Hansard — Wednesday, September 16, 2009 p.m.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I have three guests visiting the Legislature today. The first is an individual — a retired teacher, an activist, a person very active in his community — Bob Pettit, who is here visiting from Vernon. He's visiting with his two great hosts, who are members of my constituency, Ian and Robyn Whitbread. Would the House please make these three people very welcome.

N. Simons: Today in the House we have visitors who I hope the House will join me in welcoming. The first is Gregg Dow of Save Our Ferries. It's never too late. Joining us also in the House are Chris Boag, Gord Christmas and Ann Stefanyk. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

J. Rustad: I am pleased to rise today to introduce representatives of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C., an organization representing over 9,400 technologists, technicians and technical specialists in the province. They've been serving the province for over the last 50 years.

Their executive director, John Leech, is visiting today with several members of the House. With John are Sarah Campden, chair of the ASTTBC's women in technology program; and Keith Trulson, a member of the ASTTBC's governing council. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Horgan: I want to acknowledge to those in the House the presence in the gallery of my very, very good friend Fred Hiigli, a representative from the riding of Victoria–Swan Lake. Would the House please make Fred very, very welcome. He's a tireless advocate for social justice and an awfully good realtor. If you need anybody, call Fred.

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce to the House a friend of mine, Rob Mealey, who is here with his spouse, Gerlis Fugman. I want the House to make them feel welcome. They apparently watch the Legislature on a regular basis. Maybe it's the secret to their new and happy marriage. I would also like the House to congratulate them on being wed on August 22 of this summer.

J. Les: I just noticed in the gallery a constituent of mine who is here this afternoon, Mr. Theo Vandeweg, who is also the assistant inspector of independent schools in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: I wanted to also acknowledge, with my colleague the member for Nechako Lakes, the presence of John Leech in the gallery. John grew up in the home that I now live in and have lived in for quite some time, and I appreciate that he left it in wonderful condition over the years. Again, welcome to John Leech.

J. McIntyre: I rise to pay tribute to the Sarah McLachlan Foundation, which just sponsored an amazing fundraising concert in Ambleside Park in West Vancouver in support of the artists' music outreach program. It was a magical late-summer evening last Saturday, where almost 10,000 enthusiastic fans were mesmerized by the outdoor performances of Sheryl Crow, Neil Young and Sarah McLachlan herself, in very fine form.

The Sarah McLachlan music outreach, an Arts Umbrella project, brings music into the lives of Vancouver's inner-city children in grades 3 to 12. More than 200 students receive group and individual instruction in guitar, piano, percussion and choir through a repertoire of musical genres, including contemporary, jazz and world music. Public performances are an integral part of the program and allow students to develop skills, foster pride and reach out to the community.

Sarah McLachlan's childhood dream to open a free music school for inner-city youth is reflected in the foundation's mandate to bring music into the lives of young Canadians, to build self-esteem and to foster creativity through the power of song and sound. The start of a relationship with music has a lasting impact on all parts of a youngster's life.

The school is dedicated to helping young people find their voices to explore their creative potential. For that, British Columbians, and especially the youth who are so fortunate to participate, should be grateful to Sarah McLachlan for her vision and ability to develop this foundation, which, I might add, has been supported by the province in the past to the tune — no pun intended — of $500,000.

Our deep thanks should also go out to all the organizers, the sponsors, the mayor and the district of West Vancouver, including the West Vancouver police, for all their contributions in making the evening so seamless. This was a first for West Vancouver and likely a preview of the 2010 festivities to come — a memorable concert
[ Page 436 ]
with hints from Sarah McLachlan on stage of an encore presentation next year.

D. Donaldson: She swam over shallow gravel bars at the 4,000-foot headwaters. She bounced off rocks and canyons. She slingshotted out of whirlpools in class 4 rapids, and she fought her way through tidal waters. Her name is Ali Howard. On August 15 she became the first person to swim the Skeena River, 610 kilometres from its headwaters in the Klappan to where it joins the Pacific Ocean near Prince Rupert.

This 33-year-old woman from Smithers, a chef at the Bear Claw Lodge in the Kispiox valley, persevered for 28 days, often swimming eight hours a day in the cold waters. She is brave and courageous and was supported by an extremely skilled professional team, many of them members of the Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition. I know that, because I jumped in and swam a 30-minute segment of the river with her and was only able to do that with any degree of confidence because of the support of her crew paddling nearby.

Ali did the swim to represent all living in the northwest concerned about the impact of proposed developments on the Skeena, like coalbed methane in the Sacred Headwaters, like the Enbridge pipeline that threatens important tributaries to the Skeena, and the oil supertanker traffic that is part of that project.

Most of all, Ali swam to bring together communities along the Skeena, to challenge us to talk with each other about how we take care of our lifeblood, the Skeena River. Community members turned out in droves along the banks to welcome Ali.

From the Tahltan at the source; to the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en and the Gitanyow on the main stem; to the Tsimshian at the mouth; from municipalities like Hazelton, New Hazelton, Telkwa, Smithers, Terrace, Port Edward and Prince Rupert — we stood as one on the banks of the Skeena during Ali's journey. Now we stand as one to salute her courage and dedication, and we vow to continue the journey she began for us by fighting for our river's health.

D. McRae: I'd like to congratulate a young constituent of mine, Robbie Thompson. This 11-year-old young man has known more challenges than most people seven times his age. Moreover, through it all he has been selfless, heroic and a role model for all who meet him.

Robbie was born in 1998, and by the time he had reached five months of age, he was diagnosed with defective heart muscle tissue. After struggling with the condition and waiting for a donor, Robbie underwent a heart transplant surgery. Unfortunately, his body rejected that heart, and he had to receive a second one at the age of five.

It is hard to spend any time in the Comox Valley and not hear about this young man. This past summer Robbie had the opportunity to participate in the World Transplant Games in Australia. Over 1,500 athletes from 70 nations went Down Under to attend these games. All Transplant Games participants have received a life-saving organ transplant and are on a regime of immunosuppressant medication.

The games embrace all ages, from four years old to 85 years young, and all are invited to participate, provided they have receiving a life-saving organ transplant at least one year before the games takes place. The World Transplant Games are the single biggest organ donation and transplant awareness program in the world and a fantastic way of showing the world what a difference organ transplants can make.

Robbie is a poster child for why organ donation is so important. He decided he wanted to attend these games. Robbie blossomed athletically while training for the games. Last May he was only dog-paddling in the local pool, but by August he was able to swim five lengths. He also trained hard to compete with his age group in a cycling event.

While just competing in the games is a victory unto itself, I am pleased to announce that Robbie excelled in his events. Robbie won the gold medal for his age group in cycling and added two bronze medals in the pool.

People like Robbie Thompson are excellent examples of overcoming adversity and having a can-do attitude. Members of the Legislature, I ask you to recognize the achievements of Robbie Thompson and the importance of organ donations to our society.

R. Austin: On Monday I had the great privilege, along with the Premier, of attending an extraordinary community event in my hometown of Terrace. I am speaking, of course, of the culmination of an incredible few months of feverish buildup to winning Hockeyville 2009.

In a small town in northwestern B.C., every kid's dream came true, as some of the hockey stars of the NHL came to town and played a pre-season game. It's hard to describe what this has done to Terrace in terms of galvanizing the entire community with a spirit of excitement and optimism. Just under 1,000 were in the arena itself, but over 4,500 got to watch the Canucks
[ Page 437 ]
and Islanders outside in George Little Park on a giant TV screen.

Families lined up on Sunday for over two hours to have a picture taken with the Stanley Cup as well as meeting NHL alumni like Bryan Trottier, Dave Babych and Cliff Ronning. When news spread through town that Ron Maclean and Don Cherry had arrived, people were delirious.

