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)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 2, Number 4

[ Page 389 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

TERRACE AND HOCKEYVILLE EVENT

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, before I introduce two guests, I would just like to report to the House on the exceptional day that I had yesterday in Terrace where they were inaugurated as Canada's 2009 Hockeyville.

I don't see if the member is here, but I can tell you it was amazing to see the spirit of the community. It truly is a community of winners. This is a result of a huge volunteer effort. All British Columbia was made proud, and I think one of the great things was that Vancouver started the season with a 2-1 win over the Islanders. So it was a very good day, and congratulations to Terrace. I think the House should send them all congratulations for the great job that they did.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G. Campbell: I also rise to introduce Stuart McLaughlin, the president of Grouse Mountain and Whistler Water, and Steve Paccagnan, the president of Kicking Horse Mountain Resort in Golden — two great resorts in our province that the world is going to know as they arrive to view 2010. They're going to see some of our great resort activities that we have in this province, and these two people are true leaders in the resort industry in British Columbia. I hope the Legislature will make them welcome.

[1335]

L. Popham: It is my pleasure to introduce two very special friends of mine in the House today. I have visiting Heather Gropp — she was my campaign manager — and Kim Matten, who was my voter outreach specialist. I want to thank them so much, and I'd like you all to make them feel welcome.

I couldn't have done it without you.

Hon. M. de Jong: Visiting us today from the state of New Mexico are the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Mr. Stephen Arias, and his wife, Victoria. It's their first visit to Victoria, their first opportunity to watch this question period and this House in action. I know they will do so with interest and take whatever lessons we are able to offer back home to New Mexico with them. I hope the whole House will please make Stephen and Victoria welcome.

J. Brar: I am pleased to introduce and welcome four special guests, and they are Tejbir Singh Kang, one of the leading developers and a respected community member in Victoria; Kirpal Singh Mangat, visiting from Chandigarh — he's a retired senior executive engineer with the government of Punjab; his wife, Mrs. Surinder Kaur Mangat; and his son Hardip Singh Mangat, a young businessman from Victoria. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

H. Bloy: It's my pleasure today to introduce representatives of the best university in Canada — Simon Fraser University. With us in the House today, we have Dr. Michael Stevenson, president; Pat Hibbitts, vice-president of finance; the executive director of the Surrey campus, Joanne Curry; and an old friend of ours, Wilf Hurd, government relations officer. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Sather: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the former member for Cariboo South, now Cariboo-Chilcotin, Charlie Wyse, here on the floor with us. I know that Charlie will carry on with his irrepressible nature in whatever endeavour he chooses. Will the House please welcome him.

J. van Dongen: We have a large number of executives from the Canadian Society of Association Executives visiting us today, led by Jack Davidson, the chairman. I want to express, on behalf of all members of the House, our appreciation for the wonderful barbecue luncheon that they served in the rose garden at the Empress.

Today is Association Day in British Columbia, so it's particularly fitting that they're here to join us, and I ask all of the House to please make them very welcome.

N. Macdonald: I just want to join in welcoming Steve Paccagnan to the House. Kicking Horse Mountain Resort — one of the biggest employers in Golden and one of the premiere mountain resorts in British Columbia and in Canada. Just want to make him welcome.

Hon. I. Black: It's a pleasure to ask the House to make welcome an old friend of this House, the former member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the mayor of Coquitlam and — more importantly — the man whose wife teaches my children. Richard Stewart is in the House, and I'd ask the House to make an old friend feel most welcome.

Hon. K. Krueger: I'd like the House to welcome a constituent of mine, Brenda Dley. Brenda is an avid and skilled quilter, a former school teacher in Kamloops who taught at both David Thompson and Stuart Wood Elementary schools. Brenda is the mother of one of our caucus's wonderful young staff members — that's Stacie Dley — and is married to Dev Dley, former WHL commissioner and,
[ Page 390 ]
before that, a famous plaintiff counsel in Kamloops and now a Supreme Court judge. Would the House please make my constituent Brenda Dley very welcome.

Tributes

ROGER ST. JOHN

Hon. B. Penner: It is with very deep regret that I advise members of the Legislature of the untimely and sudden passing this morning of retired Col. Roger St. John. Roger served our country very well in a distinguished and dignified way, representing the Canadian Armed Forces overseas, participating in various peacekeeping missions on behalf of our country and in 1994 came to become the base commander of CFB Chilliwack and served until its closure in 1997.

[1340]

Roger remained actively involved in our community in Chilliwack, active in community service, including being a past president of the Rotary Club of Chilliwack. He cared passionately about his community but even more so for his family, particularly his daughters Michelle and Danielle and, most importantly, his wife, Joy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you pass on our regrets to his family at your convenience.

Introductions by Members

Hon. P. Bell: It's a real pleasure for me today to introduce a number of guests, some constituents of mine from the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie. Joining us in the gallery are Brian and Denise Magrath. They're joined by their kids Alexis and Christopher.

Now, I will say that Brian is particularly known for his ability to drive golf balls an extremely long way, and they invariably land in the fairway. It's just that sometimes it's his fairway, and sometimes it's another one.

Would the House please make the Magrath family very welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

JOY LANGAN

C. James: Today, on International Day of Democracy, I rise to recognize a woman who took part in democracy in every way possible. Last week I attended her memorial service with hundreds of people who packed a hall in Burnaby to salute Joy Langan, who lost her battle with breast cancer on July 30.

Speaker after speaker shared powerful stories of a woman that so many described as a living legend. As a politician, an influential activist, a union leader and a powerful mentor, Joy was an agent of positive change in many different ways. Whether it was her relentless work supporting people who needed to be heard, her ability to inspire and mobilize or her sheer conviction on the issues, Joy never settled for average.

Now, those people who knew Joy know that her physical stature was an endearing contrast to the giant she was as an activist and a leader, but those who knew Joy knew that she never let her size get in the way of a good fight. One of my favourite stories of Joy was from a Communications, Energy and Paperworkers strike in 1999. In an effort to block the truck from leaving a picketed plant, the 4-foot-10-inch Joy decided famously to lay underneath its wheels, only to be promptly arrested, thrown in the back of a paddy wagon and, with great joy to Joy, driven away.

That's the kind of flair that Joy had. Those are the kinds of stories that make her unforgettable. Whether it was her work as a Member of Parliament or numerous achievements on behalf of the labour movement, Joy committed herself to the causes of justice and fairness.

Our province is a better place because of Joy Langan. Her passion to build a stronger, more inclusive society, her struggles and successes have built an enduring legacy. I'd ask the House to please join me in remembering Joy Langan as we celebrate a life well lived.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DEMOCRACY

R. Lee: Today is the United Nations International Day of Democracy. It's a time to reflect on how fortunate we are to live in a country with a long and strong commitment to participatory democracy and human rights.

It's also a time for us to remember the many millions of people in other countries whose governments do not respect the fundamental rights and freedoms we hold so dear. Specifically for us as parliamentarians, it's a time to remember the hundreds of democratic leaders in these countries who still suffer arbitrary arrest, lack of due process, detention, torture and even murder. All of these threats have been noted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of the human rights committee.

The United Nations does a lot of great work to support democracies abroad. The United Nations development program alone provides about $1.4 billion each year to support democratic processes. I am proud to say that many British Columbians are involved in these efforts to help other countries reach the level of freedom and democracy which we already enjoy here.

Their commitments to the promotion of democracy deserve our highest praise and remind us that we must never take democracy for granted. That is why I am pleased that Elections B.C. is reaching out to students across B.C., inviting them to create YouTube videos about democracy and to encourage youth participation.

I am also pleased that the province has proclaimed September 15 as Democracy Day in British Columbia.

[1345]
[ Page 391 ]

SURREY CHRISTMAS BUREAU

S. Hammell: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind you and the members of the House that there are only 100 sleeps until Christmas. Now, while a lot of people are not thinking about Christmas in September, off in a corner are a group of Santa's elves working around the clock preparing toys and figuring out this year's naughty and nice list.

In Surrey there are over 80 volunteers gearing up for the holidays at the Surrey Christmas Bureau. For the past 39 years the Christmas Bureau has helped families celebrate the holidays by providing low-income and special needs families with food certificates and toy hampers. Last year over 1,600 families and 4,500 children were able to celebrate the spirit of Christmas thanks to the Surrey Christmas Bureau.

Konch Bakshi, executive director of the Surrey Christmas Bureau, told me a touching story about a mom who battled cancer over the Christmas holidays and was in and out of hospital undergoing chemotherapy treatments. She had no energy, and she couldn't afford to give her children the Christmas they deserved. There was no tree, no presents and no Christmas dinner, but days before Christmas day there was a knock on her door. It was a volunteer from the Christmas Bureau who had a Christmas hamper for her and her family. From the tears and hugs, you knew the joy and spirit of Christmas had just been delivered.

As our economic instability lingers, more families will then be turning to the Christmas Bureau for help. This holiday season the Surrey Christmas Bureau is already hoping for a miracle. They are reaching out to the community to find donated warehouse space in Surrey between 8,000 and 10,000 square feet. The Christmas Bureau needs a home to make Christmas wishes come true. They deliver more food and gifts, and they deliver the feeling of Christmas.

CHILDHOOD CANCER

L. Reid: Imagine the horror of hearing for the first time that your child has cancer. In fact, that is the diagnosis shared with approximately 150 British Columbia families each year, and each year 20 to 30 children will die.

September is pediatric cancer awareness month. This effort to raise awareness of childhood cancers and to fund research and treatment is a cause that is very important to me. Perhaps the cure for cancer does lie with a child.

Dominic and Gloria Cuccione lost their beautiful and talented son Michael. He fought Hodgkin's lymphoma twice and beat it each time before ultimately passing away at the age of 16 due to respiratory complications.

Kathie and Tore Hatlen also experienced the debilitating loss of their first-born child, a sweet little girl named Hannah Dale. Hannah was diagnosed at the age of four with a terminal brain tumour and passed away at the age of five.

To watch a child struggle with cancer is heartbreaking. To see a child die from cancer stays with you forever. I am passionate about pediatric cancer awareness month. Michael and Hannah both left us far too soon, but their memories are kept alive by their families, who are dedicated to raising funds for a cure.

Please look to the Michael Cuccione Foundation at childhoodcancerresearch.org and to hannahsheroes.com. The Cuccione and Hatlen families are today funding cancer research at B.C. Children's Hospital. As Michael Cuccione often said: "One person can only do so much, but together we can make a difference."

RIDGE MEADOWS
YOUTH DIVERSION PROGRAM

M. Sather: The Ridge Meadows youth diversion program assists offenders between the ages of 12 and 17 to take responsibility for their actions, encouraging them to change course and begin leading successful lives.

This program has been around for nearly 15 years and is one of the original programs of its kind in British Columbia, providing a resource and foundation for similar initiatives across the province. To date it has received over 1,700 referrals from the RCMP and Crown counsel.

With a response time of less than 72 hours upon receipt of referral, offending youth are guided through the stages of realization, responsibility and accountability. Very quickly youth are taught the impact of their actions on their victims, the community, their family and themselves. Timely intervention between the young offender's action and understanding the consequences of that action has been very useful in reducing recidivism.

[1350]

A community accountability panel comprised of rotating volunteers meets with the young offender to provide extrajudicial guidance, directing them to drug and alcohol detoxification and counselling, employment opportunities, family counselling, education and housing. In addition, volunteer mentorship, family group conferencing, a personal achievement program and the real program have all led to the Ridge Meadows youth diversion program's high success rate.

The program enjoys wide support in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The services provided by Ridge Meadows youth diversion empower youth by addressing the underlying circumstances leading to the offending behaviour. In these days of increasing gang violence in our province, we are fortunate to have programs like the Ridge Meadows youth diversion program to help youth find their way out of the revolving door of crime.

This valuable program is in desperate need of funding and will close its doors in October unless government assistance is forthcoming.
[ Page 392 ]

FLEETWOOD COMMUNITY AssociATION

D. Hayer: Like my friend across the way, I also attended the 11th annual Fleetwood Festival on Saturday, just as I have attended every year since I was first elected in 2001. This wonderful celebration of family and community was put on by the Fleetwood Community Association and attracted thousands of residents from throughout the area.

Until boundaries were realigned for the May 12 election, all the Fleetwood area was part of my Surrey-Tynehead riding. Northeast Fleetwood is still part of my riding. I have assured everyone in Fleetwood that should they need any assistance or have concerns, they are still more than welcome to come to me for any help.

I also want to commend the Fleetwood Community Association led by the president, Rick Hart; the vice-president, Joanne Anderson; treasurer Joanne Perrier; secretary Joy Hart; director Carol Adams, and Deb Hughes who, along with dozens of volunteers and city staff, do outstanding work in the community fair to help people of all ages and all ethnic backgrounds.

But the Fleetwood community does a lot more than just organize an annual festival. Under the guidance of Mildred Davies, interim chair of the Fleetwood-Surrey planning committee, and assisted by secretary Gay Calestagne, treasurer Bonnie Wright and many other volunteers, they also work on many other events, including the Surrey seniors dinner every three months for the Fleetwood seniors. This is organized by the Fleetwood seniors planning committee, and they host a dinner every year. These wonderful social gatherings bring together seniors from Fleetwood, Guildford, Port Kells, Fraser Heights, Tynehead, Cloverdale, Newton and Whalley.

I ask all the members in the House to join me in congratulating members, executive and directors of the Fleetwood Community Association, the Fleetwood seniors planning committee and all the volunteers and sponsors for this year's festival, as well as for all the community work they do throughout the year.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR ATHLETES
AND SCHOOL SPORTS

C. James: This past February VANOC held the 2010 Olympic countdown party. Two days before the party VANOC asked the government to pay for the event. Just a week later the government sent written confirmation that it was providing half a million dollars to VANOC for the party. Now here we are six months later. The government has turned around and announced cuts to schools, to sports and to kids' programs.

My question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Why was the Liberal government so quick to find the funds for the VANOC party, and yet it can't find the money for kids' sports?

Hon. I. Chong: It's pretty obvious that the Leader of the Opposition is still opposed to the Olympics to this very day.

Sport is important to this government. We are living in very challenging economic times. Our government has made decisions, difficult decisions, and we know that those are also difficult for a number of sports organizations.

It would be nice to do more, but in spite of these difficult times, we are still spending $38 million to support sports throughout the province. So $38 million to support sports organizations. That means there will still be sports. There'll be games. There'll be tournaments. There'll be championships. These will be delivered throughout the province, and our young athletes will have an opportunity to compete to do their very personal best.

[1355]

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

C. James: In these difficult economic times, the Liberal government found $500,000 — half a million dollars — to subsidize an Olympic party instead of providing funding for kids' sports. That's the choice that this government made. That's the choice that this government made.

The people of British Columbia want a legacy for children from the Olympics. They expect that the resources will be there to support children who see themselves as future athletes in the Olympics. They want a legacy of success for our young athletes and our children, and this government is doing just the opposite.

So again to the minister: how can she justify paying for an Olympic party when B.C. kids are losing opportunities for success?

Hon. I. Chong: I cannot believe that still to this very day, the opposition leader is opposing the Olympics — this very day. If it was up to the NDP, it wouldn't even be happening. We wouldn't even have the Olympics if it was up to the NDP, because they have voted against every….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: Every opportunity that they have had to support the Olympics, they have not. It's shown time and time again.

Let me talk about the legacy that the opposition is talking about. The legacy also includes sports infrastructure — $600 million in sports infrastructure. These
[ Page 393 ]
are where our young athletes are able to train, to develop, to go on to other levels of competition — whether they be other provincial competitions, other national or certainly international.

I wonder if the leader has been to the Richmond oval lately and seen the kind of training that is going on there.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: I'd suggest the minister spend a little bit of time at a school basketball game or a soccer game or a Little League game in the summer to see where the money that this government is cutting goes, to provide support for those children.

The choice this government made is very clear. This minister and the rest of this government feel that it's right to spend $500,000 on a private party, to subsidize the VANOC party, rather than spending money supporting children and sports. These are cuts that strike at the heart of what the Olympics is about.

Again, to the minister. Half a million dollars on an Olympic party to showcase the Premier. Over a million dollars for three ministers' offices and $130,000 in cuts for programs for kids. I'd like to ask this minister: how many ministers is it going to take before this government gets its priorities right?

Hon. I. Chong: In case the opposition leader wasn't aware, in the last fiscal the 2010 countdown actually ran a surplus that was available to them. Well, the additional dollars allow them to continue to invest in our youth, continue to invest in sports. But again, I have to say….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: I have met with the B.C. School Sports association representatives, and our ministry has offered to work with them to find savings, because we are all in difficult, challenging financial times. But I want to be clear. The opposition is suggesting that sports in schools are at an end, and that is not the case. That is absolutely false.

Sports will continue in our schools, because we have a sports sector that works with our youth in our schools to allow them to compete and do the very west they can.

[1400]

K. Corrigan: Well, the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport asked if we'd been out to the Richmond oval lately, and I know that none of us were invited to the party at the Richmond oval on that day, and nobody that we know was there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: Mr. Speaker, $500,000 spent to shine the Olympic spotlight on the Premier and his friends while B.C.'s kids get hit with more cuts and fewer ser-vices — that's this government's priorities, and that's this government's record.

Again to the minister: how can she explain cutting $130,000 of funding for young athletes while spending half a million dollars on an invitation-only party to showcase the Premier?

Hon. I. Chong: I'd like to ask that member how she can explain to her constituents why she continues to oppose the Olympics.

The Olympics…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: …are providing jobs right now. The Olympics are providing jobs when we need them. If the members opposite were to consider what that can do to build the spirit and pride in our communities, what the Olympics are doing today and will do in the future when we have three billion pairs of eyes looking at our wonderful province, where we see investments in infrastructure that has been built for our young athletes where they are now training because they want to be able to deliver a gold medal at a first Canada Olympics in their own host province….

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: Well, I certainly don't oppose amateur sport or sport at all. One of the most proud moments of my life was when I represented the province of British Columbia at the Canada Winter Games in 1972, and I was very proud to have won a bronze medal.

This government's actions say it all. They cut the very programs our kids need to succeed in sports and to live
[ Page 394 ]
a healthy lifestyle. But they have no issues with forcing taxpayers to subsidize a private Olympic party.

Again to the minister: will she admit it was wrong to waste taxpayer dollars on the Premier's Olympic party, and will the minister commit today to reinstate that much-needed funding?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to be perfectly clear. Sports, games, championships, tournaments — they're all continuing in British Columbia schools this year. They have not been eliminated. For the NDP to suggest that they have been eliminated is just irresponsible.

M. Farnworth: VANOC needs $500,000 — one minister, one cheque, done right away. B.C. school sports need ministers to speak up for kids' sports across this province, and we have three ministers, and they failed to speak up for school sports across this province.

But, you know, all it would take is one Premier — that Premier — to stand up and admit that his ministers failed, that his government has been inept on this issue, and to restore that funding.

[1405]

So will the Premier have the courage to stand up and restore the funding to B.C. school sports across the province today?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've said, $38 million is being invested for sports this year, and you know, a part of that also includes hundreds of thousands of dollars that we have provided to KidSport, a program that helps with registration fees for low-income families.

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS

J. Brar: This minister has also cut 42 percent of funding to the population and public health branch of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. This branch oversees programs key to protecting the public of British Columbia from illness and keeping the people out of hospitals.

My question is very simple. How can the minister justify to the people of British Columbia these massive 42 percent funding cuts to protecting public health?

Hon. I. Chong: Public safety and public health are a high priority for this government, which is one of the reasons why we have protected those critical services for public health and population health. As this chamber should know, when we tabled our budget in February of this year, all ministries were to look for savings in areas of administration, of office and business and of travel. That's what we've done.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, 42 percent cuts to this very important ministry is a high priority for this minister. That's shame to the minister for standing up in this House and saying that. In recent weeks we have seen this government not being upfront about funding cuts with agencies that are delivering key programs to the people of British Columbia. This was fully on display yesterday. Today again, the minister is not giving us the straight answers.

My question is very simple again. Will the minister finally disclose the list of specific programs and community agencies that will receive less or no funding to deliver programs that keep the people of British Columbia healthy and protect them from being sick?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, in case the member has missed it, this province has been noted for its leadership in healthy living and healthy lifestyles. We have the healthiest population. I'm proud to say that we have the healthiest population. British Columbians are the healthiest in all of Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: The only thing that this government has shown leadership in is making massive cuts to services all across British Columbia. Susan Roline, who is the mayor of Merritt, has been voicing her concerns that the Liberal government's cuts may actually put drinking water at risk, particularly in small and rural communities like Merritt.

Will the minister please come clean and tell this House how the Liberal government's reckless cutbacks will impact public health?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm surprised that that member would spread irresponsible information such as that when this province has very strong drinking water regulations and protections. It was our government…. I recall, as a previous minister, that we provided an $80 million program, a community water improvement program that provided for safer drinking water protection.

[1410]

Those were additional dollars, where this government funded those projects to the tune of two-thirds of those projects. And you know what the NDP did? They voted against it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali: I cannot believe that the minister would stand up in this House and disparage the reputation of one of the finest mayors in the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 395 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: Mayors across British Columbia and regional district reps and the people of British Columbia cannot afford to learn about this Liberal government's reckless cutbacks that compromise the health and the safety of the people. They want answers — not ambiguity, not denials, not stonewalling.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Healthy Living and Sport. Will the minister table in this House which programs that protect the public's health and safety are being cut back by this Liberal government? Will the minister stand up and do that today and make the commitment to table those cuts that she's going to make in terms of the safety of the people of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, the safety of the population of British Columbia is important, which is one of the reasons why we have programs to protect drinking water, which is why we have programs that have helped communities throughout the province to upgrade their systems, to improve their systems.

I recall having gone to a community where they had been on a boil-water advisory for 20 years. It was our government, our program that provided them with a new system that would allow them to take off boil-water advisories.

