking place outside of us today, outside of British Columbia. I think it's fair to say that people are getting…worried. They look at their RRSPs, and they say, you know, what happened to that?"

The Premier continued: "We're the lucky ones who can choose to shape the future. We're one of the leading economies not just in Canada but on the continent. Let me repeat that. We are one of the leading economies on the continent." That's what the Premier said to the UBCM.

Then on September 16, 2008, in the Times Colonist the Minister of Finance said…. This is what they are saying: "He continued to stand by that yesterday, even asking British Columbians to help government cut taxes." They quote him as saying: "We're inviting input from the public in terms of where they would like to see taxes reduced. We're certainly open to suggestions." He was still looking at that, because he thought he was going to have this huge surplus happening.

Then in the Toronto Star the Premier said on October 20, 2008: "I don't think we should be looking at deficits. I think we have to recognize that all that's doing is passing on our problems today to the future generations. I think the fact of the matter is that we've got to build for our future, not start digging." That's what the Premier says.

So you know, there's ample there. There are ample quotes from every one of those ministers, including the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — he's quoted in a number of places — the Minister of Housing and various other ministers who have this really rosy picture.

What else do we hear the Liberals say as they get up in the House, one after the other, and also in their quotes? We have the Liberals saying that nobody actually could have predicted this crisis. That's what the Liberals say, that nobody could have predicted this crisis. You know, they ignored signs that were there loud and clear. Signs of a housing bubble were ignored. The real estate market that was crashing in the United States and also here in B.C. they ignored. They ignored the turmoil in the United States commodities prices as they fell.

The government continued to follow the advice and the economic forecasts of those who actually failed to predict any of this. They picked and chose what they wanted to read. That's what they did. They decided that they were going to pick and choose, and only a Liberal could look you straight in the face and say that this wasn't going to happen.

The reality is something else, and I'm going to quote. In terms of some of the research…. You know, the Liberals have hundreds of people doing research for them. We have a small research department. Even then, just in the paper print alone, there are 43 instances of dire predictions that folks here did not look at. This is in the print media only, not radio and television.

I'm going to talk to the Liberal opponents across the way. I'm just going to talk about some of the predictions in B.C. In The Vancouver Sun on January 22 the headline said: "B.C. Companies Lose Billions in Crash." In thetyee.ca published on March 26, 2008, the headline read: "Ready for a Slump? As B.C.'s Economy Cools, How Well Are We Prepared?" And again, March 27, The Vancouver Sun: "Drop in B.C. Business Optimism Cited as Omen for Economy." The same newspaper, March 29: "B.C. Economy Expected to Cool Down in '08."

The writers were Jock Finlayson, Murray Leith, Helmut Pastrick, Cameron Muir — all of these folks. "Retail Sales Loss Hammers Loonie." "Pesky Statistics Are Raining on Liberals' Economic Parade." This is from July and August, and it goes on and on.

[1705]

"Leaders Must Focus on Economic and Financial Crisis Unfolding Before Us." It's an editorial in The Vancouver Sun on July 16. In the same paper: "Economic Growth Slowing in B.C." Another headline, "Global Crisis Ends Plan for B.C. Pulp Mill," October 8. It just goes on and on, and these folks across the way ignored every single one of these signs.

I want to talk about the Liberal record of deficits, because members across the way like to talk about deficits. But they don't want to talk about their own deficits. They brought in the three largest deficits in the history of this province. The Auditor General, right here. I took this document from the Auditor General's report from '97 to 2004.
[ Page 13660 ]

Right here it says that the Liberals inherited the largest surplus in the history of British Columbia: $1.5 billion in 2001. And you know what? Their 2002 deficit was $1.06 billion. In 2003 it was $3.1 billion — $3.75 billion, if you consider their accumulated deficit. That was the largest in the history of British Columbia. And then over a billion dollars in 2004. But they don't want to talk about that.

Now they're forecasting two more deficits for this coming year and the year after, and we don't know whether the present budget's going to be a surplus or not.

J. Les: I'm pleased to take my turn in this debate on Bill 48.

I've been paying some attention these last couple of days and listening to the various speakers debate this bill — or not, as the case may be — because I believe that a lot of the commentary we've heard actually doesn't focus much on the bill at hand at all. There has been a lot of other commentary that really is not apropos of the legislation we have before us.

I think it's perhaps a good idea to just take a step back and remind British Columbians what we're actually doing here. British Columbians will remember that early on, when the B.C. Liberal government was elected, we passed legislation that made it mandatory year after year after year, once we dealt with the fiscal cleanup that we had to engage in after that period of time….

Interjection.

J. Les: The member has just finished speaking. If he wants to re-engage in debate….

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

J. Les: So we tabled balanced budget legislation, a piece of legislation that I believe British Columbians strongly supported. British Columbians expect their provincial government to balance its books, to run a responsible fiscal regime.

Four years in a row our government has been able to table and live up to a balanced provincial budget — a surplus provincial budget in fact. It's been possible to do that. To the end of the fiscal year that we're currently in, which will expire on March 31, we will have, as I said, for four consecutive years balanced the books.

However, as is becoming clear to everyone, the global economy is in serious difficulty. Some would suggest that this is the biggest financial emergency that we've seen since the 1930s, the Great Depression. One can only hope that it doesn't come anywhere close to that in terms of the effects that a situation of that nature would have on people right across our country and across the globe. You only have to read some of the accounts of what people had to put up with in the 1930s to wish fervently that we never have to face that kind of situation.

As I've listened to the debate over these last couple of days, particularly from the members opposite, it seems to me…. First of all they said: "We're going to support the legislation." Fine. I'll take that.

Then they go on to say — and again, I'm trying to distill from their comments — that we actually didn't start talking about running a deficit sooner. The NDP, of course, having a much bigger appetite for deficits than we do on this side of the House, apparently wanted a deficit sooner.

[1710]

Well, I for one am pretty darn proud of our Minister of Finance who resisted going into deficit until it was absolutely necessary to do so. I'm equally proud of the Minister of Finance who actually did not allow ideology to trump reality and who, in an honest, open, transparent and straightforward manner, came to this House with Bill 48 so that we could debate in this Legislature whether or not it is now time to contemplate going into deficit for a determined period of time. And that is what we are here to do.

The members opposite talk about legislation that they tabled, I believe, in 1999, which purported to be balanced-budget legislation. But it was, indeed, full of loopholes and would allow government, at its discretion, without any further debate in this House, to go into deficit. That was the legislation we abandoned in 2001. We said that no, there must be a concrete requirement for governments to balance their budget, and that is the legislation we passed.

If it is necessary for governments to contemplate going back into deficit, the appropriate thing to do is to come here to the people's House, to this Legislature, and have that debate in this chamber, and that is what we are doing.