In fact, the picture of Grapes arriving at the Terrace airport was on a local website in minutes, as though the messiah had arrived — on Air Canada, at that. I'm just not used to members of the media being treated with such adulation and respect. Everywhere they went, they were surrounded by throngs of people wanting autographs and photos.

Terrace winning Hockeyville, of course, was no accident. Recognition must be given to those whose dedication, enthusiasm and drive was the catalyst for this marvellous event. Hats off to all members of the Hockeyville committee, led by the incredible duo of Carol Fielding and Bob Park. They were assisted by our new Mayor, Dave Pernarowski, and the Terrace council.

To get 1.9 million votes for a small town takes lots of work, so thanks to all those who voted for Terrace, from the first nations communities to Prince Rupert, Kitimat and further east. On a personal note, I would like to thank the former MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, Dennis MacKay, for his warm and generous support, which just helped to solidify support throughout the northwest.

Many thanks also to Kraft Canada, the CBC and the NHL for making this all happen. The final note, though, the cream on this most wonderful cake, goes to our hockey heroes — the Vancouver Canucks 2, Islanders 1. Way to go, Terrace.

P. Pimm: I stand today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Fort St. John Petroleum Association, one of the longest-serving petroleum clubs in the province of British Columbia.

The association is one where friends are made and business associations are grown. These are lifetime bonds that keep our oil and gas industry strong in our area.

This past August the 50th anniversary of this great organization was celebrated in Fort St. John from August 27 to August 29. The group put on a parade that displayed all the oil and gas equipment that's used on a daily basis in our area. They also had a golf tournament that was attended by 130 golfers, including MP Jay Hill and federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, who also was the keynote speaker on Thursday at an evening function that was attended by 265 people.

They also put on a riverboat run that saw 65 riverboats and about 140 people head up the Peace River for lunch and a day on the water. They also had a Saturday evening wrap-up banquet that saw 600 folks in attendance, including the mayor of Fort St. John; MP Jay Hill; Senator Richard Neufeld; B.C.'s Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; myself; 27 past presidents of the association; and many other local politicians.

I'd like to congratulate Greg Hammond and Dave Middleton, who co-chaired the event, as well as their committee, who worked so hard to put the event on.

The association is the cornerstone of the oil and gas industry in Fort St. John, and the group should be very proud of its many accomplishments.

The association also named its oilman of the year on this evening, and I'd like to congratulate a very surprised co-chairman of the event, Greg Hammond, who is a very deserving oilman who has spent well over 30 years in the oil and gas industry in a variety of different companies that he started and made successful.

R. Fleming: This Saturday, September 19, the Craigilea Housing Co-operative is about to celebrate its 25th anniversary. Craigilea is at the heart of Tillicum-Gorge, a neighbourhood that is one of the fastest-growing in my region, a neighbourhood that is challenged by the high housing costs in this region. Greater Victoria is second in Canada only to Vancouver in terms of its housing costs.

Over the course of two decades, Craigilea Housing Co-op has become a community built on friendship and pride of place. It has provided many, many families with a place to call home. This cheerful oasis of 22 housing units fills a need for families of all descriptions in my constituency. Today the youngest person at Craigilea is a four-year-old, and the eldest resident is about to celebrate her 90th birthday.

This unique housing complex was built on land that used to be part of the old Craigilea Farm. The farm had large orchards, and many of the trees are still standing and still productive. Apple, pear and plum trees on the property are one of the benefits that residents have in sharing in this property and in its harvest.

Cooperative housing is one of the many housing options and tenures that has proven to be viable and effective in providing affordable housing for families and for contributing to the mix of housing that's essential to the dynamism of our communities.

Livable communities and spaces don't happen by accident. It takes a lot of hard work, and for 25 years members of this cooperative have administered the business through participatory committees. They've maintained
[ Page 438 ]
the beautiful grounds at the housing and the buildings through things like biannual work parties and other assignments.

For 70 years Canadians have been building and living in housing co-ops, and it is one response to the high cost of housing in urban areas that is viable and unique and successful. Housing cooperatives like Craigilea are made up of all kinds of people from different occupational backgrounds, ethnicities, income levels and special needs. They represent something cherished in this country and this province, and I'd ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing and celebrating this anniversary.

C. James: On October 22, 2008, the Premier took to the airwaves. He pledged to accelerate infrastructure spending. This is what he said: "A key determinant for this funding will be the speed in which we can get people working."

Well, pretty clearly, there isn't any speed in British Columbia. Eight other provinces have signed deals with Ottawa to receive infrastructure dollars, but this government has done nothing but stall.

My question is to the Minister of Community and Rural Development. B.C.'s families and communities were promised that jobs were on their way back in October. How is it acceptable in the midst of a recession that this government made the choice to stall on infrastructure spending just to cover up its budget deception?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that this government was one of the first that actually stepped up to take infrastructure dollars in partnership with the federal government. What a great day…

Hon. S. Bond: …to have this discussion, because just today…. To the Leader of the Opposition, we want to tell you about a new partnership that's been announced today. The federal government today has stood up and said they're going to help us fund the northwest transmission line, which will make a difference.

C. James: It was October when this Premier told communities the jobs were coming. It was October that this Premier said that infrastructure dollars will be going out the door.

Let's take a look at the provinces who have signed on: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, P.E.I., Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. Who's missing from that list? British Columbia. All their communities are benefiting, but our province has not signed on for needed infrastructure projects for local governments.

Again, my question is to the minister. How does he explain holding back on infrastructure dollars during a spiralling economy, with no other reason than to try and protect what little is left of this Premier's credibility?

Hon. S. Bond: I actually think it's pretty rich from the Leader of the Opposition to be talking about collaboration with the federal government. We certainly know that during the decade of the NDP in this province…

Hon. S. Bond: …collaborative process with the federal government. It was an embarrassment for British Columbia.

C. James: I'll tell this minister what's embarrassing. What's embarrassing is British Columbia is going to lose out on millions of infrastructure dollars, and local governments are going to suffer because of it. The federal money is on the table. The local governments have done their work. But the Premier's entire focus is to cover his budget deception instead of making sure those needed dollars get to local governments.

An entire construction season is going to be lost. The economy has gone from bad to worse, but there's been no action from this government. Jobs that could have been created, that could have been done by local governments, have been lost because this government has refused to come to the table.
[ Page 439 ]

Again, my question is for the minister. How do they explain denying municipalities vital infrastructure dollars, and will they admit today that they're more concerned about the political price of this government's broken pre-election promise than they are helping B.C.'s local governments today?

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted to talk about the track record. Let's look at what's happened since February. Since February in British Columbia we've announced agreed-to projects of $3.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we do understand the value of jobs in British Columbia. Let's look at what those $3.4 billion worth of projects have done. We expect that to result…

B. Ralston: Since the Premier announced in October 2008 he was going to move on the economy, the construction industry in this province has lost 35,000 jobs. When the federal money was announced in January, the Premier was in Ottawa and asked: "How do we partner up resources to make sure we maximize the benefits?"

We have the situation now where the federal money has been on the table since January. The municipalities are ready to go. Their projects are all up and signed and ready for construction to begin.

Will the minister confirm that the first priority of this government — indeed, the entire focus of the effort of this government — has been to cover up this government's pre-election deception and a claim that the budget deficit would only be $495 million maximum?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, since February alone — $3.4 billion worth of projects. Let's just have a look. I'm very surprised that the member for Surrey-Whalley….

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very surprised that the member for Surrey-Whalley isn't aware of some of the fantastic announcements that have already been made with the federal government.

Let's just look at some of the projects that have been announced. Oh, in Surrey-Whalley the Bridgeview sewer upgrades, for a total partnership of over $5 million. And we are delighted to be able to have reached a partnership agreement on the cycling pedestrian overpass and bicycle project — over $7 million in Surrey.

B. Ralston: Well, the cameras were whirring and the announcements were being made before the election.

The question now is: is the money flowing? The municipalities have said it's not.