A. Dix: The Minister of Healthy Living said that the government put its thinking cap on after February and that they were looking for cuts. They were looking for cuts, and what'd they do? They doubled the size of the minister's office. They got two ministers and twice as much money, half a million dollars more. They increased — get this — executive and support services by 5 percent, and they cut programs to protect the population and public health by 42.9 percent.

It's a simple question for the minister. You know, it's the most basic question you can ask. What does the 42.9 percent count for? What did they cut in her budget?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the savings that we have found throughout our ministries, throughout government have been in the area of discretionary spending, have been in public service travel, have been in business and office expenses. We have made those decisions because we are in difficult and challenging financial times.

We want to protect our core services — our health care services, our education budget, our vital social services. We're doing that. The NDP would not.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: In this House yesterday the minister tried to pass off a 30 percent cut in programming as good news for amateur sport in British Columbia. That's what she tried to do. So can she explain — it's a simple question, because she might have been informed about what the budget was on budget day, at least — what the 42.9 percent cut in that critical part of her ministry amounts to?

She knows, I guess, because the other minister is sitting beside her, that they doubled the number of dollars for ministers, that they doubled the number of dollars for staff in their offices, that they increased executive and administration by 5 percent. Can she just tell us…? It's a simple question, the most simple a minister can get. She's cutting spending on the protection of public health by 42 percent. What is she doing?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I've advised that member that what we've done is found administrative savings throughout our ministry, throughout our government. So my question to that member….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: Faced with these challenging economic times, we have ensured our protection of health care and education and vital social services. We've found savings in administration.

My question to the member opposite is this. They were going to ask for another $1.2 billion of cuts. Where were they going to make those cuts?

S. Simpson: If the Premier wanted to save on some unnecessary expenditures, maybe he could start with the money that he's wasting on this minister's office and the minister of state.

Mr. Speaker, a 42.9 percent cut. Simple question. Name the expenditures that you saved this money on. What did the minister cut?

Hon. I. Chong: I've stated for the members opposite a number of times that what this ministry and what the entire government have done is found savings administratively — business and office expenses, contract services…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: …in discretionary spending and certainly in public servant travel. We've made sure that the dollars needed to protect our health care budget, our
[ Page 396 ]
education budget, our vital social services are protected, and they are. In fact, they're getting increases.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: We're talking about $20 million in cuts. Is the minister trying to tell us that there's $20 million of administration and fat in her ministry that she cut, or is the minister finally going to tell us what that $20 million cut entailed? What was cut? What were the real programs and real services that this minister cut?

Hon. I. Chong: For that member to suggest that direct services, vital services to protect health and the public safety of the population of British Columbia…. It's irresponsible. We have ensured the protection of our health care services, our education budget, our vital social services — savings that we have made in this ministry and across government. We have been very clear about that.

We've been saying that administrative savings have been found. Discretionary spending has also had to make reductions as well as business and office expenses. We will continue to have fiscal prudence going forward so that we can come out of this recession stronger — stronger than before.

J. Kwan: A 42 percent cut in the minister's office. That amounts to $20 million. If she's saying that it's just administrative and that it doesn't impact health care, then let the public be the judge. Tell British Columbians what exactly was cut in her ministry that amounts to $20 million — line by line, account by account.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, in our ministry we have looked for savings. Those savings have been in administration. I know the members don't want to hear that. They've also been in our discretionary spending.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: They've also been in our discretionary spending. We've also decreased public servant travel. We've also decreased office and business expenditures as well as contract services, which allows us to maintain the vital services that protect public safety.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

J. Kwan: It's incredible — $20 million in discretionary funding. Is that what she's trying to tell British Columbians, or is it the case that she actually doesn't know? Will she come clean and tell British Columbians exactly where the cuts are coming from line by line, account by account, today?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I wonder what the NDP were planning to cut when they announced $1.2 billion in further reductions that they have indicated. Where are they suggesting that those cuts be made?

We have committed to ensuring that our vital health services are protected. In case they've missed it, a further $80 million has been put aside, as well, to deal with a major issue that could be occurring this fall — the H1N1.

N. Macdonald: The minister is talking about a 42.9 percent cut to a line item, and this is what the line item is for: health promotion, health protection, disease prevention, health assessment, disease surveillance. These are not insignificant.

The minister is standing up and telling us that 42.9 percent of her budget went towards discretionary and administrative payments. It is unbelievable. The minister needs to stand up and tell us where those cuts are made. Or does she not know?

Hon. I. Chong: Our ministry works with the provincial health officer and other health professionals who ensure that the population and public health is protected, ensuring that the programs and services delivered through this ministry provide for those very important outcomes of healthier lifestyles.

For the members opposite to suggest…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: … that the population and public health is at risk is absolutely irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: We have a minister here who has had almost half of her budget cut, and she can either not answer the question, or she doesn't care. It is a simple question to stand up and name one of the cuts, even one of the cuts that this minister has made. What are they?

It's 42.9 percent of the budget. It's gone. Tell the people of British Columbia what you cut.

Hon. I. Chong: This ministry provides an important program dealing with immunization for young children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.
[ Page 397 ]

Hon. I. Chong: We work with non-profit organizations to deliver healthier outcomes. We have reduced our childhood obesity rates. We are reducing tobacco use in this province. Population and public health is very important to this ministry, and we will continue to work with those partners to deliver the best, healthiest outcomes in all of Canada.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise to table two documents…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: …in accordance with legislation I have responsibility for. One, pursuant to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, is the prebudget consultation paper. The other, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, section 72(8), is the consolidated revenue fund guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

[1425]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Joining us today in the gallery are two gentlemen from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. I would like the House to help me welcome Gordon Quaiattini, who is the president, as well as Doug Hooper, who is the new chairman.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker: Members, we want to get on with the budget debate. Member for Surrey-Newton has the floor.

Budget Debate

(continued)

H. Bains: It's my honour to continue with my response to the budget.

As I was saying before the break, the people of this province have given up on this government because they believe they've been betrayed by this government. They feel that they were given wrong information, false information, before the election, and after the election they found out the truth. They believe that this government actually kept that truth from them.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Madam Speaker, I and all of you probably have heard from this government, and we've seen them all around…. What we have heard over and over again is that our economy is in the tank. We know its effects. The factories are closing. Sawmills are closing. There are job losses. People are losing their pensions. School budgets are cut. Health care budgets are cut.

All of that was promised by this government — that they will not cut those services before the election. We all know that is all for real. People are losing their jobs. There are foreclosures. People are having a tough time making payments, a tough time making their rent payments.

But there's one other issue that is probably more important than that, which we are all facing right now. The integrity of this government is in the tank also. When that happens, it has a long-lasting effect on our democracy and democratic values that we care about. People start to lose trust in elected officials. That's exactly what this government is doing for the last eight years. They have lost the trust of people of the province.

People have felt that they have been lied to too many times in the last eight years. Madam Speaker, you know that in 2001 — and this is what people are telling us when we're walking the street, when we are meeting them in meeting halls — the Premier made a promise that he would not rip up the collective agreement of the hospital employee workers. But that was before the election.

What happened after the election was quite the opposite. One of the first things this government did was rip up that collective agreement, throwing thousands of those hard-working people who provided very important services in our hospitals and health care services on the street.

[1430]

Many of them happened to be women, immigrant families. They were thrown out on the streets so that this Premier and this government can bring in their multinational friends to take benefits and profits out of our health care.

They gave them contracts to run those services at the expense of those working people, who were actually at the lower end of the wage scale. How do you justify that? Someone on that side has to have some heart. Obviously, they didn't. No one stood up from that side — that this is the wrong thing to do. No one.

Interjection.
[ Page 398 ]

H. Bains: Except one. I must correct myself. And I do applaud that minister. He happened to be minister today. Good job. One person had the heart to stand up to this government and this Premier — that that was the wrong thing to do.

That's what the priorities of this government are all about. Do anything to help their multinational friends and multi-millionaires, at the expense of the working people. That's what took place during the HEU.

They knew that they were breaking the law, or they ought to have known that they were breaking the law. It — the union, HEU — took this government to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada had to come in and tell this government that they broke the law of this province. This is how bad this government has been. They don't care if they have to break their own laws, as long as their friends are happy.

Then they told this province that they will not sell B.C. Rail. People still remember that. What happened after the election? That's exactly what they did. They sold B.C. Rail, but then they tried to tell people…. They didn't even have the guts to stand up and say that they were breaking their promise. They had to tell them that no, it's not a sale. It's 999 years of lease. No spine. You have no spine whatsoever to stand up.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would caution you to use language that is parliamentary.

H. Bains: Thank you very much. I will.

Madam Speaker, they didn't stop there. Now we fast-forward to this election. This government, this Premier, this minister promised to the people of this province — knowing full well that the economy is eroding fast — that the maximum budget deficit would be $495 million. They were told that those numbers are not realistic.

When the opposition brought that issue up, the minister stood up, and the other minister stood up right behind him. The Premier stood up — that the NDP is fearmongering.

The renowned economist Helmut Pastrick came out and said that those numbers are not real numbers, and he predicted that the real number would be close to more than $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

Everyone knew that the budget deficit would be much, much higher — four, five or six times higher than what this government was leading people to believe — except this government and this minister. Right till the time of the election, the Premier continued to say $495 million maximum. Soon after the election, they started to turn around and said: "Yes, it is going to be higher than $495 million."

[1435]

The budget that we saw presented before us? A $2.8 billion deficit — over five times the numbers they were giving us before the election. The numbers that the opposition and all the economists were telling the government are more realistic…. Had they not brought in the HST money from the federal government, the budget deficit would have been close to $3.5 billion or $3.6 billion. That's the history of this government

I see these members on the other side applaud this Premier. My question to them is…. Yes, people should be applauding their leaders. They should be applauding their colleagues. But should they be applauding the leader whose popularity right now is less than his shoe size because the people think he didn't tell the truth before the election? They are applauding that leader? What does that say about all of these folks sitting on the other side?

This time not even one minister, one backbencher stood up and challenged the Premier: "We should come clean with the electorate. We should tell the truth to the electorate. We need to come clean. We need to come up with the real numbers. We need to follow what the economists and everyone else are saying to us."

I think the foundation of democracy, as we all know, is being upfront, transparent with your electorate. That's what the foundations of democracy were built on, but not for this government. When you do that, you are eroding what they have done in the last eight years. You are actually on the way to erode democratic values that we care for, that people fought for and gave their lives for.

Yes, on one hand, we have an economic situation. The economy is in the tank. But when the government's integrity is in the tank, I think that leaves a long-lasting effect on our coming generations. When they stop trusting their elected officials, they stop believing in democracy.

Madam Speaker, they need to look in the mirror, each one of them, and think of what they are doing. What kind of legacy are we leaving for our children and their children when we are talking about improving our democratic values, when we're talking about making changes and making society better through democratic means? It's being eroded by the actions of one person and the rest of them following that one person that happens to be the Premier.

You're all guilty by simply not standing up, by simply not standing up and saying….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

H. Bains: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to withdraw.

H. Bains: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

I'm sure, on their side of the House, their offices must have received the e-mails, telephone calls, letters and phone calls about the direction this government is going.
[ Page 399 ]

On HST, people don't like the tax itself, but they're more angry about how it was brought in. They were promised that they had no plans to bring in HST. The restaurant industry asked that very, very specific question during the election: "Other provinces are bringing in HST. Is your government considering bringing in HST?"

This government, through the Premier's office, advised them they had no plan of bringing in HST. But after the election we were told that this was the single best thing that they could do to boost the economy. If this was such a great idea to boost the economy, then why didn't they stand up before the election and lay it out for the public to question them and ask questions about how it is going to affect them, who's going to pay and how much? And why didn't they tell the truth? Why didn't they tell the truth?

[1440]

The restaurant industry. Right now the president of that association feels that he has been betrayed, that the industry has been betrayed by this government.

Madam Speaker, no wonder my constituents, and I'm sure your constituents — 85 percent of the people — do not believe the story that is being told by this government. They do not believe that this government didn't know that the budget would be $495 million maximum deficit. They do not believe that they had no plan to bring in the HST. They believe that they won this election through falsehood, and they feel misled and betrayed.

That's not a very good example that we are setting for coming generations. No wonder such a low turnout in the last election. We're not helping. We're not helping by not being upfront with the electorate. We're not helping them to come and vote and participate in a democratic system by not being honest with them or open with them about what we intend to do as a government.

Many of them are labelling the last eight years as a decade of deception, and rightfully so. Decade of deception — that's not something that I take joy in saying, but that's what it is out there. Everyone you talk to — 85 percent of the people — feels that those eight years have been nothing but deception.

So what do we do? I guess there are folks out there…. The grass-roots support is building. There are rallies being held in all communities in this province trying to bring it to this government's attention that what they're doing is wrong. I think if the HST….

They're asking this question. I'm sure each one of you has heard this, on both sides of the House. The people are asking this question. If the HST is such a great idea, why don't you put it for a referendum? Let people decide. Convince them that this is the greatest idea that you've ever come across. Let people decide.

But you know what? No one on that side has the courage to take that task and ask that question, because they know the answer. They know that the public is very, very angry with them. They know the answer they're going to get is a resounding no to this HST.

Then they brought in a number of different people here, and they paraded them through this hall. Who stood behind this Premier and said how wonderful this HST is for them?

Well, one of those groups was the CEOs of the forest industry. Let me talk about that group, because I have background in the forest industry, and I remember the promises that they made in order to get changes made to the Forest Act by this government.

They asked this government in 2003 to deregulate the forest industry, to give them everything that they needed so that they had a free hand to do whatever they wanted to do with the logs that belonged to you, me and the public out there — whether they would process them, sell them or not harvest them at all. They needed that kind of free hand.

They wanted to have that social contract that existed in that industry since the 1950s, where the public logs were given to this industry, and they would then in return process those logs through their own mills in those communities to create jobs for those communities in this province. It was a win-win situation. But that industry didn't want anything to do with it. They got everything from this government, but the promise they made in return was that they would invest about a billion dollars in the industry to create more jobs.

[1445]

Not a single job was created. They got everything, but not a single job was created. Instead, they went across the line and started spending money over there. Now they're shipping raw logs across the line at the expense of our communities and our forestry workers.

The same industry now is saying: "We're so happy that we're going to benefit to the tune of $140 million through this deal." So their credibility with the public and the forest industry workers and their communities is zero — just like this government.

Madam Speaker, I have received many e-mails in my constituency about this HST, and I'll read you one. This one is from John Cohen. This person is saying that bestowing the HST now is tantamount to giving a man dying of thirst sour wine. That's what John Cohen is saying.

Here's another one — Annie Hewitt. "What else is he lying to us about? We need to unite and fight this tax. Rallies, demonstrations, letters…."

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, language must be parliamentary. I ask you to withdraw.

H. Bains: I withdraw, Madam Speaker. This is the e-mail that I'm reading verbatim that I received. I withdraw.

You get the flavour. These are the kinds of e-mails we're getting in our offices, and I'm sure they're getting them there as well.
[ Page 400 ]

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's a pleasure to stand this afternoon and speak in support of the September 2009 budget update. As every British Columbian knows, our province is not immune from the economic challenges facing every part of the world. As a small, open economy that depends on international trade for much of its revenue, jobs and prosperity, our province continues to face the day-to-day impacts of reduced commodity prices, ever-increasing competition abroad and soft markets on virtually every front.

However, as I said when I had the opportunity to rise to speak to the throne speech, I did not get elected so I could come to Victoria to be afraid of the future.

All around us we are seeing and hearing of more positive changes in the world's economy. While these positive changes do not signal a wholesale change in our economic fortunes, together they look and feel like the start of an economic turnaround, and while better days are still some way off, they will come. By some early measures, they are already on their way.

Nevertheless, the past year has left much of our provincial economy reeling, and the economic downturn has seen a responding decline in revenues to the government. Taken together, all of these issues point to the need for strong fiscal management now more than ever.

You see, it's critical with so much change still upon us that we find the right balance between our strong belief in balanced budgets and the short-term need for provincial deficits that will allow us to meet our core commitments to health care, education and social services for those most in need. The key is finding a balance, and I believe my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance has found just such a balance in his budget update.

The key is to know how much is enough before it becomes too much. How much debt can British Columbians afford? And how do we ensure that we don't go past that fundamental tipping point and put the future generations into jeopardy with more debt than can be reasonably managed?

Equally important, as government, we need to follow the example being shown today and every day by British Columbia's families. We must do what every family is doing today. We have to separate the absolute necessities from those things that are important but not critical. We need to separate the things that are necessary for today from things we can do without until this important economic corner is turned. I believe the Minister of Finance has done just that by taking a measured and responsible approach to where we are going to spend our scarce resources and where we need to hold, reduce or eliminate spending.

The fact is, the easiest thing in the world for a politician to do is spend money, particularly other people's money and, more importantly perhaps, money we don't have. It's also easy as politicians to fall prey to the special interests with sharp elbows who want to get at the precious taxpayer dollars as they push others aside and who have no real regard for cost and what that does to future debt and deficits.

[1450]

Madam Speaker, we cannot let that happen, particularly these days when getting ten cents out of a nickel should be the order of the day for all of us on both sides of the House. After all, we all know there is one taxpayer, and we spend money on their behalf — their money. It's imperative that we are doing it with a real understanding of how hard families work to make that money in the first place.

The budget update is a sound, realistic and forward-thinking response to our current economic conditions. It limits spending. It limits deficits. It keeps more money in people's pockets. It continues to commit us as a province to three fundamental outcomes: maintaining vital services during tough times, stimulating the economy, saving and creating jobs and encouraging investment by making our province even more competitive.

This new budget increases funding for health services by 18 percent over three years. That means that by 2012, B.C.'s health budget will be some $15.7 billion. That's more than $4 million a day, or nearly $170,000 per hour. This increase in health funding is, in itself, the kind of proof positive that our government has its fiscal priorities in the right place.

In addition, the budget update provides $420 million to meet the needs of greater demand for income assistance due to the recession. It's another example of making sure government is there for British Columbians when its help is needed by the most vulnerable in our province.

While getting through those tough times is our primary focus, we have not lost sight of the future. After all, part of government's work is to work with British Columbians to map out the kind of province we want to be in the years ahead. That's why our commitment to delivering full-day kindergarten starting in September 2010 is important. We all know that giving a child an early start on a good education can make a world of difference, not just to the child but to the communities that will ultimately benefit from their talents and expertise in the years to come.

That commitment to the future is also a big part of my own ministry. This year the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development is receiving record levels of funding against the background of a tough economy. We are committed to helping British Columbians get the skills and education they want and need to participate fully in the economy.

By 2012, B.C.'s annual commitment to post-secondary education will exceed $4.7 billion. In addition, the new budget update includes increased training tax credits for businesses that take on apprentices. In fact, today
[ Page 401 ]
employers can claim up to $4,000 annually — double the previous amount for eligible apprentices.

At this important time, when government infrastructure projects can go a long way to stimulating the economy, British Columbia is in partnership, working with other levels of government right across the province. Since February of this year 480 projects worth $3.4 billion have been announced, and the projects announced to date are creating more than 21,000 direct jobs over three years.

At the same time we know it's essential for British Columbia to remain competitive in a shrinking and more competitive world. We're working to build the most competitive business tax system in Canada, because we know that businesses that are competitive can create more jobs. That's why over the past eight years this government has reduced taxes more than 120 times — tax reductions that benefit people and businesses alike right across British Columbia.

For instance, in 2008 our small business tax rate was reduced by 44 percent, and our government intends to take small business corporate income tax to zero by 2012. We've been reducing general corporate income tax rates, as well, with an eye to making sure that B.C. business and B.C. workers are competitive at home and abroad and that we can continue to grow jobs in this province.

On the personal income tax front, the personal income tax credit will increase in 2010 from $9,373 to $11,000. Today anyone earning up to $118,000 in B.C. pays the lowest provincial personal income tax in the country. Equally important, since 2001 personal tax rates have been reduced by 37 percent for most British Columbians, and 325,000 people with lower incomes no longer pay any B.C. income tax.

I started my comments by stressing the importance of finding a balance — a balance between core services and those things we'd like to have but cannot afford until better economic times; a balance between making immediate decisions for today and the importance of keeping the future at the front of our mind; and balancing the long-term importance of balanced budgets with the need, when times are tight, to accept limited deficits that can see us through tough but temporary times.

[1455]

As we all know, deficits are easy to get into but tough to get out of. In 2001 this government needed nerves of steel to make the tough but necessary decisions to put us on the road to economic prosperity. It wasn't easy, but it was done, and it worked.

Now we want to make sure we have the self-discipline as a province not to trap ourselves into living off our credit cards or lines of credit, as it were. Spending tomorrow's money today is easy. Paying it back is the hard part. However, the Minister of Finance has put a strong and balanced plan in place. He recognizes the need for temporary deficits but not the kind of ongoing structural deficits that will mire taxpayers into greater and greater debt, with no sign of relief.

Like most British Columbians, I appreciate having governments that spend within our means, and like most British Columbians, I know that the necessity of temporary deficits, as much as we may dislike it, is a reality, a necessity. But it doesn't and shouldn't become a way of life or a way of running government.

I'm grateful that the Minister of Finance has brought forward a responsible approach to these tough times. I commend his commitment to the most important priorities of British Columbians, and I applaud his respect for taxpayers and what we can afford as individuals, businesses and families.

The turnaround seems to have begun. Nevertheless, there's plenty of work still to do. This budget recognizes this fact. This budget has its feet planted firmly on the ground but has a keen eye on the future. This is a commonsense budget, and as a taxpayer and as a mother and as an MLA, I'm looking forward to supporting it.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to the Budget 2009 from the government this afternoon.

Before I begin, though, I want to thank a few people in my constituency and my community, especially the ones that work on behalf of me every day, while I'm here in particular. I think first, though, I would like to thank the electors from my constituency of Victoria–Swan Lake. They've placed their confidence and trust in me to represent them here during the lifetime of this parliament, and I'm very pleased to be working on their behalf.