Obviously, being faced with the financial situation that we are, across the globe, it is now time to say: "Yes, it is important to have balanced budgets." But when we are faced with the situation that we're contemplating over the next couple of years, it would be irresponsible to remain hidebound by that particular type of requirement.

So I support the Finance Minister in his initiative to allow a deficit budget for two years, and two years only, and back in surplus territory in the third year after this current fiscal year, because we need to look after the families and the businesses of British Columbia. We need to do everything we possibly can to make sure that these financial circumstances and the impact of them are ameliorated for all British Columbians.

Now, I'm also particularly proud of the financial track record that we've laid down over the last eight years. What's important here is that the measures we have adopted over that eight-year period of time will ensure that when the global economic situation turns around, we
[ Page 13661 ]
here in British Columbia are going to be particularly well situated to again lead the country, as we have increasingly started to do over the last eight years, and lead British Columbians again to a very prosperous economic future.

I am fully convinced that we can do that and that British Columbia's future will be so much brighter as a result of things like the tax cuts that we've undertaken over that period of time.

Now, NDP members have constantly reminded us that tax cuts don't work. They are not in favour of tax relief. They are, rather, in favour of increasing taxes. I guess that's the reverse of that same coin. We don't believe that, and what we've managed to put in place is a tax system whereby anybody earning up to $111,000 per year pays fewer income taxes than anyone else in Canada. That's just one of the measures.

It's, I think, commonly agreed amongst economists that taxes on income are a very counterproductive type of tax, and we've been able to provide relief in that area. It's just one of the things that I think British Columbians have certainly come to appreciate.

The opposition leader of today as well as the opposition leader of our first term in government were very clear. They favour increased taxes. They do not believe that tax relief works for British Columbians. Well, we beg to differ.

In terms of this legislation, as I said, I think what the Finance Minister has brought forward is a realistic prescription for our provincial budget for the next two years. It will allow us to protect families, and it will allow us to not make the serious cuts in ministry budgets that would have been required if we had maintained our balanced-budget requirement.

[1715]

On the other hand, though, we could — I am sure — have tabled a balanced budget and made the very serious cuts that would have been required, and it is debatable whether even then we would have been able to live up to that budget.

I'm reminded of the situation in 1996 where the then NDP government tabled what they then purported was balanced-budget legislation or a balanced budget. The election was held. The NDP was elected, and they then said: "Well, maybe it's not balanced. Maybe we need to run a bit of a deficit. Maybe we'll need a little bit of 'wiggle room,'" I think was the terminology that was used at the time.

Well, that is duplicitous. It is always important for governments to be open, clear, transparent and honest with the taxpayers of this province. So this is an approach — coming to the Legislature, debating openly. It's a much better approach than the duplicity of former NDP governments.

Let us review for a minute some of the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in, not just here in the province of British Columbia. Let's take a broader look at what's going on in the economy of the world. In the United States, in the last year, their GDP, gross domestic product, has dropped by 3.2 percent. Currently it's contracting by about negative 2 percent. That is a serious recession. The United States is the biggest economy in the world. It's also our largest trading partner. There is no question that a contraction of the American economy to that degree is going to have a very serious effect on British Columbia. There's no doubt about that whatsoever.

The number of layoffs in the United States is approaching stupendous. I believe the last monthly report…. Something in excess of half a million jobs were lost in the American economy. Unfortunately, that kind of trouble in the American economy is going to mean some job losses in British Columbia as well. We have started to see that. It's going to be our job as a government to try to undertake certain initiatives in response to that to limit those job losses and to provide protection to those people whose jobs are inevitably lost, to the largest extent that we can.

Housing starts in the United States, I believe, currently are running at about a quarter of what they were just a year ago. Imagine that. Only about 25 percent of the housing starts, and the members opposite…. You know, they talk about the forest industry as if there are no realities with which the forest industry has to be concerned. We all regret that mills in this province are closing as a result of these economic circumstances, but you can't sell lumber to people who aren't building houses. It's really that simple.

The Minister of Forests is working hard and with some success to open Asian markets to British Columbia lumber. We all know that's long and laborious work. It's going to take some time. But the American marketplace is just about shut down to lumber products from British Columbia, and that is a reality that we have to deal with.

Commodity prices generally are coming off significantly. It's not only the forest products that are under pressure but oil and gas prices. I take a look at those every day on the global news, and, you know, they're just not edging back up. The Minister of Energy and Mines is pretty acutely aware how a few cents here and there on the price of natural gas has a pretty significant impact on the provincial budget.

Lumber prices I've already alluded to. I ran into somebody the other day, and they said: "You know, we've actually encountered a pretty ridiculous situation in British Columbia today where 2-by-4s are actually cheaper than firewood." It sounds like a tremendously ridiculous statement on the surface, but when you're talking about lumber at about $130 per thousand, that's almost accurate, that you actually pay more money to buy firewood in British Columbia than you have to pay for 2-by-4s. Again, it's because almost the entire American market for lumber has essentially disappeared.

[1720]
[ Page 13662 ]

With that kind of difficulty in the economy, of course, consumer confidence inevitably declines. With consumer confidence declining, you see significant slippage in retail sales. We've certainly seen contraction there here in British Columbia as well, something like $147 million less in retail sales tax revenue back to government as a result of those retail sales slippages.

And inevitably, as I alluded to earlier, there will be job losses in British Columbia. We're already starting to encounter some of those. That is a situation that we find across Canada and around the world at this point in time. We will not be immune from that. The Finance Minister has been clear right from the beginning that whatever happens in the larger world economy, we as a smaller economy, an open trading economy, are going to feel the effects of that.

It is simply our responsibility to notice these things, to do what we can here, setting our own house in order, as we've been doing for the last eight years — again, to try and mitigate the impact of that over the next several years.

Home sales in British Columbia, of course, are on the downslide as well. When consumers lose confidence, they're not as likely to buy homes. As members in this House will know, the property purchase tax is a major generator of provincial revenue, especially when times are good, and that revenue has come off very significantly.

So as a result of all of those things, there is no question that our revenues are coming down. But at the same time, it's important to recognize that we have obligations in terms of the programs that government provides to British Columbians to make sure that they are properly and adequately funded.

A few other things I should point out as well. Since 2001 the taxpayer-supported debt burden in British Columbia has been very significantly reduced to now only 13.8 percent of GDP. It was at one point almost 22 percent seven years ago. It's kind of an economic term, I guess, in some ways, but you know, where the rubber hits the road here is that every dollar we pay in interest on the accumulated debt is a dollar that we don't have available to support today's programs that government delivers.

