2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th 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)

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 12

[ Page 265 ]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

D. Thorne: I have the pleasure today of introducing some members of my family who came over from Surrey for the first time in the Legislature, at least since I've been here. I'd like the House to make welcome my stepdaughter Shelly Edmondson; my stepdaughter Kathy Bloom; and her husband, Murray Bloom.

Hon. N. Yamamoto: I'd like the members to welcome my partner, Fred Pinnock, and my stepdaughter Julia. They're from North Vancouver. Julia's looking forward to attending Balmoral Secondary School in North Van.

[1335]

T. Lake: A little over 21 years ago my life changed dramatically, as did my wife Lisa's. That was on the birth of our eldest daughter, Shannon, who is here today as she attends UVic, studying anthropology and archaeology. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Shannon today.

B. Routley: I would like to introduce Debra Toporowski, who is the constituency assistant in the Cowichan Valley and is brave enough to take on a second Routley. Howard Wong, her dad, is here. He's our handyman extraordinaire. Linda Wong — an incredible volunteer. And Betty Iverson is now in her 70th year, taking care of carbon in the Cowichan Valley because she only rides a bicycle. She's never had her driver's licence. With that, I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming these fine guests from the Cowichan Valley.

M. Dalton: I'd like to acknowledge in the gallery today the attendance of the Maple Ridge Mayor, Ernie Daykin, and Jim Rule. Ernie was elected mayor this last term and was a councillor for two terms before that. His family goes back four generations in Maple Ridge, to the 1870s. I'm happy to be working alongside of him for the benefit of Maple Ridge residents. Jim Rule is the city manager. He has been working in the city for seven years and has come from Sudbury. Would the House please welcome them.

M. Elmore: It's my pleasure to introduce today a constituent from Vancouver-Kensington. He's the former MLA, and he is much loved, admired and respected by everyone in Vancouver-Kensington. I ask the House to please join me to giving a warm welcome to David Chudnovsky.

J. Thornthwaite: It is my pleasure to introduce Sarah Sandfuhr. Sarah is a law student from Germany. Her home university is located in Münster, and she is in her fourth year of law. Her interest in foreign law systems has resulted in her participating in a two-year program on the common-law systems in the world, and the program requires an internship in a common-law country such as Canada. For that reason, she now works in Victoria for several law firms, experiencing the common-law practice in Canada.

Welcome, Sarah.

D. Routley: I'd like to join the member for Cowichan Valley in welcoming Debra Toporowski, my former CA — the other Routley's CA. In fact, Bill took over my office and just had to change the first name on the sign — didn't have to do much else. The CA stayed at her desk.

I hope the House will help me welcome Debra; her dad, Howard, who did everything around the office — fixing, shovelling snow; and of course Betty Iverson, as Bill mentioned, is a great volunteer. She scrapbooked absolutely every mention of me, good or bad, in the media. Those are great memories, and I'm sure the member for Cowichan Valley will be very well served by Debra and those many volunteers, including her sister Linda.

L. Reid: I have some lovely friends and family in the gallery today. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming my mother, Catherine Reid. She's with Rheta Steer, who many of you will recognize as the lovely woman who assisted me in the care of my two babes, who are now five and nine. I'd ask you to welcome Will Reid-Friesen and Olivia Reid-Friesen.

Also in the gallery we have Mark Turner. He represents the House of Friendship Society, Hiiye'yu Lelum, in Duncan. It is his 50th birthday. I would ask the House to join us in wishing him the best 50 years.

[1340]

R. Fleming: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of mine from Victoria–Swan Lake, Chris Kask. He's joined by his brother-in-law Mr. Jesse Church, from the riding of Esquimalt–Royal Roads; and his sister-in-law Ms. Claire Church, both of whom are looking forward to returning to David Cameron Elementary School next week. Lifelong Victorians, but first time in the precinct. Will the House please make these three guests welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I am delighted to actually introduce two sets of guests in the Legislature today. This morning I had the pleasure of meeting with two representatives of the Alma Mater Society of UBC. I'd love to wel-
[ Page 266 ]
come Adrienne Smith and Tim Chu, who were here to talk about transit issues in particular. They were very thoughtful, and I appreciated their input. I know the members would like to make them welcome today.

Secondly, it's not often that we get visitors from northern British Columbia, but today we have a number of them joining us in the gallery. On behalf of my colleagues the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie and the MLA for Nechako Lakes and, indeed, the Minister of Health, who is a personal friend of several of these visitors today, we want to welcome a group of people who are absolutely committed to revitalizing the downtown of Prince George. They're doing a fantastic job.

Dan McLaren is here, the president of Commonwealth Financial; Norm McLaren of N.D. McLaren and Associates; Heather Olund director of planning with L&M Engineering; Shari Green, a newly elected councillor for the city of Prince George, doing a fantastic job; Bruce Sutherland, the chair of the Northern Development Initiative Trust and the chair of CNC; Howie Charters, the managing director of Colliers International; and Janine North, the CEO of the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

They're doing a great job in northern B.C., and I know they'll get an enthusiastic welcome here to Victoria.

R. Lee: We have some visitors from China today. They are from the office of the Ethnic, Religious, Overseas Chinese and Foreign Affairs Commission of Hubei Provincial People's Congress, represented by Shiping He, Guang Ping Wang, Yuanchao Shang and Yonghong Li. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Slater: I'd like the House to welcome my brother Kim Slater, who is a high school teacher in Nanaimo.

H. Bloy: I would like to introduce to the House the future of British Columbia, my great-nephew Oliver George Macleod, who was born yesterday at 10:03 a.m. He is doing fine. His mom, Fawn, and his dad, Matt, are all doing fine. Would the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

GurdEV singh gREwal

H. Bains: With deep sadness I report to this House the passing of the last surviving hero of the struggle to get South Asians the right to vote in Canada. Mr. Gurdev Singh Grewal died yesterday morning at the age of 87. Their long, arduous fight finally resulted in Indians and other South Asians getting their right to vote restored in April 1947.

No doubt, the work of people such as Mr. Grewal and many others that came before us is the reason many of the visible minorities are sitting in this House today, and it is their struggle, sacrifices and foresight that led to a better society that we enjoy today. I ask this House to join with me to pay respect to this giant of a human being.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. DISABILITY GAMES IN
MAPLE RIDGE AND PITT MEADOWS

M. Dalton: Today I would like to pay tribute to the many hundreds of athletes, volunteers and caregivers of the 2009 B.C. Disability Games held this summer in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.

The B.C. Disability Games give British Columbians with disabilities the opportunity to compete in an organized sports event that promotes physical fitness and community pride. The games also provide national and international qualifying standards.

Jennifer McKenzie is an athlete who has competed in international events, including the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Games. She said that the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadow games were the best that she has experienced in terms of community generosity and organization.

[1345]

Some of the key volunteers were Anita Perler, Robert Campbell, Mike Murray and Cathy Marshall. I would like to say a big thank-you to every person who helped out in one way or another. A great deal of work and organization goes into hosting an event like this. It demonstrates that the residents of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows have a lot of heart.

The games had events for athletes who are blind or deaf, athletes who are amputees or others with other disabilities. Sixteen local athletes made it to the podium, including gold medalist Sierra Morissette, Marie Hol, Jeanne Durnion and Jennifer McKenzie.

Thanks also to the different partners who helped make this possible: school district 42, local Rotary clubs, Westminster Savings, the CBC, the cities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, B.C. Games and the province of British Columbia.

Congratulations once again to all the athletes and to all those who contributed to making the 2009 B.C. Disability Games into such a big success.

SURREY HOSPICE SOCIETY

S. Hammell: Last week I introduced hospice to the members through the story of a young girl losing her dad. I shared how hospice was able to help her and her family come to terms with their grief.

There's a second chapter to the Surrey Hospice story. Three years ago it became evident to everyone at hospice
[ Page 267 ]
that significant changes had to happen. They needed to expand. Surrey Hospice was experiencing a demand for services that far outweighed what could be provided under their current circumstances.

Barb Morningstar, the program director, was working in a cramped, dark space with no doors for private interviews or counselling. Their palliative and grief coordinators were in a big open room that doubled as a room for programs, board meetings and counselling. There were no private rooms for bereaved family members to share in a private environment. There were times when they had double the number of children registered in Hopeful Hearts than they could accommodate.

Surrey Hospice rose to the challenge of renovating their space at Newton Regency Care Home by raising $200,000. They now have those private counselling offices, a beautiful room for the children, a family meeting room and a larger group room. All of the training for volunteers happens at Newton Regency. All of the grief counselling, grief programs and administration happen at Newton Regency.

This effort is now at risk of an unintended consequence, I am sure, of the closing of long-term care beds at Newton Regency Care Home. Marion, the executive director, said: "We cannot cease this vital service to the community of service. We need to keep Surrey Hospice open."

VICTORIA GREEK FEST

R. Fleming: I rise today to talk about the annual Greek Fest, which opened yesterday in my community and runs through to September 7 over the entire Labour Day weekend. This festival, which attracts a growing audience of thousands of people each year, is hosted at the Greek Orthodox Church and community centre located on Elk Lake Drive.

Greek Fest is a wonderful time for food, for fun and for community. For the eighth consecutive year, the Victoria and Vancouver Island Greek Community Society has put together Greek Fest, showcasing Greek culture in British Columbia in support of our local multicultural community. The festival will feature delicious Greek food, Greek desserts, baked goods and traditional Greek dancing, some by international dance groups.

There will be live music from local artists and many other different programs of entertainment, reflecting the fusion of our global culture. This year's Greek Fest will also see a return of the heritage exhibit, which will explore the history of Greece and Greeks in British Columbia, with some very special attention paid this year to the explorer Ioannis Fokas, otherwise known as Juan de Fuca, the first Greek to navigate our coast in 1592, albeit in the service of Spain.

Juan de Fuca settled at Fort Victoria and married Marrie-Ann, the daughter of the then chief of the Songhees Nation, and had a very large family. That history will be highlighted over the weekend.

[1350]

Since its inception the Victoria and Vancouver Island Greek community has been sponsoring community events on an ongoing basis as part of their mandate, and each year the proceeds from Greek Fest are directed to charitable purposes to help individuals and families in need in our community.

This year Greek Fest is partnering with the Saanich firefighters to assist in the school hot lunch program in this school district. This program provides prepared, nutritious meals for school children throughout Victoria, filling a need that ensures that our children receive healthy, nourishing food. It's is an investment in our future, and I commend the Victoria and Vancouver Island Greek Community Society for being a sponsor of that.

I ask this House to thank all of the volunteers and the many hours they put in to host this important annual festival.

[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I hope I didn't hear what I just thought I heard.

NORTH THOMPSON FALL FAIR AND RODEO

T. Lake: Saddle bronc and bareback horse riding, bull riding, steer wrestling, ladies barrel racing, pancake breakfasts, equestrian events, livestock exhibits, a town parade and an old-fashioned Saturday night barn dance. These are just a few of the exciting events happening this Labour Day weekend as part of the 60th North Thompson Fall Fair and Rodeo in Barriere. The first-ever fall fair back in 1950 drew a crowd of 500 people, and it's estimated over 9,000 people will attend this year, celebrating all that the rural culture and lifestyle have to offer.

Our fall fair and rodeo is a celebration of local agricultural production and a forum to educate the public about where their food comes from, how it's grown, and it encourages people to eat local, healthful meat and produce. From livestock competitions, fine arts, sewing, baking, gardening, beekeeping and so much more, this weekend promotes an essential part of our heritage and Canada's rural lifestyle.

The Salle and Rainer families are two of the families in the valley that have contributed to this fair for decades. Their vision, time and effort are cornerstones to the success of one of B.C.'s favourite Labour Day traditions and a past winner of the best fair in B.C. award.

I'd like to thank the president of the Fall Fair and Rodeo Association, Jill Hayward, for all of her tremendous work, along with her list of directors, conveners and hundreds of volunteers who make this event pos-
[ Page 268 ]
sible and, indeed, such a success, year in and year out. Their commitment and excellence have proven over the past 60 years this is indeed a success.

It will be a pleasure to pull on the cowboy boots for this year's fall fair and rodeo. Along with my family, I look forward to taking part in the parade and touring the marvellous fairgrounds. Here's to the next 60 years of fall fairs in the beautiful North Thompson Valley.

EDGAR DUNNING

V. Huntington: Most towns have archives for their historical record. In Delta we have Edgar Dunning. This amazing gentleman's resumé includes original editor, reporter, photographer and publisher of the award-winning Delta Optimist for a career covering 45 years; editor of the Pacific region edition of the CBC radio program Neighbourly News for 26 years; founding member of the Kinsmen Club of Ladner, the Delta Community Band Society, the Delta Museum and Archives Society; and executive board member of the Delta Board of Trade, the Beach Grove Golf Club, the Delta Memorial Park Association and the Ladner Business Association.

He is a commissioner on the Delta Heritage Advisory Commission, a director of the Burns Bog Conservation Society and a continuing columnist for local Delta newspapers. Mr. Dunning was the first-ever recipient of the Freedom of the Municipality, the highest honour bestowed to an individual by the corporation of Delta.

In his columns and articles Mr. Dunning continues to recount the rich history of Delta as he witnessed it since his arrival in Ladner in 1922, from major events such as the opening of the Deas Island Tunnel to vignettes such as the young boys in the 1920s selling and then reselling muskrat tails to the city clerk.

Edgar Dunning is honest, informative and entertaining. His voice is indeed the voice of Delta.

[1355]

Of course, filling these roles with distinction takes some time. In Edgar Dunning's case, that time verges on a century. He even jokes that he's outlived ten of his family doctors. Edgar Dunning recently celebrated a milestone, his 99½-year birthday, and next week on September 12 the Kinsmen are honouring this esteemed pioneer in a public celebration. I ask this House to add its voice to Delta's as we say thank you, Edgar Dunning.

GUILDFORD COMMUNITY

D. Hayer: I wish to take this opportunity to recognize a new community, Guildford, within the new boundaries of my Surrey-Tynehead riding. You might not know it, but our Guildford has roots a thousand years old. It was named after the English village established in the tenth century. Our Guildford, however, is youthful in comparison and gained its name from the now massive shopping centre built after the completion of the Port Mann Bridge in 1964.

Over the years Guildford has become a vibrant residential area that has an incredible sense of community. For several years, despite the area west of 152nd Street only being part of my riding after the May election, I have supported the Guildford Community Fair. That is not new to me, because I had lived in Guildford when I was a teenager. I always take great pleasure in attending the festival.

MP Dona Cadman and myself sponsored a children's event. I also donated food and drinks for all who attended.

The Guildford Community Fair is hosted by the Dogwood Anti-Poverty Society, led by Patricia Cuthill. The many volunteers included Shelly Baxter, Jim and Alex Wirsilas, Gail Robinson, Maryann Kristensen, Lila Cresine and Susan Harris.

Many other individuals and organizations are involved, including Tim Bailey of Surrey Fire Fighters; Guildford Lions members Denise Creed and JoJo Lentz; plus members of the Guildford Leo Club Jenny Singh, Brianna Piggott, Leslie and Janine Heinrich, Katie Charlie; and my volunteers, Penny Hazel, Marianne Brown, Russ Burtnick, Paul Keenleyside, Gina Andersen, Alex Peter, Sherrold and Marina Haddad, Manuel and Marilena Santos, Ken Fisher; and Isabelle Hayer.

I ask the members to help me in recognizing all these volunteers who make our communities wonderful and vibrant places to live in and to raise our families in.

Oral Questions

BUDGET REVENUE PROJECTIONS

C. James: Last week the Minister of Finance told this House that he never meets with Finance officials during an election. Well, this week he changed his story. He said he had a casual conversation with his deputy minister, where he was told that revenues were tanking. But according to the minister's own schedule he met with senior Finance officials the day after the election call on April 15.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will he tell this House exactly what he was told by his deputy and assistant deputy minister to Treasury Board at that April 15 meeting, or was it just another casual conversation?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have said that I never met with officials of the Ministry of Finance during the election, and that is a fact. I have indicated that there were two or three telephone conversations with the deputy minister during that period of time. These are not calls that I initiated. They were actually initiated by him, and they were with regard to matters that had been in discussion prior to the call of the election.
[ Page 269 ]

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

C. James: It's interesting how the minister uses terminology around calls or meetings. Just to read from his own calendar….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: The minister's own calendar says: "Call Graham and Nick." Graham and Nick would be the deputy minister and assistant deputy minister. So the Minister of Finance has said he's had conversations, not meetings, on at least two other occasions beyond the April 15. But he can't remember exactly when he was told the revenue was tanking, and even more alarming, he didn't ask a single question, he claims, about revenue-tanking.

My question is to the minister. When exactly did these phone conversations take place, and will he tell this House today exactly what he was told by ministry officials?

[1400]

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, the deputy minister, in one of the conversations that we had during the election campaign, had indicated to me that there were indications that revenues might be off by $200 million to $300 million. That actually amounts to about one-half of 1 percent of the revenues of the province. It was obvious to me that that was still very manageable within the fiscal plan that we had tabled in February.

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

C. James: The story changes daily from this minister.

First: "I didn't talk to any Finance officials. I had no conversations during the election."

Second: now he says he didn't have any meetings.

Third: "No, I had phone calls, not meetings."

The public deserves answers. We've now heard about three meetings that the minister had with officials.

Again to the minister: you've now had a few days to go back and check. It's inconceivable that Finance officials talked to the minister about revenue tanking without some kind of analysis done. So I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance to tell us today: precisely what day was he told that the projections were tanking, and will he come clean and table in this House all the information he received about those revenues?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is the Leader of the Opposition who is lacking consistency. I indicated from the start of this discussion that I had had two or three conversations with the deputy minister during the election period.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: They were not meetings. I have never said they were meetings. They were telephone conversations that were initiated by the deputy minister.

I have also said that it is generally inappropriate for a minister of the Crown to seek advice from a deputy minister during an election campaign. I never once called the deputy minister to seek advice. These were conversations that were initiated by the deputy minister, matters that were relevant to the ministry, and I stand by everything that I have said.

S. Simpson: Neither the opposition, the media or, more importantly, the people of British Columbia can get a straight answer out of this minister, which probably explains why his credibility is in tatters today.

The minister told us he wasn't supposed to meet with officials during the election, but we know that he talked to his deputies or met with them on more than one occasion. This minister knew before, during and after the election that B.C.'s finances were in serious trouble, and considering how deep this economic crisis is, it is reasonable to expect that officials in the Finance Ministry were tracking this on a daily basis.

So does the minister expect us to believe that nobody told him and he didn't ask about the status of those changes literally for months after the February budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have excellent public servants in the Ministry of Finance. In putting the February budget together, they actually developed some pretty good projections on what we could anticipate for the year, and they went out and sought independent advice around what we could expect in terms of things like gross domestic product and housing starts and Canada-U.S. exchange rates. Not only did they seek that advice from independent sources, but they added an added level of conservatism to the projections that they were making.

When we put the budget together, I accepted the advice from the Ministry of Finance staff. They took the responsible action of tracking indicators that would, over the following months…. They at no time advised me that our $495 million deficit target was not doable until we actually got new information after the election.

[1405]

We have excellent public servants, Mr. Speaker. They do track the indicators.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.
[ Page 270 ]

S. Simpson: The lack of excellence isn't in the ministry's offices. The lack of excellence is at the cabinet table. This minister has taken a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to the biggest economic crisis of our time. The only explanation for this was his desire to avoid being open with British Columbians during the election campaign. The economy was in trouble before his February budget, and it's been nosediving ever since.