I think that all of us on both sides of the House were disappointed with the low voter turnout in the provincial election on May 12. I hope that all members in this House did take some valuable experiences away from the campaign as well as a commitment for all of us to try and change that number. That is a trend we most definitely as legislators want to reverse in the interests of democracy.

Even though the turnout was much lower than any of us would hope for, I have to say that the conversations I had as a candidate knocking on people's doors, working in the community, attending events…. The ideas I came away with in that campaign to bring to this place to improve public services, to make health care work better, to fight for communities and keep jobs and create jobs and embrace the new economy, all of those kinds of things…. I was amazingly impressed at the depth and the scope of ideas that my constituents conveyed to me.

I think that all of us as legislators should look at this opportunity in this parliament to try and strengthen this institution and allow as much opportunity as possible for good ideas to come from wherever they may
[ Page 402 ]
come — from whatever part of the province, from whatever political perspective or ideology — to make government work better.

I should first and foremost thank my senior constituency assistant, Marni Offman, who hopefully isn't watching this speech today but serving my constituents — as I'm sure she is, because the phone never stops ringing in that place. She has worked hard for many years on my behalf. She continues to do so. I have an incredible amount of debt to repay her for all of the help she has provided me as an MLA, and she keeps doing her job.

I also must thank Alice Ross, who is my part-time constituency assistant. She does an incredible amount of work, and effective work, for people who come into my constituency office, who inquire on a daily basis. She has worked for me for a number of years too.

[1500]

I hope both of them will keep working for me. I don't think the job will get any easier, but I need them to be able to do it, as all of us value our constituency assistants as really the heart of the community office and one of the primary functions that make government accessible to our citizens. So thank you to both of them.

In the Legislature here I want to thank Brian Kowalski, who is my legislative assistant, and I want to thank Tracey Janes, who is my research assistant.

There are 85 legislators in this place, who represent very distinct parts of a regionally diverse province. But one of the things we have in common, no matter where we're from, is that communities work and succeed basically on the same basis.

As MLAs try and help their constituents to get help, to get the assistance they need to solve problems of things that get in their way — some challenges they have in life — I think MLAs gain a unique understanding and appreciation for community associations, for civic leaders in our community, for volunteers of all kinds who are providing services and filling needs for kids and parents, for families, for the elderly in our community, for our poorest citizens, for our most vulnerable. Those organizations, those leaders, those people who volunteer their time ensure that our citizens get the help they need.

Our communities are served by dedicated people in the arts, the cultural sector, multicultural societies, sports teams, local conservation and environmental organizations and a host of other activities that together make our province a unique place, make our constituencies and communities distinct and a desirable place to live within.

That is why — I will return to this point later — one of my strongest objections to this budget is that it forgets these ingredients that make up successful communities. It pulls funding, without warning, of even the smallest gaming grants or contracted services to the very organizations that make up civil society in British Columbia. Those kinds of shortsighted cuts are going to have long-term, real and devastating repercussions. Quite a change from the February budget, I might add.

These organizations had no idea. Some of them had written three-year agreements with this government to continue providing services to British Columbia, to continue filling needs within our society, and this budget pulls that away.

People are struggling to make ends meet. We know that. We hear from those people in our communities every day. They need a government that's here for them. They need a government that is helping young people as well as displaced workers get the retraining opportunities that they need. They need a government that values and places emphasis on having successful kids from the very earliest age by investing in things like quality child care services and nutrition programs.

My constituents, no different from any other members in this place, want public safety. They want a justice system that's effective. They don't want cuts to our court system, Crown prosecutors and policing services in our communities. They don't believe, even in these extraordinary economic times, that there is any justification for doing that, especially when the government promised the exact opposite.

People in British Columbia want a government that's on their side to fight for and create jobs. You know, when I hear of workers facing plant closures, pooling their savings together, taking risks to help their communities survive, to keep food on the table for their families, I would expect the government to be a player at that table, to be a very interested and engaged party. All too often, in every corner of this province, workers facing that situation and companies facing those situations are let down.

[1505]

I think it's fair to say that a number of people in leading industries in British Columbia are pretty shocked in the hundred days since the election has passed. Talk to tourism leaders in this day and age. They will tell you that they cannot understand, for the life of them, why this government would take an independent Crown organization, an international award-winning marketing service provided by that Crown organization — successful, thriving tourism industry even in these difficult times — and the tens of thousands of small businesses and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the success of that marketing and tourism coordinated effort, and blow it up so the minister can put himself in as the new CEO and sweep away the experienced people, get rid of the board of directors of Tourism B.C.

Nobody knows the real answer as to why that was done, but there is definitely a consensus out there that that was one of the dumbest things this government could have done in the high season of the summer.

People don't understand why the government chose a recession, in which some of the defining features are
[ Page 403 ]
sagging consumer confidence and low sales activity across a variety of purchasing points in the economy, as the time to implement and dramatically increase sales taxes. There is definitely going to be an effect on consumption, and this is not the time to gamble with that.

Let's look at one sector where there has been a tremendous falling off of economic activity, and that would be the residential construction sector. At this point this year, compared to this exact month last fiscal year, new units of housing starts in my community alone in the metro Victoria area are down by 75 percent.

That's an incredible statistic. What it means is that thousands of people who were employed last year — skilled people, apprentices, contractors — who had work, who had money circulating in the economy have downed tools. They're on unemployment insurance. That's why B.C. has the highest growth rate of new EI applicants month over month for the last six months.

That's not a statistic to be proud of, and it's one that — incredibly — this government, in the middle of an election, ordered B.C. Statistics not to release. Talk about political interference. Imagine that.

That was glossed over in the sleepy days of summer, but what we now know is that welfare caseload statistics showed an incredible increase, in percentage terms, of families who now were on social assistance, which are routinely released by B.C. Statistics.

This is not a political agency. This is an information outlet. The long reach of the partisan political wing of government suppressed the release of that information because it was inconvenient to the Premier's message that everything was fine, that the deficit was $495 million maximum and all the other stuff that came up during the election. That happened.

People in British Columbia are angry that the government has shown them no respect and gave them no indication during the election and for many months after that they were about to trigger a fundamental shift — a regressive shift in the way taxes are collected, from whom they are collected and what services they will pay for in British Columbia. Nobody was given the courtesy of that.

That is a major policy issue that very definitely deserves full and considered debate. And you know what? It deserves the full airing in an election campaign, because if you can't convince British Columbians that this is "the single best thing we can do for our economy," which the Premier has said repeatedly, then you don't have a mandate to bring it in.

He decided not to get a mandate for that policy change. He didn't talk about it, not once during the election, but now it strains all credibility for him to suggest that none of this was underway, that this hadn't been under active consideration. One of his own former caucus members has admitted as much — that they were talking about the HST in Liberal caucus meetings before the election.

We've heard from senior executive members of this government, including the Premier himself, that no, that wasn't the case. "We arrived at this sometime in late June."

That's the hallmark of this budget. The HST betrayal is the hallmark of this budget. If there is anything for the ages in this budget, that's what it will be remembered for, and that's about it — probably with a significant footnote, because it will cost families every month.

[1510]

They will be reminded of this — that it also was a budget that put in place an escalating, cumulative increase of 18 percent to the MSP premiums they pay every month. That's money out of families — in the numbers that the Finance Ministry wouldn't share but which have been analyzed independently — that dwarves the paltry tax cuts through lifting the income exemption for the first $11,000 of earnings. Completely outweighs it. This is a tax increase budget that this government is hiding.

The appalling thing, too, is that British Columbians have learned since the election…. This is something the government never campaigned on, and I would respect them if they had campaigned on it. If they had gone out to the voters and said, "You know, after the election, for those of you on wait-lists for hips or knees or other surgical procedures, you can expect to wait 30 percent longer because we're going to cut budgets that fund those kinds of surgeries," I would respect them having said that and having a debate on whether it was necessary or not.

But they didn't. Quite the contrary. They made assurances over and over again. The Premier and his former Health Minister said that health care funding would be protected, that health authorities were being funded adequately, that plans and wait-lists for those kinds of diagnostic and elective surgeries would not increase. That commitment was made, and barely 90 days after the election that commitment was broken by this budget that we're being asked to consider.

Now, this is a unique budget in many other ways. I don't want to shortchange it. It's not often that you get two budgets within the same fiscal year, one in February and one in September. It's not often that the second budget has a deficit figure six times larger than the original figure tabled in this very place. The budget that wasn't debated, remember, in February — tabled but never debated.

Now we're debating the real one, and it's a sixfold increase on the original deficit projections. These are discrepancies from the B.C. Liberals like night and day, like before the election and after the election.

Perhaps there's a third category there because, as we've learned from the Finance Minister and the Premier, there was also a secret shroud called during the election. Both of them, after denying it, have now admitted that they were fully briefed and made aware by senior deputy
[ Page 404 ]
ministers of this government — both to the Premier's office and the Finance Minister's office — during the election. Their story changed, and that's another element of this budget that British Columbians have a real hard problem with.

We'll remember that the way this government depicted the economy and revenue projections before the election was quite different than how it's being portrayed now in September of 2009. Remember back in February, even as all the signs in the world economy were obvious to everybody, even as Lehman Bros. became a household word in our vocabularies…. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The U.S. financial sector melting down. Every continent being affected by dramatically revised downward growth projections.

Even with all of that background, we had this Premier, this Finance Minister, this government saying: "B.C. is immune to the global recession. We're immune, and that's why instead of an Alberta-sized deficit of $5 billion, B.C.'s will be only $495 million maximum, or it might be lower." Don't forget that the Premier did give himself some wiggle room to be lower during the election.

That was the mantra before and during the campaign. Anytime our economy showed signs to the contrary, anytime the news media showed families out of work and people suffering, anytime the forest industry reported statistics like — gee, I don't know — 25,000 fewer families getting a paycheque from the forest sector in one single year just before this budget was tabled in February — the fictitious budget…. Every time that was said, the government ignored these precipitous warning signs. Every time we had a new statistic out about B.C.'s trade deficit, which is now $40 billion per annum, they ignored it.

[1515]

The reality was that all during the lead-up time to the February budget, B.C. led Canada in a number of statistics. One of them was the worst loss rate of full-time jobs in the economy over the previous 12 months. The other statistic that the government ignored completely in any discussion or briefing around the budget was that at that time, B.C. was the second-worst-performing economy in the country.

What did they say today, when they conveniently pushed all of this aside just a few short months ago? Well, as the throne speech says, to quote it…. This is government speaking, of course. "We were brutally deceived by the economy. This inanimate object deceived us." That's what has caused all this, according to the government.

We've gone from February — when B.C. was the exception and was going to weather the global recession that was touching everybody else in the world — to being brutally deceived, to suddenly being in the midst of the worst recession in three decades. Turns out we aren't recession-proof, now the Premier concedes.

Well, it wasn't the economy that brutally deceived us. It was the governing party that brutally deceived us in the election campaign, even as their ministers and Premier were being advised during the campaign that revenues were sliding off the map. That's where the brutal deception lies.

You know, I like some of the new Liberal talking points that are coming out. There are a couple of them. The first one I want to speak to is that the opposition now is somehow complicit in government budget deception because, after all, we based our costed election platform using the same numbers produced and verified by the Ministry of Finance.

We used those numbers to show and illustrate our different spending priorities and different commitments to British Columbians. So wow, I guess we should plead guilty. I guess we are as gullible as the rest of the British Columbia voters out there for believing numbers that were actually published by this government. Plead guilty to that. We're all guilty of assuming that the Finance Minister actually meant it, that his word meant something when he said that the deficit would be $495 million — that he was serious.

That's an incredible talking point. It was a fundamental tenet of the story that has been knitted together by this government to explain this betrayal.

The other one that I really like was helpfully coughed up by the member from Parksville when he suggested that government couldn't have deceived British Columbians on the HST. He said this: "We couldn't have been planning the HST all along because it's been communicated so badly by us."

That's what he said. That was his explanation for why the government would flip-flop on the HST, make guarantees to the restaurant and hospitality industry in surveys and election commitments during the campaign. They suggested that that industry and others could take to the bank why they would flip-flop on that. The member from Parksville is basically saying: "We weren't dishonest. We've just been incredibly incompetent on the HST." That's the substance of his comment.

When the Premier made the admission a couple of weeks ago that dropped a lot of jaws around B.C…. He admitted for the first time that during the election, he was briefed, that he was aware that hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue had disappeared.

But I think the questions are important to keep asking — of when the Premier and the Finance Minister precisely knew what information about the true state of British Columbia's finances, when the conversations with Ottawa around moving towards the harmonized sales tax were precisely entered into by this government.

[1520]

You know, it really doesn't matter for the government. British Columbians — 75 percent of them or more — don't believe the story that's been concocted. But it's
[ Page 405 ]
important. All of us should feel that it is important for government to come clean on this point and others if the institution that we represent is going to have integrity.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that we're all concerned about declining voter turnout. Well, if you want to drive voter turnout down, keep acting like this. This is why people are cynical about politics. They are cynical about politics when governments treat them this way — with disrespect and contempt — and act as if they're stupid and they can't figure it out.

Well, they have figured it out now. They formed a very solid opinion of the Premier and this government and their conduct, and they're mad.

Let's go back to some of the warning signs the Finance Minister had available to him well before the election. Remember that Helmut Pastrick, B.C. credit union's chief economist for the Central Credit Union and one of the forecasters in the Economic Forecast Council, began to warn this minister that he was hopelessly wrong on the deficit. At that time he said: "You're at least off by a magnitude of threefold." It's since been verified as sixfold.

The Finance Minister ignored him — actually attacked him in the media, attacked him professionally. But we ask questions in this place. Mr. Pastrick was asking decent questions as well — and others. We asked questions in this place on February 17. We asked the minister how his budget could be based on assumptions around personal income tax revenues going up when at the same time we had just lost 68,000 full-time positions in British Columbia, when our workforce had suffered that kind of drop in the employment numbers. Who was going to pay those enhanced income tax revenues? The minister didn't answer.

I also asked the minister if he had a second budget, if he had a September budget, a September surprise. He mocked the suggestion at the time, but we asked: "Do you have a second plan here, given the revenue vulnerability, to come back post-election to this House and introduce a budget that will worsen the quality of health care, that will pull money away from education, that will make cuts to things like student loan budgets?"

I heard the Minister of Advanced Education not mention that once in her remarks most recently. "Are you going to come back to this House…?" I don't even think we could imagine this point, but now that we're in it…. "Are you going to come back with a budget that pulls out hundreds of millions of dollars of gaming grants from every conceivable charitable and non-profit organization that is the social fabric of this province, and the services they provide? Are you going to do that?"

That's basically what we asked the minister way back in February. If he was wrong and if the economists who were saying his revenue projections were built on sand, what was he going to do? And they mocked the suggestion. They mocked it.

But what are we doing here this very afternoon? We're debating the budget that we knew was going to come. We're living through the September surprise that this government has pulled on B.C. taxpayers and B.C. citizens. There's going to be an incredible price for that — a political price for the government certainly, but a social and human price in all of our communities.

We asked the minister, because there were a number of suggestions that revenues were falling away in British Columbia the very moment and prior to the tabling of that budget in February, if he would seek an update on the status of those revenues following our questions.

We now know that he got several updates during the writ period and during the election campaign and that that admission actually came after he told this House the first week we were back that he had no communications whatsoever with Finance officials. Indeed, he actually said that it would be inappropriate for him to do that. Then the very next week he said: "Oh, wait a minute. I did have those conversations on at least several occasions." This is how the story keeps changing, and this is why British Columbians keep digging for the truth on this.

But he knew his February numbers were built on sand, and he had 90 days to hold it together, to get through the election, to keep the budget fiction together. Now the minister says, or said — the story has changed — that he wasn't aware of all the sorts of things that undermined his budget today. But the warning signs were there on the revenue. I've mentioned one example. On all counts that were raised in this House in February, they've since been proven true.

[1525]

On February 18 the opposition asked the minister why he expected sales tax revenues to go up in his budget at the very same time that sales figures and retail confidence were tanking.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: Well, I think I answered that to the hon. member. He said: "Why did we use those numbers?"

Interjections.

R. Fleming: Right, right.

It's our fault for believing government numbers that are printed on…. You know what? To follow their logic, anything printed by Queen's Printer should not be believed. That's what they're saying. That's incredible. Wow.

Madam Speaker, we asked why sales tax revenues were scheduled to increase in that February budget when retail confidence was tanking. On February 24 we informed the minister — he should have been informed already — that there had been an increase of 50,000
[ Page 406 ]
unemployment claims. That was a 33 percent rise on the year prior. On this basis, his revenue forecasts were unsupportable on the income tax side.

Now we hear that the Economic Forecast Council, which met in January — they took the midpoint at that time — was not convened in March. It's interesting that they weren't, because they most certainly would have recommended — as Helmut Pastrick did publicly — an adjustment to that deficit figure. They would have recommended that right on the eve of the election.

But they were not allowed to convene a meeting. The Forecast Council wasn't allowed to meet and revise its estimates. It's amazing.

Now, let's not forget….

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

R. Fleming: Sorry. Time flies when you're having fun and being heckled by the governing side. But I do thank you for the time this afternoon, Madam Speaker, to take my place in this debate.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is truly a privilege to stand in this House to give my response to the budget that was presented before the members in this Legislative Assembly.

I too, like the members before me, would like to start off with recognizing and thanking a number of people. I want to start by thanking the people of Peace River South, who put their trust in me to serve them as their member of this Legislative Assembly, and for that, I am grateful and humbled.

I want to thank my campaign team, who worked tirelessly, as they do for each and every one of us during campaigns. They give of their time, they give up their family time, and they put in a great deal of effort to work and believe in what we as MLAs have to offer. I want to say a special thank-you to my campaign team and a special thank-you to my friend and campaign manager, Mr. Paul Gevatkoff, who has done tremendous work for me over the years.

I want to thank a gentleman in my constituency office back in Dawson Creek, Mr. Jim Noble. I've had the honour of working with Jim for, gosh, the better part of 15 years, since I began working with the city of Dawson Creek as an elected official. Jim served there in the capacity of clerk and then later as the chief administrative officer. In 2001, when I was elected after he had retired from the city, he came and joined me there. I want to say a heartfelt thank-you to him for the work that he does on my behalf.

A special thank-you to my family — to my wife, Vicki, and our daughters Lindsey and Taiya.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

For the 15 years since I've been involved in political life from the municipal level and then on to the provincial level, they have been my largest supporters and without hesitation have supported me in my endeavours. I can tell you that it is not without sacrifice on every person's part in a family.

I know I can speak for all of us in this House that there are days when we're sitting here that you're missing a family member's birthday or an anniversary or a special occasion, and there's that wrenching feeling in your stomach. But I can tell you that what makes it better is that you know they want you here doing the work that you were asked to do. So for that, I give my heartfelt thanks to my family.

I want to speak about the budget that's before us today, which we are debating in this Legislature, and really reflect on some numbers as I go through this.

[1530]

I want to talk about the overall budget seen in February, which produced a $39.3 billion budget on expenditures that we were going to spend to deliver the services that British Columbians want and enjoy.

Since that time we've seen significant change, but the budget that we are debating today, the September update and the new budget, is not $39.3 billion in expenses but rather $40.133 billion — an increase in expenditures. What we're debating here, I think it's fair to say — I don't want to put words in the mouth of the opposition; I've been told I shouldn't do that — is not a cut in the budget. Really, an allocation of that funding would be a better way to put it.

In comparison I can look back from '01-02. I grabbed my budget books. I keep my documents; I catch heck for that once in a while. In 2003-2004 our budget in British Columbia was $27.8 billion. Today, in 2009-10, we're debating a budget that is over $40 billion. That's a significant increase in these times that we're facing. But also with that increase comes increased services and increased challenges.

When we look at where we're headed, our 2011-2012 budget — because we roll three-year fiscal plans — is going to be $41.76 billion.

The point I'm trying to drive at here when I speak about the budget numbers is that we talk about the February budget, and we talk about the significant change in the September budget, but the most significant change that I think the public should be aware of is that there is an increase in the overall expenditures of government to deliver the services that each and every one of you want and deserve as British Columbians. I think that's extremely important.

Health care is another issue we hear a great deal about. I'm not here to tell you that our government or the previous government or future governments will have all the answers to resolve those issues.

I think this is an issue that far exceeds not just the province of British Columbia or the country of Canada but truly the entire world. We are growing at a pace with
[ Page 407 ]
the technological advancements that allow us to provide health care and services to individuals that even a short ten years ago wasn't possible — to give them the quality of life and carry on to enjoy their children and grandchildren. With that comes challenges, financial pressures, and without exception, each and every day the health care continues to grow with its challenges, as does the budget continue to grow and the demands on that budget.

A good example of this is…. I'll use the 2003-2004 time frame again. The budget for health care was $10.209 billion. Today the budget we're standing here debating in the September update is $14.156 billion, a significant increase and an increase that should be recognized. Not to say that that increase has solved all of the problems, but it isn't proper when I hear people talking about health cuts, cuts to the health care budget. Nothing is less factual that I could ever imagine.

So do we want to debate how that money is spent? I think that's fair comment. I think that's the job of opposition if they have criticism or challenges that they want to bring forward to government, or even ideas. But don't go out, anybody — whether you're a member of the opposition or a member that supports the party or somebody that just wants to speak about health care — and say that the health care budget's been cut. It's not right, it's not proper, and it's something that certainly I have a great deal of disrespect for — for anyone that would do that.

The September '09 update that we're talking about is $14.156 billion in expenditures, as I said, for health care. We talk about the increase in our three-year fiscal plan. There's an 18 percent increase in the health care budget over the next three years. It's an 18 percent increase. We aren't supposed to use props, so I encourage people to look at the budget if they would like.

Again I encourage you, with all due respect, that if the issue is where the money's being allocated, bring ideas forward. It's easy to oppose. It's far harder to bring options forward as to how those challenges can be met. I've yet to hear those.