I and, I'm sure, all members of government have, on an ongoing basis, been pretty proud of the fact that we've been able to reduce the operating debt. We know that as we keep driving that debt down — and we've driven that debt down by, I believe, some $8 billion over the last six years — that that is that much less interest that we today will have to pay and that our children will have to pay on that accumulated debt of generations past. I think that, too, is something that needs to be borne in mind.

Running a deficit, while necessary for the next couple of years, as I've already explained, is really running up your charge card, your credit card. There's only one person who's going to be able to pay that off, and that's whoever comes behind you. Really, it needs to be a measure considered in only the most extraordinary circumstances.

NDP members opposite, over the last couple of days, would almost have us believe that they were actually rather prudent financial managers when they were in government and that since 2001 everything has been botched. But then I would ask: why was it that from May 1997 to April of 1999 there were actually four credit-rating downgrades in the province of British Columbia? Why would that have been? Was that because of the astute financial management of the then NDP government? I don't think so. I think that was a direct commentary on the financial mismanagement that characterized the NDP government.

However, and happily, what we have seen from 2004 to 2007, in three short years, as a direct result of the improved financial management of this province was that we had seven — count them: seven — credit-rating upgrades, to where today our province, the province of British Columbia, enjoys a triple-A credit rating.

[1725]

So we can talk, and we can pontificate, and we can exaggerate for a long time in this House, but the fact of the matter is that there sometimes is some pretty good outside, independent evidence that comments directly on how we are doing as a province and how we did as a province in times past.

In addition to taking action such as running a strategic deficit over the next two years, of course there are other things we can do as well. We can take full advantage of the federal budget, as well, where there was — I think it was something like 14 or 20…. I think it was $20 billion of infrastructure spending that's being made available to the provinces across Canada. That, too, is a large opportunity for us.

I would say that our governments have, over the last seven or eight years, done very well in terms of attracting federal investment into our province, and that needs to continue. As a result of that, we've been able to accomplish some rather large projects. The RAV line is just one example. The Sea to Sky Highway, the highway construction near Golden, British Columbia, the William R. Bennett Bridge in the Kelowna area — very, very large projects that employed a lot of people, and as I said, that should continue.

So imagine my surprise when the Leader of the Opposition said that she was opposed to the construction of the Port Mann Bridge. This is a project that is going to employ, over the next four years, 8,000 people. It is a very large project, and I suspect that is why, when the Minister of Transportation and the Premier made the announcement that this project is going ahead, the Iron Workers Union folks were actually there cheering it on because of the jobs that are going to be created.

But the Leader of the Opposition said: "Wrong bridge, wrong time, wrong this, wrong that. We shouldn't have it done." Well, I beg to differ, not only because of the job-creation potential of that project, but also because it is a sorely needed piece of infrastructure.
[ Page 13663 ]

It will more than double the capacity of the existing Port Mann Bridge. It will allow for rapid bus lanes so that commuters can, for the first time in over 20 years, again take the bus across the bridge from points in the Fraser Valley right into Vancouver. The bridge will be engineered so that, in the future, light rail can run on the bridge as well.

The opposition leader says she's against it. I don't understand it. It just confounds me how the opposition leader can be opposed to such a critical and important piece of infrastructure for the future of, in this case, the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley.

But then, you know, once in a while you run across these interesting comments, and in this case it was a comment made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds who said: "The Port Mann Bridge will only move cars, not people and not goods." I guess in his mind he saw empty cars running across that bridge and trucks with no goods in them. I just thought that that was ridiculous to the point of being humorous.

Maybe it betrays just a complete lack of understanding of exactly how you manage traffic and how you manage the flow of commuters back and forth, but I can tell you that in my riding, people are very appreciative of the fact that we are going to invest in a new Port Mann Bridge so that we get rid of the largest parking lot in Canada that is now the highway between the Fraser Valley and Vancouver.

But we're making other important investments. Again, if I can refer to the community of Chilliwack…. The member for Chilliwack-Kent and I were able to announce just a couple of months ago that we're going to invest almost $100 million in three new schools. We will be replacing the Rosedale Middle School with a new elementary middle school. We'll be replacing the Chilliwack Secondary School with a brand new building and replacing the Yarrow Community School — almost $100 million worth of construction.

I remember remarking at the time that this was a rather fortuitous time to be able to move forward with these kinds of projects, given that a lot of construction workers are now starting to be laid off, and they would most certainly appreciate the ability to work on these kinds of projects.

[1730]

The NDP and their friends like to repeat the old mantra that we've closed schools and this and that and the next thing. We're actually investing in schools in a pretty serious way — as I said, $100 million that we're going to spend on these three new schools that I've just mentioned.

We built the new G.W. Graham Middle School just four years ago in the riding of the member for Chilliwack-Kent. That was a $28 million investment. We have invested $8 million for the acquisition of a new Chilliwack campus for the University of the Fraser Valley and a further $30 million investment to create what is now western Canada's largest trades-training facility.

These are all significant investments in education, and the members opposite suggest that somehow none of that is true. Well, I'm here to confirm that those investments are happening and, secondly, that those investments are well appreciated by the residents in my community.

Let's understand that these are serious times. Governments around the world probably have not been challenged to the degree that they are being challenged now. The American administration is now talking about a $1 trillion deficit. How much is a trillion dollars? I don't know. I cannot get my head around how much a trillion dollars is, but it's an amazing amount of money. That deficit will be transferred, I am sure, to a subsequent generation.

There are serious problems, and we are going to have to confront them together. Otherwise, the residents not only of British Columbia but across the country and around the world are going to suffer some very serious consequences.

I am particularly pleased that over the last five or six years we have been able to lay groundwork and lay an economic base in this province that will position us well for the future. As we deal with the problems of today, we have to look at our positioning for tomorrow to ensure that we can come out of this not only as intact as possible but even stronger so that we can continue to strengthen our economy.

We undertake many initiatives in government, all of which, I'm sure, are with the best of intentions. But the best legacy, I believe, that we can leave to our children and to our grandchildren is a strong economy. Without a strong and functioning economy, we don't have very much at all. It is the very basic groundwork from which everything else can be provided.

With the economic challenges we see today, certainly there are reasons to be concerned. But there are certainly other areas of Canada where I would be more concerned, if I were living there. British Columbia is well positioned in terms of its economic management of the last number of years, also well positioned because of its geographical position in the world and for a number of other factors.

When this financial situation across the world eases, we are going to seize the future. We will be able to seize the agenda of the future and move British Columbia forward to an even better future than today, possibly, we can imagine.