B. Ralston: The federal money is there. The municipalities are ready to go, and construction workers, those 35,000 unemployed construction workers, are waiting for jobs.

Will the minister confirm that none of this mattered to the Premier? The sole focus of the effort of this government has been to cover up, try to cover up, the government's pre-election budget deception.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's have a little more good news for Surrey. Let's look at the Kwantlen building envelope under the knowledge infrastructure program — $4.9 million.

Let's talk about jobs. In fact, the agreed-to projects will actually create over 20,000 jobs in British Columbia. Let's look at where they might be. More than a thousand jobs in the Cariboo region of British Columbia. Almost 700 jobs in the Kootenays.

Hon. S. Bond: We recognize the importance of these projects to people all across British Columbia. That's
[ Page 440 ]
why in the very short term, we're going to be making even more additional partnership announcements with the federal government.

S. Fraser: I don't think the Minister of Transportation quite has a grip on the situation. There are hundreds of millions of federal dollars waiting to help stimulate the economy. The whole construction season has passed us.

Thousands of workers and families were given false hope by this government. There were promises made to fast-track these projects, to create jobs, to stimulate the economy. Clearly the people of British Columbia were misled. All they got were stalls and uncertainty.

To the minister responsible, the Minister of Community and Rural Development. Let's see if he has a grip. Will he commit today to finally providing matching funds to help communities create jobs and complete desperately needed infrastructure projects? To the minister.

Hon. S. Bond: Of course we understand the importance. That's why since February we've worked with the federal government — $3.4 billion worth of projects.

In the member for Alberni–Pacific Rim's very own riding…. I'm certain he was excited about these announcements.

Hon. S. Bond: Let's look at the China Creek water main replacement, phase 2 — $1.1 million in Port Alberni. What about the Highway 4 resurfacing project in Port Alberni — $3.1 million. Maybe it's time for the member opposite to stand up and tell us: is he for those projects or against them?

S. Fraser: …over 300 million federal dollars that we're going to lose. The season is done. We've lost the stimulus for this whole season. Stimulus is supposed to happen now.

On Monday, when asked by the press, the minister responsible — the minister who has not yet stood up on this issue — said that some communities are going to be disappointed.

How is it that communities across the country got their infrastructure dollars and B.C.'s municipalities didn't? Will the minister confirm today to this House which communities are going to be disappointed, and which projects are off the table because of this government's ineptness and deception?

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure the member opposite that we are going to, in the very short term, announce with our federal partners….

Hon. S. Bond: I'm not sure how we can say one more time to the member opposite: "$3.4 billion in agreed-to projects." And let's just look at where those might be. Well, let's look at north Island — local road upgrades announced and done in February of 2009 to the total of $290,000. Let's look at, oh, the Cowichan Valley, the Kerry Village sewer system upgrades project, March 2009 — $400,000.

We're going to continue to work to make sure that there are projects right across the province of British Columbia. We've created the opportunity to do that. The members opposite have voted against those projects every single time we've brought them to this House.

D. Donaldson: Gail McDonald is heading the Kispiox valley community hall renovations project in my northern constituency. She says they've been waiting for months for an answer from this government on infrastructure grants. The federal funding is ready. Well, perhaps the Premier doesn't know that the northern part of the province experiences something called winter. The Kispiox Valley Community Association needs word on that grant money now so that they can get moving before bad weather sets in. They can't wait until the minister decides when or if it might be nice to announce.

Will the minister demonstrate that this government understands the realities faced by northern communities and announce today that the province's infrastructure grants are in place?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, what this side of the House does understand and what this Premier led across this country led to a decision today by the federal government to actually address one of the biggest concerns in that member's riding. That is the northwest transmission line — announced partnership today.
[ Page 441 ]

Just last week in my visits from Prince George to Prince Rupert, I can tell you that virtually every community talked to me about the importance of the northwest transmission line and thanked this government for their leadership.

D. Donaldson: The province said they want shovel-ready projects that create jobs for these infrastructure dollars. Well, here's a prime example, but now they're delaying. Don't they know that the ground freezes in the north and winter is coming? They should know about…

D. Donaldson: …freezing because they're frozen into inaction on this infrastructure grant project. Again, will the minister show…

D. Donaldson: …this government has rudimentary knowledge of northern communities and announce today…?

D. Donaldson: Again, will the minister show this government has at least rudimentary knowledge of the communities in the north and announce today that the province's infrastructure grants are in place?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, perhaps it's time for the member for Stikine to actually stand in this Legislature today and recognize the absolutely significant announcement of partnership that was made, which is the number one priority for his constituents.

The announcement today of the partnership with the federal government to do the northwest transmission line has the potential to make…. We look at investment potential of $15 billion. It's time for the member for Stikine to stand up and say whether he supports it or not.

M. Farnworth: In September the federal Finance Minister said: "Use it or lose it." In October the Premier said: "Shovel-ready projects on the ground." Since then local governments have been ready. The federal government's money has been on the table, and yet there's still no deal from this government with Ottawa.

All we've heard from this minister today is things about announcements. Well, announcements without dollars are worth squat.

My question to the minister is straightforward. When is this government going to get off its collective backside and put the needs of communities first over its own budget deceptions on the infrastructure program?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, our budget is pretty clear. In addition to our regular capital program….

Hon. S. Bond: Our budget makes it clear that, in fact, in addition to our regular capital program, we're adding $3.4 billion for infrastructure. In fact, we've actually been using those dollars, particularly since February. I'm not sure where the member opposite was, because in fact I'm wondering how he feels about the Coast Meridian overpass cycling lanes worth $2 million announced in April of 2009.

J. Brar: The problem with this government is that they say one thing before the election and another after the election. That's their problem.

For several years part of the roof as well as some skylights and windows of Johnston Heights Secondary School in Surrey-Fleetwood have been leaking. Before the election they were told they would get $3.5 million in funding to fix the leak. After the election this funding was cut, and the facility grants were eliminated as well, meaning the school has no ability at all to make the crucial repairs. This minister probably had this school on her list as well.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Does she believe it is acceptable for children at this school to be learning in leaky classrooms?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: The annual facilities grant this year…. We knew that as of the end of the fiscal year, there was $98 million in annual facility grant reserves. In June of this year the message was given to school districts to go slow on their projects or use reserves.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: We've been very clear with all the school districts, and in fact we've worked with several of them already. We've been very clear that if there's any issue around student health or safety, we will work with them to address these issues. In fact, what has happened in the case of several school districts is that restricted capital reserves are being used, projects are going ahead and the schools are safe.

J. Brar: This funding was approved, and the funding has been cancelled. This minister needs to understand that this is a serious matter for the people of Surrey, and it deserves a serious response as well. Kids and families have no interest in the excuses of this government.

The bottom line is this. The Johnston Heights Secondary School is leaking. It's leaking at this point in time, and the health of students is being put at risk.

My question is again to the Minister of Education. Will the minister stand up in this House today and commit to restore the funding for the repair of this leaky school?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: As I've said, we're working closely with school districts and addressing these needs. But I think what's more important to note is how this government has been able to protect…

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: …preserve and maintain school funding. In fact, we've increased it this year again, year over year. Not only that, but this year we're investing $447 million in new schools, in upgrades of schools and in seismic upgrades. We are absolutely committed to our students.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: That is why we have not only maintained but increased funding for schools this year — once again.

R. Fleming: In five days a UN delegation will visit the Flathead Valley in British Columbia, the biosphere reserve on the Montana side of the valley. The United Nations has asked B.C. to jointly work with the United States and to report on cumulative impacts of mining and energy developments in the valley and to deliver that report to UNESCO by February 2010.