Education as well. We have 50,000 fewer students in our schools today than we did in 2001. Now, that's nobody's fault. You can't point the finger at a changing society. Families are having fewer and fewer children for the reasons of their choice.

We have over $5 billion in our Education K-to-12 budget today — something we should be proud of. It's the highest per-pupil funding in our history and something that again, although we talk about funding, doesn't mean that our system is not facing challenges. It is.

It did during the time I went to school in K-to-12, which was a number of years ago.

[1535]

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Many years ago, as one of my colleagues would remind me.

I do remember families taking part, my mom and dad taking part. When I came home from school, they opened our school books and sat with us when they could, but they, too, led busy lives in order to provide a quality of life for me and my brother to enjoy.

I think if I could encourage families that have children in schools to do one thing, it's to try and find a few minutes each and every day — and if you can't do it each and every day, at least sometime during the week. Sit down with your child and talk to them about the school work they're doing. Find out what's on their agenda. Take an interest in what takes place. Believe me, it will make all the difference in the world to that child's life, and I think it would be a huge benefit to the family as a whole.

Our social services we hear a great deal about as well. I believe there is room for opposition. That's why we live in a democratic society. We're really celebrating democracy here today on Democracy Day. But there's a goal that we have to work together. Opposition has a role to play. It doesn't mean to oppose every single thing that the government does.

I've now served this government since 2001. I've watched, for eight consecutive budgets, and the opposition has opposed every budget. I'm surprised by that — every budget. So to hear that this one is somewhat different…. I have to tell you, as a member of the government and a member from this side of the House, that I'm not surprised at what I hear. I don't disrespect the opposition for their view. What I do ask is that they deal with the facts.

I want to talk about the Advanced Education budget as well. Our September budget shows an Advanced Education budget of over $2.1 billion in our document. Again, in comparison to '03-04 it was about $1.9 billion. Some people say that's not a great, huge increase, but it's $200 million. I don't consider that an insignificant amount of money.

One of the main issues that we deal with is people asking: what happened between February and this budget?

Interjection.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: And I hear my colleague from the opposite side saying that a lot of people are asking it. I'm going to encourage her to listen to these numbers, because she hasn't read the budget. It's clear.

Personal income taxes have gone down $881 million. That's a significant portion. Corporate income taxes are down $120 million. This is from February to the presentation of the September budget. Our social service tax revenue is down $240 million, and forestry revenue is down $222 million.

On one of the issues that I work closely with, the natural gas industry, natural gas royalties are down $492
[ Page 408 ]
million. I don't think anybody could have envisioned $2, $2.40, $2.80 gas — not in February, not a year ago — so the projected revenues have declined significantly. Since February's budget the projected revenues over our three-year fiscal plan have declined $3.9 billion. That's the issue we face today.

Nobody — government, the opposition, the public of British Columbia — can change what took place yesterday, let alone six months ago, but we can together build for the future. It's my hope, and I believe — and I honestly believe this — that it's the hope of all of us in this chamber, whether you're government or opposition, that we'll find a way to work together for the betterment of British Columbia and not — and I repeat — not carry on as we have in the past.

I don't think anybody, if they looked inside themselves and asked themselves the legitimate question of if they're proud of what takes place in question period…. If they came to the answer "yes," I can't imagine that person actually having any self-esteem inside themselves.

What we need here, I think, is the ability to carry forward. Our debt-to-GDP still is lower than it was when we took office, and it remains lower. The trend will go down once it peaks out at 18.1 percent, and 18.1 percent of debt-to-GDP is not a bad ratio.

We've maintained and actually improved on our credit rating since we took office in 2001 significantly. We now have a triple-A credit rating that is saving the taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars in debt repayment funding that we can then turn around and invest in our social programs; in our schools; in our education system, whether it be advanced education or K-to-12; in our health system. We're going to continue on that.

When I hear people talk about…. There seems to be some surprise that there were cuts made in this budget. Yes, there were. This was a difficult budget. It's not unlike any of the other budgets that I've been involved in. From '01 to '05 there were some significant challenges. There was the turnaround that I think we needed and that I think we achieved.

[1540]

Whether you're dealing with expenditures that are higher than revenue or revenue that exceeds your expenditures, the decisions that you have to make as government are difficult. In good years when you have surplus, there's pressure. People want you to spend those on new programs — new programs, on and on and on.

We made a decision to try and find the balance between implementation of new programs or enhancing existing programs on the operational side and paying down our debt. We found that balance.

Had we taken all of the revenue…. It was asked in this House. It would be unfair not to say that it was. We were asked to spend that money. "Don't hoard those surpluses. Spend the money." If we had, and if we had implemented programs with the surpluses that were available at the time, we would be facing even stiffer challenges today. So I'm proud of the fact that we paid down our debt, put forward a prudent budget even in the good times and actually have built a better quality of life for British Columbians.

I do want to touch on my ministry. I have had the honour now to serve in two different ministries, first as Minister of Community Development and now as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. For that I am extremely proud and thankful to be given this honour. This ministry runs a $70 million budget this year. It is the ministry that deals with the resource sector, from the mining and oil and gas sectors and from the electricity sectors, and it has significant opportunity for us.

I want to speak about the oil and gas sector for just a brief moment — an industry that revolves around the northeast part of this province, an area that I've grown up in. All of my life I've lived in Dawson Creek, and it's an incredible community.

This oil and gas industry in British Columbia — I do hear the opposition talk about it, and I'm going to address some of those myths that I've heard here as well — is the single-largest revenue generator from our resource industry in British Columbia. For that we should be thankful. For that we can thank the oil and gas industry for supplying revenue to help us with health care, to help us with social programs, to help us with roads, to help us with education, because without the billions of dollars we would be discussing a completely different budget here today.

We have to be competitive. I do hear some — not all — members of the opposition talk about these royalty incentive programs. How do you find money for a royalty incentive program when you have to make difficult choices? With all due respect, this isn't found money. A royalty incentive program works differently than, obviously, many of the opposition think.

We have just put forward a $50 million addition to the infrastructure royalty credit program for the oil and gas industry. That is not $50 million that flows from government. It is actually foregone revenue, once a wellhead is brought on or a new well is drilled, whether a new road is built or new pipelines are installed. So not one dollar leaves the provincial treasury in order to achieve these new impacts under stimulus packages or under royalty incentive programs. I want to make that very clear.

I've had numerous calls. Most people in my riding will either pick up the phone and call me, stop by my house or visit while we're downtown shopping. It's interesting that you get both sides. You get people asking that question, and it's a legitimate question: "How did you find that money?"

When you explain to them that this is not money that's going out the door…. This is foregone royalty revenue that we wouldn't have realized one cent of if we hadn't
[ Page 409 ]
been able to put these incentives forward and seen these new wells drilled so that we can actually carry on and deliver the services. So that has made us a very competitive jurisdiction.

As I stand here as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I'm going to tell everybody in this room and all of British Columbia that I am going to work as hard as I can to ensure that British Columbia is not one of the most competitive jurisdictions in North America but the most competitive jurisdiction in North America.

The positive return that we see from these royalty incentive programs is 2.5 to 1. For every $1 we invest and we put forward in these royalty incentive programs, the people of British Columbia see a return of $2.50. That's a pretty sound investment on behalf of British Columbians, and we're going to continue down that road.

Not only do we have a producing industry but a processing industry as well. Spectra Energy is the single largest taxpayer in the province of British Columbia. Many people don't realize that.

[1545]

We sometimes focus on oil and gas, and we talk about the major players in the production side and the people who go out and drill, but I do want to pay recognition to an industry and a company that has been around for a long, long time in British Columbia and has helped our economy greatly. That's Spectra Energy. I want to say thank you for the work that they do and for the jobs that they provide. These are good-paying jobs that allow families the quality of life they rightfully deserve.

I want to talk briefly on the mining industry. We've worked hard to bring the mining industry back in British Columbia, and we've accomplished it. We have a great deal of work still to do. We've extended the mining flow-through share credit to December 31, 2010. We've lowered corporate capital tax. We've eliminated the tax on machinery and equipment.

And what we've seen is a 1,100 percent — and that's right; 1,100 percent — increase in mineral exploration expenditures, up from $29 million in 2001 to $360 million last year. That's a positive sign. There's lots of room to improve, but let me tell you, that is very, very positive for British Columbia.

These, as well, are well-paying jobs. They provide economic opportunity for the men and women that go to work each and every day in this industry to provide what we use in our day-to-day lives. I would challenge any member of this House or this province to go through one day without utilizing something that's produced in the mining industry. I don't think we could do it. Sometimes we take far too much for granted, and we don't pay attention sometimes. I say that of myself as well, so this is not a slight against anybody else.

I want to speak about electricity, and I want to speak about B.C. Hydro and British Columbia Transmission Corporation. We made a commitment that we were going to be electricity self-sufficient in our province once again by 2016, and we will meet that goal.

Today we import roughly 12 percent of our electricity needs into British Columbia, either from Alberta or south of the border. This is not clean, renewable energy we're importing. This is something that wouldn't fit into those categories. Much of it may come from a coal-fired power industry with older technology. So we made a commitment, and we have the ability, with the diversity of opportunity we have with electricity generation in this province, to be electricity self-sufficient, as I said.

B.C. Hydro is our crown jewel. I've heard a great deal of discussion for eight years over B.C. Hydro, saying: "We heard you're going to sell it." I've heard the opposition stand in this chamber and talk about that.

I'm going to tell the people of British Columbia what I've told them for eight years and what, once again, I'm going to stand here and reiterate. We actually enshrined public ownership of B.C. Hydro into legislation in this Legislature, and it is going to remain.

We have a clean and renewable electricity industry that has an incredible future in British Columbia. We have the opportunity through wind and geothermal, through solar and tidal, as the technology advances, through biomass to produce electricity for ourselves in so many different ways — not only ourselves but to help others.

People have said: "Oh, you're talking about export of electricity." I don't think this will come as a surprise to those who have studied or followed the electricity markets in British Columbia. We've traded power for 30 years in British Columbia, and it's worked very well. On average, what it's meant is about $100 million back to the ratepayers and the taxpayers of this province, which has helped us maintain our competitive advantage when it comes to electricity pricing.

We, on average, have between the second- and fourth-lowest rates for electricity in North America. That is not going to change. We're going to continue that competitive advantage. We're going to grow the industry, and we are going to deal with that in a positive manner that will see new industry come on; clean, renewable electricity brought onto the grid. And we're going to develop and work with an industry that we think has the potential to be one of the brightest stars in British Columbia as the future moves forward.

Actually, in saying that…. We have others that have said that B.C. Hydro's not allowed to produce power anymore. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. We actually see B.C. Hydro investing $3.4 billion in infrastructure over the next two years. I'll say that again: $3.4 billion — with a "b." That's a lot of money.

It's increasing capacity. We have just recently entered into a purchase agreement for one-third of the Waneta dam, which for the ratepayers is a very positive move when you look at what it costs to produce power today
[ Page 410 ]
versus what it cost when we built the W.A.C. Bennett dam. It costs more.

Now, I do hear people say that we're going to enter this policy of buying high and selling low. I guess that's a good sound clip, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I know that the people that say it can't believe that, so they're saying it for political reasons, which is unfortunate.

[1550]

The reality is that as we produce power today, whether it be from wind, whether it be from solar, whether it be new hydroelectric projects, it costs more to produce power today than it did, as I said, 30 years ago. It costs more to buy a car today than it did years ago. Everything costs more, virtually, today than it did, whether it be labour.

I do want to reiterate that as we move forward in this global economy that we're in, the electricity market in British Columbia and our opportunity to produce clean, renewable electricity is one of the brightest spots that we have. We always, as British Columbians, demand the highest standards of everyone. I'm here today to tell you I'm very proud of the standards, the environmental regulations, that we've put in place.

We're not selling rivers, first of all. You hear that again. We ran a campaign based on this, and I think people were quite clear that they agree. There is no selling of rivers. You can't sell a river in British Columbia. So once again, I was a little disturbed at much of the rhetoric that was spewed during the campaign, and even post- and pre-campaign, on that.

I've had the opportunity to visit some run-of-the-river projects, and I encourage everybody who wants to speak on them to go and visit. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. I think that what you'll see is an environmental footprint that is minimal for the benefit that each and every one of us enjoys each and every day. I don't think there are many people in this province that want to live by candlelight anymore, but those that do, I'm sure, do it today. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm going to close on the electricity side with this — to tell you that we have not benefited to the full extent that British Columbians can with the generation of electricity. As the minister responsible for that file, I'm going to turn this resource into a benefit for all British Columbians. People will see the benefit in their rates. They will see it in the services that we deliver.

On that one, I'll close with one simple fact. Ladies and gentlemen, B.C. Hydro is not for sale and will not be for sale, ever, under our government.

I want to speak briefly about my riding. We've invested in Peace River South alone over $250 million in our road infrastructure. Now, many people that I know when I go home will say: "Well, that's nice, Blair, but we need more." I'm here to tell you that we do need more.

Like each and every one of the members in this Legislature, I'm sure there are road improvements that you can use. Many times we don't ask for pavement, like many of you have in some of the larger centres. We just ask for some good gravel, some good dust suppression, and we get that. We're moving ahead, and we have a great deal of work still to do.

We have partnered and spent millions of dollars in partnership with our communities through the many programs that we have. For that, I know from the meetings I have with the mayors and councils, they're thankful. We've developed the new Rotary Manor, which is a long-term care facility in Dawson Creek which will replace the Pouce Coupe Care Home, which is an aging facility in Pouce Coupe. This new 71-bed facility replaces the 54-bed facility in Pouce Coupe.

We have a new Northview assisted-living facility on the same site. We have 16 seniors supportive housing units at the Southview site, which is on the same site as the Rotary Manor. It is the aging in place that we all, I believe, support in this chamber. It's something that I encourage people, if they have the opportunity to visit Dawson Creek, to take a few minutes to go visit. This is truly a model for the rest of the province and something I'm very proud of.

We continue to work with Chetwynd and Tumbler Ridge. Chetwynd has just seen the announcement of a seniors housing project out there, and I'm presently working with Tumbler Ridge on this as well.

Our Fair Share revenues — a revenue agreement and a memorandum of understanding that we have with the local communities and the regional district to help offset some of the impacts of the oil and gas development on our communities — continue to grow. I know that they're thankful for that as well.

The one thing that we should try and focus on, as I come to a conclusion on this, is that the opposition opposes, and I understand that. In my understanding of politics, though, I don't believe that opposition means that you have to oppose every single thing that the government does. I do believe over the eight years….

I think as we look at this and the people of British Columbia hear these debates as they sit at home and look, that if they were to watch question period, I'm certain that they would believe that there wouldn't be a single person from this side of the House that would leave the chamber and speak to somebody from the opposition, when in fact there are friendships developed. There are friendships developed from both sides of this House.

But it is difficult to accept. I stand here and tell you that, for me, to hear somebody talk about and question the integrity of our Finance Minister and our Premier and say "government," of which I'm a proud part of — this government — and then walk out the door and want to be friends…. It's a difficult situation.

[1555]

There are ways to deal with differences. It's called respect. I think we all can learn a little bit from that and carry forward. This budget is a difficult budget. As I said,
[ Page 411 ]
every budget is a difficult budget. There were difficult choices made.

Do I wish I could stand here and say that I've not only maintained spending in every single program that government has delivered, but I've increased it and that everything will be fine and you'll all have everything you want? I can't say that. That wouldn't be responsible. But I do encourage the opposition, in their deliberations on this budget and as we go through the estimates process…. As you have questions, bring ideas forward as well. I'm always encouraged by that. I say that to my constituents, who I represent.

In closing, I think we have to look forward. Far too often we look backwards in politics, and it doesn't help. A negative attitude will breed negative results every time. A positive attitude will breed positive results. I think all of us want to build a better, brighter future for British Columbians.

I'll close with this thought. In British Columbia on our worst day we have it better than 90 percent of the world will ever enjoy on their best day.

D. Thorne: Today I am pleased to address this House on behalf of the constituents of Coquitlam-Maillardville, who have elected me to a second term. I am humbled by the many volunteers who stepped up to help with my campaign. It's tempting to name them all. They certainly deserve the credit for my victory, but I'll just say a public and sincere thank-you to all of my campaign workers today.

Campaigns are hard work. The candidate's family often bears the brunt of the long hours and high stress. I especially want to thank my husband, Neil, who has put up with me and my assorted careers for more than 42 years. He has always been a tremendous help to me, and this campaign was no exception.

Also working hard on my campaign were my sons, Jay and Lee; their partners, Tina and Sylwia; and my brother John Thorne. As always, I am deeply in their debt. I often wonder if the real reason they work so hard for me is that they just can't imagine what they would do with mom if she wasn't re-elected.

I would like to congratulate, as well, the other 84 MLAs on their successful election campaigns, and my congratulations to the Speaker and to his deputies, including yourself, Madam Speaker.

Of course, my participation in this House would not be possible without the hard work of Joy and Laura in my Coquitlam constituency office and the talents of our wonderful staff in Victoria. I'd also like to say hello and thank you to my past caucus colleagues who are no longer in the Legislature with us.

I represent one of the most diverse ridings in this province, where residents speak an astonishing 52 different languages. We have a large Asian population, with people of Chinese, Taiwanese, Vietnamese and Korean descent.

As well, the Tri-Cities — which encompass Belcarra and Anmore, as well as Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and of course Coquitlam — is a popular destination for government-sponsored refugees. Recently a large number of Bhutanese refugees made the Tri-Cities their new home. I'm proud to say that our community has given them a warm welcome.

My riding includes what is known as central Coquitlam, along with the historic community of Maillardville, which is where the city of Coquitlam was founded in 1891. French-speaking workers recruited for the Fraser Mills brought their dynamic culture with them. Sadly, Fraser Mills is now closed, but the francophone culture still thrives, thanks to the many volunteer organizations which keep Maillardville dynamic and the spirit of that community alive.

Now, 2009 is the 100th anniversary of Maillardville, an important year for all of us, both French- and English-speaking. The 100th anniversary is being celebrated with numerous fun, historic events all over our community, coordinated by the Société francophone de Maillardville, in the capable hands of Mme. Johanne Dumas.

[1600]

Festival du Bois — which draws thousands of visitors from around the Lower Mainland, western Canada and the United States — is a foot-stomping celebration of all aspects of the francophone culture, especially music. You can listen to francophone choirs and entertainers, enjoy maple sugar candy and other delicacies. You can also dance the night away. I would not miss it, and indeed I rarely have.

I have lived in the Coquitlam area for more than 35 years, and I love this city. Serving as a Coquitlam city councillor for nine years enabled me to meet thousands of residents and really get to know the city well. I am a member of several community organizations, and my work with the city and the many community volunteers has provided me with a strong foundation for my current job as MLA.

The city of Coquitlam is part of school district 43, a district that has an exceptional provincial reputation for innovation and excellence. Neil and I were fortunate to be able to raise our family here. Our sons attended district 43's fine Montessori and French immersion programs before furthering their education at Douglas College's David Lam campus in Coquitlam.

Located in the northeast sector of the Lower Mainland, 25 kilometres east of Vancouver, Coquitlam-Maillardville has a population of approximately 50,000 people. While it is an urban area, it does not lack parks and green space.

The urban forest that is Mundy Park has wide bark-mulch trails that are popular with joggers and dog walkers. Colony Farm is a popular regional destination for a scenic walk and is especially enjoyed by seniors and families in Coquitlam-Maillardville. Blue Mountain
[ Page 412 ]
Park, with its tall trees and children's water park, is definitely the place to be on a sunny summer day. We can't forget Mackin Park in Maillardville, which has some of the area's very best sports fields.

As well, my riding includes the historic and beautiful Riverview lands, one of the last large green spaces in the Lower Mainland. Once again, I must express my concerns about the future of these Riverview lands. This is an issue that resonates in my riding — indeed, in all of the Tri-Cities — and certainly was front and centre in the election campaign.

My fear is that as this government becomes increasingly hungry for funds, it will see this wonderful site as the answer to its prayers. "Hooray, we can build lots of expensive condos and toss more money into the treasury." That's what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid that this has been the plan for some time, and the only thing that has stopped it now is the downturn in the condo market.

As the housing market is starting to pick up again, we are all watching out in my riding and across the Tri-Cities. I can assure this House that people in my riding and across the Tri-Cities, myself amongst them, will again be chained to the trees when the bulldozers arrive. This land must be preserved for its environmental value and for the needs of those with mental illness. Market housing should never be an option for these lands.

Like me, my constituents have many concerns about this budget. It is a very real attack on the middle class — there is no doubt about that — with the harmonized sales tax and the yearly increases to MSP, which happens to be the one tax that people hate even more than the HST.

Cuts in gaming grants have decimated many arts and culture groups in my riding and across the province and have left this sector in chaos.

Poorly publicized cuts to community grants, as well, across this province have resulted in the cancellation of programs and services that addressed violence against women and children.

School boards, including my own, are reeling as funding is cancelled for facility grants, parent advisory councils and the B.C. School Sports program.

All of this on top of notification that there will be no additional funding, not even for the new precautionary guidelines for H1N1 prevention.

Health care cutbacks and significant cuts in the Ministry of Environment both add insult to injury. The list is endless.

[1605]

This attack on the middle class continues with this HST, a $1.9 billion tax shift from business to consumers. Families will be paying more for most food items, land-line phone bills, school supplies, hydro and heating bills, haircuts, home renovations, newspapers and magazines, domestic airline tickets, vitamins, bicycles and funerals.

I call this the spring and summer of deception, because if this government had told voters the truth about their plans for the HST and the increased budget deficit and the legion of cutbacks, I doubt very much if they would have been elected.

Once again, this government has tabled the largest deficit in the province's history. Of course they kept this information quiet during the campaign and instead presented themselves as good financial managers. Hogwash, Madam Speaker.

This government has not planned for the future. It has just brought in more taxes and cuts to services on top of the cuts they made in February.