We know that we have the Olympics coming. There is no question that when we are hosting the Olympics next year, many people across this country, across the United States, perhaps in Western Europe are going to be saying to themselves: "Wouldn't it be nice if we could be hosting those Olympics right now?" But we will be the fortunate ones that are hosting those Olympics next year, and we will be the ones that will be fortunate enough to be getting all of that investment in tourism and all of the
[ Page 13664 ]
associated economic activity. That is truly something to look forward to.

Again, I should remind members of this House that the Leader of the Opposition was opposed to British Columbia hosting the Olympics. Well, I suspect most British Columbians are going to agree with me that actually, we're pretty lucky. We're pretty lucky that those Olympics are going to be hosted right here in British Columbia next year.

It can be one of those springboards that we can utilize to market ourselves across the world. The economic spinoffs that come immediately will be pretty helpful to British Columbians as they attempt to retain their jobs, balance their bank accounts every month and pay their bills.

[1735]

I support this legislation. I think the Finance Minister has taken the absolutely correct approach in resisting a deficit as long as it was prudent to do so. However, when the economic indicators indicated that, you know, it was no longer a viable position, he came forward in an open and transparent manner to this House and said: "Let's have a debate about this legislation." That's what we're here to do, and I thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to take my place in the debate of Bill 48, the Finance Statutes (Deficit Authorization and Debt Elimination) Amendment Act. That's quite a title for a 2½-page bill, but there it is.

It's interesting. We've been listening to debate now for a few days, and I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance, who monitors all of these things very closely, is listening intently to the ridicule and scorn that's been heaped upon him for being completely negligent to this point in time. I'll, over the course of the next 20 or 25 minutes, endeavour to make that case so it's clear for him.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

But I want to start with a few things, just to correct the record or at least put my voice to some of the comments that have been made by other speakers.

Yesterday the member from Mission, the Chair of the Finance Committee of which I am a member, took some time to discuss the role and function of public servants in creating the budgets. I am a former public servant myself, and I understand how these processes work. He made reference to the current Deputy Minister Chris Trumpy, who will be leaving government in the next number of weeks, after the budget is approved in the coming weeks.

I just want to say that the assertion that the member from Mission made was that somehow we on this side of the House were denigrating the hard work of public servants, and that is categorically incorrect.

While I'm speaking of it, I want to just pass on my very, very best wishes to Chris Trumpy, who in my opinion is the best public servant that B.C. has had in 15 years. [Applause.]

I know he doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about what goes on in here. Thank goodness for that. He's spending time trying to ensure that the public service is able to manage the dollars that are coming in from taxpayers so that we can have the programs we all want and deserve.

Some of the other members have been making reference to numbers that I assume they've been able to get from private briefings from the Minister of Finance in caucus, in the B.C. Liberal caucus. The Finance critic for the official opposition requested that the minister accelerate the third quarterly report so that the debate that's taking place in this House today could be informed by the facts, the facts that are kept secret and enclosed in briefing books for the minister and his friends, but not for members of this Legislature.

We will be here next week listening to a budget. At that time the numbers in the third quarterly will be made available, and they will be lost in the sea and debate and discussion over the budget. What would have been the courageous thing for the minister to do in a time of dire economic circumstances — as we're led to believe — would be to table that report so that not just the members in this place had an opportunity to review the numbers, so not just the B.C. Liberal Party had an opportunity to review the numbers, but all members in this place could have looked at that.

But we're here today, hon. Member, trying to reverse the bad decision you made when you introduced this bill in the first place. So why not bring that information to the Legislature, so that all members….

They talk, hon. Speaker, about their solemn concern and losing sleep. I'm going to be returning to that theme, as other members have, over the next number of minutes. But if we are in a crisis — if, as all of us understand and know from our communities, from reading the newspaper or a basic dissemination of information through the Internet or on television — if we are in a dire situation, wouldn't the right thing be to be open and transparent about what the problem really is?

Hon. S. Bond: That's why we're here.

J. Horgan: This is a government that said that they were going to be the most….

The Minister of Education. Thank goodness she's here. I always enjoy my discussions with her in this place, and her interjections are quite often insightful — quite often. Unfortunately, I suspect today that won't be the case, hon. Speaker, but we'll have to see as time goes by.

But, again, the Minister of Finance — I would think, as a member of the Finance Committee — came to the committee in September, and he tabled the second quarterly report early, and he said: "This is the state of the
[ Page 13665 ]
books. It's a little bit rough. We lost a couple of hundred million in revenue, but not to worry. Everything is good; everything…."

[1740]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Not in the second quarterly, you didn't. You go and look at your notes, Minister. You've been looking at too many numbers; that might be your problem.

So here we are without benefit of the information the government has, without the benefit of information that backbench caucus members have. This isn't confidential executive council information. This isn't cabinet secrecy. This is information they don't want us to have, and therefore they don't want the public to have.

That's the challenge when we stand in this place to debate financial matters that these so-called free enterprise champions who have all the answers, all the secrets…. They inherited two balanced budgets. They don't want to admit that because it was the Auditor General who certified those, and we know the Minister of Forests' view and contempt for the Auditor General's position.

He made that abundantly clear when he condemned him when he rightly said that the public interest had been abused when the Minister of Forests released private lands in my community in the Western Forest debacle. But if that's their view of the Auditor General, that's fine. Instead of taking those balanced budgets, they created what they called a structural deficit. Not a deficit; a structural deficit. And today our lexicon has been expanded, thanks to the member from Chilliwack. He said that this budget…. Not just a deficit coming up, not a structural deficit; it's a strategic deficit.

My goodness, another excuse for bad management. We're going to be strategic about our deficits — not structural, not just a deficit. It's going to be strategic. "We've thought about it. We lost some sleep over it, and we're going to be strategic about it. But, listen, don't worry, public. It's only going to be two years. Trust us." That's what this bill says. "Everything is going to be fine. We had no idea the train was coming down the track. We had no idea that we were going to get run over by the biggest meltdown since the 1930s. We weren't paying that much attention, because we were cutting ribbons and pretending everything was fine, because the ski hills are going to be filled with tourists. They're going to come flocking here in February of next year."

Well, I've got something to say about that. As a member of the government, I'm going to look forward to going to the Olympic Games in 2010 — very much looking forward to that.

It's unfortunate that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is going to have to buy his ticket if he wants to get in. It's not going to be a free pass, as he's expecting to this point in time. So put a couple of bucks away. I hope he put in his lottery request for a ticket, because he's going to have to get it just like everybody else.

A structural deficit as we go into the brave new world. Everything was fine not eight weeks ago. Not eight weeks ago we were in this place, and the Minister of Finance said…. I often am reluctant to read back quotes, because I know that the eager spin wizards at the public affairs bureau are busily writing down everything that we say on this side of the House so it can be thrown back at us at some time in the future.