Can the Minister of State for Mining tell this House why…? After giving assurances to the United States, to the government of Canada and to conservation groups that there would be no mining in the river valley, can he tell this House why his government has allowed exploratory drilling today?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In response to the member's question, what he's referring to is an exploration permit that was granted in 2008 to MAX Resource. This was granted and certainly falls in compliance with the land resource management plan that's in the area, which was developed by the people of the region.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There's a significant difference between an exploration permit and a mining permit, as some would have people in British Columbia believe. We actually are committed and welcoming the UNESCO delegation, as we have said in our letter to the federal government. We look forward to their visit and their findings in that region of the province.

R. Fleming: There are sensitive international negotiations going on here about this world heritage site that is downstream from British Columbia and downstream from potential mining activities and energy development. I would ask the minister: does he think, on the eve of this international visit, that it makes sense to allow mining development in the middle of these discussions and talks with international organizations?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I said, this is not a mining permit. This is an exploration permit, and I know that
[ Page 443 ]
the member has done his homework and knows the difference.

We actually invited — and worked with the federal government to welcome — the UNESCO delegation that's coming here. As I said earlier, we're looking forward to their visit and looking forward to their findings.

But as late as, I believe, 2005, it was people within the New Democratic Party that opposed the park designation in that area. So I'm a little surprised to hear the member asking this question.

We made a commitment to welcome the delegation from UNESCO. We actually participated in the invitation with the federal government. We're looking forward to their visit and looking forward to their report.

L. Krog: Joining us in the gallery today is a well-known defender of the civil liberties of British Columbians — a veritable legal David against the Goliaths. I'd ask the House to welcome Cameron Ward.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to rise in the House today in support of the 2009 September budget update.

It is a time of economic crisis. Governments, like individuals, have to look at the amount of money coming in and the amount that must go out to provide essential protections. For individuals, one has to base his or her income on the need to put food on the table and keep a roof over the family's head. Individuals need to budget and need to be aware that the financial inputs must meet the financial outflows.

So too with the government that supplies the services and safety net that protect us all. Government has to base its financial outflows on the revenues flowing in. Like so many other governments, businesses and individuals over the past year, input revenues have been crashing in the province of British Columbia, just like around the world.

That is why in the past few days we have been hearing in this House that we need to be prudent, to be careful and to make sure that the greatest effort is taken to make sure that the demands of the expenses and revenues are equivalent, to make sure revenues are equal to the expenses so that expenses don't exceed the financial ability of the province to pay for the demands.

My constituents have long told me, and continue to tell me, that governments must contain and continue to provide the core funding for health care and for education. Those two services of government — our safety net and our children's safety net — are very important and must be maintained.

They are being maintained in this budget update. In fact, funding is being increased for both, and that is good news. Health care alone already consumes close to half the revenue that comes in for the government. Over the next two or three years that percentage of revenues will increase to half or more of the government revenues.

In other words, in just a few short years this government will be spending more than 50 percent of every dollar of revenue on health care expenses alone. That doesn't leave a lot for other expenses the government has to pay for and the other services the government has to provide.

Even under these circumstances, education will not suffer. In fact, there's the funding allocated to expand education opportunities for our youngest children even under these difficult circumstances. Next year there will be voluntary full-time kindergarten for five-year-olds. That is good news for children, and it gives choices for the parents. It will also create savings for many parents of young children in that while the child is in school, day care costs will not be incurred.

What that and the fiscal assurance of health care protection mean is that this government is fully committed to the pledge to protect vital services while building for the future. The future is what we must concentrate on, because we need to have the strength and the courage to watch the spending to make sure the future of British Columbia is protected and to make sure British Columbians have enough funding available for the good health care system we have and the education we have.

Through this budget and three subsequent ones, we will ensure that spending incentives are in place to create a climate of economic recovery. This budget is a plan — a plan to return the province to balanced budgets, to return British Columbia to prosperity and strength.

As we all know, times are tough not only in British Columbia but across the nation and across the continent — in fact, across the world. We have seen our revenues plummet, but that loss of revenue is minor compared to what is happening in many other jurisdictions around the world. Alberta, for instance, is forecasting a deficit of almost $7 billion. Only a year ago they were expecting a
[ Page 444 ]
surplus of $8 billion. So that's almost $15 billion in loss of revenues for Alberta.

The federal government is expecting a deficit of almost $56 billion. California itself is looking at something like a deficit of more than $26 billion, and the U.S. is looking at, according to the July 23 estimate, a deficit of $1.7 trillion. It may be economically rough times here, but it is still better than virtually anywhere else around the world. That is thanks to past prudent budgets and financially minded government over the past number of years.

British Columbia has basked for at least the last half-dozen years in the glow of prosperity and soaring economies and job security. In just a year things have become difficult, but British Columbia will survive. British Columbia will recover, and British Columbia will return to its number one spot in the nation, perhaps in the world.

British Columbians are resilient. We believe in the future. We are willing to work hard to ensure that this province returns to prosperity, to the number one place in Canada. This province was created by the efforts and faith of pioneers and entrepreneurs and immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, when I go talk to many people around the world and also people in British Columbia and in Surrey, and when we talk to the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism, they always tell me that British Columbia is the best place in Canada to be in. This is the one place, regardless of where you were born or where you were raised, that you can succeed if you work hard.

These British Columbians, these immigrants — some of them new, some of them who have been here for hundreds of years — want a place where their dreams could come true, where hard work could reward them and their future generations with security and prosperity. We've become one of the best places on earth to live in.

They also want to make sure we continue to strengthen those pioneer spirits. They want to make sure, those pioneers who worked so hard…. They want to continue to strengthen their spirit to make sure that for those investors, those entrepreneurs and those immigrants who come here to make this place better, it is a good place for their families, a good place for them to do work and a good place for them to do business.

We, this government and all members of the House, owe it to those people to ensure that British Columbia lives up to their dream to keep British Columbia strong and the best place on earth to raise their families in. This is why we have created this budget and laid the framework for three more budgets — to ensure that those dreams of those immigrants and those British Columbians come true, while protecting the social infrastructure that is so necessary.

That is why in this budget we are promoting new investment and growth in our economy. That is why we are committed to continuing British Columbia's investments in such job-creating projects as the new ten-lane Port Mann bridge and widening the freeway to eight lanes from Vancouver to Langley.

That is why we are committed to upgrading all the interchanges in Surrey and building the South Fraser perimeter road, while at the same time we have just completed 176th Street four-laning from Highway 1 to the U.S. border. Highway 10 has been four-laned from Scott Road to Cloverdale, and the Fraser Highway is being four-laned from the King George Highway to Langley.

We are doing all these things to improve traffic flows, both for the commuters and for commercial transportation, and to reduce the volume of pollution that is currently contaminating our air through the hours-long traffic jams on the Port Mann Bridge and throughout the corridor between the city of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley.

These projects, through the $14 billion stimulus plan to upgrade roads, bridges and transit routes such as SkyTrain into Guildford and down the Fraser Highway to 168th Street and to build new schools, the expansion of Simon Fraser University in Surrey, Kwantlen University and also the post-secondary institutions, health care facilities and other needed projects, will create over 88,000 jobs over the three years.

Since February of this year, $3.4 billion of infrastructure projects through the province has been announced. This budget update provides a capital investment of $7.4 billion over the next year, $7.7 billion in 2010 to 2011 and a further $6.5 billion from 2011 to 2012.

This is building British Columbia. This is creating jobs, creating prosperity, insurance and security for families today and well into the future. Those are things that make my constituents in Surrey happy. They want jobs, transportation improvements and quality of life in our communities to continue to improve as it has been going over the last six to eight years.

One of the best ways to ensure that quality of life improves is to make sure that there is excellent access to health care facilities. That is particularly what this government has been doing in Surrey. We are now building a fantastic addition to the Surrey Memorial Hospital — the Surrey Memorial Hospital critical care expansion.

The tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital is going to be great for Surrey. Many doctors, nurses and health care providers tell me that it's one of the best decisions the government has made to help Surrey out with their health care needs.