Let's start with the cuts to health care. I can't count the number of times I heard this Premier and his candidates say that they would protect health care, that British Columbians had nothing to fear from a Liberal government. Well, guess what. They kept the horrible truth from the people of B.C. And this was not a little hamburger; it's a big whopper.

Thanks to these deep cuts, the Fraser Health Authority, which includes my riding, will see 9,900 fewer surgeries, downgraded emergency rooms, reduced diagnostic services, and assistance for men, women and youth with mental health and addiction issues cut drastically. These services were underfunded prior to these cuts. Now it will be even harder for some of our most vulnerable residents.

I'd like to remind the Premier that health care is about people who are sick and in pain. We will see dramatically longer wait times for all kinds of procedures. For example, local surgeons are telling me that they are already seeing a 30 percent cut in their surgeries.

Look out for longer waits in emergency rooms. With the release of last year's statistics showing B.C. as one of the lowest MRI usage rates in Canada, one can only wonder how long it will take us to be the lowest.

We are also going to see permanent damage to our health care system, which is the dirty little secret that the Liberals are not telling the people of this province. Closing programs forces the people who operate these programs to move on, often out of the province. Doctors, nurses and technicians will be moving on as their hours and programs are cut.

And for this reduced service, the people of B.C. will be paying more. MSP premiums will increase approximately 6 percent this year and will continue to increase annually, tied to the increased cost in health care. Combined with the HST, that is a financial burden that many, many families cannot afford.

Thanks to these budget cuts, we will see at least three tri-city programs for seniors and the disabled axed. The Chimo Achievement Centre has been a well-respected feature in the community for many, many years. The Lakeshore Care Centre's adult program will also be terminated next January. Worse — if there is a worse
[ Page 413 ]
— the volunteer-run peer counselling program at the Dogwood seniors centre has been axed.

I have received letters from many constituents who participate in these programs. They are in shock when they find out that their programs are on the chopping block — programs, they say, which are life-savers not just for themselves but for their families. At the same time, if we can believe it, residential care beds are closing.

Any program that helps seniors to stay safely and happily in their own homes saves money in the long run. That's just basic common sense, but somehow this government can't seem to see that.

I said many times during the campaign and in the last four or five years that the fastest way to free up hospital beds is to open more long-term beds for seniors — not close them — then move people from acute care hospitals and emergency room beds and free up these beds for the sick people who need them. I see nothing in this budget that indicates this kind of planning.

[1610]

Moving to my critic area, as the new deputy critic for Education, Early Learning and Literacy, the Liberals' lack of foresight in their approach to education has quickly become apparent to me. We have seen a budget cut of almost $136 million. School districts have been told that their operating grants will not be increasing and that they cannot run a deficit.

How will school boards be able to present the balanced budget that is mandated without cutting services? With higher MSP premiums to pay, negotiated wage increases, cuts to annual facility grants, a clawback of holdback funding, the unbelievable cut of $130,000 to the B.C. School Sports association — all of these cuts downgraded to school districts, parents and students. Very petty, especially in this year of the free-spending Olympics.

Let's look back at the first day of school. Was there anyone in this province that wasn't stunned by the juxtaposition of announcements coming out of the Education Ministry? Parent advisory funding cut in half; sports funding cancelled. But the announcement of a $500,000 investment in spirit schools, whatever that is, to help children understand and celebrate the Olympics apparently. One assumes that these children would already be celebrating in many ways — walking, dancing and playing in the park perhaps.

In my school district I fear that the cut in facility grant funding will mean that maintenance projects will be postponed. School district 43 board chair Melissa Hyndes said in a letter to MLAs that the board "depends on funding to repair and upgrade aging facilities to help ensure safe and healthy environments for its staff and students." I would think that would probably be something we would all know, but apparently this government doesn't feel it's important to put that money into safety issues.

Meanwhile, the government has also failed to live up to its legislation — its own legislation, I might add — on class size and composition. If estimates are correct, more than 11,000 classes are in violation. What does this government expect school boards to do? Where is the commitment to educational excellence that we all heard about, when budgets will not accommodate more teachers and smaller classes?

For several years we have been talking about the concept of all-day kindergarten, a concept which I must say I fully support. My own children were in all-day kindergarten 25 years ago, but I was lucky enough to be able to pay for this wonderful service. Many of my constituents cannot do that, and they have concerns about the way this program may be phased in.

We have heard no specific criteria regarding how many districts and how many classes. Will wealthier school districts qualify ahead of poorer districts — which, one could argue, need this program more? The fear is that we could end up with have and have-not school districts. Frankly, I wonder how we can talk at all about all-day kindergarten in a political context where there isn't enough funding for current programs and services.

Why, this government is not even following its own laws on class size and composition. Michael McEvoy, a greater Victoria school trustee and vice-president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, told the Times Colonist that he was surprised by the step toward full-time kindergarten at this time. He said: "Many of us were actually mystified about this announcement, given the cutbacks in all sorts of spheres and the loss, for example, of the annual facilities grant for school districts. We have to make sure that the present programs that we have are adequately funded, and we have been advocating that for some time."

Along with education, my critic responsibilities include libraries and literacy. There have been deep cuts which will impact on every community in B.C. September 8 was International Literacy Day. The Liberal government, though, began celebrating in July by cutting the funding of all 16 regional literacy coordinators. The celebration continued several weeks later, when Literacy B.C.'s budget was slashed by $60,000. Locally, the Coquitlam Public Library is operating with a 22 percent budget cut. Let's hope the celebrations are over.

[1615]

Literacy skills have an enormous impact on an individual's employability, income and health, which are all important factors to a recovering economy. According to the Canadian Council on Learning, 41 percent of adults — which is 16 years and over — in Vancouver are categorized at level 2 or lower in literacy.

In 2005 the provincial government announced with great hoopla its five great goals for a golden decade. Just an aside: I think the tarnish has come off the golden decade and the great goals, because the first goal was
[ Page 414 ]
to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent. Unfortunately for those estimated one million British Columbians with poor literacy skills, these cuts come at a tremendous personal loss. For British Columbia, this impact hits at both an economic and a social level.

For example, let's look at the Books for Babies program — a very successful provincewide program that promoted literacy by encouraging parents to read to their children. This has been eliminated. The Coquitlam Public Library is struggling to keep this program going, but the 2009 supplies are running out. The impact of the 22 percent cuts on our local libraries has yet to be fully measured.

Regardless of their socioeconomic class, children and adults depend on their public library. I urge all members of this House to speak with the director of their public library to find out what the cuts in operating grants mean in their own communities.

While this government doesn't appear to care much about education or health care, it certainly does love gambling. This government has expanded the amount people can gamble on line from $120 a week to $9,999 per week. Yes, Madam Speaker, $9,999 per week. According to the B.C. Lottery Corporation, this change was made to reflect best practices within the industry, providing players with the opportunity to set their limit and play within it. One wonders if the payday loan companies helped set the best practice policy for B.C. Lotteries.

As mentioned earlier, addiction services are also being cut. Problem gamblers — who cares? Not this government. I suspect this increase is because the slowdown in the economy is being felt in the casinos, and their revenue is down. That means the government isn't getting the amount it, well, gambled on.

Before we leave the subject of casino funds, I have to say that I feel there is something really unsavoury and downright dangerous about essential services being funded by gambling dollars, a fluctuating source of revenue. This is not a reliable source of funding, and essential services should never be funded except by the reliability of government ministry funding. For example, recently it was announced that funding for CommunityLINK, an essential service for vulnerable school children, will be moved from the Ministry of Education budget to the gambling grant program — a move that I believe puts vulnerable children at even more risk.

The cuts in the arts, culture and heritage community have been deep. Because art groups fought back, threatening a class action lawsuit, a portion of this funding has been restored. Unfortunately, the picture remains bleak, as these cuts are devastating and will throw the future of many organizations into doubt.

In my community Theatrix Youtheatre is in a quandary, waiting to hear if they even have a future. Ironically, this is a sector which actually grows our economy, bringing back $1.38 in taxes for every single dollar invested. That information is from a study conducted by the B.C. government.

This government is proud of the potential revenue, and often talks about it, that is being and will be generated by the 2010 Olympics. It's too bad this government doesn't also recognize the proven, ongoing financial contribution that the arts, culture and heritage community brings to our economy.

It saddens me to note that B.C. now has the lowest minimum wage in the country, and there is nothing in this budget to change that. Previously we were tied with New Brunswick, but that province has hiked its minimum wage, leaving British Columbia to hold down the bottom space all by itself.

[1620]

Nearly 60,000 people in B.C. earned $8 an hour last year, while nearly 300,000 earned less than $10 an hour. If this government couldn't raise the minimum wage when times were good, God only knows it won't when times are tough. They should be embarrassed and hang their heads in shame. But of course they aren't, spouting the usual nonsense about protecting the economy. I can tell you with absolute confidence that if our minimum-wage workers got another $2 an hour, that money would be back in the local economy probably before dinnertime.

In my community the Share Society runs the local food bank, and it is struggling to keep its doors open. The number of people using the service, especially working families — the people I'm referring to, obviously — has increased dramatically. The single largest group using the food bank is children — hardly an advertisement for the best place on earth.

Perhaps we need a poverty czar to figure out why a province as rich as this one has the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for the sixth year in a row. I wouldn't bet on this government addressing a plan to conquer poverty anytime soon.

I'd also like to just say a few things about the environment, which is very important in my riding. We're fortunate in the Tri-Cities to have many community groups that offer education and conservation programs, watershed protection, watchdog services and members who act as environmental advocates to all levels of government.

We have extremely involved teachers and students as well, like the grade 3 class at Meadowbrook Elementary that did a magnificent project last spring on fish farms — a subject that I think Madam Speaker herself is very interested in. They wrote letters to the Environment Minister asking that open-net fish farms be stopped — a position that I and my caucus happen to support.

I hope that they will get letters back from the Environment Minister, where they will discuss how they are going to move in this environmentally good position. There was little in this budget so far that would
[ Page 415 ]
show there would be any help in their efforts. So we look forward to the future and seeing something in that area.

But $25 million or 11.5 percent has been chopped from the Environment Ministry, with more cuts expected in the next three years. The ministry's environmental stewardship division, which protects fish and wildlife habitat and B.C.'s 2,000 species at risk, was cut by $4 million. Shame, Madam Speaker.

Also, the popular LiveSmart program was eliminated, so now we'll see fewer families encouraged to lower their carbon footprint. Global warming doesn't seem to be a concern anymore, as the new HST will also apply to green transportation alternatives like bicycles as well as to energy-efficient appliances. There will be, however, tax breaks. Unfortunately, they will apply only to the carbon-emitting oil and gas industry.

Environmental issues translate into transportation issues, especially in my riding — a huge concern in Coquitlam-Maillardville where we are waiting and waiting and waiting for the Evergreen line. While there is a $5 million increase to rapid transit projects and a $6 million increase to buses and other transit priorities, there is a $5 million cut to the Evergreen line. Yes, Madam Speaker, this budget is cutting a transit line that doesn't even exist yet. This does not bode well for my riding, where we refer to it as the Nevergreen line. That's the new name for it in Coquitlam — the Nevergreen line.

As the former critic for Housing, I want to speak for the thousands of British Columbians, including the homeless, who need affordable, safe housing. In the latest homeless count, the Tri-Cities had the largest percentage increase of homelessness in British Columbia. It saddens my constituents that the funding for our proposed shelter has been delayed and that there was nothing in this budget to bring it forward.

[1625]

However, thank goodness, once again the community has come together to provide temporary shelters in some local churches. I wish to thank those community members for their extraordinary efforts which, if this government continues to neglect our shelter in Coquitlam, will go on for a long, long time.

Unfortunately, I see no new housing plans in this budget. Perhaps naively, I had hoped for some action on non-profit housing and support for cooperative housing. I am disappointed but not surprised that this government continues to ignore the very real needs of a large segment of our population.

In closing, I'd just like to say that as many in this House know, I grew up on the island of Newfoundland. I mention this because all of us, wherever we are from, bring our past with us as we make decisions that will affect the future of this wonderful province that we now call home.

My heritage is one reason why I am a social democrat. Let me explain. In Newfoundland outports, isolated for much of the year, families only had each other to rely on. When food was running low and children were going hungry, the first boatload of cod was a joyous occasion, divided evenly among the families so everyone could fill their bellies.

I believe we need to consider our neighbours' needs as well as our own. It is my heritage and my upbringing that make me feel that way. If any children are hungry, how can we possibly enjoy our own dinner? If our neighbours can't afford to heat their home, how can we bask in our own toasty house?

As history has taught us, ignorance is never an excuse. Too often we don't see needs because we don't look. I think it is time for all 85 MLAs to start looking.

Hon. I. Chong: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by offering congratulations to you as Assistant Deputy Speaker for this chamber. I heard your comments when you made your remarks at throne speech, and I know that you're going to endeavour to ensure that the decorum of the House is maintained — and civility — and, from the chair that you sit in, to offer fairness on both sides. I appreciate those comments that you make.

I want to also offer my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker, the member for Richmond East, who is taking on her role as Deputy Speaker for the first time. I know that Mr. Speaker, who has had one term as Speaker, will enjoy the second term as well.

This is my first opportunity to actually speak to a debate during this session. I want to, as others have done before me, offer some opening remarks in the sense of gratitude — first and foremost, to say thank you to the electors who voted for me. This was, in fact, my fourth provincial election — 1996 being the very first one — and never have I ever taken the voters for granted.

Each and every time to get out into the riding, to knock on the number of doors and be able to connect with people that you grew up with…. So many of the people in my constituency still do live in the homes where they grew up.

I also want to say thank you to an incredible team that I had on my campaign. As I say, each and every election brings on new characteristics and new personalities, but this particular team I was most proud of. We didn't feel like we were working at anything. We were all enjoying each other's company, so much so that we were able to ensure that the 28 days during the election writ occurred in a way that was pleasant and certainly meaningful.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

So thank you to my campaign manager Lynne Henderson, who is a community leader and who has been asked by so many people to help raise funds on a variety of initiatives throughout the city here. She is
[ Page 416 ]
known by so many of us throughout the greater Victoria area as someone who, when asked to help, is there. She chaired an incredible United Way campaign, I remember, here in greater Victoria one year. It was a daunting task, and she had a remarkable success.

[1630]

I also want to thank a number of others who worked on my campaign team. I'm not going to mention their last names because I think it may embarrass them. Let me just say thank you to Debbie, Martina, Lisa, Sabrina, Bill, Grace and Sandra, who worked tirelessly in the campaign office and who came in each and every day and gave me the kind of support that all candidates should have; to David, my financial agent; to Michael, my fundraising chair; to Harry and Brian, my signs coordinators. Again, an amazing group of volunteers and, more importantly, all of whom I value as friends, firstly.

I want to also say to my opposing candidates, Jessica from the NDP party and Steven from the Green Party…. No doubt, they were there for the same reason I was. They wanted to put themselves forward to represent their constituents. They wanted to be able to make a difference to their community, as I'm sure each and every one of us did when we ran. Whether it's your first time or whether it's your fourth time or whether it will be your seventh time, you're there because you want to give back to a community — and especially in my case.

I wanted to give back to a community where I was raised, where I went to school, where I went to elementary school, junior high school and where I graduated from my senior high school at Mount Doug Secondary. I felt that I was best able to represent the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head because of that, and I want to thank all those constituents, all those voters, those that did turn out to vote, who placed their confidence and their trust in me one more time.

I want to welcome the new members to this House, to this chamber, and I want to, in particular, pay a special welcome to the new member for Delta South, an independent member. I know it will be a new experience for her. Although — and I hope she understands — I would have certainly preferred to see my good friend and colleague Wally Oppal in that particular riding, I know that she will do her best to support the constituents that placed their confidence and trust in her as well.

Regardless, I want to wish new members on both sides of the House a rewarding and positive experience in this their first term. I know it can be very daunting when you rise in this chamber to speak for the very first time. Even though it's been over 13 years since I first had my inaugural speech, I am always honoured. I feel very privileged to be able to rise in what I think is a spectacular chamber and one of the most beautiful Legislatures, I understand, across the country.

Again, to say that I'm honoured and privileged is, I think, an understatement — to have this opportunity to serve. I've said this on occasions before, but I want to say so once again. We live in a province with close to or perhaps more than 4.5 million people, and there are only 85 of these jobs. Each one of us here has one of those jobs. If that is not an incredible opportunity, I don't know what is. So that is just a wonderful opportunity of a lifetime.

I want as well to speak a little about my constituency, Oak Bay–Gordon Head. While it has changed in two various elections — the boundaries — I still feel very connected to all the new additions and to some of the deletions that have taken place. Still, in my heart, to me, Oak Bay–Gordon Head will be the largest portion that I can possibly encompass. Sometimes I know that it overflows into the riding of Saanich South, because so many of my friends and neighbours in what we call Gordon Head are now considered in Saanich South. I very much want to be able to still say that I feel connected to them.

It is an amazing constituency. There are many seniors who still live independently in their own homes. When I knocked on their doors, I have to admit that I was surprised to see a few of them. When I asked if they would take a lawn sign, I again was surprised that they were still so engaged that they would support me in that fashion.

What I'm also seeing in my riding is the fact that 40 years ago, it was very much a young community. The young people had moved out for a variety of reasons. What I'm seeing now is young families re-establishing in neighbourhoods — not just in Oak Bay but in Gordon Head. And Gordon Head in Saanich is very much a family-oriented community. There are still some fairly large homes with large back yards, which is one of the reasons why, if you have a large family, you look for some extra green space in that way.

[1635]

We have some incredible schools in this riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, and I was very grateful to see some of these older schools receive some of the seismic upgrades that were so needed. The former Minister of Education, now the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, was very instrumental in ensuring that those schools were upgraded.

Monterey Elementary, Gordon Head Middle School, Mount Doug senior — my alma mater — and Oak Bay high school, which is on the list to be seismically upgraded and which actually now is considering a complete teardown and a new building, because it is so much older than all the others. I can't wait for that day when that project commences.

I was also able in the last number of months to attend a number of elementary schools which had playground improvements and upgrades. That was important. It's
[ Page 417 ]
been a long time since I was at a playground, especially at a school. When I attended Braefoot Elementary and at Hillcrest Elementary, seeing the new kind of equipment that was necessary to protect our children as they had physical activity and played was important.

No longer did you have some of this playground equipment that had wooden features to it. Although wood is good — I want the Minister of Forests to know that wood is good — when children are playing and the wood dries out, the chances of splinters and the accidents that can happen are somewhat dangerous. So I was happy to see those upgrades to those various playgrounds, and I know members around the province benefited from those as well.

I want to speak about some of the community projects that also took place, not just in the past year, but over the 13 years that I have had the privilege of serving as MLA. Community projects like the Windsor Park pavilion in Oak Bay. It has a huge community component in the sense that so many activities take place there. A great big field where large gatherings occur, but at the same time a pavilion where, indoors, people can hold art classes, seniors can have group meetings — things such as that.

Gordon Head Rec Centre improvements. The San Juan Greenway as well, which was funded through the LocalMotion project which, again, provided more opportunities for mobility, especially for our seniors and our communities, more opportunity for physical activity.

Our Shelbourne Street is still undergoing the sidewalk improvements in terms of the curbs. Again, this is about accessibility. About 15 years ago, when the curbs were first put in, they were done in a way that perhaps provided for a wheelchair or a very narrow wheelchair or walker in that sense. Things have changed so much. Now it is important that the curbs, as they are upgraded, are such that they provide for much more range and larger mobility devices, for allowing access.

As well, the Oak Bay bike lanes along Foul Bay Road. Those too are important because that is a commuter route, particularly to the University of Victoria.

That is another jewel, another asset in the riding that I represent — a research university, the University of Victoria, where the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions is housed. An incredible opportunity for that university.

Generally, you would have thought that that might have been housed at a university on the mainland, but the University of Victoria proved itself when it applied for that funding. Some $94.5 million was provided to the University of Victoria, and I know they're working with the other research universities as well as other agencies, other organizations, to really delve into climate solutions, because we all do want to reduce our greenhouse gases.

We all want to reduce our carbon footprint, and each and every day as I hear others doing simple things in their personal lives, I too am taking up some of those initiatives. In fact, as simple as it sounds, when you see that clotheslines are coming back to backyards…. I now don't use my dryer as often, because I have one of those indoor clothes drying racks. Simple things, but I know they're making a difference.

The fact that I'm driving a more fuel-efficient vehicle — although I can only fit one passenger beside myself in it, which sometimes has its good points — means that I'm reducing my carbon footprint as well. It's a smart decision, because it's a Smart car. So I would encourage others, and I know there are other members in this House who also have taken advantage of that. Using biodiesel as well means, again, a reduction of greenhouse gases.

[1640]

I will continue to look at things that I can do. I think we've all stated before, and I know we will all continue to say, that it takes each one of us to make a few small changes and a few small steps, and we are going to contribute to a much larger solution to this very large problem.

I want to turn my remarks now, of course, to some of the areas of responsibility that I have and speak to the fact that this budget that was introduced on September 1 is certainly a budget that I'm going to support. I don't want that to be of any question. I know or expect that the opposition won't be supporting the budget, as is generally the case, but here and now I definitely want to state for the record that I want to support this budget. It offers, in today's difficult, challenging economic time, a solution. It offers real purpose for our citizens of British Columbia as we move forward.

To suggest that budgets, when they are compiled, are done in a way that makes everyone's life easier or that is the solution to everyone's problem is just not possible. What is possible is to provide solutions that for as many people as possible are going to make a difference in their lives, in their communities, not just for your own generation but for your children's generation and your grandchildren's generation. That's what Budget 2009 is about.

The state of the world economy has impacted all of us. No jurisdiction is left unaffected. British Columbia is not without exception. When the Minister of Finance brought in his updated budget on September 1, I know it looked very different than in February 2009, but so much had changed in seven months.