But I'm going to take advantage of this opportunity and just remind members of what the Minister of Finance said eight weeks ago: "We can deliver the programs that British Columbians count on, and we can do it without putting this province into deficit because of the careful management of the budget." That's what he said. It's right here.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Wrong. Gong goes the bell, Minister. You missed.

C. Evans: Those comments were strategic.

J. Horgan: They were strategic. That was strategic; that's right.

But even better than that, the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who was at that time the Minister of Revenue, the guy who was supposed to be counting the beans as they came in….

When everything was going great according to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Revenue at the time, said the following: "We are weathering a tremendous world economic storm in a ship that is riding fairly smoothly on troubled seas." Wow, it's lyrical. It's lyrical, and I suspect perhaps even strategic, that the Minister of Revenue, the bean counter…. His only job in the executive council is to count the money as it's coming in, and eight weeks ago: "We're all good. Nothing to worry about here."

We came to this place to pass a ten-point economic plan, one point of which was to come here and pass it. So now we're down to nine — a nine-point economic plan. Now, I know that the golden decade had five golden goals. I can't for the life of me remember any of them, except one said "bar none" at the end. I don't know what it was bar none of, but that's all I can remember. Being a teetotaller and a non-drinker, I captured the "bar none," because that's not where I'm going. The rest of it — who knows? Something about literacy; I'm sure of that.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, it's nine more points than you have.

[1745]
[ Page 13666 ]

J. Horgan: Nine more points than we have. Well, good for the Deputy Premier.

As I said, as the blood sugar drops in this place…. We're in the dinner hour, and that's when it gets really rangy in here. I'm happy to be one of the more rangy members. With the help of the member from Prince George, I'm sure we'll get through the next 15 minutes ably. I'm sure we will.

The stately ride on the strategic ship in troubled seas that we're reminded of by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, had he been reading the newspaper…. This is not in-depth research; this is CanWest Global's offerings every day. This is what they were telling us. I'm going to fly through some headlines. I could read the substance of the articles, but I don't want to tax the minds of those on the other side.

Here we go. January 2008 headline — this is over a year ago: "Are politicians ready for the recession? Probably not." That was the headline. January again,Vancouver Sun: "B.C. companies lose billions in crash." Again, February, also The Vancouver Sun: "Canadian factory output plunges." March: "Drop in B.C. business optimism cited as omen for economy."

If only the shaman over at the public affairs bureau had been clipping the bad news instead of just the good news. If only the ministers had people who were saying, "Things aren't so good," rather than, "Things are great," maybe, just maybe, they would have been ready for this.

In fact, most importantly, if only they had been listening to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the able and competent Finance critic on this side of the House. At the very time the Minister of Finance was saying, "It's all right. It's all good. Nothing to see here. Everything's going to be fine. We've got ten points" — well, we're here so that's one, so we've got nine points. "One of them is that we're going to play a shell game with your assessments. It's not going to affect your taxes at all, but it will make us feel good."

The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said: "We're going to cut ferry fares. We're going to interfere in this private company because it suits our interests." That was another one of the points.

Had the Finance Minister been paying attention to the thoughtful interventions from the member for Surrey-Whalley, he would have heard the following: "My sense would be, based on what we've heard from some experts and based on the fiscal update which we've just digested, that the province will likely run a deficit." The province will likely run a deficit. So you had the thoughtful member for Surrey-Whalley. You had The Vancouver Sun. You had other journals of record.

Let's see what the Vancouver Province says. It said in April: "Retail sales are hammered by the loonie." The dollar drops; retail sales go down. Again, we go to July. "Pesky statistics are raining on Liberals' economic parade." So there was ample evidence that things weren't going so well.

But if the members on that side of the House could have put down their Pollyanna glasses for a moment and stopped listening to the spin weasels over at the public affairs bureau and listened to the constituents in their ridings when they were opening up their investment portfolios, when they were getting their bank statements and seeing a third or a quarter or a half of their savings disappear…. If they had paid attention to job losses in forestry communities, to the dropping investment in mining, to 68,000 jobs being lost last month alone and to a 58 percent drop in housing sales in Vancouver, they might have come to the same conclusion as the member for Surrey-Whalley.

We're in a mess of trouble. As much as I'd like to have sport with the folks on the other side of the House, I think it's important that I use my time constructively to talk about what this is really all about. Those on that side of the House think that the economy is some theoretical construct.

It's not. It's people. It's people in our communities. When they turn on their television set and they listen to the debate going back and forth here, they're wondering: "What the heck are those people doing to affect my life?" My community is heavily dependent on the forest industry. It's disappeared. My community has been heavily dependent on residential construction. Large housing construction projects have gone silent, condominiums sit empty and the prospects for the future look pretty grim in Malahat–Juan de Fuca. They look pretty grim.

[1750]

I suspect that if those members on the other side were being honest with themselves and maybe even strategic about their deficit, they would recognize that these issues, as important as they are to the ideological giant from Vancouver–Point Grey, who's losing sleep over an accounting ledger rather than over the lives of the people in British Columbia…. I think they would agree with us on this side of the House that what we need right now is not for them to eat crow over their "my deficit reduction bill is better than yours."

They said that our bill back in 1999 had loopholes in it. I think that a little bit of history is also important as we discuss that, because at the time that the New Democrats came to power in British Columbia, their cousins the Conservatives, the Mulroney Conservatives, were in power and running up the largest deficits in Canadian history.

Then their second cousins the federal Liberals came into power in Ottawa and started sucking money out of provincial economies. They started sucking back transfer payments. You'll remember this. I know that the member from Quilchena will remember this. Paul Martin balanced the federal budget on the backs of
[ Page 13667 ]
British Columbia taxpayers, Alberta taxpayers and Saskatchewan taxpayers right across the country.

When times became good, when commodity prices went up and the federal balance books looked better, money started coming back our way. That happened to coincide with the time that the B.C. Liberals came to power. If they were being truthful, they would acknowledge that, rather than the back-and-forth about: "Oh, yeah, my dad can beat up your dad." Instead of doing that junk that we do here every day, if they acknowledged that this is…. Public policy is a river, and it flows, and sometimes it's up and sometimes it's down.

Whenever there's bad news, it's someone else's problem. That's a truism for all governments — not New Democrats, not Conservatives, not Liberals. It's a truism for all governments. If things are up, it's all the government's doing. If things are down, it's someone else's problem. This government has infected itself after eight years with the sense that they can do no wrong, and that is your Achilles heel. That is why this group will be tossed out come May — because they think they can do no wrong.

It's pretty simple. If you wanted to solve the climate change challenge, a real leader would say, "All 79 of us have a stake in that," because we do. All of the people of British Columbia have a stake in that, regardless of how they voted, regardless of who they sent here to represent them. We all have a stake in that.