This is the largest expenditure in health care in the history of Fraser Health. Well over half a million dollars will be spent to build this new critical care tower at the Surrey Memorial Hospital. This project alone will create, over its construction phase, thousands of direct and indirect jobs. This new tower at the Surrey Memorial
[ Page 445 ]
Hospital will add 151 in-patient beds and will expand many services, including 48 children's, neonatal and central-care beds, specialized mental health units and geriatric units.

The projected cost of this new tower would have been $500 million to $600 million and will include a new emergency department that will be five times larger than the existing emergency department at Surrey Memorial Hospital. It will also include a separate children's ER — a separate children's emergency — and an enhanced minor treatment unit, specialized units for mental health. The maternity department will have 13 new birthing beds, private rooms for moms and their families and the addition of academic space for new doctors and health care specialists to make sure that we continue to attract the best health care professionals to Surrey. This will be done in partnership with the UBC Medical School, SFU and Fraser Health.

The new tower will also have a new rooftop helipad in case of emergencies so the patients can be looked after quickly. This is just one more investment we are making in health care for Surrey. It will create over 3,760 jobs. That is prudent.

All this comes on the heels of the 73 new in-patient beds we opened at Surrey Memorial Hospital in 2008. As well, there was a $10 million expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital's kidney dialysis units, an increase in stations from 18 to 30. This is part of a $30 million upgrade initiative at Surrey Memorial that was begun in 2005 to build capacity, expand services and ease congestion at Surrey Memorial Hospital. The additional beds represent a 26 percent increase in the in-patient beds in Surrey, 490 of them since Fraser Health was created by our government.

For cancer services, this government has spent $12.5 million on renovation to the B.C. cancer centre in Surrey, vastly improving services to the cancer patients in our community.

We're building a new ambulatory out-patient day care hospital. Three floors are already complete, and you can drive by it, or you can go to the Internet website and you can see it. It is located on Fraser Highway and 140th Street. This tremendous new facility will be 188,000 square feet, worth $239 million, and it is creating 1,500 additional construction jobs. This four-storey new hospital will serve almost 450,000 patients per year but will have the capacity of serving 600,000 patients per year by 2020.

This new hospital will feature expanded day surgery and diagnostic services, including four operating rooms and ten procedural rooms. This will also include a primary care area for seniors, people living with a chronic disease or with HIV or AIDS. This facility will also decrease the wait-list, will make day surgery more accessible and will generally ease the patient load at Surrey Memorial Hospital.

Just a year ago this government opened the new Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre, which has also taken a great load off Fraser Valley residents and out of the Surrey Memorial Hospital, because many of the patients from the Fraser Valley used to come to Surrey Memorial Hospital for services. Now they can stay in their own communities and close to their families.

That hospital was promised many, many times but was never delivered. Our government actually promised it and delivered it. It's open; it's working. These wonderful, innovative and state-of-the-art campuses of health care add to the quality of life in Surrey and the quality of life for patients throughout British Columbia.

This budget speaks volumes of the investment we are making in health care throughout the province. This budget provides increased funding for the Ministry of Health to the tune of 18 percent over the next three years. The investment in health care will reach close to $15.7 billion by 2011-2012, compared to…. In 2001 it was only approximately $8 billion. We have doubled the health care spending under our government. That is good for British Columbia, that is good for all the patients, and that is good for our children and future generations.

The investment in security for our citizens' health care is unprecedented. We want to make sure we keep on investing in the security of citizens' health care, and our investments are unprecedented. It is significant just how significant a portion of the province's budget goes toward health care. It is something that my constituents remind me all the time when we are spending almost close to 50 percent of our dollars on health care.

Yes, there will be a small increase in MSP premiums at $3 per month for a single person and $6 per family, but this budget builds in protection for low-income British Columbians to ensure that those in greatest financial need are taken care of. In fact, some 180,000 residents will see their MSP premiums go down or completely eliminated.

For those people in need, this budget provides $420 million in additional funding over three years to meet the greatest demand in income assistance during this economic recovery because of the financial crisis around the world.

Nor have the individual taxpayers been overlooked. Through this budget, the base personal tax credit has been increased to $11,000, an increase of 17 percent, effective January 1, 2010. This means that a single person will save up to $72 a year and a family of two up to $147. In addition, it will eliminate personal income tax for almost 75,000 British Columbians. These tax credits are yet another move by this government to provide taxpayers with increased financial flexibility and to help stimulate our economy.

That 17 percent increase is in addition to all the tax reduction our government has put in place since first
[ Page 446 ]
being elected in 2001. In fact, the first action of this government more than eight years ago was to give a dramatic 25 percent personal and provincial income tax cut. Therefore, by next January individual British Columbians earning up to $118,000 a year will pay the lowest provincial income taxes in Canada.

Also, there is other great news. Any British Columbian earning less than $19,000 per year will pay zero provincial income tax. Under the last government they had to pay taxes, but under our government anybody earning almost less than $19,000 per year pays zero provincial income tax.

There's more good news for seniors. Most will see the MSP premiums go down, and most low-income seniors and families will receive the taxpayer credit under the proposed HST. In fact, low-income individuals and families will receive an annual B.C. HST credit of $230 per individual for those with income up to $20,000 and $230 per family member for families with incomes up to $25,000.

These credits will be paid quarterly with a GST credit, and more than 1.1 million British Columbians will benefit from this. Combined with the recently introduced climate action credit, low-income British Columbians will be eligible for up to $340 a year in the provincial credits in addition to the GST credit. Then again, as I said, more than 1.1 million British Columbians will benefit from this announcement.

In addition, a decision by this government will ensure that there is no provincial sales tax placed on energy sources for home heating, and that includes oil, natural gas, propane and electricity. When I talk to my constituents, they're really happy about that announcement also.

I also want to note that this budget update contains a number of new investments in the social safety net that is so precious to all British Columbians. Among the new investments are $420 million over three years in income assistance, $80 million to battle against H1N1 swine flu and $151 million for full-day kindergarten, which begins next year and will be fully implemented by the fall of 2011.

I also want to emphasize that the full-day kindergarten program is optional for parents. This is an opportunity for the children that parents will have to decide upon, because some parents may believe that a child is not ready to attend full-time classes yet. In other words, this program will provide ability for the parents to choose what is the best for their needs and what is the best for the children's needs. It is an excellent program that we will also offer.

It will be great news for the parents because it will also offer day care savings for those parents if they choose to enrol their child in full-time kindergarten, while at the same time leaving an option open to those parents who feel their children are not yet ready for full-time school. This is another good reason why I support this budget update.

In my city of Surrey this government is investing more in supportive housing — another 108 units for people needing drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation and those who are at the risk of homelessness.

Also coming to my riding is a bicycle and pedestrian overpass on Highway 1 and 166th Street. Combined with a cycling path, this will allow even greater and more environmentally friendly and heavily travelled traffic between my community north and south of Highway 1, the highway most of the people coming into Vancouver from eastern Canada must travel through.

Government investment in this project for the city of Surrey, in my riding, is over $7 million. That will also create a lot of extra jobs and help my constituents. Many of the constituents go from Fraser Heights to Tynehead Park, and now they have to go over 160th Street. This way, they'll be able to travel over the new bicycle and pedestrian overpass that we will be constructing.

This budget update isn't just about benefits to business. It isn't just about doom and gloom, as the opposition said. Yes, this will benefit businesses, and business will benefit from this budget. Those benefits will be translated into more investment, therefore more jobs and more economic stability. That is what stimulating the economy is all about: creating jobs, keeping people working. Yes, many British Columbians say: "Make sure your government is involved in creating jobs at a difficult time, and keep people working, and provide a sound financial footing for our future generations to come."

All these investments will help not just the current residents, but they will also help our future residents. British Columbia is, for so many, the realization of the dream to create opportunity, to build a family, to have stability and to have a future.