For the opposition to suggest that everybody knew this was coming, I think, is really unrealistic, because the Minister of Finance has, for every year that we've been government, worked with this independent Economic Forecast Council — 12 of the leading economists across the country — which comes to a consensus on a number of figures, a number of estimates. If they were truly able to predict the future, then perhaps they would have predicted that we would not be in this situation, but no one
[ Page 418 ]
can ever predict to that kind of certainty. All you can do, as forecasters, is do the very best to look at trends and make your predictions based on that.

I admit that I am not an economist, but I am a professional accountant. My training and studying has brought me to a different kind of understanding. While I don't try to predict numbers, I know my job. I try to use my training and my background here in this particular place, in this chamber. The role that I have is to analyze numbers, to evaluate them in a way so that at least we can maximize the benefits of those scarce resources we have, take a look at the potential to do more and look at synergies, if at all possible.

I'm not going to predict what so many others would like to suggest — that they know what to do. If that were so, I'm sure I wouldn't be here. I would probably be on a sunny beach somewhere in one of my 30 homes around the world. That's perhaps what I would be able to do if I were able to predict currency, if I were able to predict commodity prices. I would be in a much, much more financially advantaged position.

Those of us who are here bring our talents, and I think we bring them forward and use them in the best way we can to contribute — not just here but, as I say, back in our communities. I want to assure British Columbians that as a member of this government, I will do everything possible so that our province is put in the best possible position moving forward, so that when we come out of this economic recession, British Columbia is even stronger than when we began a year ago.

[1645]

British Columbia has unique assets. I've mentioned a few that are in my riding. I know that as member upon member rises and talks about their constituency, as I expect they should, they will talk about those assets in their ridings, not only about the beautiful beaches or the mountains or the green space or the lakes or the rivers that run through their communities but even some of their heritage buildings that exist. But most important are the people in our constituencies. They make us who we are, because we are a part of them.

We've all chosen to live in British Columbia for a reason. In my case, I was born here. I've just chosen never to leave. I think that's a good thing, because I can't think of another place to live. Truly, British Columbia to me is the best place on earth. You know, we've seen report upon report indicating that some of the best cities to live in, in the world are here in British Columbia. Victoria has been chosen. Vancouver Island has been chosen as one of the best islands to visit or to live on.

Vancouver is one of the most livable, sustainable cities. I know there are members opposite, many of whom represent cities on the Lower Mainland, of course, in the Metro Vancouver area, and they, too, must feel very proud.

It is the spirit of our communities. It is our climate. As I say, it's our resources and our people who give us this tremendous opportunity to praise our province, to boast about our province, at every opportunity we can, to our visitors. What we need to do is to showcase this province. That's what we're going to do in February 2010 when we welcome the world to our 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This budget speaks about difficult economic times, and I want to say that we have honoured our commitment to protect and enhance health care services, those services that the public depend upon. There has been record spending in health care.

I know it would seem practical for those in opposition to suggest that there are cuts in health care — that is what I think the opposition wants to portray out there — but you cannot deny the fact that in 2000-2001, before we formed government, the operating budget for health care was about $8.6 billion — a large amount, not to deny that. But since then, eight years later, it's over $15 billion, tracking up to $17 billion. That is a record level of spending in health care.

We have been clear about our commitment to health care spending, and we will continue to spend the health care dollars in the most wise and prudent ways. But we are also going to ask the public to help us find ways to make those dollars be more efficient. But mark my words. I want to say emphatically here that I would hope that members opposite here would begin to appreciate the fact that the health care budget has increased each and every year.

Education as well. Record levels of spending in education at a time when we have declining enrolment. I never expected in my lifetime to see the kind of drastic declining enrolment that I have seen in these past 13 years. We have some 7,000 fewer students this year, as the Minister of Education has indicated — 60,000 fewer than just eight years ago. But the dollars that are going to education continue. Why do they continue? Because we are committed to making sure that our young people have the best learning opportunities possible.

Next year, when we're able to introduce voluntary kindergarten at the five-year-old level, I will just be delighted to see parents take up that opportunity. I know they will want to see their children do their very best at the earliest stage possible.

So much of our provincial budget is spent on those two key areas, health care and education. I know it has been stated before, but if we do not find a way to sustain especially health care, it will consume every tax dollar that comes into this province, every resource dollar that we're able to achieve or to receive, to the extent that all other services will be jeopardized.

[1650]

So that's one of the reasons why we're having these very difficult decisions that our government has been making. We know that if we continue to spend and not make any changes, we're not going to see any new
[ Page 419 ]
results. We're not going to have things change. So while we'll maintain health care and education and vital social services, all other ministries across government are looking for savings, saying: "What is it that we cannot do this year?"

Families are having to make these choices in their homes. Families are having to, perhaps, reduce their vacations from three to two weeks or perhaps even one. Families are even deciding to use one less vehicle in their family, if they have more than one. They're car-pooling. They're taking a look at alternate forms of commuting, because they know that to get through this difficult, challenging economic downturn, they have to make difficult choices.

Those parents and grandparents who are making those choices, as difficult as they are, are not just doing it for themselves. They are doing it for their children. So this, too, is what Budget 2009 is about.

You know, it would be the easiest thing to increase the size of the budget to a larger deficit. But at the end of that, what will that do? That will just add on to the burden of our children and our grandchildren. So we are committed to get ourselves back in a surplus position as quickly as possible, and every surplus dollar that we can get, we will put back down on this operating deficit that will have grown over these next number of years because of the deficits that we have had to bring in.

When we see other jurisdictions increasing the size of their annual budget deficits…. In particular, Alberta's is almost three times the size of ours, although they have a million less people. That's not sustainable.

The reason why we need to ensure that we have a budget that is prudent and a budget that we can meet is because we have outside agencies watching us, outside agencies who can make the difference as to whether our expenditures go up. Those are the bond-rating agencies. The bond-rating agencies, if they lose confidence in this government's ability to be good financial managers, will give us a downgrade.

I know the NDP may not want to hear it, but during their decade there were credit downgrades, and those credit downgrades cost real money. It means that debt-servicing costs and interest costs have to be paid. That means that other vital social service programs or health care dollars don't get funded. It's not what we want to do.

We have to ensure that the triple-A credit rating that we have, and that the federal government has, is maintained, because that puts us in a so much better financial position than other jurisdictions, and that will hold us in good stead as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak to a few areas that I currently have responsibility for. I have had the honour of serving in a number of portfolios in my time here, and especially in government for eight years. I counted the various certificates, and I'm now up to six.

I want to say that each and every time I've had a different ministerial portfolio and responsibility, I have had the opportunity to work with an amazing group of professional public servants. From the deputy minister right down to the person who greets me at the door at the ministry office, each and every one of them comes to work with professionalism, dedication and commitment. I want to applaud each and every one of them in all the ministries that I've had the pleasure of serving with.

I know that other ministers will feel very passionate about their colleagues and who they work with, but I can say most assuredly that I very much am enjoying the people I have met through the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport. They bring such an array of experience and background to this ministry, and again, I cannot overstate how valuable they are in helping us look at new and innovative and creative ways to provide the best services and programs that we can in British Columbia, given the very tight fiscal situation we're in.

[1655]

Right now, the public service individuals in my riding are looking at things like healthy living — healthy living in terms of prevention. It's so important because if we can stop one unnecessary chronic illness, if we can reduce diabetes, if we can reduce the rates of obesity that are occurring in our youth, it means they're not going to need some of those services for the very debilitating illnesses as they get older.

We want to make sure that our young people do continue to increase their life span. That's not happening. In fact, the trend is going backwards, if you can believe it. They say the generation of children now will not live as long as their grandparents. That's not good enough.

Here in British Columbia, through our ActNow B.C. initiative, we've had success. We are being monitored by the World Health Organization, who are saying: "British Columbia, you're leading the country. In fact, we want to showcase your model because the World Health Organization is all about healthy lifestyles and how we make that happen and those easy choices."

I see that the green light is on, which means I have barely a minute and I have to go. You know, I have 17 pages here, and I'm only on page 6, so that can tell you I have….

Again, I say there is always so much honour and privilege you feel when you rise in this chamber. So many feelings and emotions overcome you because of this opportunity. But so, too, do all the people that you want to represent and all the individuals that you've met over your time that you want to pay respect to here in this chamber. I hope that as every member rises and gives a response, whether to the budget or the throne or performs their inaugural, they will feel that first time all the time.

G. Coons: I had the opportunity during the throne speech to acknowledge and congratulate everybody for their re-election, to welcome the new member for
[ Page 420 ]
Delta South and to acknowledge and congratulate the Speakers for their elections.

I also would like to acknowledge the staff in my office — again, Erika Rolston, Pauline Woodrow and of course, Lucy Mears — here in the Legislature.

When we talk about the budgets over the last four or five years, they're theme park budgets, you know, and it just seems that this House is treated as a theme park for this Liberal government. First we had the seniors budget. This was presented after senior citizens protested government health and service cuts. And they are still protesting.

They're protesting the HST. When we look at Sylvia MacLeay, the president of the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C., she says: "I'm very disappointed that the Premier has decided to increase sales tax just three months after he promised he wouldn't do it. I know the Premier says the HST will be good for big corporations. It's a shame he doesn't seem to realize it's going to hurt the elderly and their families. It doesn't do much for his credibility either."

Again, that's just a symptom of the theme park budgets we have from this Liberal government. Senior citizens are advertising the Fight the HST rally on September 19, this Saturday, at noon at Canada Place, along with dozens of others throughout the province.

In 2006 there was the children's budget. You know, that theme was a reaction to the government's mishandling of children's death files and the coroner's report on the death of Sherry Charlie. We saw the end result of that, and we're still looking for ramifications to children from the actions of this government.

The 2007 housing theme came after protests by homeless groups across B.C. Even municipal politicians in Liberal strongholds like Kelowna called on the Premier to raise welfare rates to get the homeless off the streets.

We had the so-called green budget, and this government, this budget, has completely betrayed those that thought there was going to be honesty, integrity in some of the budgets and promises.

[1700]

Now Budget 2009 that we saw a couple of weeks ago supposedly builds on an economic plan to help families, communities and businesses alleviate the effects of the economic downturn. What a farce. What deception.

What we have is a B.C. Liberal economic plan to transfer $2 billion from the pockets of taxpayers to big business and its shareholders. The budget that was presented September 1, if we follow the theme scenario, was the deception budget. It's built on B.C. Liberal deception, incompetence, betrayal.

It's a tax-and-cut budget that will surely hit the lower- and middle-income class, especially those that live in the north and in my riding. You know, it highlights the fallacies we heard a short four months ago.

We have now the largest deficit ever brought into this Legislature, at $3.6 billion. I say $3.6 billion because if you add on the approximately $800 million in federal HST blood money to the deficit of $2.8 billion, you get your $3.6 billion. That's what we're looking at — unbelievable. Hitting us with brutally deceptive speed and force, the total three-year deficit will be $2.8 billion the first year, about $2 billion the second year, about another billion the third year, so about a $5.4 billion deficit over three years.

During the election we heard the rhetoric from the Premier, who basically said: "Read my lips — only a $495 million deficit maximum." Now it's a massive seven times that. If we add on the HST, the $1.6 billion, we now get a $7 billion deficit over three years — 14 times the Premier's commitment in the promise of $495 million. Unbelievable.

No matter how you look at this, they've given us the largest deficit ever seen in B.C. history. The deficit kings — that's what we've got.

Now, a fact that some on the other side either deny or don't understand is that the budget under the NDP in 1999 was balanced, and the 2000 budget had a record surplus of $1.5 billion. Soon after, this government, the B.C. Liberals, racked up the largest two deficits in provincial history up to that point in time. Now we have the highest deficit ever seen — a record gold medal for deficits with B.C. Liberals stamped all over it.

Never mind the year-to-year deficits. Let's look at the long-term debt. Between 2001 and 2005 these Liberals added more than $5 billion in debt to the province's books. And get this. It's expected to skyrocket in 2013 to about $60 billion.

In 2001 the debt was about $33.6 billion, and under this B.C. Liberal government it has hot-air-ballooned to over $60 billion — all increased in this decade of deceit, their decade of debt, by over 75 percent.

The minister previous to me talked about debt-servicing. They're exploding. In 2009 taxpayers are paying $6 million per day to service the debt, and if the B.C. Liberal debt continues, that will be almost $7 million per day in 2010 and $8 million per day in 2013.

Vaughn Palmer quoted it quite well. He says, "It would…appear that one of the biggest legacies of this Premier's time in office will be debt, debt and more debt" — so a bit of a history lesson for those on the other side.

We can also compare employment growth and economic growth. From 2001 until '09 B.C.'s average annual economic growth under this government is about 2.6 percent. This is lower than the annual economic growth under the NDP during the 1990s, which was 2.8 percent, so 2.6 to 2.8.

If we look at the employment growth under the NDP in the '90s, it grew 22 percent and created over 344,000 jobs. Under this B.C. Liberal government, from 2001 to April 2009 the growth was a dismal 16 percent —
[ Page 421 ]
323,000 jobs — with a staggering job loss of 69,000 jobs last January, February and March of this year.

[1705]

The government claims that the economic downturn was unpredictable and brutally deceiving, but the real fact is that this government deliberately ignored all the warning signs. Since last December, economists and economic indicators warned this government that the revenue projections were inflated.

Kelly McParland from the National Post recently wrote — and this is the headline: "The Amazing Shameless Government of British Columbia."

"Throughout the entire mess, the only thing the B.C. Liberals have consistently done is ignore all the warning signs. Even back in February leading economist Pastrick predicted a much larger deficit, but the Liberals dismissed him as pessimistic, and they accused the opposition of fearmongering every time the opposition warned the B.C. Liberal revenue projections were out of touch with reality."

The Premier and Finance Minister also dismissed forecasts by independent economists who said that the province's economy would shrink more than projected.

Also in the National Post, Raphael Alexander said:

"The excuses just don't wash. This is a provincial Finance Minister claiming he wasn't apprised on the financial state of the province, and the people of B.C. aren't buying. A recent poll puts the Premier's support at 17 percent, the lowest anywhere. In the media scrum, he told reporters that perhaps the budget was a little too difficult for them to understand. Well, we've seen this song and dance before.

"When the Premier's back is to the wall, he lashes out, patronizes doubters and then goes into hiding until things calm down. But unlike the B.C. Rail scandal and the carbon tax, the Premier won't be able to lay low on this one. The dominoes are toppling, and all we can do is stand back and watch the show."

Well, unfortunately, what we've got under this government is a showstopper, a black curtain coming down on the middle class and those who can least afford it with this HST and the deception and betrayal of this government. The only thing that was unpredictable and brutally deceiving was the speed and force that this Premier and this government handled the HST.

You know, this misguided financial plan, this budget, is a huge, huge dramatic hit to the pocketbooks of average British Columbians, who will keep on paying and paying. Prior to the 2009 budget they promised there would be no deficit. They promised a small deficit of two years only. They attacked the Leader of the Opposition for predicting the need for longer deficits. They promised the deficit would be small. They promised no HST. They promised: "We didn't talk to anyone about the budget."

They promised that they talked to no one about the HST, although it was the single most important step British Columbia could take to boost its economy. If it was, why weren't they talking to somebody and acknowledging they had the premise to bring it forward? Where was the Finance Minister selling his harmful sales tax to British Columbians versus the deceptive way of hiding the real facts and the truth about how B.C. came under the wrath of the HST? A plethora of broken promises, months of deceit, months of misleading voters.

Michael Smyth referred to the bubble boy concept. Was the Finance Minister really a boy in a plastic bubble during the May election? He must have been if he wants British Columbians to believe he knew nothing about the election bombshells dropped on voters.

There was the opinion poll from Ipsos-Reid, you know, conducted the day after the budget update and the day after. "Do you believe the Liberals intentionally misled voters about the province's worsening financial situation during the spring election campaign?" Some 72 percent said, "Yes, we believe they intentionally misled us," and 10 percent thought the claim that the government only learned about the true state of the province's financial situation after the election…. Only 10 percent believed that.

Now, hon. Speaker, this isn't about the opposition, about the government. It's not about this party or that party. It isn't about Left versus Right. It's about honesty. It's about integrity and the belief in government. It's about the public having faith in those that are given the opportunity to govern them, and that faith has been shattered by election deception, an illegitimate government and a budget that's going to decimate many British Columbians.

Paul Willcocks wrote recently…. The title: "The Premier and Finance Minister Fail the Smell Test."

[1710]

"So after rejecting the HST as bad for B.C. during the campaign, within four weeks the Liberals had committed to a deal with the federal government to introduce the new tax. No one outside of a handful of insiders was involved in the decision. No analysis or public or business consultation. Even looked at in the best light, the explanations paint those involved as incurious bunglers" — sounds like a Tarantino movie — "making policy on the fly, based on short-term political interests."

British Columbians aren't fooled by trickery and deceit, and we've seen that. We've seen that throughout the province.

Then we go back to the budget. A couple of weeks ago in our newspaper, the headline read, "MLA Somewhat Pleased with the Throne Speech," and because I had read that there was commitment to the northern gateway, the Port of Prince Rupert…. But once again, when we look at transportation and infrastructure in the budget, we saw nothing. We saw broken promises and commitments that were passed along the wayside.

In the throne speech of 2008 it was said that this B.C. Liberal government would pursue the next phase of the Port of Prince Rupert development. They also announced the province's commitment to increase the capacity for the Port of Prince Rupert to two million containers a year, from the current 500,000.

Prior to the election — and this was in December of 2008 in the Delta Optimist — the Premier said: "We're
[ Page 422 ]
going to do a lot of investment in Prince Rupert. It's going to be balanced off by investments in other ports."

Then in the throne speech we saw in February that B.C. will pursue the phase two of expansion. And then the September throne speech: "The government will redouble its efforts to open up the critical northern corridor." Well, when you redouble zero, I guess you still get zero. Despite promise after promise, commitment after commitment from a government that we now know misled voters on many issues, the hopes of redoubling of government issues for the Port of Prince Rupert expansion have fallen by the wayside.

You know, if we look in the budget, the budget cuts that are necessary for northern infrastructure — a $32 million cut to gateway infrastructure, a $12 million cut to infrastructure rehab, a $10 million cut to port infrastructure…. This government had an opportunity to realize and act on the importance of the northern gateway, but they failed miserably in that.

If we look at the five great goals…. You know, like their campaign, the five great goals, the theme-park attitude, B.C. Liberal commitments again in their five great goals — meaningless rhetoric. They promised not to introduce the HST. They promised to protect health care and education. They promised not to sell B.C. Rail or tear up negotiated contracts. They consistently abandoned commitments made throughout their decade of deceit.

After the 2005 election, the five great goals for a golden decade came out, and when we analyze them, every one of those has been broken. You know, the first one — to make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent…. What they've done is continued to break their own class-size requirements with more than 11,000 classrooms in violation of their own legislated requirements. On August 21 arbitrator James Dorsey released a decision on class-size and class-composition grievances that highlights this government's failure to live up to its own legislation and refusal to properly fund public education in B.C.

For the Liberals on that side, this embarrassing arbitration award shows just how this government's class-size legislation has been a complete failure. It shows how this government's decision to strip contracts and infringe on the right to bargain class size and support levels for students with special needs has severely damaged our public education system.

This government imposed limits on school boards but did not provide the funding to get the job done. As a result, there are actually more overcrowded classes today than there were in 2005. Unbelievable, unbelievable, hon. Speaker.

[1715]

Education will not be protected as promised. Rising costs and this out-of-touch budget will force school boards to make severe cuts to schools. Students, parents and teachers will see the negative impacts in the classrooms. Class sizes are going to rise. Supports for all children, especially those with special needs, are going to be worse than we've ever seen before. The budget for education was cut by $135 million.

They've been told that their operating grants are not going to be increasing. In light of rising hydro, legislated pay increases, increased MSP and then cuts to grants and other funding recently announced — you know, the carbon offset credits that boards must purchase due to legislated carbon neutrality and the $130,000 devastating cut to B.C. sports — boards are put in a situation by this government to lay off staff, cut services to children and put our valued public education system at risk. And that's shameful.

Even with the projected smoke-and-mirrors funding increases over the next three years in education, the budget will not be back to the February '09 budget allocation. They've cut library funding by 22 percent and slashed adult literacy programs. The city of Prince Rupert had concerns about the downloading of library costs, and they've written to the minister and will bring that up at the UBCM.

They've cut in half the grants to parent advisory committees. We've seen that. The DPAC — the district parent advisory committee — in Prince Rupert indicates that there's a huge impact on the schools in this district, and education will suffer greatly in this largely have-not district. They've listed dozens of activities that they do for students in their classrooms. They end their letter saying: "This government has now off-loaded an increased financial burden onto the parents and guardians whose pockets are already empty with the struggling economy here and throughout the province of British Columbia." We need to ensure that parent advisory committees, schools and our students have the funding necessary.

The Education Minister portrays that she's working to protect services for the most vulnerable children in the education system. I was pleased to hear that because Prince Rupert is one of the neediest districts in the whole province. They are the most vulnerable, as based on the results of the EDI instrument, Clyde Hertzman's data and the district's own assessment tools. In Prince Rupert 47 percent of kindergarten students are considered at risk in terms of basic skills development for entry into school, while 74 percent of students entering kindergarten are considered at risk in language development.

So when we look at the promise of all-day kindergarten, it's very difficult. Education isn't funded in the first place, and we're going to put an extra onus on districts throughout the province. There's no new funding this year to start planning, developing curriculum or securing place. There's no detailed facility analysis. There's no human resource strategy. There's no development of program standards. It's going to be difficult in the next year to
[ Page 423 ]
work on this. I just see this promise, this commitment, again as smoke and mirrors.

The budget doesn't meet the needs of the students today, let alone a year from now. There's no new funding to reduce class sizes or improve support for students with special needs. We knew there were going to be 500 to 600 fewer teachers when classes resumed last week, and this budget will only make things worse for students.

I do look forward to the commitment that programs are going to be put to the most vulnerable districts, because that's where the funding needs to go.