What did the member from Point Grey do? He huddled up in secret. He ruled FOI not to be in effect for certain parts of his plan, and he said, "I'm going to save the world," until a shiny bobble went by, and he went in the other direction. The shiny bobble today is strategic deficits.

If they were being honest with themselves…. If we are in an economic crisis — as we all know we are, based on what our constituents are telling us and based on what our elbow tells us — we got big problems here. Standing up and railing against something that happened in 1996 is not going to change that.

I know that my friend from Penticton is going to get up and say that in 1996 bad things happened. I'm okay with that, because my constituents don't give a darn about 1996. They're concerned about next week, and so am I, and so are people on this side of the House.

I could have read off a million quotes from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey talking about his financial rectitude and his ability to balance budgets. I could have also talked about commodity prices going through the roof in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and about moneys flooding the treasury that were wasted on overruns for things like the convention centre, were wasted on excessive highways to Whistler. I could have done all of that, but my constituents don't want to hear about that. They want to hear about what we 79 people are planning to do about protecting their future, their children's future.

It's absolute garbage when I hear the Premier say: "We don't want to push our problems off to future generations." What do you think we've been doing since 1930? Pushing off problems to future generations. If the crystal ball that the Minister of Finance has says that everything is going to be good in two years, then why don't we plan for that? Why don't we plan around that? Why don't we make strategic investments, not strategic deficits, but strategic investments?

The member from Chilliwack also talked about schools that are being built in his community. I would love to hear the Minister of Education stand and talk about building schools in my community, but apparently you have to have a card to get that sort of treatment in this Legislature, and it happens to be a B.C. Liberal card.

[1755]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: We can take it outside on that one. And don't tell me to talk the truth. I do that every day.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh, and there she goes. You see, we were doing so well too, the Minister of Education and I, and now it's all lost. The love's gone again. We were so close. We had a few minutes to go. The blood sugar is dropping, and I've blown it. We were doing fine, and then I've just thrown it all away.

I'm pleased that everyone's up on that side and engaged and invigorated by my comments, but I want to close by quoting the Globe and Mail, which used to be….

An Hon. Member: Don't close.

J. Horgan: Well, I think I'm near closing.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: No? I've got more time?

Some Hon. Members: More. More.

J. Horgan: Well, if you insist. I know the Minister of Education will want to hear more.

I want to talk a little bit about the folly of these balanced-budget bills. It started in the 1990s, with political parties federally and in provinces right across the country saying: "Well, the only way we can prove to taxpayers that we're serious is that we'll pass a bill saying we'll never do something again."

Today, with Bill 48, you couldn't get better proof that that's just plain stupid. I don't fault the government on the other side. The NDP government of the day did the same thing, because everyone was doing it.
[ Page 13668 ]

The Globe and Mail in their editorial from February 10, just this week…. "Retreat from Fiscal Fiction" is the heading. At the end of it, it says: "Before falling prey to such gimmicks in the future, governments should consider the effect they have on the public's trust."

I want members to reflect on that for a minute, and I know that the Minister of Education will. I'll read it again. "Before falling prey to such gimmicks in the future, governments should consider the effect they have on the public's trust." What this editorial is saying, hon. Speaker and members assembled here today…. They're saying that if you want the public to believe what you're doing, then make sure you're doing something that's believable.

When we introduced a bill in '98-99 which balanced budgets, it was following governments in other jurisdictions. Everyone was doing it. It was the flavour of the week.

Of course, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey had to be bigger than everyone else, bigger and better and larger, so he said: "Never ever in the history of the world will there be a budget deficit while I'm running the show." Well, hubris often comes back to bite you on the backside, and that's exactly what's happened to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

As much as I would like to relish that, I think, more importantly, that we need to discuss and understand how the public views that sort of thing. It denigrates all of us as elected representatives. We put ourselves forward. We've got our new members here in the House from Vancouver-Fairview and Vancouver-Burrard, who have come here with sincerity and honesty and earnestness to try and make the world a better place for their constituents. That's why all of us stepped forward when we did, at various times.

I know that when the member from Langley was elected in 1996, he came here with the best intentions to make the world a better place for his neighbours, his community and the province. We all did that. But when we try and one-up each other with bills that cannot possibly be realized, we denigrate everyone. That's the gist of the editorial in the Globe and Mail, and I have to echo it for those members on the other side.

Let's not delude ourselves by thinking that somehow it's all going to be better in two years, because we don't know. What about two years after that? What about two years after that? Prices go up; prices go down.

Markets change. Goodness knows that. I thought you rocket scientists from free enterprise–land would figure that out. Markets change. We can't predict that. I'm sure the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's brother can predict that, because nothing ever goes wrong in his world, but constituents in my community are reading the statements from their investment advisers, and they're devastated. They're absolutely devastated.

I was shopping at Christmastime in my community of Langford, and I was talking to one of the attendants at the store I was in. She's 58 years old. We have stories like this right across the province — every member, both sides of the House. Her husband is a couple of years away from retirement, but they're reassessing how their lives are going to unfold, because they just don't know.

I have to tell you that I'll take the advice and wisdom of the 58-year-olds in my community over the Pollyanna looking glass that the Minister of Finance has. I don't know what the finances are going to be like in two years, and neither does he. Repealing the previous bill would have been a good step, because we're in trouble.

[1800]

At some point we'll see the third quarterly report, and we'll be able to confirm that with the Minister of Finance. But today all I've got to go on is the lost sleep that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is worried about. That's all I've got, and a couple of comments in the press that the economy is in the can. We know that. We feel that. But why say that two years from now everything is going to be good? How is that possible? If the member for Vancouver-Quilchena couldn't predict eight weeks ago that we were going to be into a deficit situation, how can he predict two years out? How do you do that?

I'm going to close by just again reminding all members that people are what this is all about. The 68,000 full-time jobs last month alone, the 68,000 jobs lost — those are human beings. Those are families right across British Columbia.

The devastation in forest industry communities. The Minister of Forests is aware of this. We've been talking about it for a year and a half. He inherited some big problems. We get that. People don't want to buy lumber if they're not building things. We get that. But what's the plan? Where's the plan? That's what the public wants to hear.

What are we going to do when things turn around? The member from Chilliwack was saying that we're in good shape. Well, I don't know. I'm not as confident. Perhaps if I got the private briefings from the Minister of Finance, I would have a little bit more confidence in the future.

As it is, people in my community are concerned that housing starts have tanked, that prices have tanked and that their savings are disappearing. They look at this Legislature, and what they hear are members on that side of the House talking about 1996. Who cares?

The challenge we all have is to leave this place with our heads held high, go back to our communities and say we're all working together, trying to find a way to get out of this mess that we find ourselves in. I don't hear that from that side of the House, and it's a tragedy.