It's not a question of what the February numbers were but of what happened after that. What happened after that? This minister was either oblivious to the facts, or he chose to hide them from the people of B.C. Either one of those is unacceptable. Which one was it, Minister?

Hon. C. Hansen: I suggest that the member actually look at what has happened in other provinces across Canada as well. At the very end of March, Ontario tabled a budget, and they have had since that time….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: By the end of July the Ontario government had had to revise their revenue projections down by $4.4 billion. The province of Alberta tabled a budget in April. Just last week, in the time from April to last week, they have had to revise their revenue projections down by $2.1 billion.

If this member is so oblivious to what's been happening in the world economy over the last four months, I suggest he pick up some newspapers and actually read that British Columbia is not alone. British Columbia can be proud of the record that we have shown.

J. Horgan: I have to say it's pretty rich to hear the Minister of Finance saying that we're oblivious on this side of the House, when he sat for four months and didn't ask his Finance officials how he could possibly manage a spiralling downturn in our resource revenues, in our income tax revenues and in every other revenue target that he had said was going to be achievable in February. How is it possible, Mr. Speaker?

To the minister: how is it possible that he could ignore the trends that everyone could see if they picked up the Globe and Mail on a day for four months…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: …and go through the entire election, with phone calls from officials saying revenue is going sideways, and it was two months after the election when he said: "We're in trouble"? How is that possible? Does he not see why the people of British Columbia can't believe a word he says?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to ask: where was the integrity when that member and that party presented a budget plan to the voters of British Columbia in April of this year that was based on $600 million of extra revenue that they magically invented?

Where was the integrity when that party and that member presented a budget plan to the voters of British Columbia that was based on the same February budget assumptions that, we now find out, they say nobody should have believed at that time? If they didn't believe those budget assumptions, why did they mislead British Columbians?

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat, Member.

Member has a supplemental.

HARMONIZED SALES TAX

J. Horgan: The Minister of Finance said this week that his officials are among the best in Canada, and I would agree with that. I worked with those officials. They are the top-quality officials in this country.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Horgan: The challenge that the public has….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just take your seat.

Members. Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the question so that we can hear the answer.

Continue, Member.

J. Horgan: The issue before us today is: why is the Minister of Finance, the father of the $2.8 billion deficit of this week, throwing those officials under the bus and ignoring their advice? They told him during the election campaign that the numbers were going sideways. They told them the day after the election that they were in the tank, and yet the minister said nothing.

Is it true that the minister said nothing because he already had $1.6 billion of blood money from the HST
[ Page 271 ]
in his back pocket? Is that why he didn't say anything — because he already had the money in the bank?

Hon. C. Hansen: There's actually only one party in the last 20 years in this Legislature, and one government in the last 20 years, that has overruled and ignored the advice of Ministry of Finance officials, and that is the government that that member served for under Glen Clark.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Ralston: In a news story carried Canada-wide on March 30 of this year, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said that other non-HST provinces had approached him with a view to going in the same direction as Ontario. In response to that March 30 story, a spokesperson for Manitoba Finance Minister Greg Selinger said that his province had not approached the federal government to talk about harmonization. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall reminded the reporter that he had made a commitment in his recent election campaign not to bring in harmonization.

But when the B.C. Finance Minister was approached for comment, he said: "No comment." Will the minister confirm that the reason he declined comment is because he already had begun negotiations with Mr. Flaherty but didn't want to tell the public until after May 12?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm actually aware of that particular news article because it has subsequently been brought to my attention. It was not that I said: "No comment"; it was that I was not available to comment. The reporter sought out an interview with me, and my staff advised him that I wasn't available that day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Unless I can hear the question and unless I can hear the answer, we're not going to continue.

Just stay sitting.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I can assure this House that British Columbia was not negotiating with the federal government. If Mr. Flaherty was referring to a province that had expressed interest in moving to an HST, that province was not British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: It wasn't Saskatchewan. It wasn't Manitoba. It wasn't Prince Edward Island. The minister answered in a very reputable newspaper. The comment was "No comment." The minister's response of "no comment" is very rare indeed, especially on a matter of such importance. If he wasn't in negotiations with Mr. Flaherty, why didn't he just say so?

[1415]

Hon. C. Hansen: I was not even aware of that reporter's call. They had phoned my office. The reporter asked…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: …if I could return the call, and my staff informed them that I would not be available to return a call that day.

J. Kwan: So per usual, it's the media's fault.

January 23, 2009: Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty publicly confirms that he's considering moving to the HST. January 27: federal Minister Flaherty brings in the budget that suggests his government is flexible in negotiations with provinces that want to bring in the HST. March 30: Flaherty says that he's discussing harmonization with other provinces.

With the provincial revenues tanking to the tune of $200 million to $300 million in the first month of the fiscal year, does the Minister of Finance really expect British Columbians to believe that he never thought about performing the mother of all flip-flops in an attempt to cover up his government's deficit deceptions?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can assure this House that we had no discussions with the federal government with a view to us changing our previous position on HST until the end of May.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: At the time the prairie provinces and P.E.I. had said on the record that they were not interested. That leaves only British Columbia.

Is the Finance Minister suggesting that Minister Flaherty doesn't know what he's talking about on March 30, 2009, when he said that he was in discussion with other provinces about harmonization? Or is it just that this minister is misleading the public?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not suggesting anything. I am telling this House that if Mr. Flaherty was talking about a province that they were negotiating with that was inter-
[ Page 272 ]
ested in adopting HST at that time, he was not referring to British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: The Finance Minister claims that on May 25 at a provincial-federal Finance ministers meeting he met with Minister Flaherty at the coffee machine and told him that B.C. was interested in bringing in the HST.

Does the minister really expect British Columbians to believe his claim that he abandoned his promises to the people of the province in a casual conversation at a coffee machine? Or was the conversation so casual because it was just a check-in because he was already deep in negotiations with the federal government about the HST?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I have made it quite clear to this House the timeline of various discussions. As of May 24, when I was at the federal-provincial Finance ministers meeting, we knew that we needed to start discussions with the federal government to better understand the ramifications, the timelines and the transition so that I would be able to take fulsome information back to my cabinet colleagues.

It seemed appropriate that I give a heads-up to Minister Flaherty that there were going to be those contacts made by my officials to his officials. I did that at Meech Lake in a discussion with Mr. Flaherty and gave him a heads-up that British Columbia was considering changing our previous position of opposition to the HST.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

D. Donaldson: Well, that's a heck of a way to run government — nabob policy development around a coffee machine. The HST, seriously.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

D. Donaldson: No one buys the minister's excuses anymore. Small businesses certainly don't.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just take your seat.

Members, let's listen to the question, please.

Continue, Member.

D. Donaldson: Just ask J.F. Belanger, who runs a chip wagon in my community and says that the HST will harm his business.

By the time the minister was sworn back into cabinet on June 10, he claims he had already decided to take the $1.6 billion from the federal government to bring in the HST. Is the minister trying to say that it took less than two weeks to agree to a complex federal-provincial agreement to bring in a new tax regime? Or had he agreed to the HST by June 10 because he was already in negotiations well before election day?

Hon. C. Hansen: At that point, we had already been in discussions with the federal government for about two weeks. Also, at the time, on June 10, I knew that this move for British Columbia was the best thing that we could do in terms of stimulating the economy, creating jobs for British Columbia. As of June 10, I knew that I would be recommending HST to my cabinet colleagues.

R. Fleming: The minister's story is that he had only casually raised the issue of HST negotiations with Minister Flaherty on May 25. Can the minister tell this House why his calendar shows that on April 4, weeks before the provincial election and only four days after Jim Flaherty told national media that he was discussing the HST with all of the other provinces…?

Why did this minister have a scheduled meeting over the phone with the federal minister? What did the minister talk about? Is he asking us to believe that this conversation didn't touch on the HST, casually or otherwise?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not surprised that this member would find it surprising that a B.C. cabinet minister would have a good relationship with the federal Finance Minister, given the reputation that that government had for federal-provincial relations.

That telephone conversation was instituted by Mr. Flaherty's office. That was a telephone conversation that was in advance….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat again, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: The purpose of that call was that Mr. Flaherty was calling all of the provincial Finance ministers to advise them of the stance that the government of Canada was going to take on behalf of Canada and
[ Page 273 ]
Canadians at meetings that were being held in Europe with regard to the growing financial crisis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The minister has said various things at various times during these past few days. Last week he said that during the election he had no discussions — none — with ministry officials or with federal officials about the ballooning deficit or about the HST. He told this House that he was too busy on the hustings for such things, and he even implied that it would be inappropriate to do so.

Now he has revealed that he's had several meetings, except that phone calls aren't meetings. That's what his story hinges on. That's how pathetic it is. He asked British Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

R. Fleming: There's nothing to withdraw there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

[1425]

R. Fleming: He's gone from saying he had no meetings to admitting several on several topics: the deficit and the HST.

Can the minister explain another appointment in his calendar? Can he tell us why, when he was too busy on the hustings, he took time from the election for a scheduled teleconference with Minister Flaherty on April 27? And again, is he asking British Columbians to believe that he didn't talk about the HST just once during that 75-minute conversation with the minister, even casually?

Hon. C. Hansen: I had no conversations with Minister Flaherty about HST prior to the 25th of May.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: Well, the Minister of Finance, in a scrum just outside of this room, this chamber, as he came in here, said: "Better communications on the HST would have toned down the hyperbole." So the Premier is at 17 percent in the polls because of a communication failure. Is that what the minister is saying?

Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say that honesty about the government's true intentions on the HST would have toned down the outrage in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: We've heard a lot of malicious and scurrilous accusations from members of the opposition over this last number of weeks. We have seen a lot of political theatre in this House. I've been a member of this chamber for 13 years, and I've seen a lot of political theatre from the NDP opposition.

I am proud of what I have accomplished in the 13 years in this chamber. I have approached every responsibility that I have been given as a member of this chamber with the highest degree of integrity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will put my record and I will put my integrity up against that of any member of the opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

[End of question period.]

Hon. M. de Jong: On a point of order. Earlier in question period the Finance critic for the opposition attempted to build a line of questioning around a particular article and a particular phrase. He was very specific about the language he used, which was that the Finance Minister had offered no comment.

[1430]

In fact, the article suggests something very different, and I offer the hon. member an opportunity to correct the record, because in fact, the article says: "The B.C. Finance Minister…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. de Jong: …declined to comment on the issue."

I offer the member an opportunity, before this advances to a privilege motion, to correct the record.

Interjections.
[ Page 274 ]

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: That's not a point of order. It's a difference of opinion.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. M. de Jong: I firstly reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege, in that case.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: Secondly, I have the honour to present a report, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report 2008-2009.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the budget.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if they have other duties to attend to, could they please clear the House as quickly as possible.

Members, please clear the House as quickly as possible if you've got other duties to attend to.

Budget Debate

(continued)

S. Hammell: It gives me great pleasure to again rise in this House to represent my constituency of Surrey–Green Timbers. As others have said before me, it takes great constituency assistants to make an MLA. I'd like to thank Brett Barden and Vera LeFranc, my two constituency assistants, who have assisted me and my constituents on a daily basis. Knowing they are in Surrey minding the shop and doing the great work they do, I can relax and focus my attention on my work here.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

My boundaries changed, this election, quite significantly. I lost about half of my old constituency and gained it back with a new. When you lose something, even though you gain something new, you lament the loss. I'm losing the schools Lena Shaw, AHP Matthew, Bonaccord and Green Timbers, all elementary schools that I have visited during the years I've served as an MLA. I will miss them.

However, I'm looking forward to supporting the teachers and students at Newton, Westerman, Strawberry Hill, Kennedy Trail and Brookside elementaries. These are all new to me, but elementary schools who have teachers who have been teaching the students of my constituencies for years….

I have also added to my constituency Bear Creek Park, the art gallery and the Bear Creek seniors — all jewels of Surrey. I'm looking forward to representing the people and the interests of my constituency here in this wonderful House.

Today we are debating the government's second budget of the year, a document that is vastly different than the budget we debated in February. Back then, in that budget, we were promised a deficit of $495 million, with health and other services protected. There were no dramatic new taxes.

But now, this week, we were presented with a second budget for the current year that contains a record deficit of $2.8 billion, along with cuts to health, education and other government services. Worst of all, British Columbia families and small businesses are being hit with two sets of massive tax increases at a time when there's a recession and it's harder than ever to pay.

[1435]

We have a tale of two budgets: then and now. So today, now, we in this House have to ask why our budget for this year can change so dramatically over the passage of only a few months. How can the February budget be so different from the September budget? What could provide the circumstance that would note the presentation of a budget now that predicted a deficit of six times greater than the $495 million deficit predicted only a short few months ago?

I have to say that the $495 million budget always has reminded me of some kind of sale. It wasn't $501 million or $510 million or…. It was $495 million. That should have sent the hackles on the back of your neck up.

Let's look at the tale of now and then. Most importantly, let's look at what has happened between February and today. Back in February this B.C. Liberal government was just a few weeks away from facing the electorate, from calling an election. This was a government that saw itself as good fiscal managers and, I believe, to a large extent was seen by many as good fiscal managers. So they tabled a budget, and they campaigned around the province promising that the deficit for this year would be no more than $495 million.

Now, that could have been a loss-leader. They said and pledged that it would stay that way after the election. They calculated that the people would believe them, being good fiscal managers and all that, and many did. Then they won the election. After all, the end-game is winning.

When the Premier was speaking before the February budget, many economists were questioning the deficit figure. These economists warned that the economy was going in the tank. Those of us who have known the real value of this government's promises kept asking, in this House and on the campaign trail, whether the deficit figure was a story or was it a fiddle.
[ Page 275 ]

Then every time we questioned the number, we were assured by the Premier and the Minister of Finance that the deficit figure was firm. In the middle of the campaign, April 24, the Premier said: "I can tell you this. The deficit for 2009-10 will be $495 million…." There's that loss-leader.

Even after he was sworn in nearly a month after the election, the Minister of Finance repeated this promise that the deficit for this year would remain at $495 million. It was only in July that the Minister of Finance backed off his assurances, and today we see a deficit of nearly six times what the minister and the Premier promised and campaigned on.

Why? That was then, before an election, and this is now, after the election. And the end-game is winning. As I mentioned, the then February budget contained no changes in taxation. Not long after, the government of Ontario announced that it had reached agreement with the federal government to harmonize its sales tax with the federal goods and service tax.

Then, in a very astute move, the B.C. Liberals' friends in the restaurant industry asked the parties in the May 12 provincial election if they planned to follow the lead of Ontario in making this far-reaching tax change. The B.C. Liberal party reassured their supporters in the restaurant industry this way: "The harmonized GST would make it harder for future provincial governments to lower or raise sales taxes, which reduces flexibility." In short: "A harmonized sales tax is not something that is contemplated in the B.C. Liberal platform."

[1440]

Now it's now — the tale of now. In July the Minister of Finance and the Premier announced that they would harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST. I have to assume that they want us now to believe it does not make it harder for future governments to lower and raise sales taxes or reduce flexibility.

This is a massive tax increase for most ordinary British Columbians, and a crushing new tax burden that will cost restaurants and many other small businesses around the province. And why? That was then, and this is now, and there was an election in between.

Now, in this week's budget, the same British Columbians and small businesses that are already staggering under the burden of this new sales tax were told they will face annual and perpetual increases in MSP premiums. For a government that claims to put money in people's pockets, a government that claims to listen to small business, these two attacks on B.C. families and businesses are almost without parallel. Why the change? Well, that was then, and this is now, and there was an election in between.

British Columbians know what is now. They know they have the lowest minimum wage in the country, and those people will bear the brunt of both of these tax explosions. Currently, right now, B.C. has the worst poverty rate and has the worst child poverty rate in the country. It has had it for five years, and there's no plan to change that.

Much of this poverty is felt by working families. Higher tax burdens and reduced services mean that British Columbia will continue to lead this country in poverty for years to come. There is no plan to change that. There's only a plan for higher taxes, higher HST, higher MSP premiums.

In the February budget, this government promised to protect health care and other government services. The B.C. Liberal platform in the May election pledged more nurses, more doctors, more patient care. Since the votes were counted on May 12, all the efforts of the Premier and the cabinet minister and the public affairs bureau and the health authorities have not been able to conceal cutbacks to the patients' services all over this province — most of them revealed by my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway.

Why? Well, that was then, and this is now, and there was an election in between. Schools, colleges, universities and most other government services are being cut. Even community groups and art providers that had written contracts, written agreements with the government found out those promises weren't worth the paper they were written on.

Why? Well, that was then, and this is now, and there was an election in between. How could anyone be surprised about these broken contracts, given the experience of health care workers back in the early days of this government? I wonder if the flip-flop of this government wasn't motivated by the legal price they paid when they ripped up contracts signed in good faith by the citizens of this province.

My own constituents in Surrey know the value of a promise from the members opposite. They have been waiting and waiting for a much-needed expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital. Knee deep in water, the Premier in 2001 promised again a new hospital, and all indications are that it will be years yet before it comes.

Every time we ask why the government is cutting services they had promised to the people of this province, the answer is always the same, "Well, that was then, and this is now," and we know there was an election in between.

Now, today, British Columbians are wondering how they will pay for the HST and for annual increases in MSP premiums. They are taking a hard look at the record of this government. They will look at a government that was handed a surplus of $1.1 billion by an outgoing government — at that time, the largest surplus in the history of British Columbia — and that the Premier's first act was to blow a hole in the budget with a gift to the wealthy and the big business that supported him.

[1445]

He made civil servants, health care workers and ordinary British Columbian families pay for his massive cuts to government services.
[ Page 276 ]

Thanks to dramatic increases in world commodity prices, this government was saved for a time from the deficits they created. Despite these commodity prices, the records will show that in the years of this government, the years of the supposed fiscal masterminds, they have produced seven out of 12 budgets with deficits and three of the highest budget deficits in the history of this country.

No wonder the Premier lost sleep. He was living in a nightmare of his own making — this despite starting off with the largest surplus in the history of the province and record commodity prices. Who was being given the bill for this financial ineptitude? Working British Columbians, small business people, British Columbians who need health care, British Columbians looking for help to lift themselves up from a recession, children needing care and protection, students looking to educate themselves. We see here a disturbing pattern of government increasingly out of touch with the people it purports to represent.

We see big promises: the year of the seniors, the heartland strategy, a housing program, action on climate change, help for children, a new relationship with our first nations. Every one of these promises broken.

Now the Premier and the Minister of Finance have many questions to answer. What did the Premier and the federal government talk about when the Premier went to Ottawa to cheer on the federal budget on January 27? During the weeks before the beginning of the provincial election campaign, Stephen Harper and many of his cabinet came out to B.C. to give out money and to help the B.C. Liberal campaign. What did the Premier and the minister talk about? What did the Finance Ministers discuss? What undertakings did Harper get in return from the Premier for all his help in March and April?

Many things have changed between February and this week. The main thing is that the 2009 election has come and gone, and the members opposite believe and are comforted by the understanding that they have four years till the next election. All will be forgotten. After many winters, falls, springs and summers, all will be forgotten.

The Premier likes to talk about courage. He and his members have shown that they have no courage, and in the eyes of a growing number of British Columbians, they have no credibility. They have lost their legitimacy.

Every day, people are questioning the stories that the Premier and the Finance Minister have told British Columbians to explain exactly when it was they realized that it would be impossible to keep their promise of a $495 million deficit.