If we look at post-secondary education, this government has piled costs onto post-secondary students to the point where B.C. students now have the second-highest debt load in the country, and since the election it's been made even worse by this government slashing student aid. They've doubled university tuition fees since 2001 and cut funding to student aid.

The Advanced Ed budget will be $68 million smaller by 2011-2012 than it was in February's budget. This is in spite of the Liberal promises to increase funding in advanced ed over the next three years. Student aid has been cut by $17 million and frozen. At a time when we should be investing in our students, we get an arrogant and out-of-touch budget that only will damage our education system. That was only the first goal.

[1720]

The second goal: to lead North American in healthy living and physical fitness. What they've done is cut the grants for high school sports championships, with the Education Minister telling kids: "Rather than formal team sports, maybe people will be doing more walking or dancing or playing in the parks." Instead of telling athletes what they can do in place of sports, she should be recognizing the importance of the activities in our schools.

It's ironic that next week is B.C. high school coaches week. It's a week to recognize the dedication of high school coaches who volunteer their time after school to do instruction, mentoring and coaching. How ironic. A week before we're going to honour high school coaches, they've devastated…. They've cut them off at the knees and have gone this route. It's just shameful, hon. Speaker.

I've been involved in many sports in schools. I taught for 28 years. I worked for the B.C. sports association doing coaching clinics for the National Coaching certification program for 18 years, dealing with all sports. I worked for B.C. Amateur Hockey doing clinics for coaches up and down, from Vanderhoof to Prince Rupert for close to 18 years. I realize the importance of government funding. I realize the dedication of the coaches, but I realize the impact on the kids and the athletes. This funding needs to be reinstated.

This tax-and-cut budget basically smells of broken promises and commitments. One of the biggest and most visually cut is discretionary grants — payments to thousands of community groups and associations ranging from parent associations to arts festivals and minor hockey.

Last weekend I was talking to a swim club, to president Christine Komadina and their head coach Chris Sweet, who said that their numbers will probably be cut in half and their program is in jeopardy because of this cut to their swim club. Minor basketball, skating club, minor soccer and Special Olympics are concerned about their cuts.

From 1978 to 1980 I taught a special ed class. I took a group of kids to Prince George for the 1978 Special Olympics. The funding over the years that we have got from government is vital for these programs to continue. It's shameful that we've fallen into this, at this point in time — of cutting from sports groups these vital…. You know, it's peanuts basically.

The third B.C. Liberal goal: the promise to build the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, special needs, children at risk and seniors. What did we see? We saw broken promises to build long-term beds. We saw ignored warnings about abuse and negligence in senior care homes. We saw children being put at risk by ignoring the Hughes report and failing to take concrete action.

This government ignored criticism from the independent child and youth representative, who said that more children would need protection during the recession. They cut funding and staff to the Ministry of Children and Families.

It should also be noted that as of September 1, B.C. now has the distinction of having the lowest minimum wage in Canada — shameful at $8 an hour — and a training wage that starts at $6. They refused to raise the minimum wage since they were first elected eight years ago. We have the lowest minimum wage in Canada and one of the highest costs of living. How does this government justify that? New Brunswick had an $8 minimum wage up until a couple of weeks ago, and then they raised it. It must be noted that the cost of living is dramatically lower than in British Columbia.

This budget, as I've heard as I've talked to many of my constituents, will result in increased costs for low-income families, especially as vital programs and services are being cut. Many in my riding of North Coast face hardships due to the poor economy and lack of opportunity.

[1725]

Many, many more are stuck in the vicious circle of an unduly restrictive qualifying threshold for EI benefits and get forced on social assistance. The huge gap between the rich and poor continues to grow under this B.C. Liberal government.

This tax-and-cut budget has nothing to alleviate the fact that the north coast has the highest rate of social safety net dependence in the province at 7.4 percent. We had our hopes and promises, but this government has continually failed to come through.
[ Page 424 ]

B.C. is now last for the minimum wage and first for child poverty for five straight years. This budget has nothing to offer B.C. families other than higher Medical Services Plan premiums, a new sales tax and deep cuts to public services. And they continue to increase the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Now this government says they're facing the greatest economic crisis of our generation, but all they have to offer is a new regressive tax, hikes to MSP premiums and severe cuts to vital arts, sports and volunteer programs throughout the province. It makes families, consumers and small businesses pay for the government's deceptions with deep cuts, and with the continuing deep cuts that I know will be coming.

I'd like to close on a positive note for those concerned about this B.C. Liberal government. I want to assure this government and British Columbians that we will do what oppositions in this province have historically done. We will honour, we will protect and we will defend the rights of British Columbians. It's our commitment that we will ensure that this government will be held accountable for their lack of honesty, for their lack of integrity and for their decade of deceit.

Hon. M. Polak: It's indeed a privilege to rise once again in this chamber. It is the first time I have had this opportunity since the election, and as such, I want to first and foremost thank very graciously the electors of Langley for giving me the opportunity to once again represent them in this chamber.

I also want to thank, of course, all the many individuals and businesses who provided their support during the recent election campaign and, in particular, some of those members of my team — to Sam, Kathy, Katie, Joe, Erin, my riding association and so many others who took the time to phone, to knock on doors, to put up signs and do all those things that were needed.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I want to give a special thank-you, too, to my daughter Miriam. She just turned 22 this weekend, and mom doing this kind of job isn't always that much fun and hasn't been for a lot of years. Nevertheless, on election day she gets out there, and she's on the phone, and she's calling people and getting them out to vote. I have to say that having my daughter endorse the kind of work that I do probably means more to me than any other endorsement, and I'm sure people would understand that.

I also want to offer my congratulations to all of those members who are in this chamber — those who are returning, those who are here for the first time. This is an incredible opportunity to serve our province, to serve the people who live in the regions that we represent. I know that all of us, whatever side of the House we represent, or if indeed we happen to be an independent…. Congratulations, also, to the member for Delta South. We all bring our passions to this job because of the people we represent and the honour that is given to us.

Madam Speaker, I represent a riding that contains two communities, Langley city and Langley township. For those who aren't familiar with the geography, Langley township surrounds the four square kilometres that Langley city is, and that means I have two mayors that I work with. It means I have two communities that I stay in touch with. I have to say that it is a wonderful thing to be able to represent the Langleys.

We are a pair of communities that have been experiencing rapid and profound change over the last number of years, and as a result of that, there have been many demands that our communities have had to make on government to help and support us as we go through that change. I'm proud to say that over these past few years, our government has responded to the needs of the Langleys and responded in some pretty important ways.

[1730]

Any of you who live in the Lower Mainland will be aware of some of the major traffic challenges that communities such as ours in Langley, those south of the Fraser, have been facing. In Langley for many years we had faced a terrible amount of neglect from the provincial government in terms of road infrastructure improvement. In fact, prior to the B.C. Liberals taking government, the last major road improvement project in the Lower Mainland had been the Alex Fraser Bridge in 1986.

Langley was a community that was extremely challenged as a result of that, and I'm happy to say that we're finally seeing the reinvestment in our community that was desperately needed.

First of all, the 204th Street overpass made it possible for people in our community to go over the railroad tracks that have five level crossings in two miles and that, before, would stop our police, ambulance services and fire services and just our regular Langley folks from being able to traverse their community in any kind of reasonable fashion. That came as a result of a commitment by this government to partner with TransLink, with Langley city to provide for that overpass. It is well used, and it's an integral part of our community now.

Many of us south of the Fraser — in fact, I would have to say most of us — are looking forward to the completion of the work that is already beginning on the widening of Highway 1 and the Port Mann bridge that's coming. These are all infrastructure investments that were just essential for Langley, and we're so happy to see them coming on board.

We've also benefited from investments that have seen us improve our sports infrastructure in Langley. My colleague the Minister of Housing and Social Development is very proud of a facility that serves both communities,
[ Page 425 ]
the township and Langley city: the Langley Events Centre. It not only will provide an opportunity for the Langley Chiefs, our local hockey team, to play, but we also have the largest gymnastics facility in western Canada located in that Langley Events Centre, and we're very, very proud of it.

We're also very proud that during the Olympics this year we're going to have the Vancouver Giants playing in the Langley Events Centre. We have a great opportunity in Langley to enjoy something that would have only been a dream a few short years ago.

We've also seen investment in some of the critical services that we've been working hard to protect in this government and working hard to invest in. Our Langley Memorial Hospital was one that was gradually declining in its significance in the region and had some major issues in terms of its structural challenges. I'm very proud to say that we've now opened the new pediatric surgical unit, and we've expanded the maternity ward.

In just a short while we're going to be opening the new Memorial Cottage at the Langley Memorial Hospital site. That's a 25-bed mental health facility that provides mental health treatment and recovery services for people within their own community. We've recognized that we need to make that investment, and Langley is a really good example.

I want to focus on an investment that has really taken hold of the heart of people in both Langleys, and that's the Gateway of Hope. We often think of homelessness as a downtown problem, as a problem that only happens in urban settings, in inner cities. We know that that's changing. In Langley in particular we're starting to see the effects of homelessness right in front of us in our own community.

At the time, many of us thought: "Well, what on earth can we do about it?" We had a wonderful gentleman, Envoy Gary Johnson from the Salvation Army in Langley, who had a great idea. Why don't we get together, all three levels of government, and why don't we see what we can do to build a facility in Langley that would not only provide shelter but would provide transition services, would provide job-training services, would connect people with social services that they need? Why don't we see if we can do that?

Well, I'm proud to say that in a community like Langley you can. We brought together the Salvation Army, both the township and the city, my colleague the Minister of Housing and Social Development, myself, our local MP. We were able, in very short order, to negotiate with both communities so that there was land provided, so that there was funding provided. I'm proud to say that as a result of an $11 million capital investment by our government, the Gateway of Hope is going to be opening in a few short weeks.

[1735]

I've talked about these investments because there was a time, when the B.C. Liberal government first took office, when those investments would have been impossible. They would have been impossible because the way in which our budget had been managed prior to that left us in a position where difficult decisions had to be made, left us in a position where there was an operating deficit in government that meant there was no money to go around.

It meant that there were difficult decisions that had to be made. Why? In order that we could focus on the priorities like the investments I've just outlined.

Budgets are not just about the line items that appear on the document. When a government creates a budget, it's about people. It's going to affect people. It's going to affect families. It means something to them.

I want to talk a bit about a family. I want to tell you a bit about a family who had a mother who was a paraplegic, a father who couldn't work — to stay home and look after two kids instead that she couldn't look after — and a family that ended up at various times on social assistance and other kinds of government support yet managed, all the way through those years, to make difficult decisions to make sure that their children had things like piano lessons and baseball equipment.

That was my family. My family grew up as a very low-income family. I don't remember being poor, because I didn't feel like I was. I had a wonderful childhood. But if there was something I was taught by my parents, it was that you had to make difficult decisions in order to support the things that you value. When we stand here in this House and we talk about child poverty, that's no small thing to me.

I know what it's like not to have the same kind of clothes that your friends have. I know what it's like when your parents have to tell you that they can't afford to do something that was really important.

Maybe we couldn't take the swimming lessons that year because instead we were paying for the piano lessons. Maybe you had to go and ask grandma and grandpa for some money because you didn't have enough. Maybe you had to go and get some food from people sometimes. Maybe you had to decide how you could make something more interesting out of the macaroni than you made the night before. My mom used to joke that we knew it was really bad when we had to start diluting the water.

This is not to say that I had a horrible time of it. What it's to say is that there are people around this province every day who struggle to make difficult choices within their family. It's because our government decided we were going to make those same kinds of difficult choices back in 2001 and 2002 that we were able to make the investments that have brought us to where we are now. It's the same difficult choices that are going to take us forward so that we can support the vital services like
[ Page 426 ]
health and education and vulnerable children in this province.

When I first entered politics in 1996, I ran as a school trustee. I remember at the time wondering what on earth I could bring to this job. I'm sure there are some people, particularly on the opposition side, who would still wonder that. I think all of us probably struggle with that at times. When you think about the job that you have in front of you to represent your community, to represent a ministry, to assist with trying to run a government, there are those times when you think: "What is it I bring to this?"

I always cast my mind back to a mentor of mine who I want to recognize today. Her name is Heather Stilwell. She was a long-time school trustee in Surrey — never without controversy but always with a lot of help and support and love for those around her who worked with her. One of the things that she told me early on was to remember that the reason you're there as an elected person is to bring who you are.

There are very many people in this House who have tremendous levels of skill. We have people who have been medical doctors. We have people who have been veterinarians, teachers, lawyers — all sorts of people — but it's about who you are as a person. It's about what you bring to it with your experience. As I look at this budget and I bring my experience as a person and my experience growing up and my experience with difficult decisions, I'm proud to look at the budget that we've lined out here today, because I know it does the right thing for B.C.'s families and for the people of British Columbia.

This is a budget that brings a lens that says: how do we support British Columbians so that we do get through to the other side of this, where we will find increasing prosperity again? How do we make sure that families are supported? How do we make sure that there are jobs there for them? This is a budget that does that, and I'm very proud of that.

When it comes down to how you support those families, it's by making sure they have more money in their pockets. It isn't about making sure they have an additional government program. For people like my parents, who struggled to raise a family on a limited income, they didn't want another government handout. They wanted to be able to have the power over their own destiny and to be able to make the choices for their families. I'm proud that that's what our budget does.

[1740]

We now, with this budget, have the lowest income tax in Canada for the lowest two income thresholds. We have the lowest income tax in Canada for the first two income tax brackets. With that, we've also seen the implementation of the HST.

I know the members on the opposite side want to frighten low-income people into thinking that somehow the HST is going to take massive amounts of money out of their pocket, but the reality is quite the opposite.

If you take a look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't have a lot of money to spend on the additional toys and trips and all sorts of extravagances that many of us now can enjoy, this is the kind of tax that the opposition should support. This is the kind of tax that if you're a person with lots of money and you spend lots of money, you know what? You're the one who's going to get hit. If you're the kind of person who lives on a low income and you don't have a lot of money to spend, you know what? You're not the one who's going to get hit.

The fact of the matter is that it's obvious that the opposition doesn't support the implementation of the HST simply for political reasons. Because if it had to do with their social democratic philosophy, they'd certainly want to hit the rich and wealthy harder than they'd want to hit the poor, and that's exactly what a consumption tax does.

It certainly is far better than back in the day when people on low and moderate incomes actually still had to take more money out of their pocket to give to government. Imagine that there was a time when those who had the lowest income in our province were still having to pay income tax. It was a shame, but that's what happened. Now we've recognized, thankfully, with our government, that the important thing to do is to leave that money in people's pockets and to let them have the choices to make.

That's the other aspect to the HST that is empowering for people and in particular those on low income. It gives them the choice of how they spend their money and then how they are taxed. It doesn't just randomly say, "You've got income; we're taking it," which is what income tax does.

This is also a budget that, because of difficult decisions, allows us to support the most vulnerable in a very significant way, and that is to directly attack child poverty. Child poverty is something that as a society, I know, we all feel a great deal of responsibility and a great deal of need to get at. None of us want to think that there is a child in our community that doesn't have food to eat at night, that doesn't have shoes to wear to school, that doesn't have the very basic needs. And yet it still happens. So what is it that we can do to change the outcome for those children?

Well, what I'm proud to say is that through the support that we've provided, through programs that support vulnerable children, we now in British Columbia have the lowest child poverty rate in 20 years.

In case my opposition friends are thinking that those reductions somehow happened in the long past and that we're simply reflecting something that has lasted long into our tenure, the reality is that between 2005 and 2007, according to Statistics Canada, our child poverty
[ Page 427 ]
rate in British Columbia dropped by 6½ percent. That compares to the national rate, which only dropped 3.2 percent during the same time period.

Yes, we have a lot of work to do, but what we can see from the data is that the initiatives we've undertaken are the ones that are working. The rental assistance program, for example, provides for monthly payments to support individuals who choose where they're going to live. They have the support to then pay that rent, and for many of them, it's about $343 per family each and every month.

Imagine how empowering it is to be able to privately have money that's going to pay for a place that you've chosen to live in, rather than having to say: "I need to be living in housing that somehow designates me as poor." This empowers those who are the working poor to be able to support themselves in the home in which they want to stay.

We know that's an initiative that's working. We know that providing thousands of units of subsidized housing around this province is an initiative that's working to alleviate poverty. We know that providing child care subsidies that now offer child care affordably to more than 50,000 children around this province is something that's working to alleviate poverty.

We know that providing an increased range of employment programs, providing free optical screening, providing free hearing screening is helping to alleviate the effects of poverty. We know that eliminating MSP premiums and reducing MSP premiums for low- and middle-income families is going to alleviate poverty. The list goes on and on.

[1745]

What's the difference? These are all individual initiatives that assist families, but they continue to empower them and give them their own choices. This is a government that's committed to continuing those kinds of efforts and continuing to drive down the rate of poverty in British Columbia. I know we'll be successful, because I know that we are being successful now, and we're seeing those numbers drop.

The difficult decisions that we've made in this budget have also allowed our ministry, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to see a $12 million increase in our budget. We've seen, since 2001, a $400 million increase in the budget for MCFD. That's a 40 percent increase. Again, it's the difficult decisions made by ministers around this table, made by government that have enabled us to support ministries like Children and Families.

That isn't just about numbers on a page. As I said, it's about people. That budget of our ministry is there to help us as we continue to recruit front-line workers. It's only a few years ago that in the north we had only 59 percent of our front-line positions filled — only 59 percent. I'm proud to say that right now in the north, in that same region, we have 95 percent of our front-line positions filled, and we are continuing to recruit for vacant positions, even in these tough economic times. That's a result of difficult decisions that people have had to make.

I'm really proud of the work of government and of my colleagues as we've sought to provide better supports for children with autism. When we took office, there were only a few hundred children with autism who were provided with government funding to give them service — only a few hundred. Right now in British Columbia there are 6,000 children with autism being served through our funding. I'm very proud of that, and we all should be.

I've mentioned the child care subsidy before. We've got an excellent record on child care, and it's going to continue. We spend $300 million a year on child care in this province, and I'm proud to say that that supports more than 90,000 child care spaces around this province.

That's a record that we can be very proud of, because it's another one that provides for a good beginning for vulnerable children around this province. Those with the subsidy have the kind of choice that others wouldn't have had in the past, and we're proud of the 50,000 children that receive that subsidy and are able to access child care.

I'm also proud to say that the hard work of my colleagues in other ministries — the hard decisions, difficult decisions that we've all had to make — has also gone to provide support for children and families through some of the best social work professionals that we have anywhere in Canada.

I've been out visiting social workers as part of getting to know my ministry. I'm increasingly impressed every day with the level of professionalism, the kind of skill with practice that's represented in this ministry. Ted Hughes said that social workers have the hardest job in government. I think he's absolutely right.

I'm very, very pleased that as a result of the difficult decisions we've had to make, this ministry is going to see an increase in our budget and we're going to be able to continue to support those social workers in the very important job that they have to make sure our most vulnerable children are protected.

But all this goes to illustrate something that is probably the least pleasant part of government. When I was back in Langley this weekend, we had a few community barbecues and events. Of course, with what's happening with the economy and all that's been in the news, people will then approach me as their MLA, and they say: "Oh, gosh, Mary. Congratulations. Glad to see you back, but boy, it must be really tough." What I've said to them is: "Yeah. You know what? It's a lot more fun to be in government when there's a lot of money to give out. That's a lot more fun."

The reality is that we're not elected to have a good time. We're elected to make those difficult decisions, to ensure that the vital services that British Columbians count on
[ Page 428 ]
are going to be there for them today, tomorrow and the next day. That's what we're elected to do.

[1750]

Because of that, I want to talk a little bit about what's happened in the past. We have a record in our government of having made difficult decisions so that we can support those vital services.

Every year we've seen the education budget increase. For anyone who wants to talk about a cut to education, well, you're going to hear a little bit more about education cuts, but not from this side. It's going to come in a few moments, when I speak about education.

Health care has been increasing by billions of dollars every single year since 2001. That's not a cut. Ministry of Children and Families — a 40 percent increase since 2001, or $400 million. That's not a cut.

We've protected those services by making very difficult decisions, and we follow a history of governments in British Columbia that, unfortunately, decided not to make those difficult decisions. Eventually the results of that, the impacts of that, the consequences were felt.

I can cast my mind back to what happened in education when I was there, because I had the privilege of serving as a Surrey school trustee during the mid- and late '90s. That's when we very clearly saw the effects of a government that wasn't willing to make difficult decisions. I have a theory why, especially when it came to education. Perhaps we can extrapolate it to others.

The history is pretty clear that over the course of the NDP government, districts were forced to pay such exorbitant amounts through collective agreement settlements that government made, not through collective bargaining but through private deals, that in our district alone we expended 93 percent of our budget on salaries and benefits — 93 percent. There were only seven cents of every dollar to spread around the rest of what you needed to provide for kids.

If there's a reason why they're angry about why we've changed the funding formula and how we've changed it and how we fund education now and how we handle class size, I'll bet you that's it. I'll bet you it's because we got away from creating a system in education that was a make-work project and instead we started to focus on the students. I'll bet that's why they don't like it.

It was something that grew out of the handling of the budget and the lack of making difficult decisions. That was a government that missed every single target that they set for budget management. You can contrast that with going back just a very short time and seeing that we've delivered five consecutive surplus budgets. Why? Because we made difficult decisions. Why did they miss their targets? Because they didn't.

There's been a lot of talk here about capital spending in education. Well, let's have a little history lesson on that too. The annual capital grant is a small portion of what districts use to maintain their schools. Yes, it's difficult for districts to make those adjustments. It's relatively small.

What the previous government decided to do in June of 1996, I believe it was, was to freeze all capital construction in school districts. They did it for so long that the district of Surrey had enough students in portables to form the tenth-largest school district in the province. That's how long they did it for.

So don't get up and talk about reducing capital in an annual capital grant when you have to then excuse how mismanagement of a budget led to freezing all of school construction across the province at a time when we had growing enrolment, not declining enrolment.