R. Thorpe: It's a pleasure to rise in the House today. In 13 years in this House we've seen a lot. At home in my constituency, I like to tell people, when they ask me about my political beliefs, that I'm a caring fiscal hawk. Also, I'm a father and, as most of you know, a grandfather. It's
[ Page 13669 ]
important. Why I've sort of called myself a caring fiscal hawk is because I believe that the only way we can provide for health care, education and those truly in need is by having a strong economy, having jobs and having a prudent and truthful approach to our finances.

I've also had the honour to serve as a minister for seven years in our government and for the past eight years on Treasury Board. I would first like to recognize and say thank you to the unbelievable staff who serve Treasury Board and who have worked so tirelessly and for so long, for so many days and months in these ever-changing times.

In particular, I'd like to recognize and say thanks to the leadership on the Treasury Board and ask them to pass along to their staff my sincere thanks, and I know all members of Treasury Board — that being Chris Trumpy, whose name has been mentioned in the House several times in this debate on Bill 48, and also Nick Paul. And please, to their teams, we owe them a great, big thank-you for their dedication in producing financial information that is as realistic as can be obtained in these very, very quick and changing times.

I know our Premier, minister and caucus members take their commitment to our fiscal responsibility to the letter of the law.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Apparently it's difficult for some members to be serious at serious times in this House.

Also, as some of my other colleagues have said, I want to say a special thanks to our Finance Minister, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, for his commitment to truth in budgeting, for his commitment to integrity in budgeting. I just want to say thank you very much to that member for his commitment to that honour.

[1805]

Therefore we have now before us Bill 48. Our government, unlike previous NDP governments, believes in living within the law. We do not believe in fudge-it budgets.

I sat in this House and saw fudge-it budgets presented. I also remember the headlines, and the picture of the Finance Minister of the day, that said — those members who weren't here, which are most of these members here on the opposition, may want to go back to that time and see the Province newspaper, front page — "I Didn't Expect Anybody to Believe Me Anyhow." That was from the Finance Minister of the day, of the NDP. What a legacy to leave British Columbians. Then the Premier of the day, Glen Clark, always said: "You know, we need a little wiggle room."

So that is the history of the NDP. You wonder why the members on that side persist in saying, "We don't want to hear about the '90s" — because they can't deal with the truth. As a matter of fact, it's not only the '90s that British Columbians have to remember. It's the '70s, when they were in power too, because they destroyed the economy. They destroyed the jobs in British Columbia in the '70s and in the '90s. That's what the NDP has done, and that's why British Columbians should be reminded as we go to the election poll on May 12 of this year. That's what should be done.

Then, of course, we have the NDP — the negative, desperate and pessimistic party of British Columbia — led by their leader, Negativity Plus. This hypocritical leader talked in this House yesterday about principles.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: You know, Madam Speaker, they can heckle if they want, because all it does is rev me up. If that's what they want to do, let 'er go.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about principles. Well, you know how long their principles last? Sometimes they change a day, because sometimes she makes a principle without caucusing with her caucus so that they can reach a consensus. Then they have a caucus meeting, they have a consensus, and then they change that consensus.

Then of course we know the principles are going to change because: "Leader, it's Jim Sinclair on the phone. I don't like that. Please get that changed." We know that Jim Sinclair, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, is leading that government. Yet it was a principle. It was a principle of that leader and those NDP members that they were going to distance themselves from the ways of past. They're closer than ever before — over $3 million in donations to help them finance their operations.

Let's just look here, because for a principled leader, as she espouses to be on that side of the House, her public quotes, you would think, should support that position.

So what did the Leader of the Opposition say on October 28? "I firmly believe in balanced budgets. In fact, our costing has been done very conservatively." That must have hurt her to use that word. "We've used government numbers, and we've left almost a billion dollars as a cushion, as a new forecast surplus, in each of the next two years. So we've left additional dollars on the table, recognizing the economy could worsen." Didn't say it was, just recognizing it could. Then we hear them speak, and they said they knew all this was coming six months ago, but the quotes don't say that.

Then of course there was a quote of December 11, on CKNW: "I'm committed to a balanced budget, but no one can take a crystal ball, including the Premier, and say what's going to happen a year from now. Who could have imagined where we are right now, six months ago? No one." That's from the principled leader of the NDP.

Then in January of 2009 it says, and this was on CTV News: "I've said all along that I believe in balanced budgets. I believe in fiscal responsibility, but I also believe in common sense." Now wiggle room's new
[ Page 13670 ]
code words are "common sense" from the NDP side of the House.

[1810]

Then, of course, there's that member for Cariboo North. What did he say on November 21?

An Hon. Member: Charlie?

R. Thorpe: No, that member is from another riding in the Cariboo.

"We've seen a federal throne speech that's talking about a potential for deficits, and it may not be the time to work within mandatory balanced budgets." Now, I wonder if the member for Cariboo North and the leader had been talking to each other, and had they reached consensus? Apparently not. But they are very, very principled.

We're here today to talk about Bill 48. There's no question, if we all want to be honest — and some of the comments that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca said I would agree with — that these are tough and challenging times. No one can deny that.

But this is not just about talking about numbers. This is about talking about individuals, about families — families who are working to pay the mortgage, working to look after their children and their grandchildren and their other loved ones.

Our government could have done what the NDP did in '96. We could have, technically, tabled a balanced budget in February. It would have been very difficult to do in a credible way. We know that if we had done that, it would have been done without the necessary core investments in health care and education. It would also have challenged the fiscal reputation that our government has built about being honest about the finances of the province of British Columbia.

You know, I honestly….

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: I expect the cheap shots from the other side, but there's one thing. When we look at the credit agency, who wears the striped shirts for when they were in government and when we are in government…. The referee, the credit agencies, has said: "The B.C. Liberal government has restored the credit rating of British Columbia to triple-A, the best in Canada."

As I've said, I've seen fudge-it budgets in this House, and I've seen what they've done to people. I'm surprised that there are six members…. I've noticed that they haven't got up to speak yet. There are six members of the government of that day that were here when the fudge-it budget came in, but I haven't seen them talk yet. They know what happened when they were in government, and I'm sure that to this day they're still ashamed of that. Most of them were ministers.

There's also just been an unbelievable shift in world economics, and it has hurt British Columbia. Just as late as December the forecast council, which is a group of the leading economists that advise the government and provide information to government, were predicting 0.6 percent economic growth for 2009. By January, a matter of weeks, their predictions had fallen to zero.

Therefore, if we are going to do the responsible thing, we have to bring in temporary deficit budgets for the next two years. But we are doing that in an open way so that we can protect health care and education.