We all are here, and we have to make sure, as we're doing through this budget update…. The government understands that when the world is facing financial challenges during one of the most frightening economic periods in the world right now, we must take action to protect our future. We must take action to make sure that our economy stays strong in the long term, that investments don't move to Ontario or other places. We want to make sure that British Columbians are protected, that our health care is protected, that our education system is protected.

We are building a legacy for residents of today and residents of the future. This budget update, with its fiscal prudence, is setting the stage for the future, setting the stage for the return of the buoyant economic times that will soon come. This is a budget update that understands that sometimes we have to make tough decisions in tough times.

This is, probably, a very difficult situation around the world right now that is affecting British Columbia. We have to make some tough decision because of the economic crisis around the world that affected our economy and our revenues in the province.
[ Page 447 ]

This is a budget update that is protecting us from the worst by providing protection for the vital services of health care and education. This is a budget update that was needed. Regardless of what the critics and the opposition might say, I can assure you that their answers will make us much worse than we are today.

I support this budget, because this is a good budget update, a wise budget, a budget that is needed at this time and a budget and a plan that British Columbians will be appreciating. This is a budget that will be good for us in the long term and that will build on everything that we have done in the last eight years to make sure that our economy stays number one in Canada and to make sure our children don't have to go to Alberta or Ontario or other parts of the world to look for jobs.

This is a budget that is going to make sure that British Columbia's economy is the best economy when the financial crises around the world are fixed. As the economy is starting to look…. There's a light in the tunnel. We want to make sure our health care system is strong, our education is system is strong, that British Columbians have opportunities to invest in British Columbia, they have opportunities to make sure that they have jobs here, to make sure their children can be raised here.

This is the best place on earth to raise your family in. This is the best place on earth to do business in. This is the best place on the earth to retire in. And this is the best place on earth to make sure you move your business into to do business.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I support this budget fully, and this is what is needed at this time.

M. Karagianis: Hon. Speaker, I'm happy to take my place here in the debate on the budget here of the province of British Columbia. I know we've heard, over the last few days, a considerable amount of discussion on the state of affairs here in the province. I think it's fair to say that this will go down in British Columbia as the summer of deception for British Columbians in the history books.

I would guess at this point that very few British Columbians are clear on what the true state of finances is in the province of British Columbia, despite the fact that there have been days and weeks and, in fact, months of discussion on what the economy — the global economy, the Canadian economy and the provincial economy — has dealt in the way of a real fiscal situation here in British Columbia. The reason that I think most British Columbians feel confused about this is because of the great amount of misinformation and misleading information that's occurred over the last number of months.

I say again that I believe this will go down in the history books as the summer of deception. We went through an election here just over a hundred-and-some-odd days ago, in which the state of the fiscal situation in British Columbia was a key element. We had the B.C. Liberal party guarantee to the voters of British Columbia that the state of affairs was very clearly laid out, that they could go to the polls with a very clear choice in their minds about what it was they were going to vote for. The government was very clear. The B.C. Liberal members and candidates were very clear on what the state of the budget was leading up to the May election.

But in fact we have seen in the days since that that the true facts have unfolded and painted a completely different picture in British Columbia. So I guess it's not surprising that there is an air of cynicism out there among voters, among those who are paying attention to what's going on in this House, who are concerned about their future and what the impacts of decisions made by government will be on them.

It's probably no surprise that the Ipsos-Reid poll that was done recently showed that 72 percent of British Columbians believe that the B.C. Liberals intentionally misled the public about the province's finances during the election campaign. That comes from Paul Willcocks's column that was written just recently here in the Times Colonist. The reality is that 72 percent of those polled far exceeds the number of people who went and actually cast their vote in the last election.

What I see is this growing sense of cynicism here in British Columbia about trust for government officials, trust that the leaders of the province are actually telling the straight goods to voters and that they can rely on their leaders to be honest, to be reliable and to give them the true state of affairs. When 72 percent of the population feel so completely disenchanted by the actions of the leaders in this province, by their government, by now the ruling government, one more time here in British Columbia, then I think we truly have a sad state of affairs.

So I do not hesitate at all to say that this is not only the worst budget in the history of this province but the worst government in the history of this province. We have now far surpassed the kind of cynicism that the public has grown to expect from their politicians. We have now set the record here in British Columbia for deception and for distrust for the people of this province.

It's very clear from the record of this government over the past eight years that we have been leading to this point in time where 72 percent of the population now perceives and understands that they have been duped and that they no longer believe in the government. It's a huge blow to any government to know that 72 percent of the people do not believe in you. What is our government worth if 72 percent of the people no longer believe in the government?

We have had an eight-year legacy of this government that has led us to the worst budget in the province's history, to the worst level of child poverty in the history of
[ Page 448 ]
this province, to the worst homelessness in this province, to the highest record of unemployment most recently in the country and to the worst debt ever in the history of British Columbia.

I know it's commonplace now for us to talk in terms of billions as if it was pocket change. There was a time when people were pretty dazzled by millions, hundreds of millions being spent on programming. But now we have exceeded beyond that and made it commonplace that even billion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar debts are acceptable here in the province of British Columbia.

I would say that the further disenfranchisement from voters that's occurred is that we've had a government declare going through an election that they did not want to leave a legacy of debt for future generations. In fact, we are now running the highest debt in the history of this province. We have a deficit that currently stands at close to $3 billion and is very likely to change, because first of all, as most British Columbians know — 72 percent for sure — you cannot trust the word of the government on the current fiscal situation.

We know that markets are still volatile. Anything can happen. We have a federal government that's posting multi-billion-dollar — hundreds of billions of dollars — debt. We have many other provinces that are posting astronomical debt, and we still have a government here that is insisting on downplaying and trying to minimize the kind of debt that we may see here in British Columbia.

I guess, as one pundit put it, it's probably better to be thought inept than deceitful, and I guess, at the end of the day, that's the choice the members on the other side of the House have made. They don't mind appearing to be completely inept on the budget. They would choose that rather than be seen as being deceivers.

I think that the message that's now gone out to British Columbians on the true state of affairs…. Their ability to rely on the word of the leaders of the governing party here in the province of British Columbia has been so completely destroyed that I'm uncertain in the future how we will ever repair that.

You know, we saw a record low turnout at the polls in this past election. I suspect that in the future we're going to see further erosion of the trust of the citizens of this province, in their ability to elect representatives that will be open, honest, direct and truthful with them. I think that this summer of deception is going to forever taint the landscape for elected officials, and I think that's really too bad.

I take enormous pride in the honour that's been bestowed on me by the voters in my community — to re-elect me to come to this place and stand up on their behalf. But how can I defend in any way the behaviour of the B.C. Liberals and now the governing party one more time for what appear to be, day after day, various layers of misinformation and of ineptitude?

I hear it every time I walk out of my house. I hear it when I meet with my constituents out in my community — a great, grave, deep concern about the state of affairs here in British Columbia and about the level of distrust that people have in the leadership currently running the province of British Columbia.

I think that cynicism is very well deserved. If we look at the behaviour of this government pre-election, where we saw candidates, members of the B.C. Liberal Party, stand up and talk about how they were going to protect services here….

We were going to have a minimal deficit of $495 million. We were going to protect health care. We were going to protect education. We were going to protect the futures of our children from enormous debt. So many of those things proved to be such catastrophic untruths that when you begin to list them off, it actually shakes you up just a little bit. It rattles, I think, most British Columbians to even conceive of the number of ways that this government has gone against its very promises.

We have seen enormous cuts to the health authorities. We have seen $430 million over the next three years cut from health authorities. It's resulted directly, in my constituency, in a reduction of the number of MRIs, and certainly in wait times for surgeries and for hip and knee replacements. Certainly for MRIs we've seen a direct repercussion on the health services available to my constituents.