This is a government that's invested in building schools. This is a government that's invested in seismic upgrading, that's invested in renovating schools. We have a record that any of us here would happily put up against any other government in the history of British Columbia when it comes to education, and that's because we've made difficult choices.

Another example of what happens when you don't make difficult choices. Let's talk about the operational funding for school districts. The operational funding for school districts now, under our government, is the highest it's ever been. It has continued to rise each and every year as the number of students has declined. That's a proud record. It's the highest it's ever been.

If you want to cast your mind back, let me tell you how that used to work back in the 1990s. The way it used to work was this. First of all, even though your operational funding was supposed to be announced on a particular date in the calendar, they never once announced it on the right day. In fact, they would delay the announcement and delay the announcement and still require districts to provide their budget on time.

Not only that, but rather than three-year funding, which you could predict from year to year and you knew what you were going to get, basically, if you were a school district, you started your budget by spinning the big budget wheel and taking a wild guess at what you might get, because you didn't know.

[1755]

Each and every year the funding formula changed, and each and every year districts played that guessing game. Why? Because they weren't willing to make difficult decisions. We have the highest funding for education ever in the province of B.C. because we've made difficult decisions to support health care, education and vital services.

This is a difficult time to be in government and a difficult time to create budgets, but what makes it worthwhile is knowing that when you are facing those difficult decisions, the consequences of that are going to be the ability for us to support vital services — health care, education, vulnerable children, people who are homeless, children who are hungry.
[ Page 429 ]

Those are the right priorities. Those are the priorities that we've held to in this budget. Those are the priorities I'm proud of as a B.C. Liberal on this side of the House.

As the public looks to us for support, as the public looks to us for leadership, I know that they will find, in the midst of these difficult decisions, that they are taken thoughtfully and responsibly. The public knows that in the end, this is what is going to take us back to where we are leading economic growth in Canada, in North America, where people have the jobs they need to support their families and where people once again feel that they have the opportunity to prosper in what really is the greatest place to live on this entire planet.

This is a budget that builds for our future and, most importantly, builds for the future of those who need the most support from government.

R. Austin: As this is my first opportunity to respond to a budget since being re-elected, I would like to begin by thanking the people of Skeena for bestowing their trust once again on me and granting me the incredible honour of representing them in this chamber.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all members of the House on being elected or re-elected. It is a great honour, and I'm sure that we will have wonderful debate in the next four years. I'd also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your new role as Deputy Speaker of the House.

I'd also like to take this time to thank and recognize the work of a small team of people whose work in many ways was reflected in May's election. I speak, of course, of my constituency assistants in Terrace and Kitimat.

Roberta Walker has been by my side for over four years, serving the people of Kitimat on the three days of the week when my office is open in that community. As the first Skeena MLA to have an office in Kitimat, this was seen as a bit of an experiment at the time, but I'm happy to say that it has proven to be very worthwhile and helps to keep me connected to that community, as I live 45 minutes' drive away in Terrace. It is largely due to all of Roberta's work there that I have been able to bring many issues of importance to the people of Kitimat to this House.

In Terrace, of course, I would like to recognize the excellent job done by my full-time CA, Denis Gagné, and to thank him for all that he does each and every day in assisting my constituents in my home community. I would also like to thank my newest member of staff, Arjunna Miyagawa, for all his work in helping to communicate between my office and my constituents so that people know as much as possible about the work that I am involved in on their behalf.

With those remarks concluded, I will now move on to the budget of September 1, or the budget update, as the Finance Minister liked to call it. It is hard to imagine calling it a budget update when we last left off, shortly prior to the election, with a predicted half-billion-dollar deficit and a promise to protect health care and education spending despite the global crisis that was clearly affecting every jurisdiction on the planet.

We now return just a few weeks later and are informed that the deficit is actually $2.8 billion. That is a 600 percent increase, from a government that has spent the last several years telling us all that only they are capable of running the economy and keeping our fiscal house in order.

Like the masters of the universe who ran Enron, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, we have now found out the shell game that has been played. Unlike the poor shareholders and employees of those three companies, it is the people of B.C., the taxpayers and citizens, who will now lose crucial services, who will now pay the cost of this fabrication. That is the basis of this budget update. Some update, indeed.

[1800]

It makes you wonder just who is not doing their job properly. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out on many an occasion in this House, we have some of the finest minds and conscientious workers in the department of Finance. So how in the world did we go, in just 16 weeks from the election, to this astounding deficit?

Let's not forget that if it were not for the largesse of the Harper Conservatives in Ottawa, to the tune of $1.6 billion to harmonize our sales taxes — some would refer to that as a bribe — this deficit would have been closer to $3½ billion.

I have to be careful here and adhere to the rules of the House in describing this massive fraud on the people of B.C., but I think it fair to say that the chickens are coming home to roost for this B.C. Liberal government. It is now clear to all, including many of those who supported this government in the recent election, that they were all duped by a Premier and a government who set their own agenda of retaining power ahead of the importance of giving the people of this province the open and accountable government that they once promised when they were in opposition.

This is the only explanation that makes any sense to most British Columbians — certainly, to the people of Skeena who came up to me this past week when I was in Terrace and Kitimat and expressed their horror and disappointment at what has gone on in this so-called budget update.

The truth of this province's finances is now out in the glare of the sunshine for all to see. We were all sold a bill of goods last May when this government presented a deficit of $495 million. All of us on this side of the House — you know, all of us fearmongers and doomsayers, the ones who actually got it right….

There was no way, with the global economy headed where it was headed and British Columbia essentially
[ Page 430 ]
being an exporter of goods and services and so reliant on trade with other parts of the world, that we would not be affected, and in a big way, by this downturn in trade and by plunging prices, particularly for energy, minerals and, of course, forest products.

At the time of the February budget, there were many people — economists, financial experts and others — who pointed out that some very basic assumptions in that budget made no logical sense at all. For example, even as retail sales were heading downwards in B.C., apparently we were going to get increased revenue from sales tax.

As more and more people were being laid off or having their hours cut, apparently we were not going to see the corresponding decline in income tax revenue. And of course the price of gas, whose royalties have become so crucial to our economy and which this B.C. Liberal government had staked so much on in the previous three years, was going down. But we were told that somehow we were immune to all these predictors of lower provincial revenue.

If that is not voodoo economics spun endlessly by this government's communications department, I don't know what is. But of course with an election looming just weeks away, it was crucial to try and hide the facts and the reality of our fiscal situation so that once again this government could rely on what we now know to be a fallacy — that only they could manage our economy.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes to comment on how our economy has been managed. Let's begin by looking at debt. Since 2001, when the B.C. Liberals took over, the collective debt of this province has almost doubled, and this has happened not during a ten-year recession but during an eight-year period that is now recognized as being one of the longest periods of sustained economic growth that the world has ever seen.

One could forgive this government if they strove to maintain vital public services during a time of plunging revenues for eight years. But no, they doubled the debt at the same time that they had five years of surpluses, after creating one of the largest deficits in B.C. history — this, of course, until they broke their own record this year with another blockbuster deficit.

While I am on the subject of deficits, I would like to comment on something that the Auditor General has made very clear in reports. That is the so-called off-balance-sheet debt that is in all the public-private partnerships, whose detailed contracts, of course, we never get to see. The Auditor General of this province has said that there is another $25 billion of long-term commitments made on behalf of taxpayers by the B.C. Liberals that aren't even on the books as debt.

This Premier has taken a giant credit card on behalf of us all, but we won't get to see any of the bills — at least, not until he has retired and gone off into the sunset with the illustrious title of great economic master of the universe.

I, for one, trust the Auditor General to be telling the whole truth without any partisan spin. Frankly, it is clear that we are going to be paying for a long time for the gifts that this Liberal government has doled out to its friends, especially those in the construction and IPP sectors, a transfer of wealth from the public domain to private interests that has hurt the very people that this government is supposed to be working for.

It would not have been so bad if our population had increased dramatically over the period that the B.C. Liberals have been in power. At least then there would be more taxpayers to assume responsibility for this debt. But here again we see how the Premier and his Finance ministers have failed British Columbians.

[1805]

When the NDP left government, our debt was equivalent to $8,000 per citizen, and now, after eight years of sustained growth, it is over $12,000 per man, woman and child in British Columbia.

I ask any sane person: is this the work of a fiscally responsible government? Is this the legacy of a government that has even a modicum of business expertise — to leave our children to pay the bills for this government's ineptitude?

Once again, we see this B.C. Liberal government as just a bunch of Enron managers masquerading as competent fiscal planners. These are the facts, and I leave it for others to analyze them and see if there is anything positive that one can say about how this government has squandered eight years of economic growth that happened right around the world.

As I've said, the chickens are coming home to roost, and everyone in this province is going to be picking up the tab. Once interest rates rise once again to normal levels, this is going to pose a burden on future taxpayers that will hinder any future government from making the choices the people expect of their governments.

So much of government revenue is going to be going towards debt repayment that this is going to force us to have great difficulty in adding the important things that we want, such as proper early learning programs. These are so important in helping working families to have quality child care as well as helping our kids succeed later in the school system. These are expensive but important things that we definitely need, but all these giveaways to private companies have made this all the harder to bring in.

Aside from hiding the true state of our finances in the February budget and subsequently until several weeks after the election, the B.C. Liberals also failed to keep many of their promises that were made during the election. The Liberal election platform said they were committed "to improving and protecting vital public services."
[ Page 431 ]

Also, in a quote from the Vancouver Sun on February 19, the Finance Minister stated: "Our priority has been to protect…vital health care, education and social programs that British Columbians have come to rely on and that have actually become even more important to us as we go through the kind of economic challenges that the province, and indeed the globe, is going through today." Those are the commitments made prior to the election, and they refer to the budget that this B.C. Liberal government went with into the election.

Now, just 16 short weeks after the election, what are the people who trusted this government getting? Well, let's review some of the facts.

Collectively, B.C.'s health authorities in this year are facing shortfalls of $360 million, leading to cuts in elective surgeries of between 10 percent and 15 percent in the Interior, Fraser and Vancouver Coastal authorities.

In the north the Northern Health Authority is facing a $14 million budget shortfall, which may not sound like much in comparison to the larger health care authorities, but when you consider our population and the vast geography that the Northern Health Authority has to deliver services in, this will inevitably make for hard choices and cuts that the people in my riding did not vote for. How does this square with the commitment to actually improve and protect vital public services?

The minister was indeed correct in suggesting that during a downturn people turn to government even more, as unemployment leads to stress — stress in the family, stress that is a determinant in a worse state of health and will bring about illnesses, naturally, that perhaps the body's own immune system would have dealt with in normal times. Yet we now see cuts when people need more help.

Let me take a few minutes to highlight just how the B.C. Liberals have protected public services. Let's start with education. Many school districts are now facing funding shortfalls. In Vancouver it was $7 million after the election, and in Surrey it was $9½ million, with a $2 million shortfall in Prince George, the largest school district in the north.

How do the B.C. Liberals respond to this? Well, they began by cutting off the annual facilities grant of $110 million. When did they do this? Just one week before classes were to begin, thus putting more pressure on school districts all around the province. How does that square with protecting vital public services?

Then there was the $3.7 million clawback of holdback funding; the $1.9 million clawback of Conseil scolaire francophone rental funds; as well, of course, as the $130,000 cut in operating funds to B.C. School Sports, the governing body responsible for the delivery of high school sports and programs across B.C.

It is very clear from these actions that protecting vital services, as promised prior to and during the election, has gone by the wayside. It is no wonder that the electorate is left feeling cynical, and I'm sure that these actions will further deteriorate our voter turnout, which was at an all-time historical low.

[1810]

Let's look at this small grant of $130,000 to the BCSS. The government has said in previous throne speeches that as we were about to showcase the Olympics in 2010, we wanted to model responsible public policy in regards to getting our population fitter and off their couches. Yet as this B.C. government speaks out on one side of its collective mouth, the other side is cutting programs to deliver and facilitate public school sports programs.

Once again, this is contrary to its own previous desire to make this one of the Premier's great goals. Remember that from 2005 — that this was to become the most active jurisdiction in North America?

I guess it has gone the same way as the goal to make this the most literate jurisdiction, as we now see that the government has cut most of the literacy programs which it just finally got going only last year. If improving literacy is dependent on a world recession, I guess we are all in trouble, as it would seem to me that this is once again a vital public service that was supposed to have been protected.

Of course, it makes no economic sense either, as an underutilized workforce who lack literacy skills will access all kinds of government services that are far more expensive to provide than literacy programs — not to mention what this does to the individuals who are living with these kinds of barriers not only to work but to basic human functioning.

Once again, we heard the promise to extend all-day kindergarten, but there is no money in this year's budget to plan for this by assessing new spaces or increasing the number of primary teachers who'll be needed once this gets going, if indeed it ever does. There is money set aside in this budget update — only money for next year and the year two years out.

Does the government expect school districts to fund this year's planning themselves, on top of the cuts to facility grants, extra MSP premiums and all other inflationary costs that are not covered? If this is the case, then this is just another empty promise, and we will see this once again recycled in next year's throne speech.

As for the future money allotted to this expansion of day care, let's all hold our collective breaths, for the bills are yet to come after the Olympics. I fear that this will be next year's fiscal challenge that will focus the government's attention, as we once again all have to tighten our belts to start paying for any overruns that occur.

If you think that this is fanciful, then maybe one should speak to taxpayers in the city of Vancouver, who already know what it is like to pay for bungled deals done by their former city council.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about Bill 33 and the number of children in classrooms, as well as
[ Page 432 ]
the number of special needs kids in classrooms. As most people are aware, there are thousands of classes in the province which are not in compliance with the government's own bill to limit to 30 children in secondary class and to have no more than three children with individual education plans, unless there's been proper consultation with the teacher.

Presumably, this is in place so that if a teacher accepts having extra children with special needs, then the school can remedy the deterioration in the learning environment by putting in extra resources to ensure that the class remains a good place to teach and to learn.

In an arbitration held earlier this summer in my home community of Terrace, the arbitrator found that school boards violated the School Act in 21 of 81 classes chosen as representative of the approximately 1,650 classes that were in the original action and deemed to be out of compliance.

One would expect that this would need to be remedied by putting more resources into school districts that are not able to meet the strictures of Bill 33. Yet instead, there is no new money, and operating budgets have been frozen in the upcoming years. This means that the situation is going to get worse, not better. How does this square with the government's promise of protecting vital public services?

As an MLA who represents a part of the province with a large first nations population, let me comment on another aspect of this budget that makes things worse for aboriginal students. The Ministry of Education has reduced its target for aboriginal and non-aboriginal high school completion rates, noting that targets were adjusted to ensure that they are achievable to help motivate "B.C.'s education partners."

We already have a crisis in terms of first nations finding success in our school system. This government's response to the fact that only 40 percent of aboriginal students graduate in this province, in comparison to 80 percent among the general population, is to lower expectations so that the bar is not so high.

This is, frankly, insulting to all those professionals who are striving in our public education system to improve on first nations success, and it sends the wrong message to aboriginal students, who now are being made to feel that expectations of success are not deemed to be as important for them.

[1815]

In short, what this means for education as a whole is that there are going to be further strains, bordering on chaos, for some school districts, as they are mandated to balance their budgets yet have so many more costs downloaded onto them.

This reminds me of the 1990s, when the then federal government reduced its own deficit by downloading costs on to the provinces, making themselves look good at the expense of many much-needed public services which were supposed to be delivered by provincial governments of the day.

We keep hearing the government's singular line that per-pupil student funding is being maintained, but as I have already pointed out, if other costs are being downloaded and no new money is coming from Victoria to pay for them, then ultimately, the per-pupil funding will not adequately cover what is needed to make our schools a great place to learn.

I'd now like to take a look at some other ministries in this so-called budget update. In times of recession, we all know that more people stay on at school or seek post-secondary education so that they can increase their skills and enhance their employability once there are more jobs to be had.

It is therefore vital for government to increase post-secondary funding during these times, yet in the Ministry of Advanced Education by the year 2011-12, there will be $68 million less than was forecast in the budget of February. We have a massive forecasted cut to post-secondary education 16 weeks after the election.

I don't think that the voters voted for this. They voted on the basis of a budget that stated that during this recession there would be support for programs like post-secondary education. I cannot imagine what this is going to do to our university and community college system when they know that more British Columbians are going to be seeking to further their skills but they simply won't have the resources to meet this demand.

What about students? Student aid has been cut by over $17 million and frozen for the next three years. This again makes no sense and is contrary to what the government talked about both before the election and continually during the election.

Not only has there been a cut to student aid, but let me quickly remind this House of other cuts. Permanent disability benefits program eliminated. Debt reduction in repayment eliminated. Health care bursary program eliminated, and the repayment assistance program also eliminated. These are all vital public programs that are needed more than ever in times of recession. Yet after they got elected, the government has not fulfilled their earlier promise and has now let down hundreds of British Columbians who had expected to get this assistance.

While I'm on the topic of programs that have been eliminated, let us not forget another of this Premier's pet programs, namely the Premier's Excellence Awards, which were put in place to reward outstanding students in this province who strove to get a high GPA and were then given the opportunity to compete in their region for a major scholarship that would have paid for them to go on to college or university.

Students entered this program and were sent letters that they had qualified, and then at the last moment, almost as the university year begins, they are informed by a note on a website that the program no longer exists.
[ Page 433 ]

Is this the way to treat the best and the brightest in our province, to teach them that the word of government — indeed, even when backed by the Office of the Premier — is not to be trusted once an election is over? I just hope that all those students have been able to find funding from other sources, as now that student aid has been cut, it will probably mean going into debt in order to get a post-secondary education.

As someone who grew up in a country where there was full public funding right the way through to undergraduate level, I am very disappointed that we seem to be going backwards here in B.C. in terms of giving opportunity to our young folk who can only access post-secondary, it seems, by getting into massive debt or being fortunate enough to belong to a family who has the financial resources to help pay the cost of a post-secondary education.

Another ministry that has an important impact on my part of northern B.C. is that of Children and Family Development, as we have a disproportionate number of children in care and we also have lower-than-average social conditions. So the programs from this ministry that support families are vitally important.

I am delighted that we now have in place a strong advocate for children, after we pressed the government to reappoint a children's commissioner. It was, of course, after the Hughes report, which stated clearly that the past cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development had left the child welfare system in chaos.

As many know, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the current child advocate, has written to both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition expressing her concern that the worsening economy will have "a chilling effect on those in our society who are already struggling and are marginalized for one reason or another."

[1820]

In spite of this, we see that the B.C. Liberals have projected a reduction of 377 children in care over the next three years. Now, everything that I learned while completing a bachelor of social work would point to there being an increase in kids in care during a severe recession like the one that we are currently experiencing. But I guess this government, as it does with other aspects of their budgeting, just uses voodoo social statistics to deliver less cost in this ministry until, of course, reality hits and it ends up going over budget.

Certainly, I would hope that if things get too difficult, as I'm sure they will — after all, we will see another cut to the number of social workers — Mary Ellen's office will intervene and use her independent advocacy role to ensure that this government does the right thing.

As a former foster parent and someone who had close ties to the social work community, I am hearing disturbing things in terms of the work conditions and the caseloads that are being increased for all social workers. We have been here before, not so long ago, after this government made a 23 percent cut to the ministry in early 2002, and it led to chaos and did irreparable harm to the most vulnerable families in our province.

As I live in one of the most rural and beautiful parts of B.C., it's also important to protect the environment and to have the correct amount of staff to do the monitoring as well as the enforcement of all the laws that are in place. So it is very disturbing to see that since the budget was presented in February of this year — you know, the budget that this government ran on during the election — we now see a cut of nearly 20 percent in the Ministry of Environment.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Well, I can assure members that there were not enough officers and environmental staff to take care of our land base before this cut was announced in the recent budget update. Any attempts by this government and the Premier to be a so-called green government have now proven to be a bunch of falsehoods, as we know that these cuts to important positions will make the system even worse than it already is.

Just think of how large this province is and how many rivers, fish, wildlife and regulations, such as forestry regulations, are supposed to be monitored by the Ministry of Environment. If we do not have the people on the ground, then all this work is meaningless, and we will put at risk our children's inheritance in terms of the land base that we leave for them.

As the former critic for fisheries, it truly disturbs me to see that this budget update will inevitably mean less fishery officers and biologists to do the important work that is needed to manage our inland fisheries. Without good scientific data we cannot make any decisions that are credible, and it gives us a reason to take no action, because we don't even get to quantify the problem.

I'd like to take a few minutes to speak about the solution, or a possible solution, to our budgetary woes in this province.

What is angering the people of Skeena and, I'm sure, is upsetting to most British Columbians is that they cannot trust their government to give the honest facts. As things stand, we now have a budget process that has two months of public consultation in the fall with a report that is given to this House by November 15. This is the only public input that can be given to the government for the following February budget. We then have a process where last year's budget is reported on in July, and that closes the accounts for the previous year.

Now that we have a fixed election date on the second Tuesday of May every four years, we have created a dilemma. People have to go to the polls each election cycle without knowing what the government managed to achieve in terms of their management of taxpayers'
[ Page 434 ]
resources for the previous years and with a budget that does not have to be even debated or passed before the electorate get to vote. We therefore need to change the date of our fixed election.

Let me make it clear. I am in favour of fixed election dates, as this takes away the ability of the government of the day to choose a date that is propitious for them — in other words, to politicize the election process.

The solution, of course, is to have a fixed election date…

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

R. Austin: …in the fall every four years. This will enable the public accounts to have been audited and brought before the House for public consumption and analysis. It would also, of course, ensure that the government of the day presents, debates and passes a budget, which it then is held accountable to in an election. No longer would we have the spectre of one budget being brought forward as an election tool and then another real budget brought forward after the election.

I sincerely hope that this budget update fiasco will result in a public debate that will put pressure on the government to make these necessary changes.

Noting the time, hon. Speaker, I will now conclude my comments on behalf of the people of Skeena and look forward to further debate from other members.

R. Austin moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:25 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