Then there are the claims from the Premier and the Minister of Finance that no thought, not even a little trickle, not even a flicker was given to the HST until after May 12. No one believes it when they say it. That was then, and this is now. Everyone knows there was an election in between and that they weren't given the straight goods.

No one believes that taxing the middle class British Columbians in the middle of a recession will return them to prosperity. No one believes that placing additional tax burdens on small business people will help them out. No one believes that promises from across the way are believable at all.

People are coming to my office, calling me and my staff and sending letters to say the HST is bad for them. They say this budget is a failure. The next time British Columbians get a chance to pass judgment on this government, I'm confident that the members opposite will be turned out of office. British Columbians who have lived through this budget of deception will have one message for this government as it is shown the door: that was then, and this is now.

[1450]

J. McIntyre: Madam Speaker, let me begin, as others have, with complimenting you on your election as Deputy Speaker and also to the member for North Island and to Mr. Speaker for being re-elected. It's a delight to see you, and I look forward to working with you all in the next four years.

I also wanted to start with some thank-yous as others before me have. I'd like to start with thanking the constituents of what is a new riding now, the riding of West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. I really appreciate the confidence that the voters placed in me to continue to strongly represent their interests and their views to my colleagues here in Victoria and also to ensure that where feasible, we are fully prepared to showcase our region as February 2010 fast approaches.

I'd also like to say thanks to my past constituents and supporters from the previous riding of West Vancouver–Garibaldi. The boundary moved west just a short way from 22nd Street to Rodgers Creek, which is effectively 29th in West Vancouver, but it does represent about 5,000 people — 4,000 eligible voters — that will now be very ably represented by my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano.

Also, the southern section of my previous riding, home to the In-SHUCK-ch First Nation traditional territory, whom I've been very proud to represent as they move closer to treaty settlement, has moved back into the Fraser Valley region.

Also, a hearty thank-you to my campaign team, especially to my chair, Derek Lew, and to Dave Davenport, who was the campaign director and did a great job. I had lots of friends and supporters — personal friends — who encouraged me to do this again and who saw me through to the end.

Thank you to my constituency assistant, Judi Fee, who has served this riding for a long time. She was my predecessor's assistant and has been my able assistant for the
[ Page 277 ]
last four or five years and just does a wonderful job for our constituents, especially for those in need. She has a big heart and has done a wonderful job to be, sometimes, the very last resort for some people in dire straits.

Also, of course, as others before me have thanked, I could not do this job without the support and love of my family: my husband, Andrew Pottinger; my two children, Leigh and Drew; and my father, John Gillespie, in Toronto. Their continuing support and encouragement keeps us all standing.

Also, of course, past and current staff here in the Legislature, who do a wonderful job about keeping us on schedule and being in the right place at the right time and focused.

Before moving specifically to my remarks on the budget update, I'd like to take some time in my remarks today to reflect on the many accomplishments, the successes, the changes in the various communities that I've had the privilege to represent in Sea to Sky country. Since 2005, when I was first elected and the economy was taking off, the corridor in particular has flourished, and I thought I would just take us on a little tour today.

I'm going to start in the northern region. As mentioned in my recent tribute to the residents of the village of Pemberton last week, the village and their Lil'wat First Nation neighbours are enjoying the rewards of economic development. Funding has gone into some major infrastructure projects in the small communities — diking, wastewater treatment, increased well capacity, new community centre, library complex, child care centre. Now we have the prospect of the upcoming seniors housing in partnership with the federal government.

They have a great opportunity with what's known as a GEMS school. It is a private school. They've selected as one of their few sites in North America to site a school for International Baccalaureate students from kindergarten up. They are going to specialize on agriculture and first nations. It made Pemberton, obviously, a great area for that. I wish them well as they move forward with that.

Of course, the memorable Pemberton music festival of summer '08 brought both millions of dollars and a spotlight on the Pemberton and Mount Currie area. We're looking for an encore presentation.

Also in this area, before leaving this area, the Lil'wat Nation has developed unprecedented opportunities through their involvement as one of the four host first nations for 2010. They've had highway construction jobs, a local cement plant, construction. They formed a construction company for building in the Callaghan Valley. They've had a significant amount of land transferred for development that will give them opportunities for economic development. Capital grants for their Olympic Live sites in their new gym complex, and of course, additional child care spaces have all been welcomed.

Now on to Whistler. As you might well imagine, there have been many changes and challenges in the Whistler community as the residents are preparing to host the world in February. The upgrades to Whistler Mountain and the buildings of the sliding centre at Blackcomb have been completed well in advance, with opportunities to host and test World Cup events, providing economic benefits and opportunities for dry runs for the organizers, the athletes and all the volunteers. We just need Mother Nature to cooperate in February.

[1455]

One of the most anticipated legacies, of course, will be the athletes village, recently renamed Cheakamus Crossing, that will revert to affordable — that's below market — housing for local residents following the games. Of course, there's also going to be the high performance centre there to assist in training for our future athletes and Olympians.

On other fronts, Whistler has also made a number of advances.

Financial tools. As a resort community, they now have access to an additional four points on the hotel tax for tourism efforts. That can amount to as much as $6 million or $7 million to this community — significant.

Community forests. They've received the first 25-year tenure in the province in a joint partnership with local first nations. We've had upgrades on the parks, the trails, all the infrastructure, bear awareness programs, transfer of the day parking lots to the resort municipality of Whistler. And of course, the opening of Whistler Blackcomb spectacular peak-to-peak chair.

They were awarded a green city award from the province, and they were awarded a cultural capital award from Ottawa. So the list of accomplishments goes on and on.

Now, on our tour, down to Squamish. Squamish continues on its path to becoming the outdoor recreation capital of Canada, as it transitions from a resource town to one more centred on tourism, recreation and education.

Quest University and the proposed expanded downtown campus of Capilano College, which is now proudly Capilano University will over time add significantly to the social fabric and economic success of the community.

In the meantime, work continues on revitalization of the downtown, including some of the renewed planning for the waterfront on the lands, which was property that the province transferred to the district. We look forward to the prospect of the green power project on the Ashlu river opening soon. It's been a wonderful, wonderful opportunity for first nations, for economic development. The Ashlu was identified as one of the top rivers in this province about 20 years ago, by B.C. Hydro, as an opportune place to do green power generation.

We also have O'Siem pavilion opening in the downtown as a central gathering place. It's built on the theme of a longhouse to honour their longtime relationship with the Squamish Nation. That's been supported by a Towns for Tomorrow grant.
[ Page 278 ]

Provincial and federal funding have also been applied to the Riverstones project of Michael Hutchison to provide much-needed affordable housing for both seniors and those with disabilities.

On the social side, the province has supported 24-7 funding for Pearl's Place, the transition house for women and children escaping violence. The work goes on to expand services at the homeless emergency shelter that's so capably managed by the local Helping Hands Society.

I was also personally pleased to be involved when we obtained capital funding for new child care spaces in the renovated courthouse, and we've made it now a hub for early childhood services, for the delivery of services. It's been a big success, and I've also been involved in the opening of two StrongStart centres in the community at the local elementary schools. Seeing those youngsters firsthand see the benefits when you see them in the classroom and see their wide eyes as they get to enjoy some of the play and early learning opportunities is a wonderful treat.

Also, continuing on, we have the expansion of the hospital, the emergency department and the expansion of the Hilltop House for seniors. They're all very important amenities for a fast-growing town.

Of course, one of the most exciting developments in the area is the opportunity for the local organizing committee to do the hosting in the Callaghan Valley where B.C. has the opportunity to put our region on the international map for not just alpine but now for Nordic events. It's been managed by John Aalberg, who's a Norwegian Olympian and is now a resident of Squamish, and who has really developed this Whistler Olympic Park. It's emerged right out of the forest to be a magnificent facility with three stadia for cross-country biathlon and ski-jumping.

So the volunteers in the area have just done a marvellous job of hosting the events and getting all organized and doing the dry run. They've moved their local arts festival, Wild at Art, to that time of the year to accompany some of the sporting spectacles.

Last, but not least, the huge development at the railway park is going on forward, with the roundhouse and conference centre nearly finished. All of these things will add to Squamish and Squamish area's economic opportunity as we move forward.

Then we go down through the small communities — Britannia Beach, Lions Bay — all of them in different stages of development. Britannia Beach looks completely different. For any of you who have travelled that road, it looks very different from five years ago with the concentrator building all fully refurbished, and the commercial area and the housing that's going on there. There have been wonderful opportunities given to some of the people who lived there — opportunities for home ownership now.

[1500]

The museum is coming along beautifully. We've been able to help them refurbish some of the old buildings that they have there, and they are educating thousands of children on the benefits of mining, both past and future. These are wonderful opportunities.

Lions Bay has now, at long last, received their fire truck, which has been very, very important. They have a wonderful volunteer fire department there that is involved in search and rescue as well. So I think that things are looking up in that community as well.

On to Bowen. Wastewater treatment. A wonderful golf course development that's doing wonderfully there for youth and older people. They do Cops for Cancer tournaments, they continue with Bowfest, and they're working on a multipurpose community centre and seniors housing. They've been a shining example of environmental stewardship.

Then finally, West Vancouver, my home community. They have achieved, with great effort, the designation as a 2010 venue community because, of course, they'll be hosting the events up on Cypress Mountain, both the aerials and the snowboarding. We've had the wonderful opportunity to have two seasons of World Cup events there as well.

They received a Cultural Capital award from the federal government several years ago. They have a wonderful summer festival called Harmony Arts, which I've had the privilege of doing the opening remarks at for the last five years. They are really getting on the map.

They've had some significant opportunities, with some infrastructure, with their Eagle Lake filtration plant and with the blue bridge announcements. They'll be refurbishing the blue bridge at the entrance of the community. Of course, one of the things I'm proudest about is the opening of the new community centre, which is indeed becoming a focal centre in all of West Vancouver. We were able to contribute money through the atrium to form a Spirit Square. That is making a big difference in the communities.

But all this investment in community would not be possible without the power of a strong economy. Our budget reflects our intention to lead the province out of this downturn on an even stronger keel. With all this progress and development, the rate of which has likely been unprecedented — particularly, it's been accelerated by the hosting of the 2010 games — it undoubtedly creates challenges and the need for both perseverance and optimism.

I'd like to give a big thank-you to our residents and travellers for their patience for not months but years as the Sea to Sky Highway has been undergoing its much-needed safety upgrade. This highway links virtually all of the communities, and it is on the very last steps of being finished. It is absolutely — there are no other words that could describe it — spectacular.

There has been a buzz in the corridor for the last number of months, especially as the Eagleridge
[ Page 279 ]
Interchange was completed in the spring. It represents now an absolutely breathtaking entrance to the mountains and oceans of the corridor as you go north and an equally breathtaking glimpse of Vancouver and the city and Lions Gate Bridge as you travel around the corner at Horseshoe Bay and onto the Lions Gate Bridge.

The goal of that upgrade has been 30 percent less accidents for the almost 15,000 people that travel that highway daily — commuters, visitors, commercial vehicles. There have been, I believe, almost a hundred kilometres of additional lanes, rumble strips, medians — all of this making the trip safer and opening up economic development for the towns that dot the corridor.

This has been particularly important for Squamish, as I'd mentioned, as it's undergoing this transformation.

Despite the upsides of the growth, there continue to be major challenges — and we know that — such as the need for improved public transit; more affordable housing; the constant need for infrastructure upgrades in wastewater, diking, trails; and, of course, the ever-increasing need for social supports.

Despite these economic conditions, we will be working with communities to ensure that the most vulnerable are cared for and that communities can reach their goals. But no question, this cannot be achieved as quickly as we would all want and as we anticipated just a year ago, before the global economy began to collapse.

Our economic problems did not start in British Columbia or Canada, and they're not going to be totally solved here. You have now heard about the rapidity and the depth of the deterioration of our provincial economy. But not until the U.S. economy recovers will we be able to fully meet our potential.

That said, there's not a jurisdiction anywhere that is not envious of the economic opportunities that we have in hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The opportunities that will come to British Columbia are a shot in the arm when we most need it, and the Sea to Sky corridor is beautifully positioned to take advantage of these opportunities. But we need to be proactive.

[1505]

Some of the opportunities spring from the early completion of the games venues. Communities in the Sea to Sky corridor have enjoyed the spinoff benefits of hosting these tests and World Cup championships over the last two years, not to speak of the potential for the future. Opportunities for volunteers, for those willing to open their homes for the VANOC homestay program, which provides tickets to the games as an incentive. All of you who still haven't done that, who may be watching and living in the corridor: remember, those opportunities still exist.

There are the publicity and the media stories, with billions watching us. This budget, in fact, sets aside a one-time investment of $39 million for tourism, to take advantage of the 2010 exposure. I think that the district of Squamish has also recently received a $750,000 legacy from VANOC, likely going to sports, youth and other legacies. In another opportunity, a legacy not for sport but for culture, is the spectacular Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre, which I have praised here in the House a number of times.

The first nations involvement and support was integral to B.C. being awarded the games. The four host first nations have been active in inviting aboriginal communities from around the world to visit Vancouver in 2010. Their pavilion downtown will be a showcase for their heritage and first nations culture, and the Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre, in Whistler, will also be a wonderful complement to that. At both ends of the corridor will you have the opportunity to see and revel in our heritage and culture.

The Lil'wat Nation and Squamish First Nation have received lasting legacies in the Sea to Sky corridor in the form of land and economic development opportunities. There are great examples in the historic legacy lands in the resort municipality of Whistler, in the Callaghan Valley and from the accommodation agreement for the Sea to Sky Highway.

First nations also played an integral role in bringing the Sea to Sky land and resource management plan, or LRMP, to completion recently. There have been years of work from community groups — from recreation, from business, from environmental, loggers, and so on — to produce a high-level land use plan that incorporated first nations interests and aspirations. It's produced eight new conservancies, Wild Spirit Places and designated places for economic development that most of us can largely agree on — an amazing feat.

I'm very pleased that the throne speech has committed to further strengthening of the new relationship with first nations. The negotiations did reach a breakthrough in the spring, with the possibility of the reconciliation act.

I think that the mutual consultation apparently does not support this framework at this time, but I wanted to mention today that I do not think that we should forget that that represents a legitimate attempt to enshrine a way in which we can move forward together, in land use planning and in resource revenue-sharing. I believe it's incumbent on us all to reach a path and reduce our reliance on litigation and adversarial relations, as well as to redress the past wrongdoings.

Our recent throne speech has also laid out our government's direction for economic recovery, to emerge from recession even stronger. The Globe and Mail editorial of August 27 judged it well. "It provides a welcome renewal of the Premier's commitment to fiscal and economic prudence." The editorial goes on to applaud our plan to harmonize the PST with the federal GST.

I'll read from this. "This is a brave move in the face of considerable, if ill-informed, opposition in a diffi-
[ Page 280 ]
cult time. But B.C.'s shift to a harmonized sales tax will confer clear benefits on the provincial economy, as well as the country at large. In following Ontario's lead on this matter, B.C. has set the stage for a truly national consumption tax that avoids penalizing business inputs."

We are engaged in a vigorous rollout of accelerated economic stimulus measures, with the assistance of our federal counterparts, all designed to keep people at work. So far 480 projects worth $3.4 billion have been announced. The goal is $14 billion, with 88,000 potential jobs at stake here.

The next stage that's detailed in our budget is a plan to move out of debt, a plan to return to balanced budgets in four years. As the same editorial points out: "With the throne speech, as well as next week's expected budget update, B.C. becomes the first Canadian government to lay out the concrete steps it intends to take to get its finances back in order. Everyone else ought to pay attention and follow suit."

[1510]

I support our approach to minimizing debt, not mortgaging our grandchildren, having them pay for services that they'll never have used. Deficit spending is against our grain, but in these exceptional times we've had no choice, even to protect core services. Elected on our track record to go through difficult economic times, no one said this was going to be easy.

We've been taking steps since last fall. For example, last November when we introduced our ten-point plan. Then in our February budget preparations we relied on the external panel of a dozen economists. All of us have been taken off guard with the magnitude of the impact on our revenues.

This, I must point out, is all unlike the NDP with their famous fudge-it budget in 1996, which actually involved some internal tinkering prior to the election, where they went so far — I think it was pointed out earlier today — as to overrule professional staff. But that said, we now have to play with the cards we've been dealt.

Our revenues have dropped like a stone. Since February almost $4 billion of projected revenues have evaporated from our three-year plan due to economy and global recession. Plus vital expenditures for things like firefighting and increased demand for social assistance have increased by over $500 million. So with protecting vital services and laying a foundation for economic recovery in mind, we now find ourselves in a deficit position of $2.8 billion for this year alone.

But let's keep this in perspective. Other provinces, like Ontario, are now looking, I think, at the levels of about $18 billion, and Alberta, which just about a year ago projected an $8 billion surplus, is now looking at almost a $7 billion deficit. That is a $15 billion swing in very short order, and it just shows you the volatility in a resource-based economy. And we must remember that resources are still the engine of our B.C. economy.

It has been said much lately that we've been through a process of identifying priorities and making difficult choices for this budget update, just as individual households have to do when money is decreasing and expenses are mounting.

These priorities are (1) increasing health care — and, I have to say, to the tune of 18 percent over the next three years to a whopping $15.8 billion, which is virtually double what we inherited in 2001; (2) at least holding the line on education skills training, which we're funding at record levels; and (3) increasing the services for the most vulnerable — for youngsters, for those on social assistance, for those with disabilities, lower-income families and those at risk.

For youngsters, we're investing $151 million to introduce full-day kindergarten over the next two years. We know that investing in youth development will pay dividends down the road. Contrary to what the opposition says, child poverty in B.C. is declining. I know I heard the member before me, the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, once again mention the famous LICO, the Stats Canada measure of child poverty, which Stats Canada — I would like to take a moment to explain to the House — themselves have gone to great pain and effort to make sure is not used as a measure of poverty.

It takes into account things like housing, which I know is an important thing. But it already discriminates against a market like British Columbia where we have the highest housing in the entire country. But most importantly, it does not take into account any of the tax policy measures that we have used to make sure that those at the lower end of the income scale are well looked after — things like the lowest taxes in the country, things like access to drugs through the Fair PharmaCare for those who are less well off, etc. The list goes on.

Through our tax policy we have made sure that the lower-income families are well taken care of. That particular definition does not take those policies into account, and I'd like to have that on the record.

For those in need of employment and social assistance programs, there is now $420 million additional over the next three years. We already committed in February to an additional…. I think it was over $300 million of social supports. And I might add that the MSP premiums, the HST and the carbon levy all have protection for those on the lower end of the income scale.

The rise in the threshold to $11,000 before provincial tax kicks in is also a welcome surprise in this budget update. It saves a family of two about $150 a year, but most importantly, it eliminates provincial personal tax for an additional 75,000 British Columbians. That brings the total to 325,000 British Columbians who pay no provincial tax at all.

For business, we're moving to harmonization, as we've all been talking about. It's an important step. It will make the economy more competitive, more attractive for
[ Page 281 ]
investment, lowering production costs and streamlining administration — $150 million in savings in compliance and $1.9 billion of savings in costs.

[1515]

As I have heard many times now, the mining community has been saying that it's the best news they've had in 18 months. It represents $140 million to the forestry industry alone.

Let me just tell you what Rick Jeffrey, who is President of the Coast Forest Products Association, said about that: "The harmonized sales tax is the biggest measure taken by the government to help turn the industry around. It will take the marginal effective tax rate from 26.4 percent to 15.7 percent, making the industry more competitive and more able to attract investment. It will put people back to work when the recovery comes."