We have seen in this budget — and I'll have a chance to ask more questions in estimates about this — the Children and Families budget cut by $8 million. We've seen a government declare that it will in the future reduce the number of children in care — despite the fact that we have the highest rate of child poverty in the country for the sixth year in a row, despite the fact that we have record unemployment, despite the fact that we know there will be record numbers of individuals seeking income assistance.

All of those components go together to say that more children will be at risk. Yet we have a government that's declared: "We will cut funds to the Children and Families Ministry, and we will reduce the number of children that we care for over the next couple of years."

How they will make that determination of not taking in children I don't know. But it leads again to this impression that voters have and that citizens have of a callous government who will cut numbers out of their budget without any true realization or thought for the impacts on people out in communities.

We've seen a huge cut to the Ministry of Environment — a 20 percent cut from the previous budget. The ink was barely dry on the previous budget. That was in February, and yet we've seen huge cuts to that budget.

We have seen many of the green programs that were so touted by the government in previous budgets and
[ Page 449 ]
previous throne speeches as the great greening of British Columbia….We've seen all of those begin to disappear and be cut.

We've seen huge cuts to education. We've talked in this House, in this place, about the impacts of those cuts on actual communities, on their schools, on their ability to maintain, repair and upgrade their schools or repair leaky roofs and make sure that children are safe in British Columbia when they go to school. We've seen cuts there.

We have seen that student aid, student funding and student grants have been cut at a time when, with spiralling unemployment and great concerns about what the future economy will hold for young people, we should be ensuring that every single child in British Columbia has the very best possible educational opportunities. We have instead made it more difficult for students to go to school — and that at the end of a legacy of a government that has cut and cut into programs, increased tuition and made it more difficult for students to get an education. We're seeing further cuts here.

And of course, the infamous cuts to school sports programs, which we have discussed at great length here, at a time literally just a few months away from one of the biggest and most important sports events anywhere in the world — the Olympics. We are hosting those, and yet we are cutting our nose off to spite our face, because we are reducing the kind of funding to sports programs in schools that would allow future athletes a chance to discover their passion and begin to explore that.

You have to say to yourself: "What kind of government says one thing, does another and completely ignores the repercussions in between?" That would be a government that has plunged us into a summer of deception and has demonstrated the worst record of a government in the history of this province and obviously has selective hearing and selective vision in what they see in the way of the results of their actions on the people of British Columbia.

We have continued to see at a time when we need affordable housing, when we need to make sure that our families who are struggling with either recent unemployment, income assistance, perhaps working part-time jobs — certainly in a province where the government has refused categorically through good times or bad to raise the minimum wage…. We have seen the government continue to cut the kinds of programs and services that would support families.

In reading many of the opinion pieces that have come out recently, I think it's a no-brainer why 72 percent of the population has lost their faith in government. I suspect we are going to see more of that in the future.

The interesting concept here, which the government seems to have either bypassed or ignored, is that the kinds of investments in communities that are needed in economic rough times are the absolute antithesis of what the government is giving us. At a time when we need more opportunities for young people to get the education they want, education has become more difficult to get, more expensive, and the government's supports for that have begun to disappear.

At a time when we want to celebrate sports and give every young person the opportunity to experience sports — perhaps find a passion, perhaps dream about the goal of going to the Olympics at some point — we have begun to undermine and undercut sports programs.

Throughout the education system, we are more and more reliant on the goodwill of parents taking up the slack and doing more volunteering. In fact, we've begun to cut the kinds of support systems that they need in the PACs across this province. I know how hard the PACs in my community work to try and augment the many cuts that the government has made over the last eight years, and now they have a bigger load to take on. They have more weight to carry and less resources with which to do it.

At a time when communities and citizens who are impacted by the economic downturn need more resources and more reliance on the health care system and health care that's there when and how they need it, we have cuts to the health authorities. We have a reduction in MRIs. And to add to the pain, we have a government that's now increasing MSP. At a time when people are finding it more difficult, the government is adding to their costs with MSP increases.

Then, of course, we have the HST, which has been debated long and hard in this House but much longer and harder out there around the kitchen tables across British Columbia. There is not a person I have spoken to in the last three months since this was announced who is not absolutely livid about the stealthy way in which this HST has been thrown at them just after an election — no opportunity to think about that and use that as part of their decision-making process during the election. Stealthily, we hear about it after the election.

Families are very, very disturbed as they begin to calculate all of the great number of responsibilities this government has begun to incrementally add to their lives. Frankly, many of the constituents I talk with are just making it through from payday to payday. They're working families. They're part of the great, new working poor that's been created under this government.

Part of the eight-year legacy of the B.C. Liberal government has been the term "the working poor," where we have working people in the province of British Columbia that are expending more than 60 percent of their income just on shelter, where we have families who are accessing food banks on a regular basis to make ends meet. That's the legacy of this government after eight years.

Now we are plunged into a harder time, where the government is going to begin to strip away more and
[ Page 450 ]
more resources and add more and more costs onto those working people out there. Frankly, people are fed up. They are fed up with the government constantly reaching into their pockets for more and more while delivering less and less.

The HST is a culmination of that. Not only is that going to adversely affect the working people across this province and in my constituency — many of whom are just making it, just getting by — but in fact we're seeing that it's affecting business, small business, right across my community.

The restaurant industry — they are all looking at this as a huge off-loading of taxation. Corporations get the break. The working people of this province will pay the price. Small business will pay the price. This is probably the most regressive kind of step you could possibly take in a poor economy.

I guess, at the end of the day, you have to say to yourself: "Well, who really gets hurt by these kinds of activities?" I will tell you that those who get hurt the most are the most vulnerable. It seems to me, as I look at the list of cuts — all of the cutbacks, all of the ways this government is taking money out of vital programs across this province — that the ones that are getting hurt the most are children, women, seniors and the most vulnerable.

What does it say about the kind of government we have, the kind of ideology that is at the root of this government's behaviour — that those who are most negatively affected by this summer of deceit, this budget deceit and the HST deceit that was perpetuated here after the election…? What does it say that those who are most affected are those least likely to stand up and speak out against this?

Instead, we will have women and children, many single-parent families adversely affected by the HST. We will have seniors making really tough choices.

I've heard from many of those seniors because I have many seniors in my community who really just eke it out from payday to payday from their pension cheques, just barely eking it out. They look at the HST and all the other incremental cuts this government is making that are going to affect them, like longer wait times for health care and certainly greater taxation out of their pockets. They ask me: "Why is the government doing this to us? Why is the government impacting those of us that are most vulnerable in society? Why do we have to pay?"

I don't have an answer because it defies the imagination why a government would take such regressive steps that they would go after the most vulnerable in society first and harm them the most in a taxation plan and a budget plan that should be about protecting people in British Columbia but is not.

You know, recently the children's representative tabled a report. It was the story of a family who got caught up in the system here in British Columbia that is such a product of this B.C. Liberal government's ideology.

It was a young family who had moved here and had not enough money to find adequate housing. So they moved in with family members. Those family members were deemed to be perhaps dangerous to the young child that this family had. But they had few choices because they actually went to the Ministry of Housing and Social Development and were not given adequate funds for shelter.

The Ministry of Children and Families came to them and said: "As long as you're living in this dangerous place, your child is in jeopardy, and we're going to take the child away." The family said: "Our only sin is that we are poor. The only criterion you are holding against us is poverty."

One ministry would not talk to the other ministry and adequately protect and shelter this young family and their young child. So the government swooped in and took the child and placed the child in a series of foster homes.

You'll probably not be surprised to hear that along that journey through foster homes, this young baby was unfortunately harmed — irreparably harmed. This young family, whose only sin was that they were poor, was given back a child that they will spend the rest of their life caring for as a disabled child.

I think this story demonstrates more than anything else the failure of this government and of the B.C. Liberals — that a young family has had their life altered forever because their sin was that they were poor.