You know, the question here is…. We've heard all the rhetoric from the other side and all the negatives from the other side and all the doom and gloom from the other side. The other thing we've heard is that they're for balanced budgets, but every one of them that's got up in this House today has asked for more money. They need to spend more money. They need to spend more money. They need to spend more money. That's all they talk about.

We know that they were going to run…. If and when they ever form government — I think maybe 2020, 2021; I don't know what year it'll be — they are going to destroy the province once again.

[1815]

The right thing to do was to recall this Legislature so that we could table a budget next year that complied with the laws of the province of British Columbia. That's what we're doing, and I'm proud to be part of a government that wants to comply with the laws of British Columbia.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: You know, they mock very responsible people, but again, hon. Chair, as you know, that's what irresponsible people do.

We know that deficits are tough. Deficits are tough on our children. As I said earlier, I'm proud to be a grandfather, and I can tell you that when I go through the decisions that we've had to go through, I think about my grandson. I do not think about that lightly. I think about us burdening other people's grandchildren, and these decisions are not taken lightly.

N. Simons: Oh yeah, right. What children? Your children. What about the rest of the children?

R. Thorpe: There's actually a time when members in this House should show some respect, and they should not be attacking the grandchildren of British Columbia, as the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast has just done. He deserves to be pulled up to his….

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: So our actions will be temporary.
[ Page 13671 ]

Point of Order

N. Simons: As much as it's somewhat entertaining, at no time would I ever attack any children or grandchildren. I'm simply commenting….

An Hon. Member: That's not a point of order.

N. Simons: That's not a point of order? Well, I apologize if it's not a point of order. I think it's an opportunity to clarify the erroneous remarks of the member opposite.

Deputy Speaker: Member, your remarks were very close to distasteful.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

R. Thorpe: Bill 48 is proposing a two-year exemption to section 2 of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. This amendment includes the automatic repeal in 2011. We are also proposing an amendment to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to require that any annual increases in consolidated revenue fund cash be used to pay down the direct operating debt.

The amendment includes a prohibition against supplementary estimates until the direct operating debt is eliminated. The prohibition means that every penny of future operating surplus under direct government control will go to eliminating the direct operating debt.

Our government still believes strongly in balanced budgets, and we are proposing these amendments today to ensure that our government returns to balanced budgets as soon as possible.

There's also something else that's very important. On top of allowing for these two years of deficit, the legislative amendment will require every dollar of the future surpluses to be used to pay down operating debt, as I said earlier. If public accounts show a deficit for the next year, ministers will lose their 10 percent salary holdback.

We are still working hard to significantly reduce discretionary spending in areas of advertising, travelling and contracting grants. We are committed to moving forward, and our thrust is about creating jobs in the province of British Columbia, in communities of British Columbia, in every region of British Columbia.

Interjections.

R. Thorpe: We hear them — the nattering, the rhetoric — yet they're against jobs in British Columbia. Now, why would anybody but the NDP oppose 8,000 jobs to build the new ten-lane Port Mann Bridge? Why would anybody do that? Why would anybody oppose 7,000 new jobs on the South Fraser perimeter road or 6,000 jobs on the Sea to Sky?

Our plan will see infrastructure investments across the province. You know, the NDP…. The leader, Negativity Plus, said she was for balanced budgets. But her balanced budget didn't take into account the cost to the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and all the small businesses in British Columbia. It's going to add $450 million to new jobs lost in this province. Scrapping the softwood lumber agreement would cost British Columbia $2.4 billion.

[1820]

Banning independent power projects that are investing $4.5 billion and creating thousands of rural jobs. We hear members there talk about rural jobs. They don't give a you-know-what about rural jobs. It's all rhetoric.

We hear the member for Yale-Lillooet talk about rural British Columbia. Let me tell you about rural British Columbia. I'm not sure that member over there remembers that Princeton is part of his riding, because he's never advocated for a project in Princeton. But you know what? It's not in my riding, but I have worked with the mayor and council in Princeton over the last few years.

Let me just say what they have got: an Olympic Live Site for $170,000 for a multimedia performing arts theatre; a $100,000 transportation partnership project for their airport; $200,000 for their Spirit Squares to revitalize the town square; $850,000 for municipal rural infrastructure on an area water project; and hundreds of thousands of dollars for bridge and trails projects. That's what our government did in an NDP riding where the member for Yale-Lillooet doesn't even know where Princeton is.

I'm surprised that some of the members from rural British Columbia that are in the House today from the NDP are for killing the gas and oil industry in British Columbia, which is bringing revenue into their…. You're going to take a billion dollars out, and we're going to lose thousands of jobs there.

Of course, there's a member from Maple Ridge who thinks we should build walls around British Columbia. He's against TILMA, and he's against free trade. He's against job creation. It's unbelievable. He doesn't believe in seeing the world, seeing the vision, seeing the competition with the world, because we have the best and brightest right here in British Columbia. He's against progress. He's about going backwards, not forward.

When we took office, we faced a $4 billion structural deficit. Working together with British Columbians, we overcame that. We went through SARS. We saw the Twin Towers, avian flu, wildfires everywhere. Our government has the experience. Our government has the leadership to work through these challenges. Of course, the only experience the NDP have is fudge-it budgets. Fudge-it budgets — that's all they know.

I know there's quite a few, and they're to be applauded for this. They're to be applauded. Many of them have studied history. A lot of them have graduated university, so they've studied history. So they know that history will
[ Page 13672 ]
repeat itself. They know that the people will remember the NDP of the '70s. They know that people will remember the NDP of the '90s.

They know that the people of British Columbia don't…. They want those secrets kept quiet. They don't want everybody to know how incompetent the NDP are at managing the economy, because when the rest of the world was growing, British Columbia was going from number one to number ten under the leadership of the NDP. That's what was happening in British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The leader of the NDP should go back and check her record. These are the members that voted against families and communities. They voted against an accelerated 5 percent personal income tax cut that puts $144 million back into the pockets of British Columbia.

They're against protecting RSPs from creditors and bankruptcy proceedings. They're against protecting investments in B.C. credit unions. We've heard them say they're against lowering the property assessment tax at 2007 or 2008, whichever is the lowest. We know they're against individuals in British Columbia having the ability to defer their property taxes until things get better.

We know that they're against small business, because they voted against the accelerated tax reduction of 44 percent to small business, which put $146 million back into the small businesses. They voted against rebate in school property taxes for light and heavy industries of $115 million. They voted against putting $2.4 million back into the pockets of small businesses.

[1825]

Before I move adjournment of debate, I'll reserve my time to finish. Noting the hour, I reserve my time in my speech, and I move adjournment of debate.

R. Thorpe moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 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