When resource workers are back at work, our economy immediately becomes more robust. For small business specifically, this budget update provides two major steps. We are increasing the threshold to $500,000 on January 1, 2010, the highest in Canada, and it's a 150 percent increase from the $200,000 threshold in 2002. This is a savings of about $20 million annually.

Another great feature: no small business income tax by April 1, 2012. Having spent 30 years or more in the world of small business, these are wonderful measures, and they will contribute to a stronger, more competitive economy. And when this tax is fully implemented, this budget will provide over $400 million a year in income tax relief for individuals, families and small business.

To aid in keeping down the deficit — which, fortunately, will decline as the economy improves over the next three or four years — we are tightening expenditures. Let me reassure you. In February we aimed for $1.9 billion in savings across the system. Now we're looking at $3.4 billion over the three-year budget cycle — decreases in contracted professional services, travel costs, office expenses, advertising and discretionary grants.

In short, we're asking everyone in British Columbia — private and public sector workers, consumers, those in non-profit organizations, sporting groups, arts and culture groups, in fact, a cross-section of our populace — to understand that in these unprecedented times, we do have to make do with less, less than we've enjoyed in our recent boom times.

We are protecting the most vulnerable and the disadvantaged while we work our way out of this recession. We need to keep our eye on the ball and ensure that we do not drown in red ink on the backs of future generations — yours and my children and grandchildren.

This budget update sets out a fiscally prudent course for economic recovery. I support it and will do my best to help my constituents understand the wisdom of this approach and its long-term benefits. We were elected to manage the economy in tough times, and that's what we're doing.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, at the outset, I want to congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Deputy Speaker and advise those watching at home and those in the gallery that the Deputy Speaker who just left the chair was, in the previous Parliament, the minister responsible for child care. The member for North Island who just took the chair was the critic, on this side, responsible for child care.

I think that I speak for most people in this House when I say that both members, the member for Richmond East and the member for North Island, are shining examples of what we could do if we all decided to work together.

Regrettably, I'm not 30 seconds into this and the member for Mackenzie can't stop popping off. I look forward to 30 minutes of irrelevancies from that minister. Perhaps, during his infrequently lucid interjections, he might say something about Western Forest Products and the debacle in my constituency brought upon us by that certain member and his colleagues.

Nonetheless, I will go back to the measured and responsible comments I was hopeful that I could make today in the tone of the member for North Island and the member for Richmond East, both working together to bring decorum to this place.

I do think — and I'm quite serious when I say this, and I know members will agree on both sides — that the implementation of an Assistant Deputy Speaker from the opposition side provides all of us with an opportunity to have absolute confidence, as we should, that the Chair is truly impartial and doing their level best to ensure that the work that goes on this place is measured and reasonable and in the best interests of all British Columbians.

So hon. Assistant Deputy Speaker, it's good to have you there. Well done.

[1520]

I also want to say, before I get too far into my remarks, that the other day I made reference in this place to my oldest son Nathan going off to Germany to study. I referred to him as "my good son," which I have to say really disappointed my other son. So I want to say for the record that although my good son Nate is now on his way to Freiburg, Germany, my "gooder" son — and I want to stress that, my gooder son — Evan is still at home helping me pick up the heavy stuff that I can't lift by myself.

So Evan, thanks for being there, and I'm really happy that you're still at home, at least.

I am pleased and privileged, as always, to stand in this place and speak on behalf of the residents of Juan de Fuca. Members will know from the previous parliament that I am a passionate defender of my constituency's various and sundry activities, whether it be tourism, whether it be sport, whether it be the forest industry, which has been certainly brought to its knees over the past eight years by B.C. Liberal policies.
[ Page 282 ]

The fishing industry. Of course, Juan de Fuca, by its very name, speaks to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. For those in the gallery from outside of British Columbia, if you look that way, you're looking at the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and you're looking at, literally, the lifeblood of my constituency as the salmon come back and forth annually on their way back to where they came from, the San Juan River, A.M.R. Creek, Ayum Creek and various other small rivers and large rivers on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

It truly is a thrill to be here for a second term. The election campaign was a vigorous one. I had much help, whether it be volunteers like my campaign manager Bruce Fogg, John Lewinsky, who helped with voter contact, Sandy McLean. I could go on and on and on listing people. Bernice from Sooke, thank you very much.

I had two campaigns, really, and I'm sure members did as well. You had the campaign at home, where you have your loved ones and supporters ensuring that you're fortified with the appropriate vitamins and other foodstuffs to get you through the day, but I had all the people that came into the campaign office, whether they brought a loaf of bread that they had baked or brownies, which are a big favourite of mine, as people can see on the cameras….

It's the volunteers that are the lifeblood of an election campaign. All of us know that. We wouldn't be here were it not for our families, our friends and those who passionately believe that the work that takes place here is important and valuable, not just to our constituencies but to the people of British Columbia.

It is truly an honour to be here. I know my friend from Shuswap, who has just arrived — always delighted to have him. There are often lucid comments from him. In fact, we were at an event in my constituency of Sooke — as I go to the next portion of my comments that I wanted to make — of the T'Sou-ke Nation.

As a former Health Minister, we never had much in common, because everything I wanted, he said no to. But now that he has a new portfolio, aboriginal affairs, I'm hopeful that we can work very closely on a number of issues for the three first nations in my constituency: the Pacheenaht people in Port Renfrew, the T'Sou-ke Nation where the minister has visited in the community of Sooke, and also the Scia'new, or the Beecher Bay Band, in Metchosin — three bands in my community that are dynamic and aggressive in their desire to become an integral part of the economy and the community of south Vancouver Island.

And I know, I'm confident, that of all the ministers on that side I can rely on the Minister for Shuswap, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, to listen to the concerns of the people in my riding and do everything he can to promote and accelerate their economic development and their cultural and spiritual lives.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yes, I can take that to the bank. Excellent. I can take that to the bank, just as I can take to the bank the commitment to just a minimalist approach to deficit financing that was announced in February. But I will get to those comments in a moment.

Before I do that, I want to talk a little bit about what redistribution of the electoral areas on Vancouver Island did for me and for my colleagues represented in this House. You will know, hon. Speaker, a representative from Vancouver Island, that when the ballots were counted on election night, there were very few votes for the government side, and there were an enormous number of votes for people on this side of the House.

There were a lot of votes in Juan de Fuca for this side of the House, not a lot of votes for the Juan de Fuca candidate that represented that side of the House, and that was duplicated in constituencies up and down Vancouver Island.

There's a very good reason for that, hon. Speaker, as you know well. Not at this moment, as you're being impartial, but on other occasions we've had opportunity to talk about the needs and values and hopes and aspirations of people on Vancouver Island and whether or not those are being reflected by the government of the day, the B.C. Liberal party.

[1525]

I think it's fairly clear, when you look at the results from May 12 of this year, that the people resident here, 750,000-odd folks, don't have a great deal of confidence that their issues, the important things that are going on here in the greater Victoria area…. Whether it be in the Cowichan Valley; Nanaimo; North Island; the Comox Valley, one of the rare beachheads for neoconservatism on Vancouver Island — by and large, the people that reside here are New Democrats.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that everybody that voted for me is a doctrinaire New Democrat. I don't think that for a minute, but I do think that the values of the people of Vancouver Island are best reflected by those who are currently sitting on this side of the House.

I also think, hon. Speaker, that were it not for what I believe to be a significant deception during the campaign with respect to what the true state of the books were in British Columbia, we would be sitting on that side of the House and those folks, very few of them, would be sitting on this side of the House.

We had a poll out today. I recognize that, you know, the election is now four years out. They won; we lost. I get that. I understand that. Were it not for the fact that the books appear to have been deceptive, I would have been quite happy to accept that.

In a democratic society, we have a day when people go to a polling place. They didn't come in large numbers this time, regrettably — not the numbers that we would have hoped for, not the Obama-type outcomes and turnouts. I know that.
[ Page 283 ]

I heard one of the members this morning, a member from Richmond, talking about democracy, and I was looking at the voter turnout in Richmond. For the record, I see the member for Richmond Centre. I don't want to besmirch the good folks that live on the flatlands on the other side of the water, but not a lot of people showed up to vote.

I'm wondering: why is that? Why didn't they show up in Richmond? Why did they show up in large numbers here on southern Vancouver Island — some 60 percent voter turnout?

Again, for those watching at home, that's not record-setting, but relative to other parts of British Columbia, that's a pretty high turnout.

It's also interesting, with that significantly large turnout here on southern Vancouver Island, that the majority of the votes went to people on this side of the House. I think if the government were paying attention — and it's regrettable that they rarely do that when we're talking about issues on Vancouver Island — they might want to modify some of their behaviour if they want to encourage people to support them in the future.

One of the issues that really resonated in my constituency — I touched upon it when my good friend from Mackenzie had an interjection earlier on in my remarks — was the issue of the Western Forest Products forest lands that were deleted from a tree farm licence in January of 2007. Now, I know, hon. Speaker, you'll indulge me taking a walk down memory lane because, of course, we hear about the 1990s every 15 minutes from speakers on that side of the House.

I don't want to go back 15 years. I just want to go back 15 months and talk about the impact of a government policy decision made without any consultation with people in my community, in fact, without any consultation with forest workers, without any consultation with small business or with anyone on Vancouver Island. Of course, it did have an impact on your constituency, the three tree farm licences on the Island that were dismantled by fiat by the former Minister of Forests, endorsed and reaffirmed by the current Minister of Forests but condemned, I should say, by the Auditor General — condemned as inappropriate and not in the public interest.

It's stuff like that that turned people away from the B.C. Liberal Party. It's stuff like that that turns Vancouver Islanders to this side of the House. I see my friend from Nanaimo–North Cowichan and my new colleague from Cowichan Valley, who represents the second half of my former constituency, in areas like Cobble Hill, Mill Bay and Shawnigan Lake.

The heart of forestry on Vancouver Island was ripped out by this government, ripped out, during the eight years from 2001 to 2009. It's interesting. When they introduced the HST, they said it would be a boon for the forest industry and input costs would be down. They completely ignored the fact that two of the largest equipment auctions in the history of British Columbia took place in 2007 and 2008, when the forest industry sold all of their equipment. Now we're being told, now we're supposed to believe it when the Minister of Finance says this will be good for forestry.

[1530]

Rick Jeffrey — noted New Democrat — who was referred to by my friend from Whistler just a moment ago, said: "This is great news. We'll go out and buy new stuff." Well, they just sold all their stuff — gave it away, fire sale prices, so that they could have some capital to get back to their shareholders to give to their employees.

Now somehow, even though we didn't hear about it until July, the single most important thing that we could do for the B.C. economy is take $1.9 billion out of consumers' pockets and transfer it to the corporate sector. A $1.9 billion tax shift is not in the interest of the people in my community — not the individuals, the working men and women who go to work every day, whether it be in the tourism sector or other service industries on south Vancouver Island.

Because there isn't a forest industry anymore — not here. There's not a mill that I'm aware of south of Cowichan Bay that's operating in this community, yet somehow the Minister of Finance and the Premier seem to think the single most important thing they could do to revitalize the economy is impose a $1.9 billion tax on consumers. What a joke.

I know that the members on that side of the House prefer to dwell in the 1990s, but let's just go back to last October. You'll remember we had just cancelled the fall sitting for the third consecutive year. The current Attorney General had said: "There's no business for the people of B.C. to discuss here in this Legislature. We're going to cancel the fall session."

Then the credit crisis came upon us. Banks were dropping like dominos, and all of a sudden the Premier said: "Well, we better come back and talk about something. I've got a ten-point plan." One of those ten points was to come back to this place. We're now down to nine points on the plan.

"So here we are, Mr. Premier. Tell us what we can do to revitalize the economy."

"Well, we're going to freeze ferry fares. In fact, we're going to reduce ferry fares for December. That's what we're going to do to spur economic development here on Vancouver Island. At the low shoulder season for B.C. Ferries, we're going to reduce the rates. That's going to turn the economy around." That was one of the remaining nine points.

Another point in the ten-point plan was to freeze assessments in a tubing real estate market. There's a good idea: "We'll keep them high as the prices go down."

We're down to seven points left, and I want to say…. I'm not going to go through the rest of the seven. Suffice it to say, none of those made any reference to what was
[ Page 284 ]
now, we understand, the single most important thing that the government could do.

That was in October. Ten points. I've given you three of them. One of them was to just show up here. Nothing about harmonizing sales taxes in October.

So what we were supposed to do…. We were supposed to come back here in February of 2009. "We'll table a budget. We'll debate that budget. It'll lay out the fiscal framework for the next three years." So said the government.

"But wait a minute. We're going to have a deficit this year." The Premier lost sleep over it. He lost sleep over it, and I felt terrible for the man — just felt terrible for him. We come back in January because we have to amend the balanced budget legislation.

So here we go. We had nothing to talk about in September. We're going to cancel the fall session, and then all of a sudden we come back for a ten-point stimulus package, which did not include a harmonized sales tax.

Then we've got to come back in January and amend the balanced budget legislation so that we could run a deficit for two years. Two years — that was the plan in January. The good managers on that side, the business people who knew how to manage the economy: "We're going to have a deficit for two years."

We're here in February. We hear from the current Minister of Finance: "The deficit will be $495 million. We will protect health care and education. Social services will be maintained. All is good. Everything is fine. We've turned the economy around. The ferry fares have stabilized everything. We reduced ferry fares. Everything is going to be great from this point on." That's what we heard in February.

Leading up to the election campaign, we continued to hear that, oh, everything was just great, that we were going to be fine. "Only two years of deficit financing will be the responsibility of this government. We're the good managers."

"Don't worry your little head, pretty lady," they said to the Leader of the Opposition. "We'll take care of everything. You have no experience. We're the only people that are capable of governing the province of British Columbia."

That's very dangerous. [Applause.] I hear the brown shirts clapping over there. It's very dangerous to democracy and the parliamentary process to have one side of the House thinking they are the only people that have the answers and solutions to the challenges of the 21st century. That is very, very dangerous.

[1535]

We live in a mixed economy. We all know that. We don't hear that in the bluster from members like the Minister of State for Mining, who thinks it's only business. If it were not for business, the economy would fail.

What do business people need? I see there are a few of them in the House — new members — and they're probably hearing me for the first time, thinking: "What's the deal with that guy? What's the member for Juan de Fuca talking about? He's making sense. We're not supposed to do that. Why isn't he reading the public affairs bureau speech that I was given to read?"

The member for Surrey-Panorama, welcome to this place. All of her friends left B.C. in the 1990s. I heard her read that. Yet the member for Kamloops–North Thompson arrived in the 1990s. He's happy to come here. He said: "I love B.C. I brought my family here because it's a great place." One side of the House: "Great to be here. I came in the 1990s. Man, I'm having a good time." Other side of the House: "All my friends left. They've abandoned us."

Well, let's talk about some of the facts. I know that the public affairs bureau doesn't have any of this on their radar, but if you compare GDP growth in the 1990s to GDP growth during the course of this government on that side of the House…. What was the growth in the 1990s? Some 2.9 percent. Gross domestic product increased on average 2.9 percent. They call it a self-imposed meltdown.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Do you remember — the banker from Abbotsford over there — what was happening to the Asian economy in 1996-97? Any idea? I know what it was. Glen Clark took a plane trip over to Taiwan, and all of a sudden the economy of Asia collapsed. The NDP plan was to collapse the Asian economy in the 1990s. Commodity prices….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Well, yeah, I'll see your conspiracy theory, and I'll raise you two more. Again, I'm very pleased that the member for Shuswap is here, because he is lucid, and he does have something interesting to say, unlike the member from Mackenzie. And then Abbotsford, my goodness…. I'm sorry. If this is entertaining people, please, just pay no attention to me. I'm just here reading facts out to the trained seals on that side of the House. I'm just reading facts out.

We've got 2.9 percent gross domestic product growth on average over the 1990s. What do you think? Any guesses on what the GDP growth has been, not counting the negative growth over the past 12 months in British Columbia? Let's ignore that for now, because I'd have to downgrade the GDP number I have in front of me. Let's just go from 2001 to 2008. What do you think? Member for Shuswap, give me a guess.

Interjection.
[ Page 285 ]

J. Horgan: Please phrase your answer in the form of a question. The answer is: what is 2.7 percent? That's less. I mean, I'm not the numbers guy. The member from Quilchena is the numbers guy. But check me if I'm wrong on this, hon. Speaker, and I know you will — 2.9 in the dismal decade of the 1990s and 2.7 by the rocket scientists from the Fraser Institute. How does that happen?

Let's talk about balanced budget legislation for a minute, because we've had a nice little twist with this budget. Now instead of having five deficit budgets in 12 years, we'll have seven deficit budgets. These are the good fiscal managers over there. Gold medal for the highest deficit in the history of British Columbia — B.C. Liberals.

Let's have a hand for the B.C. Liberals. Silver medal, second-highest deficit in the history of B.C. Who was it? B.C. Liberals. [Applause.] Let's hear it.

Bronze? Social Credit. Sorry. You might remember them. That's what you used to call yourselves — Social Credit. Gold, silver and bronze for the neo-cons on that side of the House.

I'm told that social democrats are not fit to govern in British Columbia. That's what we hear on that…. [Applause.] Yes, let's hear it. Let's hear it. Never again shall we have working, ordinary people helping to manage a mixed economy. Never again. Only the business class, supported by the editorialists at The Vancouver Sun. That's it. I'm sorry. Am I reading the PAB stuff? I said, yeah, editorial board of The Vancouver Sun, brought to you by.… I don't know how this stuff gets out.

We have a paper here called the Victoria Times Colonist. It has a contrary view to The Vancouver Sun and a contrary view to the member from Quilchena and our good buddy from Point Grey, the Premier, currently, of British Columbia.

This is what we see today in the Victoria Times Colonist. The headline on the editorial is: "A Question of Credibility."

[1540]

Oh my goodness. How did that get out? Somebody's going to lose their job over this. Somebody's going to lose their job.

It goes as follows. I'll just read the first two paragraphs. I know that members are scurrying to their Today's News on line so they can read it themselves. These are the first two paragraphs.

"Finance Minister" — who is named — "had a chance, when he unveiled his budget update, to explain to voters how the province's finances managed to fall so far so fast and why it took the government so long to notice.

"He failed, however, to provide the answers. In fact, he raised more questions. The result is a widening credibility gap between the government and the people it serves."

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Wow. I know.

I'd like to send you for some diagnostic services, Member for Shuswap, but they've been cut here in their most recent budget. Four thousand fewer….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You're currently on Vancouver Island. If you need an MRI, you'd have to get in line with a whole bunch of other people, because there are going to be 4,000 fewer of them this year. This is the government that's protecting and preserving health care — 4,000 fewer MRIs on Vancouver Island, a record number.

I'm sorry. I don't have the public affairs bureau information at my disposal. Perhaps the member will send it over, and I can read the same speeches I've been hearing from the new members, like the member for Surrey-Panorama.

It's a travesty that the people on that side truly believe that they are the only people fit to govern in British Columbia. Give a clap if that's really what you think. I'm hopeful it's not.

As I said in my throne speech remarks earlier in the week, I truly believe and I know…. I have friends on that side of the House. Regrettably, my favourite Liberal happens to be the Minister of Energy, and I'm the Energy critic. That presents a problem. I have to poke him in the eye because that's my job.

The Queen pays me to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I have to find what's wrong with the plan. In the case of the energy plan, of course, it's very, very simple.

I do feel badly for my friend from Peace River South, because I do genuinely enjoy his company. I think he's a thoughtful fellow, and he has the best interests of his constituents at heart when he comes here every day. I'm quite genuine when I say this, and I know that my sincerity is renowned.

Nothing? I get nothing from that? An eyebrow from the former Minister of Health.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I was talking about my sincerity being renowned.

An Hon. Member: It is.

J. Horgan: There you go.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: You paused for a moment. I'll take a breath and get a drink. Maybe you could heckle me for a minute.

Interjections.
[ Page 286 ]

J. Horgan: Thank you very much. There's no applause because there's rapt attention.

Again, people in the gallery, I really apologize for being interesting. I know that's not what you came in here for.

In any event, I am sincere when I say I have been listening to many of the new members, and of course, most of them are on this side. I've been listening to new members, and I do want to apologize to the member for Surrey-Panorama.

I only make reference to your speech because it did make reference to everyone fleeing the province in B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

J. Horgan: If you look at the population stats in the 1990s…. Again, don't take what public affairs sends you. Go to B.C. Stats and take a look. In 1998 there was a downturn, and the reason for that was that there was a recession. There was a recession here in British Columbia. Now, of course, it was caused because Glen Clark flew to China and said, "I want commodity prices to go into the tank," and it happens — just like that. That's the power of social democracy, according to the people on that side of the House.

Copper prices. I was talking to the Minister of State for Mining about this just a few moments ago, or earlier in the day. Copper prices in 1998, at the point where net migration took a hit, were 68 cents a pound — 68 cents a pound for copper in 1998.

Why would you explore? Why would you go looking if it's worth 68 cents a pound? It's $3 a pound right now, and these guys complain that commodity prices are in the tank. Give me a break.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Member. One moment.

I'd like to remind all members that if they want to make comments, they have to be in their own seats — all members.

J. Horgan: Somebody's sitting in the wrong place. Must be me.

Back to the sincerity. I do believe that new members have come here with the best of intentions. This is an honourable job. I do have respect for those on the other side of the House.

[1545]

I understand that there are challenges in government. I worked in government. Not everything is easy. I get that. We get that on this side of the House, but what troubles me in these difficult times is this notion, as I said earlier, that only they have the answers. They have the keys to the kingdom. They are the only ones that can solve today's problems.

We heard from the Premier and we heard from the Minister of Finance that the single most important thing we could do is to tax consumers again — $1.9 billion. I've got my colleagues here, and I'll ask those on the other side. If this is the single most important thing we could do — and I've heard it a dozen times if I've heard it once — why didn't we talk about that in October, when the Premier commandeered the airwaves? He went to the public broadcasters, to the private broadcasters and said: "I must have air time to tell you about reducing ferry fares for a month in December."

Why didn't he say at that time: "The HST is our salvation"? As the editorial comments today, why didn't he explain the problem to the public? We're not stupid. The public isn't stupid. They don't like being taken for fools, however.

It's beyond credibility — as the editorial suggests, as my constituents have suggested — to say to the public after an election, when you've not talked about raising taxes by $1.9 billion and transferring those savings back to your financial supporters in the forest sector, which hasn't cut down a tree in my constituency in 24 months as a result of that Liberal government's forestry policies…. It's just inconceivable that nobody knew that the single most important thing we could do is to harmonize our taxes.

People shake their heads, and they say: "What's wrong with you people?" If that's the solution, why wouldn't you talk about it at the one time the public is focused on what goes on in this place — during an election campaign? Why wouldn't you go to the people and say: "We have a significant revenue challenge, and the solution is harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the federal GST"? That would be the truthful, responsible and reasonable thing to do.

I believe and I'm confident that British Columbians, if given the opportunity to weigh the issues, as they should and do during an election campaign, may well have passed judgment in favour of a harmonized sales tax. But when you tell them after the election, when you've announced a $2.8 billion deficit....

The Premier lost sleep over this. This was the big deal back in January — sleepless nights. I can see him pacing back and forth, back and forth in his home in Point Grey: "What am I going to do? A deficit. What could be worse than that?"

A deficit six times the one you promised. That's what could be worse than that, and that's what this government has delivered with this budget.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Horgan: Am I done? How could that be possible? Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I'm here all week.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to thank the member for Juan de Fuca for warming up the crowd for me today here. I
[ Page 287 ]
have never seen 30 minutes pass more quickly than just occurred there. It's a challenge yet a delight to follow the member for Juan de Fuca.

I want to begin today by thanking my constituents for the opportunity to be a part of this assembly again. That is much appreciated. These are extraordinarily difficult times, extraordinarily challenging times, and I am very appreciative of the electors of Shuswap for again expressing confidence in me and allowing me the honour of being their representative in this chamber.

I also want to begin today by saying to a couple of very important people to me.... Actually, I have many important people. My wife is very important to me. My family is very important to me. I also wanted to thank my constituency assistants up in Salmon Arm, who have worked extraordinarily hard for me now for, probably, going on six or seven years.

They've done a great job up there. During my period as Health Minister, I know they carried an extraordinary load as constituency assistants, as I was often very, very busy with the challenges that go with that very difficult job. I know that all members of the Legislature appreciate their constituency assistants, but I especially wanted to thank Roxena Goodine and Holly Cowan for the great job they do for me up in Salmon Arm.

[1550]

I also today want to thank the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has, at any given moment, an extraordinarily difficult job, but I must say that in the past year his job has been a very, very tough one. I want to thank him for the grace with which he conducts himself through these trying times.

He has been the brunt of much criticism. I would say that that criticism has ranged from inappropriate to at times shameful, but he has borne it, I think, with grace and with dignity, and I'm appreciative of that. He's had a tough job as the government has struggled to respond to what are unprecedented international economic conditions.

The opposition has said many things in the debate, and I won't respond to them all. Obviously, time wouldn't permit that. Most frequently, though, I have heard that somehow the Minister of Finance should have known in advance of all the fiscal challenges that B.C. has faced in the past year, especially in the months since the February budget.

I've heard that over and over again — that somehow he should have known prospectively, in advance, of the challenges that British Columbia would face after the delivery of the budget in February.

I would suggest that much of that criticism from the opposition members qualifies them for what has become a very large club in British Columbia, in Canada and in the world, and that is the retrospective crystal-ball club. That is people who can look into a crystal ball retrospectively and who can, based on that 20-20 hindsight, accurately predict the past. That's a talent, and I know the member for Juan de Fuca is proudly among the best of those retrospective crystal-ball club members.

There is also a smaller club in the world of economics these days, and certainly this is the age of the economist. It certainly isn't the age of the politician or the political scientists. This is the age of the economist. There's a smaller club, which I call the prospective crystal-ball club. That is people who prospectively, looking forward, look into their crystal ball and give some prediction about the future.

There is a third club, and this club is very, very small. It may not even have any members here in British Columbia or in Canada or in the western world. I call that the accurate prospective crystal-ball club. That is people who have looked out one month, two months, three months, four months, six months and accurately assessed where our province, our nation and the western world would be in relation to the economy. So that accurate prospective crystal-ball club is a very, very small club, indeed.

The recession that we have faced, beginning approximately in September of '08 and certainly extending through until today, has not been a made-in-B.C. recession. This is a recession that was international in character, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in a moment.

It is not, unlike the 1990s and particularly 1996, a made-in-B.C. recession. It is an international recession. I remember very clearly that even a year ago one of the major topics of conversation at that time was where we would find the human resources — and I was particularly concerned about health human resources — to meet the demands of a growing economy.

[1555]

That discussion came to a very rapid end, I must say, as a consequence first of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in the United States. That appeared to be the triggering event for this episodic recession that we are in. It was the collapse of Lehman Brothers followed by the collapse of a number of other major financial institutions in the United States. It was followed by a crisis among banks not only in the United States but in many European jurisdictions as well.

Banks in Canada actually fared fairly well, but that was unusual. It was an international banking crisis, and it had a profound effect on economies in every jurisdiction across the world. Of course, the huge challenges that the banks faced produced a credit crisis which, in turn, produced many of the economic challenges that we live with today.

British Columbia is not alone in these challenges. There is not a jurisdiction in the western world, and perhaps not a jurisdiction in the entire world, that has not faced the economic challenges that started in the United States but that have visited every corner of the world, including Europe and Asia. Even places one would
[ Page 288 ]
think relatively remote from the U.S. sub-prime mortgage meltdown, like Iceland, suffered absolutely catastrophic economic consequences as a result of it. No one has been immune.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sorry, I'm concentrating on my speaking rather than my listening now, but no one has been immune from the impact of the recession of the past now going on 12 months. No one has been immune from it, and British Columbia has not been immune from it.

We know we're in a recession, but you would find a pretty small number of economists who were able to accurately assess the degree of impact, the depth of the recession or the length of the recession. Those are all challenging questions, which again, it seems to me, people have been somehow expecting an omniscient Finance Minister to know all these things when there was no one else on the face of the earth who was able to answer successfully and prospectively all of those three questions.

I think, in fact, the question might be framed this way. What's the shortest list in the world? Well, it's the list of economists who accurately predicted this recession, who accurately assessed the depth of it and who accurately assessed the length of it. There is no economist that I'm aware of that was able to accurately predict this. Yet somehow, members of the opposition continuously suggest that our Minister of Finance should somehow be able to magically know all of that.

There's a wonderful quote here. It's Bentley's second law of economics. Bentley's second law of economics is: "The only thing more dangerous than an economist is an amateur economist." Certainly this is the age of the amateur economist as well as the age of the real economist.

The only real economist I know of is the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. He's the only real one in this House, I should say. There are many real economists in our world, and they perform extraordinarily valuable functions for us in terms of trying to understand what is happening in the economic world around us.

But there are many more amateur economists these days, and certainly we have heard from many of them in recent days, in the response to the throne and now the response to the budget, from the NDP side of the House. They offer many examples of the retrospective crystal-ball club — accurately predicting the past with absolute certainty that can only come with looking back on something rather than looking forward and trying to understand it.

[1600]

The criticisms that I've heard from the opposition have generally been combined with a very crude conspiracy theory about, again, how the Ministry of Finance should have known prospectively what no professional economist has been able to predict, and that is the length, the depth and the impact of recession on the B.C. economy, the Canadian economy or the world economy.

Much of that conspiracy theory feels like a script by Agatha Christie, but it often feels like the execution of that script has come from Inspector Clouseau rather than from Agatha Christie. I think much of it has been unfair.

What did the Minister of Finance do to prepare for his February budget? He didn't throw darts at a dartboard. He didn't consult the Ouija board. He did some different things, and we should talk about that.

The first thing that he did was work with and consult extensively with the professional economists and the skilled public servants in the Ministry of Finance who were struggling to understand, again, all of the things that were going on in the economic world around them. Not only did the Minister of Finance consult them and work with them; he took their advice. Again, this stands in stark contrast to the budgeting of the NDP in 1996.

The other thing that the Minister of Finance did…. Again, it's enormously important to emphasize this point. The Minister of Finance, as he and his predecessors have done, took the time — and much time — to consult 12 leading economists in British Columbia and Canada in a group called the Economic Forecast Council. Again, one needs to place some faith in those who are trained in this area, and that's exactly what the Minister of Finance did.

He looked out at the economy and obviously could see the volatility of the economy. What's the best way to assess the impact on British Columbia? It's by talking to professional economists, and that's what he did through the Economic Forecast Council. Actually, he consulted them twice in short order, because as conditions were very volatile in that period immediately prior to the locking down of the budget, with an abundance of caution he consulted them again.

What did they advise? Well, first of all, there was a range in their advice, among the 12 economists that were consulted, and that consultation produced a range between plus 0.9 percent positive GDP growth right down to negative 1 percent GDP growth. That was the range.

There were five of the 12 economists who were predicting growth, there were five who were predicting decline, and there were two who were boldly predicting zero. So that, again, tells us something about the challenge of trying to understand and to identify exactly what this quite unprecedented recession was going to look like in terms of the length, depth and impact of it on the British Columbia economy.

Having that range and the average of all of that range be exactly zero, what did the Minister of Finance do? Did he go zero? No, he didn't. Did he go zero plus $600
[ Page 289 ]
million? No, he didn't. In an abundance of caution, the Minister of Finance and his professional ministry staff projected a minus 0.9 percent contraction in the GDP for British Columbia.

He went well beyond the prudence that the professional economists had suggested. He went even beyond that. Time has shown that the recession has proven to be deeper. Hopefully, it won't prove to be longer, but it has certainly proven to be deeper than even the most pessimistic of those professional economists in the Economic Forecast Council predicted.

[1605]

So you take even the most pessimistic of them at negative 1 percent. In fact, the impact of this recession on British Columbia has been almost 2 points deeper than the most pessimistic of them expected, approaching 4 percent more pessimistic than even the most pessimistic expected.

Often the term "unprecedented" is overused, but I don't believe in this instance that it is inappropriate at all. This was an unprecedented situation that we faced. The world moved very quickly into a recession as a consequence of, initially, the sub-prime mortgage but also the impact of that on major financial houses, on banks, on credit and, of course, on the production of recessionary elements in the economy.

Again, it's something which I've never seen in my lifetime and, clearly, something which many economists have never seen in their lifetimes. They certainly have had a challenging time understanding it and predicting where we are going to go from here.

In fact, in my memory…. If anyone can remember — on the opposition side — the contrary, I'd love to hear it. I cannot remember a time when more economists — and more amateur economists, for that matter — have been forced to revise their predictions more often and more substantially than in the current time of recession. Literally every economist in the nation and pretty much in the world has been taken by surprise by the suddenness and severity of what we have seen.

Again, I know that the Finance Minister is not a professional economist. He's been a small business person. He's been many things. But to expect that somehow he should have been able to predict with accuracy the intensity of what British Columbia, Canada and the world have faced is clearly inappropriate.

I have heard a number of critiques, even from economists, about whether the expectation of the Finance Minister in the February budget was appropriate, but the one thing that all of those critiques have in common is that they are all retrospective. There is not a single economist that I'm aware of who prospectively got it right.

There are lots of people now who can look back and say: "Well, it wasn't enough." Again, that is the power of 20-20 hindsight. It is the power of predicting the past — which most of us can do and, clearly, even New Democrats are capable of doing. It certainly, to me, means that a lot of this very inflammatory, very reckless rhetoric that I am hearing in relation to the Minister of Finance is entirely off base.

One of the subsidiary questions that could be asked about this, as well, is…. If the demand that the Finance Minister get it right prospectively is so powerful, I think it's also fair to ask: did the New Democratic Party get it right in their budgetary projections?

After all, the NDP, New Democratic Party, had the opportunity for about two months after the February budget right through until they published their budget for the consideration of the electors of British Columbia. They had two months there where they had an opportunity to see what the Finance Minister, prior to the February budget, could not see, which was the economic interplay at the time.

What was their budget? Well, as it turns out, not only did they use all of the same economic assumptions and basically the same budget as the February budget; they also added an additional $600 million in budget optimism to their budget.

[1610]

They can crank up the rhetoric about how somehow the Finance Minister should have known prospectively about this. But their rhetoric is not matched by their own conclusions and assumptions about the economy, if the budget they put forward for the consideration of the electors is to be any indication of that.

We can all be members of the prospective crystal-ball club. I do hope that it is time for the opposition to move forward — away from what are, I think, increasingly scurrilous attacks on the Minister of Finance — to offer a more creative, constructive vision for the future of British Columbia.

Now, I'm not in the business of giving advice to the New Democratic Party, and I'm sure they wouldn't wish to accept it even if I were to offer it. But I would say this. This is based on a quote from the Leader of the Opposition on CFAX radio on June 18, about a month after the 2009 election. She said at that time that she was now committed to "making sure we get our positive vision out and doing a better job of that."

That is something which, I have to say, I am still waiting for — that positive vision. I do think that the New Democratic Party sells itself short when their approach to government is to be constantly criticizing rather than offering a constructive vision. I think it's going to be challenging to be able to move forward as a political party and a potential government without offering a potential positive vision about where this province can and should go.

So we've got many challenges, and we've got many challenges in many areas. I have the honour, at this time, of being the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and we have lots of challenges in that area.
[ Page 290 ]

My friend from Juan de Fuca indicated that he wanted to work on some issues with first nations in Juan de Fuca. I say good. I hope that he and I can work together on that. I hope that we can make this chamber a constructive place where we can exchange ideas on important areas of public policy.

That has not been the case to date. We have heard lots of strident rhetoric. We have not heard much in the way of constructive observations.

I do want to take a few moments…. I'm not sure how much time I've got left, but I want to talk a little bit about some of those challenges. Understanding 150 years of history between the colony — later the province — of British Columbia and its first nations is in itself a challenge, Madam Speaker. I know that you know that.

I was very appreciative to read a book recently by a professor from the University of Victoria, Dr. John Lutz. The book, called Makuk, really looks at the history of relations between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in British Columbia. It looks at them over 150 years and especially looks at the area of employment and economic relationships in the province. It is a sad fact of our 150 years of history that aboriginal relations have too often been of an unconstructive and even shameful character.

The consequence of that is that we see some, I think, remarkably unfortunate gaps and challenges in terms of the outcomes for aboriginal people. A few of them: infant mortality, two times higher than the general population; life expectancy, 5.8 years lower; high school completion, 35 percent lower; unemployment rate, two and a half times higher than the general population of British Columbia; median income, 64 percent of the B.C. average; and 50 percent of children in care are aboriginal.

[1615]

None of those statistics are ones that any member of this chamber can be proud of. I know we all want to work to improve the lives of first nations in British Columbia. And I hope that, in fact, the chamber can be a place where we work constructively to try to improve those outcomes for first nations, to narrow the gaps — the social and economic gaps between first nations and other British Columbians.

Too often our 150 years of history has involved the exclusion of first nations not only from our political life until well into the 20th century but also from employment and economic development opportunities. I think we need to try to ensure that, in fact, we can adopt strategies which encourage greater opportunities and employment and economic development for first nations and improve the lives of those citizens.

We know that 150 years of history is not quickly or easily overcome. Much work must be undertaken to close the unacceptable gaps. We want to do that through a stronger government-to-government relationship, through shared decision-making, building greater certainty on the land base, and ensuring that revenues benefit first nations when economic activities occur on their traditional territories.

I am blessed to be born in British Columbia, to have had the opportunity to grow up here, to raise a family here, to have been in business here and now to have been for 13 years a member of this assembly. We have bountiful resources in this province. We have an energetic population. We're strategically located to serve the huge Pacific economies around us. We have boundless opportunities in this province, and we are all, as British Columbians, remarkably fortunate to be a part of this great province.

The goal of our government and, I hope, of every government in the future will be to unlock that untapped potential of our great province and to ensure that every citizen of this great province, whether aboriginal or non-aboriginal, whether you're from any ethnic community, any region of British Columbia — that we all have the opportunity to live here and to benefit from the wonderful resources that we possess in this province....

J. Kwan: Madam Chair, congratulations to you for your election to this position, and I look forward to this session with the rest of the members.

Let me, first of all, say that I'm very honoured to be here in this Legislature to represent the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I'm very humbled to have the opportunity to serve another term on behalf of my constituents. I'm very grateful, I have to say, like many members in this House, for the support of my family and friends.

In particular, I know there were times during the election campaign where my children wondered where their mother had gone. At the start of the campaign, my youngest son, Renan, had just turned about nine months, I would say.

There were times where I would leave first thing in the morning, and I would come back late at night. I would not have seen him all day. Usually, though, I do attempt to get home in time so that I can nurse him before he goes down for that four-hour sleep that he does in the middle of the night and wakes up and nurses again and does that thing all through the night. But I wanted him to know that it was his mother who was doing that and nursing him to sleep in that final stretch in the middle of the night.

I knew I was in trouble, though, because midway through the campaign I came home, and my little guy was feeling particularly fragile. I went up to him, and I wanted to hold him, to give him a big hug and to console him. He started to cry more when he saw me approaching him, and he turned to someone else.

[1620]

Now, luckily for me, I suppose, he turned to my husband. So Dan, of course, took to the task, picked up Renan and consoled him until he quieted down. I would
[ Page 291 ]
bring him upstairs to his room, nurse him and then put him down in his crib.

I have to say there were moments, though, during that campaign when I thought: "Hmm, these are big prices that we pay, we politicians who have families at home, family members, especially young ones…." At the same time I also understand the importance of the work that we do, and I think we're here today because we believe in the importance of that work.

Why do we do this? Because we want to build a better future not just for ourselves but for the generations to come. We on the different sides of the House have different beliefs, and we're passionate about those different beliefs.

So to that end, I do want to say a big congratulations, really, to all members of the House for stepping up to the plate to do this job. It is not an easy job, to say the least, but it is an important job — one which our democracy depends on.

I also want to thank the many volunteers, my campaign team and the residents of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for their support and ongoing encouragement. Many of them give me good advice. Many of them actually brought me food during the campaign. Many of them actually told me to go home and spend some time with my kids, and there were times when I thought, "Yes, I think I will do that" and stole a couple of hours just to hang out with my family.

I do want to congratulate, particularly, the MLA for Delta South, the new independent in this Legislature, who will — I have no doubt in my mind — be representing her community to the best of her ability. It is not an easy task to feel like you're alone. We've sort of been there, my good colleague Joy MacPhail and I — been there, done that, in sort of a similar but not exactly the same way.

I also want to say that we on the opposition side want to extend our hand to you to provide any assistance or support and to work with you to ensure that British Columbians have the best representatives in this Legislature.

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, of course, has a special place in my heart. I was a community organizer in the Downtown Eastside before I entered politics. I organized in hotels. I advocated for the people that had been left behind by the public system. Without that training and experience, I couldn't do what I do today.

Turning to the issues at hand, let me just briefly recap the actions of this government. This is a government that decimated social programs in its first term and traumatized thousands of people in our community. This is a government that totally launched a massive assault on civil society in this province. This is a government that pitted communities against communities and instituted policies that left people behind. This is a government that, I would say, has no guiding principles except for the desire for power in order to benefit their friends and insiders.

That's what I have seen over the last number of years in this Legislature. I saw it right in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, where I saw the homelessness rate more than double under this government's term. I saw the worst child poverty rate not for one year, not for two years, but for six years in British Columbia under this government's term.

This is a government that has misled the public with its budget deception. Indeed, I would say it has been a summer of deception — from the deficit to the HST, to the B.C. Rail corruption, to the arts and program cuts, to the cuts in health care, to the cuts in education.

Let's start with the deficit. The size of the deficit — a complete surprise, according to government members. I have to say. Really, is that so? But let's just visit the timeline for a moment. Let's just look at the timeline of this government's budget deception.

[1625]

On April 23 in the leaders radio debate the Premier made his claim that the deficit would be $495 million — maximum.

On May 3 in the leaders TV debate, the Premier promised that they would balance the budget in three years. But what we know now is that the Minister of Finance knew as far back as one month into the fiscal year that revenues were tanking to the tune of $200 million to $300 million.

I quote: "The first time that I ever had any indication from Ministry of Finance staff that our revenue projections might be taking a bigger hit than we anticipated was actually a casual conversation I had in the middle of the election…." Not at the end of the election, but in the middle of the election, by the Minister of Finance's own admission.

In other words, he knew during the election campaign that revenues were plummeting. If the minister was doing his job, he would have known that it would have put his budget targets at risk, not just at a little bit of risk but a great risk. Why do I say that? Because I have no doubt in my mind that the Minister of Finance worked diligently to ensure how he came up with the $495 million deficit. I am sure that he poured tons and tons of energy into coming up with that figure.

When put in that context of a $495 million deficit, and when your revenues are tanking to the tune of $200 million to $300 million one month into the fiscal year, do you honestly think that when the Minister of Finance says he had no idea that the revenue projections were going to be this bad at that time...? I find that incredibly hard to believe. I expect that many British Columbians do as well.

Yet the Minister of Finance did not have the wherewithal to tell the Premier, so he claims. He did not have the wherewithal to tell the voters of British Columbia during the campaign, more importantly. During a campaign where the government campaigned on their ability to manage the fiscal situation in British Columbia
[ Page 292 ]
and the changing tides of the economy across the globe, the Minister of Finance knew — he was informed by his very able ministry staff that revenues were tanking, not just a little bit but big time — and the minister did not take any time out of the campaign to inform British Columbians of the truth.

Then a couple of days later, after the election, revenues have plummeted by this time to the tune of $1.1 billion. The Minister of Finance ought to have known that his budget targets were way off base then, and he should have had the courage to tell British Columbians. He should have had the courage to come clean and tell British Columbians, but he still persisted with that charade.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

June 10, at the cabinet swearing-in, the Minister of Finance was still claiming that the deficit would only be $495 million. He said: "If I were in a position to table a budget today, it would be a deficit of $495 million or less. I'm still confident that come September 1, we will be able to deliver on that." It wasn't until July 9 that the Minister of Finance finally admitted that he cannot meet his own budget targets.

[1630]

The government has made it clear that the truth comes a distant second to its political agenda. Political deception has consistently taken precedence over the truth. That's why the B.C. Liberals misled British Columbians about the deficit and about the HST. Frankly, voters feel betrayed by the B.C. Liberals. One could win just about any game if you don't tell the truth, and isn't that what has happened here?

To this point, representing Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, when economic times were good, this government didn't invest in social programs. Let me just recount some of the issues that we face in our community. What has happened?

Let's just take the homelessness crisis for one moment. Homelessness has exploded under this government's watch. When in fact they first took office back in 2001, one of the first acts of this Premier and of the Liberal government was to cut and cancel the permanent housing program that British Columbia offered.

At that time British Columbia was building approximately 1,200 units of affordable housing each and every year, in spite of the fact that the federal government had pulled out of the national housing programs. What did the Liberal government do? What did this Premier do back in 2001? They abruptly cancelled Homes B.C.

What happened after that? We saw that the homelessness rate more than doubled in our communities. I have never seen such a crisis in British Columbia. Virtually everywhere you went, you saw people sleeping on the streets of our community, and this government let that pass until most recently, where they thought: "Oh, the international community is coming because of the Olympics. I guess we'd better do something about the homelessness crisis."

All of a sudden, they pretend that they're the champion of addressing the homelessness crisis, when in fact it was they who contributed to the homelessness crisis. I would argue that it was they who had escalated the homelessness crisis, and that it was they who effectively sat by idly and saw British Columbians sleeping in the streets without a roof. Isn't that a great social legacy for this government in their tenure?

This government could not be trusted when times were good, and this government cannot be trusted when times, are bad to protect public services. With 111 recommendations by the UN special rapporteur on housing in February of 2008, that report is sitting on a shelf somewhere, collecting dust. No new ideas and just cynical posturing.

The recommendations from the Frank Paul inquiry. People will remember the Frank Paul situation, Mr. Speaker. This is an aboriginal man who died in the streets, alone in the cold, after the police had dumped him in an alley. Recommendations came forward in the Frank Paul inquiry — and no implementation of that inquiry from this government.

I hope the new Solicitor General will rise to the challenge, take that report, take those recommendations and say: "Enough is enough, and in fact I am going to proceed with these recommendations because it is the right thing to do. Those without voice in our communities — those who are lost in our communities, those who need a strong voice to ensure that they, too, have rights in our community — are going to be protected." The Solicitor General can do exactly that by implementing those recommendations, and I put that challenge to the Solicitor General today.

In this budget I look to see what is going on with the housing budget, and I am dismayed. I am dismayed to actually see a reduction in the housing budget. In this situation, we have 10,500 people who are homeless in British Columbia, and that would be a conservative estimate.

In this budget I look to see whether or not there are any commitments around protecting tenants in British Columbia, and I saw no protection forthcoming from this government.

[1635]

The inner-city inclusive commitment statement, which came out of the Olympics committee, has been a total whitewash. Nothing in the budget ensures that the inner-city inclusive commitment statement recommendations are going forward.

The dishonesty of this government's agenda is breathtaking. It is brazen, and it flies in the face of what British Columbians value.
[ Page 293 ]

Do the Premier and this government have a mandate to cut seniors programs and cut surgeries? After all, didn't they promise to protect health care and education during the election campaign? And where are we post-election? Service cuts and health care delivery in chaos. Why? Because the health authorities do not have enough money to deliver the programs the seniors need, the families need, the children need in British Columbia.

Education cuts. What about education? I started my speech talking about my family, my young son, the importance of children for today and for tomorrow, not only just for myself but for our democracy. Education cuts we saw coming. One of the first acts after they formed government was to cut the annual facilities grant — gone.

School boards were waiting for that money, and what were they going to use that money for? They were actually going to renovate our schools for our children so that they have a better environment in which to learn, so that they have a safe environment in which to learn.

The Minister of Education claims that people had known about this well in advance, that it wasn't a surprise. Oh really? Because in talking to my trustees from Vancouver, they sure as heck were blindsided. They did not see this coming. They're now scrambling. They're left scrambling and trying to figure out how to make ends meet.

Let us be clear. This will impact the classrooms. There is no doubt about it. School is going to start next week. Children are going to be going back to their classrooms, and already, as it were, what we saw were classrooms that were overcrowded, that were violating the government's own targets in terms of classroom sizes. We now have a situation where we know that education is being underfunded because the budget does not provide sufficient dollars to ensure that our education systems are not hurt.

In addition to that, we now have increased costs to the education system. The government announced, in its budget, the MSP premium increase. Where does the government think that school boards are going to be able to come up with the money to pay for the increase in MSP premiums? It's not funded in the budget.

The annual facilities grant — cut. Already, classrooms are oversized. Already, classrooms are underfunded. Last year in Vancouver I believe that they had to deal with a $7.5 million shortfall, and they already had to cut programs in the classrooms. They already had to deal with that tough situation.

This budget is going to be even worse. Not only is the government not funding existing cost pressures to keep up with inflation, but the government is adding new cost pressures without funding them. In the meantime, the government is cutting existing grants to the school board.

What do you think? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out, I don't think. The children in our school system are going to get hurt. They are going to get hurt because they're not going to get the best environment in which to learn. That we know. So much for the government's promise of protecting health care and education.

What about the HST? Just why didn't the Premier tell British Columbians the truth about the HST? Does he really think that he has the mandate to implement this policy?

The number one employer in this province, the tourism industry, is very concerned about the HST. What they said to the government was that this is bad for our business. They are saying to the government that this is a policy that the government should not implement because it is going to hurt the tourism sector. Yet the government brought in the new tax that will cost jobs in this sector.

[1640]

Let me just quote the Council of Tourism Associations. Here's their analysis of the HST to date: "Many businesses in the tourism and hospitality industry are greatly suffering as a result of the global economic recession, and they do not yet see light at the end of the tunnel. The proposed tax shift comes at the most difficult time for price-sensitive travellers and small businesses struggling with shrinking markets and increasingly tight margins."

Does the minister really think that the HST would actually help the tourism industry? I think not. The tourism industry is not the only loser in this game of deception. The restaurant and food services industry is also, and the real estate and home-building industries.

Funny — even the B.C. Liberal Vancouver-Fraserview constituency association president, David Choi, had this to say: "The government had no mandate to implement the HST without public consultation." This coming from a Liberal — and not just any Liberal, but the president of the riding association of the Solicitor General, who happens to be also a business person, who happens to be the president and CEO of Royal Pacific Real Estate Group. I was at a forum where I actually heard him say this.

So I call on the Solicitor General. I actually issue him a challenge to do something to implement the Frank Paul inquiry recommendations. I call on the Solicitor General to stand up for his constituents and tell the Premier to scrap the HST.

What about the Minister of Tourism? Does the Minister of Tourism have the courage to tell the Premier to scrap the HST on behalf of the Council of Tourism Associations? After all, isn't he supposed to be the champion of tourism? And will he do the right thing and say no to the HST. I suppose I won't hold my breath, but I sure as heck, though, hope that the minister will do that, because that is his job and that is what he's supposed to do — to be the champion of the tourism industry.

By the way, I just want to ask this question. Was taking the axe to Tourism B.C. in the Liberal platform?
[ Page 294 ]
Why didn't the Liberals tell the tourism community that they were going to axe Tourism B.C. right after the election? Six months before the Olympics, the government thought: "Hey, there's a smart thing to do. Our economy is kind of tanking, but maybe the right thing to do is just kill off Tourism B.C."

It's actually doing a fairly good job, an admirable job, on behalf of British Columbians in showcasing British Columbians to the world and inviting the world to British Columbia so that they can spend their money in our communities — in our economy, supporting our communities. But that, I guess, would have been too much for the government to figure out. I wonder where the Minister of Tourism is, or do we even have one who would actually have the courage to stand up for the industry which he's supposed to represent?

And now, let's turn for a moment to the small business sector, another sector that's hit hard by the HST. Already the restaurant business has gone down 0.9 percent according to Statistics Canada. Imagine adding another tax to this industry at a time when the economy is crashing. The Restaurant and Foodservices Association is dead set against the HST.

Let me just put this information forward for members of this House. When the GST was introduced back in 1991, business went down 9.5 percent for the restaurant and food services community. That's approximately $50,000 lost in revenue per business.

Where is the champion for small business anyway? Is there a Minister of Small Business who would actually stand up and say no to the HST? After all, the small business community, in my view, is the economic engine of British Columbia, particularly in small communities, in the rural communities where the small business activities support and employ local residents.

[1645]

Here we have a government that thinks that it is perfectly okay to jeopardize the tourism industry, to jeopardize the food and services industry, and so far, we have not heard one peep from that side of the House, where they are supposed to be champions who will stand up and advocate for these industries.

Now, the Premier always champions himself as the advocate for business. Well, given what he ran on, it might be time to file a complaint against the B.C. Liberal Party with the Better Business Bureau. The Premier is trying to get away with the classic bait-and-switch routine, and frankly, British Columbians are not buying it.

People across B.C. are angry about the deficit deception. They're angry about the HST. They're angry about the cuts in health care. They're angry about the cuts in education. They feel betrayed yet again by this government.

That's not all. Does the Premier believe in a utilities commission that is free from political interference? Apparently not. Does the Premier believe that B.C. Hydro is a great public asset for all British Columbians, rather than a private corporation that benefits his friends and insiders? Apparently not.

Well, a lot of people have talked to me this summer. This Premier and this government are going to be getting some feedback over the coming months, I have no doubt. Many of them have already spoken up, but the voices of the community will continue to grow louder and louder. They will cause this government to halt, I hope, in a democratic society where the government will halt their actions and review what it is that they promised British Columbians and what it is that they are now delivering.

From Kitimat to Burns Lake, from Quesnel to Grand Forks, from Kamloops to Sparwood, people are angry, and they want a representative in this House that will bring forward their concerns. Just today's latest poll, I think, speaks volumes. The Premier is actually at an all-time low with his approval rating. In fact, I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if there were an election today, given what British Columbians know today of the facts that are before them, I would expect that there would be a seismic shift in the representation of this House and the makeup of this House. I can guarantee you that.

I look forward to further debates and ongoing deliberations on the deficit deception and the deceptions of this government.

D. Horne: It is with great pleasure that I address this House for the first time today. Given the current economic conditions, this reply to the budget and the tremendous significance, the requirement to make tough decisions but to ensure that core programs and values that we as British Columbians hold dear are indeed maintained….

But prior to giving my thoughts on the budget, and following in the traditions of this place, I would like to thank the people of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain for electing me to represent them. I appreciate the great privilege that they have given me and the trust that they have placed in me.

I would like to thank all those that have worked so hard in my election, putting in countless hours and being so successful: Brian Shaw, my financial agent; Marc Coward, my campaign manager; Gerry Shinkewski, my official agent; Ted Ribeyre, my auditor; Eileen Shinkewski, Gillian Kirk, Zameer Karim, for all of their help in my office; Jim Moore, for making sure that all of my signs got out and were well maintained; Mitra Saberi, Louise Pitre, Andy Shen and Valentina Kochetkova for all of their volunteer hours and coming with me each day for countless hours, knocking on doors, meeting with people in the community.

I would like to thank Young Su, Sohrab Saebnia, Amin Lashkari, Ivy Lim and Ming Zeng for all of their help in
[ Page 295 ]
their communities and really introducing me to many, many people.

[1650]

I can remember an event during the election. The Premier was in my office. He gave a fantastic speech, as he always does. He stepped off the stage, and there was a group of people in front of him, and they were all of Chinese origin. He walked down to greet each of them. Not a single one of them spoke a word of English, and he was surprised.

I said: "Well, many people within the Chinese community are here supporting us, supporting me, and I think it's very, very important that we reach out to these communities, that we reach out to each person, each British Columbian, each Canadian as we seek a mandate." So I'd like to thank them very much for all their help.

I'd also like to thank Sperril Chambers, my fundraising chair; Marion Lochhead, my E-day chair; and all of the other volunteers that worked so hard to ensure that I was elected.

I'd especially like to thank my family, who also worked very, very hard. You know, it's an interesting situation with your family because obviously they want very much for you to be elected, but at the same time, with success, they obviously don't get to see you as much as they have in the past. With me, that might be a little bit different given my business was in Moscow, in Shanghai and in many other places abroad before. So being here in Victoria is actually being much closer to home than I have in many, many years.

That being said, obviously, I still am away from home, and so I'm not able to be with my family each day. I'd like to thank my wife, Larissa, my daughters Liza and Victoria. They spent countless hours during the campaign. Larissa worked so hard within the community and reaching out and talking to people within the Korean community, within the Chinese community and within the Persian community in my riding. That really, truly was a pillar to my success in the election.

As well, my daughter Liza and her boyfriend Mike spent countless hours in my office, calling people, talking to them, listening to their concerns, telling them what our policies and ideas were and making sure that we listened. I thank her for all her help.

My younger daughter Victoria spent many, many hours with me knocking on doors and talking to people. It was a great experience for her and a great opportunity for the two of us to spend a considerable amount of time together. So it really, truly was a wonderful thing.

It wasn't just my family but also, my mother, Phyllis; my father, Neil; my stepmother, Joyce; my in-laws Galina and Oleg. It was a family effort, and everyone worked very, very hard, and obviously we were successful. I want to thank everyone for that.

While this is the first time that I've been elected, I'm not new to politics. In 2005, I chaired the current member for Port Moody–Coquitlam's nomination and election campaigns. He's here to support me today, and we've become quite close friends.

I also worked in Ottawa for a number of years in many roles, including spending four years as special assistant to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the hon. John Fraser.

In Ottawa I learned the importance of reaching out across party lines, the importance of working together, the importance of mutual respect. You know, obviously we have differences of opinion, but if we do not respect each other, if we do not work together, if we do not understand the importance of communications between both the government and the opposition, we achieve very, very little.

To this end, I think that we should be judged by our accomplishments — you know, the goals that we've reached, the projects that we deliver, the people that we've helped, and the framework that we've helped deliver that makes sure that we have a fair and open society, a fair marketplace and really a competitive place for people to live and do business. Talk is cheap. Simple criticism, regardless of the substance or lack thereof, does nothing to help our citizens.

I'd like now to turn a little bit and talk about my riding, Coquitlam–Burke Mountain. Coquitlam–Burke Mountain is a new riding under redistribution. Basically, the member that I spoke of before, his riding was divided in half and so he sought election in one-half of the riding, and I sought election in the other half. It's a small riding, the new riding of Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, only having 47,000 as a population right now, but it's 619 square kilometres.

[1655]

It's a wonderful riding with great diversities. The riding is best described from a geographic standpoint as everything in Coquitlam north of the Lougheed Highway. That being said, it's a very interesting and intriguing riding in the fact that I have hundreds of square kilometres of wilderness in my riding at one end. In the southern end of the riding I have a dozen or more 20-storey-plus residential towers. So it's a riding of great diversities.

You know, basically my riding includes the Coquitlam town centre, It includes the city hall. It includes Coquitlam Centre with many of the largest brands and is the shopping centre for the region.

We have our cultural centre with Evergreen Cultural Centre that provides a wonderful venue for the local dance companies, for the local theatre companies and is a place that really does highlight the local talent that we have in my area.

We have Glen Pine Pavilion, which….

Deputy Speaker: Member, just one moment.
[ Page 296 ]

H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

H. Lali: I want to thank the member opposite for this brief interruption here.

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce friends of mine who have come here from Kamloops to see the proceedings and also to visit this great city of Victoria. My good friend Bhupinder Singh Johal; his wife, Kamil Kaur; and their son Darshan Singh. They're sitting up in the members' gallery, so I would like the House to give my friends from Kamloops a great big warm Victoria welcome, please.

Debate Continued

D. Horne: As I was saying, the Glen Pine Pavilion, which is in my riding, provides wonderful programs for seniors and provides a place for them to get together and for them to be involved and stay active, which is so important for those that are in their latter years.

Percy Norman stadium is also in my riding. It's the home of many sporting events, and as, Mr. Speaker, you are very close to, was one of the venues for the World Police and Fire Games recently. It's also the venue for the annual B.C. Highland Games, and I can say that I was, earlier this summer, at the B.C. Highland Games wearing my kilt and in full regalia and enjoyed very much the opportunity to be there.

The western boundary of my riding is Port Moody and up the Indian Arm. What I can say about my riding which is very, very important with the eastern boundary being the Pitt River…. One of the things that is near and dear to my heart and obviously important to our area is the area across from Percy Norman stadium and by Douglas College, which I spoke about the other day, where the Evergreen line will terminate very, very shortly.

I know this government is firmly committed to making sure that that happens, and we need to ensure that rapid transit comes to our area. As I said, I've got dozens of residential towers 20-storeys-plus. There are many more that are being built, and with this density in the area, it's extremely important that we have rapid transit. I'm committed to make sure that that does happen.

You know, I also talked earlier about the diversity of the residents with almost 50 percent — 49.6 according to the 2006 census, to be exact — being recent immigrants and new Canadians. The riding is a wonderful mix of Chinese and Korean and Persian and eastern European and many other groups from around the world, and 19 percent claim Chinese as their mother tongue, 7 percent Korean.

Well, the Westwood Plateau in the area, which I represent…. All of the Westwood Plateau and the Westwood Plateau Golf Club, which many come to for tournaments. It's a wonderful spot to golf, and the facilities they have are just excellent.

But there is a new area to my riding, the Burke Mountain side. While from a population standpoint right now it represents a very small proportion, it's the growing area. It's the reason that while the population of my riding right now may be 47,000, over time and in the very near future, that will grow substantially with many, many new houses.

The Burke Mountain area has been an area that has existed for many, many years. There are some long-time residents there as well, but there are many new families coming into that area, many new houses and a real growing community there. I'm very proud to represent it here as well.

[1700]

I enjoyed greatly the opportunity the campaign afforded me and the chance that many people you just wouldn't meet normally…. When you're not running for office, obviously, you don't walk out and knock on people's doors and say: "Hi, I'm Doug Horne." Obviously, as a candidate, it's an opportunity you have that you wouldn't. So that was a wonderful chance for me — meeting many, many neighbours — and I enjoyed it greatly.

However, there was one aspect that happened many times at the door that did concern me and concerned me greatly. Several times I would go to the door. I'd meet one of my neighbours. They would be excited to see me. They'd say instantaneously that they support the B.C. Liberals and that they support myself. I would then say to them: "Will you take one of my signs for your lawn?" And this is what saddens me about the whole thing. They'd say: "Well, I support you. I'm a teacher, and as a result, I can't openly show that I'm supporting you."

They felt pressure from their colleagues and from their union to support another party, and while they wouldn't bow to that pressure in marking their ballots, they didn't want to have any issue with their colleagues. It's a sad thing to see that bullying in our schools doesn't end at graduation.

In fact, my father was a teacher, and by the end of his career he was a superintendent of schools for Vancouver. He and the current superintendent for Coquitlam, Tom Grant, who I hold in high regard and have great respect for, are friends. My stepmother was also a teacher. In addition, my mother was a nurse and spent many years with Corrections providing care to inmates.

With the insight from my family, my background in a business, the success that I've enjoyed for many years around the world, my time in government, I have an interesting perspective on many issues facing our province. This is what brings me back to the budget and the place that we are at this week.
[ Page 297 ]

With the current economic downturn, this is an extremely important time to have solid leadership and a team capable of understanding the economic challenges ahead and the need to make difficult decisions. The response from the opposition has been nothing more than acting as sore losers, wondering "what if?" and convincing themselves that if just this or just that, things would have been totally different, and they would have formed government.

Well, the ballot question in this past election was clear. Who is best to manage our economy in these difficult times? That is why British Columbians chose our party and why we are government.

The truth of that perception has certainly become clear over the past few weeks and months. This opposition complains in one breath of the size of the deficit, and in the next breath they complain about cuts to discretionary spending. The fact that they don't seem to understand the contradiction of these two thoughts demonstrates definitively how they simply just don't get it.

There's a lot that the opposition doesn't get. Basic math. You know, one of the members this morning mentioned the Leader of the Opposition, who recently discussed the claims of the impact that the HST will have. Here's what the Leader of the Opposition had to say: "It depends on when people are looking at buying a new house or going out for dinner or heating their home. We are thinking that if you're looking at a family budget, it could be well in the thousands of dollars per month."

Thousands of dollars a month. That's the impact that she's saying the HST will have on an average family in British Columbia. Well, it's a good thing that I was sitting down when I read this and heard this, because it would have knocked me off my feet — the overwhelming absurdity of her comments.

Let's start with the mathematical ridiculousness of her statement, delivered so casually. For HST to cost an average British Columbian, as she said, thousands of dollars a month, that average British Columbian would need to spend $14,285.71 every month on goods and services not previously covered by provincial sales tax.

[1705]

We can assume that this average British Columbian will continue to spend on goods and services that are already covered by the PST, so I'm going to eliminate and estimate that this average British Columbian's disposable income has to be at least $25,000 per month. Actually, that's probably a very low estimate.

I don't know an awful lot of people that have at least $300,000 a year in disposable income, but apparently, the Leader of the Opposition does, and she believes that these people are average British Columbians.

I'd like to let her in on a secret. These people with so much money are not average British Columbians, and I can tell her that they really wouldn't care about the HST. Someone who's spending almost $15,000 a month, who's spending this amount of money, is not an average British Columbian.

You know, this is a prime example of the irresponsible and flat-out dishonest fearmongering that the opposition has been engaged in since the switch to the HST was announced. The facts in the matter just don't…. They don't care about them. They just don't matter at all to this opposition.

The budget update contains rebates on the provincial portion of the HST for residential energy use, electricity, air-conditioning and heating. It doesn't matter. The opposition tries to scare people by saying that it'll cost more for their home energy needs, and they continue to say this.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about buying a house and that there'll be lots of misinformation surrounding this as well. HST only applies to newly constructed homes and won't result in even a penny's difference in the selling price of a newly constructed home under $400,000. Doesn't matter. The opposition stokes the flames of fear, saying that people are going pay more to buy a home, despite the fact that HST only affects the price of new homes over $400,000.

Although I can say that some houses in my area are more than this, people that are buying million-dollar homes can afford a little bit of extra tax. And even though the rebates are $20,000, even for these individuals…. Let's not forget that the cost of building a home will decrease because the amount of PST will no longer be embedded in the price.

I'm not talking about the PST when they buy the sink and when they buy the stove and when they buy the refrigerator. I'm talking about the PST that's embedded in every component of that refrigerator — in every piece of that, in the computer system that the guy that designed the fridge had paid for. It's tax upon tax upon tax that we currently pay in the PST.

So I guess the extra thousand dollars of monthly tax that the Leader of the Opposition was talking about, given the fact that it couldn't be in these areas, must have been the result of eating out at restaurants.

It's pretty clear that the opposition is mighty confused when it comes to math. I think they're also deeply confused when it comes to being an opposition party. It seems that they believe an opposition is the synonym for opportunism. Now, they're wrong about that, and let's help the members of the opposition. I'd like to explain the difference.

Oxford defines "opportunism" as "adaptation of one's policy or judgment to circumstances or opportunity, especially regardless of principle." "Opposition" as it pertains to parliamentary democracy such as ours is defined as the chief "parliamentary party opposed to that in office." Opposition, of course, derives from the verb "oppose," which is defined as to set oneself against, resist, argue or compete against.
[ Page 298 ]

I would like to note that nowhere is it suggested that parliamentary competition should be engaged regardless of principle. The members opposite would do well to remember that they are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not Her Majesty's loyal opportunists. As such, it is deeply irresponsible for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to present a case against the HST that is based solely on inflaming fears and spreading misrepresentation.

Then Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition talks about cuts — cuts to health care, cuts to education. The member that spoke before me talked about all of these cuts. You know, the health care budget has almost doubled since 2000-2001, from $9.4 billion to $15.9 billion for 2009-2010. By the end of the three-year plan the spending will be $17.5 billion.

We are spending considerably more dollars every single year. In Fraser Health the budget is going up by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The difficulty is, obviously, that we have cost pressures, and obviously, those cost pressures have to be managed.

[1710]

The difficulty is that we can't simply keep throwing more dollars at it. The opposition, every time they speak: "Let's just throw more money, throw more money."

You know, I have walked around the building several times since I was elected a few months ago, and I still haven't found the tree where the money grows that the opposition party keeps referring to. If someone would point that tree out to me, maybe I would change my views, but the difficulty is I don't believe it exists. I believe that the government gets its money by charging taxes.

You look at the cuts to education. In district 42, which is the school district for the Tri-Cities which I represent, the budget has increased by $32 million since 2001, from $187 million to $219 million. At the same time, the number of students in that district has decreased, from 32,459 to 29,557, or 2,902 less students and $32 million more dollars.

As a result, the funding increases…. Basically, we've gone from $5,767 per student in 2001 to $7,419 per student this past year, and again this year the total dollars are going up and the number of students is going down. Yet the NDP and their friends on the school board keep talking about all the cuts.

That being said, while I felt it was important to get these issues off my chest by simply droning on, on the faults of the members opposite and pointing out the lack of substance and leadership within the opposition…. Even though I know it's a unique opportunity for me this time to do so without the normal antics, I would simply be falling into the same trap.

I know I will turn to the positives — the positive future this government's budget and leadership will deliver as the economy turns around. First, personal taxes — down for everyone in this budget, with an increased exemption to $11,000. A modest increase in the MSP premiums for those that can afford them, but for those that can't, those that are having difficulty paying their MSP premiums today, a reduction — a reduction for seniors, a reduction for low-income families, a reduction for a total of 180,000 British Columbians.

Now, let's get back to the HST. Businesses pass all of their costs on, and this includes the current PST. You know, I can't understand the opposition and their absolute hatred of business, because in listening to them in this place over the last couple of days, they talk about this $1.9 billion tax shift from businesses to consumers.

Under their theory, businesses in British Columbia are currently giving a subsidy to consumers of $1.9 billion, because if they're not passing those costs on, they're paying them. Businesses in this province, according to the NDP, are really fabulous people, because paying a $1.9 billion subsidy to consumers is really, really just something that businesses should be thanked for and congratulated for.

But you look at small businesses. The member spoke about small businesses and the fact that they're going to be hurt. This is just absolute silliness. Businesses that are small businesses, businesses that work out of their home, people that are in the design business, people that are engineers, people that are providing consulting services…. They're not providing consulting services at a retail level. They're providing consulting services to other businesses, so right now they're paying PST on their software. They're paying PST on their computer. They're paying PST on all of the other items that go into running their business, and how much are they getting back? Oh, none — none. They're getting none back.

Under the HST, how much are they getting back? Oh, they're getting all of it back — all of it back. So this is just something that's going to devastate them, because they're going to get all of this money back.

[1715]

I know. I've been in business. I've had many successful businesses for many, many years, and as a business person, the worst thing possible is to be able to have more money, to be able to run your company. But with the NDP and the way that they understand business so well…. They really get it. They get it on so many levels. "It's really important that we don't move forward with this." But this is just absolute silliness.

I had one of my business colleagues call me. He'd heard the media reports about the HST. He'd seen some stuff that the people from the opposition had been handing out, and based upon that, he called me up and he said: "Doug, I don't understand why you'd support this. I don't understand. You're pretty savvy in the way you look at things and the way you do business. We've done a lot of business together. As you know, I work out of my house."
[ Page 299 ]

We did projects in the past. He was an artist, so he was in the artistic community, which this government also supports. Basically, he was talking about the fact that I would give him a budget of $10,000, let's say, and he's saying: "This tax will make it so that when you give me that budget of $10,000, I'm just going to lose $700 of it right off the bat." I go: "What are you talking about?" He goes: "Well, that's what I'm being told. That's what the opposition is out there talking about. That's what the media is talking about. That's what I've been hearing."

I said: "Well look, when I say your budget is $10,000, what do you send me a bill for right now?" He says: "Well, I send you a bill for $10,000 plus the GST." I go: "Uh-huh." And he goes: "Well…." I said: "When you have a budget for $10,000 in the future, what would you do?" "Well, I'd have to pay the HST." I said: "Why would you have to pay the HST? It's the same as the GST. I would get the HST back, and you would get the HST back. This is an input tax credit." He goes: "Oh, well that makes a lot more sense. This is something that's going to help us."

Once businesses understand it…. The other thing, the other negative comment I've heard from businesses is that this is going to cost a lot for us to implement. This is just going to be really costly for businesses to implement. You know, that too is ridiculous.

We've had two decreases to the GST in the last few years, and basically, each time the point-of-sale terminal was moved from seven to six to five as we went down on the GST. Well, how hard is it going to be to move it back up to 12, to change it from "g" to "s" on the bill and, basically, to eliminate the calculation for the PST? This is going to be very easy, and businesses in British Columbia are going to save huge amounts of money in administering it.

This government was elected by the people of British Columbia because the Premier, the Minister of Finance — and we have an exceptional Minister of Finance — and all of our team have the experience. We have the leadership. We have the diversity of backgrounds and the experience as senior managers to ensure that the tough decisions required at this time of history are made, to ensure that core services that we as British Columbians count on — health care, education and social services….

This budget ensures that these things are protected but does recognize that we must make tough choices. I believe this government's budget is the right budget at the right time, and that's why I wholeheartedly support it.

L. Krog: It's always a delight to rise in this chamber, particularly after one has heard such a scintillating speech from one of the new members of the Liberal party — the government-in-waiting-to-die in 2013.

You know, you couldn't go through school in this province without having read a little Dickens, and I'm reminded of A Tale of Two Cities, those wonderful opening lines: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times." It's the best of times for the opposition and the worst of times for the government.

It takes an awful lot of effort on a government's part to actually win an election with 46 percent of the vote and then drop a full 12 points in just a few months. That is an unprecedented political performance, and I want the opposition members to clap here in this chamber for what the Liberals have managed to do to themselves in such a short period of time.

[1720]

But I think it's time to go back to some fundamentals. I've heard the Liberals on many occasions talk about the NDP as being the tax-and-spend party. Well, I don't want to be patronizing in my remarks to the Liberals sitting in this chamber, but that's actually what government is all about.

The government taxes the people collectively, takes the money and spends it on services for all of them. There's nothing miraculous in that, and you do it through the good offices of the political system we operate with. There is nothing more magical at the end of the debate than when you hear the Clerk of the House stand up, with the Lieutenant-Governor in the chair, and speak those wonderful words: "In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor thanks you for your benevolence."

That is the fundamental of what we do in this House. The throne speech, with great respect…. Even more so in the last eight years than ever before in this province's history, the throne speech is just a lot of fluff and stuff. I mean, we know. We've heard it how many times? We've talked about the golden decade. We've talked about the great promises and this and that. You know, we've had the housing budget. We've had the…. God, how many have there been?

An Hon. Member: The children's.

L. Krog: The children's budget, yes. The seniors budget. It's all come to naught. It's all come to naught.

We have government because we cannot do individually what we can achieve collectively. It's not communism. It's not socialism. It's common sense. You know what? Nobody wants to pay for the road in front of their house, but they sure want to drive on it. Nobody wants to pay for public schools, arguably, but they sure want their kids to have a school to go to. That's the attitude of these folks on the other side of the House. They want everybody to look after themselves, but particularly if you're rich.

I come back to my point about the best of times and the worst of times. The last eight years in this province have been the best of times for the very rich and for the major corporations. There is no question about that, bar none. These folks have looked after their friends in a way that's unprecedented.
[ Page 300 ]

You go through that list of Liberal promises, and you see the corporate donors line up, and you see the resulting legislation that followed. Clear as a bell. Big forest companies — forest deregulation. I hate to bring up the Restaurant Association, seeing as how the member who spoke previously talked about eating out. We'll get to that in a minute. You keep the minimum wage low because the Restaurant Association says that's a good thing, and you look at the list of major donors, whether it be Earl's Restaurants or all of them.

In the old days, as one of my lefty friends said, the right wing got the best politicians money could buy. My sense is that in British Columbia today, somehow, they got cheated in the bargain. They got really, really cheated in the bargain. We have a leader now in this province, the Premier of British Columbia, who is at — what? — a 17 percent approval rating. When my kids were teenagers, I had a better than 17 percent approval rating, and they hate fathers when they're teenagers. It is an amazing and remarkable turnaround.

You want to talk about failed policies. Everything they have touched has blown back and blown up in their faces. The real speech, as I say, is the budget speech because that's where the rubber hits the road. That's where what government intends to do is really spoken of in terms that people can understand. When you say you believe in the environment, you have to spend money. You can institute policies. Governments do that. You can regulate. Those are good things sometimes. But ultimately, it's about the spending of money.

We are now coming off what I like to think of as eight years of a Liberal bender, and what have we got? We started with the biggest deficit in British Columbia's history. The party over there that tells us how good they are at managing money started with the biggest deficit in British Columbia's history, and what are we at now, the second-biggest deficit in British Columbia's history.

M. Karagianis: And the biggest debt.

L. Krog: And as my friend the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads points out so ably, the biggest debt in the history of British Columbia. It's been a pretty expensive ride. We have had a government that comes into office, after winning this last election saying they weren't going to bring in the HST, bringing it in.

Now, to me, it is very simple. This is the ultimate reverse Robin Hood. We're stealing from consumers to fill the pockets of big corporations. That's really what the HST is all about. The members opposite can pretend. This is about a tax shift from the working people of this province, from the small businesses of this province, into the hands of the major corporate donors of the Liberal party.

It is also, frankly, if you look at it another way, stealing from the consumers and constituents to fill the pockets of Liberal corporate contributors. That's really what this is all about, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

[1725]

The former friends of this government, those people who work so hard in one of the major sources of employment in the province of British Columbia, the members of the Restaurant Association, they understand what it is. I was at a meeting with them the other day, a public meeting. You could go. I got to go. They refer to that HST in terms that I can't use in this chamber. They speak of this government in language that I cannot use in this chamber. They speak of this government in language that I, frankly, even after a couple of drinks, wouldn't use anywhere myself.

What do they say about the HST? What do they say about that $1.6 billion from this government's kissing cousins in Ottawa — the source of the great Harper sales tax, if you will? They call it simply a bribe — a bribe. That's the language the former friends of this government are using to describe the HST. It is nothing more or less than a bribe, a way to purchase this government's getting into bed in a formal way, finally, with their friends in Ottawa, that's going to ultimately shaft consumers and small businesses across this province. That's what it's really about.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

You know, in this budget we've got two things. We've got an HST, and we've got an MSP. What does it really mean to British Columbians? They are the gifts that keep on giving. Not only do you get $1.6 billion and you get to book $750 million of it into this year's budget, so your enormous deficit looks like it's $2.8 billion when we know it's over $3.5 billion. You get to continue, year after year, to collect this nice new fat tax that's extended to goods and services that the PST didn't formally extend to.

We have sold down the river this province's ability — through taxation, through the sales tax — to actually influence people's behaviour in a positive way, to build the kind of green future that I'd like to think the members of this chamber actually believe in and understand, particularly the members of this chamber who have children and grandchildren.

The future is going to have to be green, whether people like it or not. I happen to, as the members of the House opposite, I'm sure, embrace that future. We look forward to a planet where we live in a truly sustainable fashion, but when you sign on to the HST, you have given up your government's ability to do the right thing. So now we're going to tax bicycles. We're actually going to tax bicycles.

We're going to tax things that would actually assist people in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We're going to attack green initiatives — replacement windows,
[ Page 301 ]
people who want to retrofit their homes. Oh, and by the way, just to top it off, in this budget we're also cancelling the LiveSmart program. You know, so that people who want to do the right thing, people on limited incomes who want to do the right thing, won't be able to.

So in perpetuity, unless we get some good government in this province, we're going to pay HST on all these things that will give this government a revenue stream to hide what a complete mess they have made of public finances in this province in the last eight years.

The other gift that keeps on giving is the MSP premiums. We haven't just announced an increase in MSP premiums — I want to remind the members opposite, particularly the new ones here, whose collective memory seems very short, that when this government came into power, one of the first things it did was drive up MSP premiums in this province by literally 50 percent — because MSP premiums aren't going to rise in light of the cost of living or inflation. They're going to rise in relation to the health care budget itself. The bigger the percentage, the more you're going to pay. Two gifts that keep on giving.

This is the same government that tells you it can manage finances, and yet you look over its record and if you include the years that the NDP were in power and the years this government has been in power and you look at the average annual growth rate, the fact is you were better off under the NDP. The facts are simply there. You were better off under the NDP in terms of annual growth.

[1730]

But this government continues to say, in the most bold-faced way, that they have done and can do and will do a better job. Well, they did do a better job in May. I've got to give them credit. They did a better job of selling the people of British Columbia a bill of goods, and boy, did they get it, because the credibility of this government is completely and utterly in tatters.

When I look across this chamber, I can just begin to imagine the kinds of e-mails that the members opposite are getting in their offices, the kinds of letters they're receiving or the kinds of phone calls they're getting, because I'm getting them, and I'm not a part of the government. I'm a member of the opposition.

People in this province feel utterly and thoroughly betrayed, and they are disgusted at having been sold that bill of goods. They are embarrassed for having done it, and I've got to tell you, it's getting harder and harder to find anybody in British Columbia who voted Liberal in the last election, because nobody wants to admit it any more. Nobody wants to pound the desk and say: "Oh, I've always been a Liberal or a Socred." I love these guys.

An Hon. Member: It's the same as the '90s.

L. Krog: My friend says: "Same as the '90s." Would that things were as good today or as well-managed as they were in the '90s. I'll take a 1996, $300 million deficit over a $2.8 billion deficit any day, hon. Member, any day. The fact is that this government, through the best of times in terms of resource prices, has nothing, absolutely nothing, to show for it. Five years — the worst child poverty rate in Canada, five years running. Five years — the worst child poverty rate in Canada.

You've got billions pouring in from oil and gas, revenue you will never see again. That is the inheritance of our children being sold off. I don't begrudge the government for collecting it. I just begrudge the government for not managing it and delivering services to at least the poorest people and to the children of the poorest people in the province of British Columbia. It is an utter and outright shame that this government sits over there with its smiles on its faces and pretends somehow that it's done a good job.

I'm reminded of Dorothy Parker, the great acerbic American wit. She said of Lillian Hellman: "Everything she says is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'" I'm not going to call anyone in this chamber a liar. That would be unparliamentary and unfair. But I've got to tell you, hon. Speaker, that if there's ever a government in the history of this province that has misled the voters, I'm looking at it today.

They're not listening to me, but boy, they'd better start to listen fast, because those polling numbers are a message to this government that they haven't seen in their eight years. Their friends are mad, and they should be mad, because they have ultimately been betrayed.

Usually, hon. Speaker, when you hand over the cash by way of donation when you're dealing with the Liberal Party, you get something in return. As I said earlier in my remarks, that's the way it works. You give them the big dollars; you get the big rewards back. Let's talk about the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They paid for something, and what did they get? They got the HST.

You know, I've spoken to those members. They're not going to come back. Some of them may stay home. They may stay home in the next election. They will join that great, disappointed mass of British Columbians who don't bother to vote anymore, which the Member for Delta South spoke so eloquently of this morning as being the real reason that she's here sitting in this chamber today representing her constituents instead of the former Attorney General, Mr. Oppal. They may stay home.

But you know what? Some of those folks are going to come out and vote, and they're going to vote NDP. They'll vote for anybody but the Liberal Party. The reason they're going to do that is because they have been betrayed, and this government has lost their trust. They know it, and the members opposite know it.

I want to express my sympathies right here and now, particularly to those new Liberal members who thought they were stepping into nirvana by being elected as a
[ Page 302 ]
part of the government. It must be a real shock to get those e-mails in your office. It must be a real shock to listen to angry constituents. It must be a real shock to face up to the fact that what they in good faith told the voters when they were running for re-election turned out to be absolutely and utterly false — $495 million, and not a penny more.

[1735]

By some miracle, as the global economy has been in decline for — what? — a year plus, nearly, somehow that deficit just turned into $2.8 billion. But of course, we can't even really tell the truth about that. It's really $3.5 billion, and everyone here knows it, because we go back to the payoff from the federal government of $750 million in this year's budget.

When we're engaged in question period, the truth is there. The real truth is there. I have never seen so much support for a Minister of Finance in a Legislature. Boy, oh boy. You can tell they're in real trouble when they're all standing up and clapping and slapping hands like they've won the game. It reminds me so much of the inevitable cliché of the kid whistling through the graveyard. They're really, really frightened, but if they just whistle loud enough, nothing really awful is going to happen.

Well, I've got to tell you, hon. Speaker, the jig is up. The jig is up. When your Premier's down at 17 percent, when you're 12 percent down from where you were in an election from a few short months ago, when you've got the Conservatives rumbling again in the province of British Columbia, the handwriting, as the cliché goes, is not only on the wall. It's written on your door.

Hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you. I think for those members who have a lifetime Liberal membership, they might want to consider tearing it up. This might not be the best time to be identified as a loyal Liberal. Loyalty to the Liberal Party means that you have to pretend to be part of the big story, and the big story is that we were going to have a $495 million deficit and that you can bet on it.

The Premier told us. The Minister of Finance told us. Every cabinet minister told us. Every Liberal candidate told us. We were safe. We were protected. We were an island in the whole global economy that would be safe from the rigours of world decline.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Ah, I know I've hit a point because the minister…. Oh, the former Minister of Health. That's right. He's got a new portfolio. The Minister of Aboriginal Relations is now speaking up. I wonder what he had to say during the course of the election campaign.

Hon. G. Abbott: Same thing as the Premier.

L. Krog: Same thing as the Premier. I know it. I know it. Same thing as the Premier.

We're all part of the big story. We are going to acknowledge that collectively the Liberal Party — not just the Premier, not just the Minister of Finance — all gave us the big story.

Guess what the big story is today. The big story is that this government's in trouble. They put themselves there. I've got to be honest. I can't even take credit for putting them in this mess. I can't even take credit, and Lord, I wish I could go to my constituents and say that they're in trouble because of what the member for Nanaimo did. But they did it to themselves. They keep doing it, and every day in question period I can hear them doing it over and over again.

When are they just going to wake up and, as the proverbial remark goes, smell the coffee? Guess what. The toaster's burning; the eggs are burnt; the mortgage has come due. You've got no money to pay, and you're telling consumers that by paying an extra $1.9 billion in taxes they're going to be happier. You're going to be better off.

Hon. Speaker, you remember that…. What was that movie? The character that Michael Douglas played. Gordon Gekko — that was it. Greed is good. Greed is good. Well, here we are, Mr. Speaker. We've had eight years of government in British Columbia where they essentially said: "Greed is good, deregulation is good, and we're all going to be better off."

I'm just a simple guy. I just want to wrap my head around this concept. You start with this enormous deficit. In eight years you've got another enormous deficit. You've had all this revenue in between. You've got the highest rate of child poverty, you're cutting all the ministries that you said were crucial to the future of your grandchildren, and this is good government?

I just don't get it. I do not understand how, when your experiment fails, you don't go up to the teacher and say: "I'm sorry. I blew it." I haven't heard one acknowledgment from one member opposite during the course of debate in the last couple of weeks where they said: "You know what? We were wrong."

The closest they've come is the minister pleadingly saying: "I just didn't know what was happening. I just had no idea. I didn't have any meetings, but I had a couple of phone calls. I had a couple of phone calls."

[1740]

It reminds me of Bill Clinton's famous excuse. "I didn't have relations." "I didn't have a meeting; I had a phone call. I had a conversation, a casual conversation." Casual conversations. How does the Minister of Finance have a casual conversation with the deputy?

Interjection.

L. Krog: And a consensual conversation, my friend says.
[ Page 303 ]

A consensual casual conversation. How does a minister have that, and regarding what? What did they talk about? Did they talk...? Did the deputy phone to inquire about the state of weather in British Columbia? I doubt it very much.

My sneaking suspicion is that the deputy might have said: "You know what? We're in trouble. We're in deep trouble. We're in such deep trouble that I don't know what to say to you." Or maybe the deputy was instructed not to say that we're in deep trouble, just not to answer. When the minister would say, "Are we in trouble, deputy?" the deputy was silent.

The deputy was silent. "Don't tell me. Give me plausible deniability. Treat me like Ronald Reagan. I don't want to know about the Iran-Contra affair. I don't want to know the bad news. Just let me go to the people and tell them the truth as I believe it — or want to believe it, anyway."

So here we are, hon. Speaker. We're in the midst of this mess. For four years we're going to have to somehow rely on the same government that got us here to bail us out. That's the real tragedy.

You know what? As much as we can try, we can't do it from the opposition benches. We can criticize. We can offer suggestions. But for four years, under our system, until recall happens, perhaps — or until some of the members opposite wake up and find their conscience, their principles or their soul, and come over — the same gang that put us here is in charge. Now, that's the real tragedy. It's an even greater tragedy just for some basic things.

I look around this province, and I see the yearning of British Columbians to support their own province, particularly in areas like agriculture. British Columbians want to see a thriving provincial agricultural industry. They want to buy locally. They want to do the right thing. They want to ensure that they do as much as they can.

What are the numbers? I believe we're down about $70 million since last year's budget — $290 million down to about $220 million. Now, I don't know where the math comes from, but in my language that's a cut. That's not just a little cut. That's a 25-percent-plus cut — just to put it in round numbers so everyone can understand. That's a 25 percent cut at a time when the planet literally, we know, is dying.

At a time when major species are disappearing, at a time when we are having accelerated climatic disasters around the planet and at a time when we want to support local agriculture so we don't truck lettuce from California — at that very time this government slashes the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture by 25 percent. Now, that's a logic that I really can't quite understand.

Then we hear the Premier's great goals about environment. There's another one, the environment. What have we done since 2008? It's not a 25 percent cut — they wanted to beat the Ministry of Agriculture — but a 27 percent cut in the Ministry of Environment budget, at the same time that the Premier is talking about creating the greenest place on the planet.

I can't understand, and I want to come back to my main point. When you tax and try and develop policy and spend the money to make this a better place, how do you get there if you keep cutting the funding for the very ministries that are part — or should be part, if their ministers are doing their job — of the solution? Where is the leadership in this? Where is the leadership?

One of the members opposite said that we were poor losers. Well, I've got to tell you, hon. Speaker. If we're poor losers, they're lousy winners. I mean, I look across here, and I hear the clapping for the Minister of Finance, and I see the cheering, and I see the grim faces when the questions are being asked.

[1745]

You know what? I smell fear. I smell a government that knows it may well be mortally wounded, and we're just going to wait four years until it's finally done. I'm sure it's much like Brian Mulroney must have felt after that '88 election. It's just dying.

Oh, I know when we're going back to the '90s….

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh, the '80s. You know, I haven't heard it today. I want to hear it from the members opposite about the "dismal decade" so we can yell back the "decade of deceit". I want to hear the "dismal decade" just once from a member opposite, so I can talk about the "decade of deceit," because ultimately, what they have proposed and what they have done has failed.

It has failed utterly. It has failed for ordinary British Columbians. It has failed for small business. It has failed, most importantly, for the future. It has failed for our children and our grandchildren. It has failed for those people around the world who would love to be able to immigrate to a province like this, who want to flee places where there isn't any democracy, who want to come to a place where there's a public education system, who want to enjoy the benefits of a public health care system.

They failed. What would really be nice is for them to just acknowledge it in a small way. But pride goeth before the fall. If I've ever seen it or heard it, it is reflected in how this government operates.

You know, we implement this tax shift in this budget, $1.9 billion, but it's got a few mitigating factors. We've got a few small income tax cuts and a rebate for residential energy use.

You know what? They did listen to the seniors of the province, because they actually realized there are a lot of seniors in this province. They must have heard me, actually. I mentioned it in my throne speech response. They must have heard me. Maybe I'll take credit for that, because this government sure wants to take credit for
[ Page 304 ]
everything that's good and no responsibility whatsoever for the mess they've made.

Maybe they heard me when I said that maybe it would be a bit problematic for seniors in this province to pay for home heating fuel this winter. Not this winter, the winter after — pardon me. I want to be fair here. The tax doesn't come in until next year.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Well, the minister says that they never hear me. If that's the case, perhaps they'd be quiet. They could listen some more and actually learn something from the members opposite.

The clock tells me I'm drawing to the end of my speech, so I want to pay my compliments today to all of the members who have spoken in this chamber who want to ensure that British Columbia is a better place in four years instead of a worse place. I want to particularly recognize the remarks of the member for Delta South, because they were spoken with such clarity.

She talked about the belief that government is, for the people, shattered, the belief that somewhere, somehow, someone would listen was finally broken. The government has treated Delta South as if it were fodder for government policy and a fiscal bottom line. Those are some of the most elegant words I've heard in this chamber in a long time.

The member for Delta South hit it on the nose. This government is in trouble. It knows it. We know it, and hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you, I look forward to the next four years, watching the slow, miserable demise of a government that misled the people, that doesn't deserve to sit in those benches and deserves to be defeated in 2013.

Hon. S. Thomson: I recognize the hour, and I'll begin my remarks and reserve the right to continue on once adjournment happens, and I'll take your advice as to when I should conclude my remarks.

I'm proud and humbled today to rise to make my first presentation in this great chamber and to participate in the budget debate. I was thinking this is a little bit like I'm a long-time listener, a first-time caller, because I've always had a great interest in politics, a great interest in this Legislature, a great interest in government and a great interest in our industries and everybody that we're here to work for. This is a culmination of a real journey for me that's been a great education and a tremendous experience.

[1750]

From the early days of considering the nomination bid to success in that nomination run — which was a very vigorous nomination run in Kelowna-Mission — followed very shortly by the election writ and the campaign, and now to take my place here working for the citizens of this great province. It's a tremendous journey, tremendous experience.

Before I continue, I really want to recognize the person who took this journey before me, a great former representative of this House and a great representative of our riding, Sindi Hawkins. She's a friend, a colleague, and I'm sure all members of this House join me with our prayers and thoughts as she continues her positive, unwavering fight against her health challenges.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We wish her all the best. I just saw Sindi this last weekend in Kelowna at her annual charity fundraising golf tournament, where she continues her tremendous efforts of fundraising for cancer research. She was positive. As I said, she was unwavering in her positive fight against these challenges, and it was great to see her this last weekend.

I was honoured to receive the confidence and support of the residents of Kelowna-Mission. I'm new to politics, and to have that confidence and support is tremendous.

However, I would not be here today without the tremendous encouragement and support from my family: my loving wife, Brenda; my children Alexis, Andrew and Spencer; and my five grandchildren. Now, I know that's not quite as many grandchildren yet as the member from Chilliwack, but the family may be working to try to catch up to him.

Their love and support is recognized and acknowledged. All of us in public service understand the demands and pressures that this job places on our families, and we need to recognize and continually value the contribution and the sacrifices they make to allow us to do this job and to serve the people of the province.

Our family settled in Kelowna-Mission — in the Mission area of Kelowna, in our riding — in 1896. We continue to farm the original property that our family settled on. That's over 113 years as one of the pioneer families of the Okanagan. I was born and raised on that farm. I came to Victoria for university and worked for 18 years here in Victoria for the Federation of Agriculture, working for the farmers and ranchers of the province. I then returned home to Kelowna in 1992 to continue my work for the agriculture industry in this province.

I also wanted to thank my parents for instilling in me the sense of work ethic that we learned growing up on the farm. All seven of the children on the farm contributed to the work. That's where we learned the value of hard work, and I want to thank my parents for instilling that in us. In fact, now some of my best therapy is getting back to the farm to help my younger brother throw hay bales, though I'm not quite at the same pace as I used to be when I was a few years younger. But it certainly keeps you aware of the roots and the places that you come from.
[ Page 305 ]

My parents also instilled in me the ethic of giving back to the community, giving back to the province. My mother had the vision and led the Friends of Mission Creek, which was to establish a linear trail on Mission Creek, now used by thousands of Kelowna residents and visitors to our community. When our family was involved in the dairy business, my father was the president of North Okanagan Creamery Association, NOCA dairies.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, sorry to interrupt you, but the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. So if you would adjourn debate, then you can come back to it on Monday the 14th.

Hon. S. Thomson: Okay, thank you. I move adjournment of the debate and reserve my spot to continue the next time the House sits.

Hon. S. Thomson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: Members would just remain in their seats.

[1755]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Royal Assent to Bills

Clerk of the House:

Supply Act (No. 2), 2009

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank her Majesty's loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this act.

Hon. S. Point (Lieutenant-Governor): That's it, I'm afraid. [Laughter.]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: With best wishes to all members for a safe and happy Labour Day long weekend, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m., September 14 — a Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:58 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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175