It would seem to me that as I look at the results of the kinds of cuts that this government is now undertaking on the backs of a number of cuts that took place when the government was first elected…. When the B.C. Liberals were first elected they went on a reign of cuts, a reign of terror, right through government and affected most significantly the ministry of which I am the critic, the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The fact that we are standing here eight years later, and we have a family who was only guilty of being poor but was so completely mistreated by a government — by this government — that their lives are forever impacted and the life of their child is forever impacted….

If this were the only story that had ever come out of this government's time in office, perhaps you would be more generous, but in fact it's not. When you can stand here in British Columbia and know that this government continues to cut vital programs that affect the most vulnerable people in this province demonstrates what I said at the beginning of my remarks — the worst government in the history of British Columbia.

If we are judged by how we treat the most vulnerable, and many societies are…. I'm sure all of us have looked at Third World countries and war-torn countries and thought: "How can they not care for their children
[ Page 451 ]
and the most vulnerable and instead embark on war and treachery?"

Yet here in a highly civilized, perhaps the most highly civilized, nation to live in…. Certainly, we experience an extraordinarily high level of standard of living. We live very comfortably here in Canada, except of course for our homeless and those living in poverty. The fact that we have a number of government policies and we have the kind of disconnect throughout government that would allow a family to be so completely let down by government only because they were poor…. It was the only sin of which they were guilty.

It's funny, you know, when we talk about poverty…. Mother Teresa said: "We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty." Here in British Columbia our most vulnerable people now experience the greatest poverty because we have a government that does not care.

We have a government that is bent on cutting programs that are vital to communities. They have all kinds of justifications. I've heard them in denial. I've heard all of that. I can hear the mumbling on the other side of the House.

The reality is that the history books will show that in this summer of deceit, we have achieved the very worst kind of record here in British Columbia — highest debt, worst child poverty, greatest homelessness — and that in a watch where our government is busy bragging about all of their great achievements.

We have achieved nothing. We have achieved the lowest common denominator because we do not care for the vulnerable in this society. The government — this government — has demonstrated that time and time again. Shame on us.

P. Pimm: I'm very honoured and humbled to be standing here again in front of the House to give this budget response. It's very interesting to listen to some of the stuff that's being said about the budget. From my standpoint, I think this budget is about as positive a budget as you could possibly have during these kinds of times.

Before I get into that, I'd just like to acknowledge a couple of people. I know I acknowledged all my support staff up in my constituency after I did my throne speech and acknowledged all the staff down here. You certainly can't acknowledge those folks enough.

But I definitely want to acknowledge my wife again. Everything that we're putting them through…. You have to have your family. You have to have that support. I just want to acknowledge her. She's not here today.

It's a big change in everybody's lives. It's a big change in my life. I look at it like back when I was in my pipelining days, when it was an opportunity to get to go back to camp. The only difference is the camp is a little nicer.

Anyhow, to my wife: certainly, we're going to get through this. We'll get through the changes. We'll figure it all out, and we'll all come out stronger on the other end — just like this budget is going to allow us to come out stronger on the other end as well.

We're going through some tough times. The whole global economy is absolutely in the tank as we speak, and in Canada and this province we're no different. We're all in the same place. Let's talk about some of the shortfalls we've had. Just since the last six months, we've gone through shortfalls in personal and corporate income taxes. We're down in the range of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion. That's a direct result of having folks not working, having businesses not working.

What we have to do is make that climate the best climate that we can make it, so we can get these folks back to work, so we can get these companies back to work. I think that's what we're going to be doing. This government is taking a position. We're going to take the strong positions to do the right things to get folks back to work in the long term and come out of this thing a lot stronger on the other side.

I know it's not going to be popular. A lot of the choices we're going to make are not going to be popular, but they're going to be the right choices, and that's what we have to do.

If we take a look at resource revenues, we're down in the neighbourhood of $2 billion to $3 billion. You know, you can say that fast, and it doesn't sound like a whole heck of a lot.

Take a look at the oil and gas revenues alone. I have to say that if anybody could have projected what's happening with the oil and gas industry and the revenues surrounding that, I'd take my hat off to them. I don't believe anybody could have known that in June of 2008 the oil and gas…. The price of natural gas was $9.30, and in July of '09 it was $2.05. That's unbelievable. Nobody could understand. Nobody could ever have dreamt that that would happen.

Now, put that in perspective. For every dollar that natural gas goes down, it's $300 million worth of revenue that's lost to this government. For every dollar it goes up, $300 million back on the table. It's not hard to do the math. It went down 7 bucks. Now, 7 bucks times 300 million — I can do that math. That's $2.1 billion, hon. Speaker — $2.1 billion.

For everybody that doesn't understand — and I do understand, because I'm a small business man — a billion is a thousand millions of dollars. You can say it fast, and it doesn't mean much. But when you say it slow, you might be able to get the message. It's a lot of money.

Let's take a look at our three-year plan. This fiscal plan, we're going to have a deficit, you know, but we could have made the tough choices. We could have said: "Oh, maybe we shouldn't have a deficit." That's
[ Page 452 ]
what a lot of people in this government might like to not do.

I mean, I wouldn't like to have a deficit. I don't run deficits in my own household, but you know what that would have meant — if we hadn't had a deficit, if we didn't want to run deficit government? We'd have completely gutted the province, and we're not about to do that. This government is not about to do that. We're about making the tough choices, but we're not going to completely gut the whole thing.

I take my hat off to our Finance Minister. I think he's done a very good thing. He's done what a businessman would do. He took a look. Every year we have a Finance Committee that goes around the province. They talk about budget presentations, and everybody gets their input into the presentations. For the last eight years, what's the number one thing that they've been coming back with? HST.

So every year we take a look at HST. The Finance Minister takes a look at it. Cabinet, caucus, everybody takes a look at it. The timing wasn't right. Timing wasn't right. Timing wasn't right. Well, guess what. This year the timing was right. We're facing the worst economic times we've faced in an awful long time, and this year the timing was right. To not take that $1.6 billion revenue to help shore up the budget would have been a horrible mistake.

I think we did the right thing with HST. I'm going to talk a bit more about that a little later on, but it is the right thing to do, and it is what's going to make us come out of this thing a little bit stronger on the other side.

We promised that we were going to maintain the core services. We promised that in the election campaign. We went through the election campaign, and all of us said that core services were going to be there. So let's talk about health. Health, for one, is something that is going to be the most serious part of this government's budget for a long time to come. In 2001 health was about $8 billion or $9 billion. By 2011 it's going to be $15.7 billion. That's doubled in eight years.

I can tell you right now, standing here…. If I've got an expense in my business that's going to double in eight years, I'd better have a good, solid look at it. I think that's something we have to do.

Health is going to be an issue. It's going to be ongoing as an issue, and it's going to be one that we're going to have to look at. But when I hear people stand up and say that we're cutting health, it absolutely appals me. Some $2.4 billion — I think I expressed that earlier on the revenue shortfall — is what we're adding to health. So right off the nutshell, there's $5 billion that we're talking about.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are going to be issues. Health authorities — obviously they're going to have to make some decisions. They get their funding, and they're going to make some tough decisions. There's no question about it. It might mean that there might be a surgery that's postponed, or maybe somebody might have to travel another 15 or 20 miles to go to a different facility. Well, let me put that in perspective for you from the folks in the north.

My second-largest community is 7,000 folks — Fort Nelson. Fort Nelson has 7,000 people in it. And you want to know what? We talk about health. They understand the problems that we have with health. Half of the year they can't even deliver a baby in Fort Nelson. They have to pack up their families two weeks before it's time to have that baby and move them down to Fort St. John and get a hotel, hopefully. Maybe they have family.

They understand what toughness is about, and they understand how to fix it. So if there's a little bit of belt-tightening and a little bit of hardship that goes along with some of these decisions that we're going to make, that's the way it's going to have to be.

We can talk about education. The core funding has been maintained — $4.6 billion, $4.5 billion to $5 billion in education. The formulas have been maintained. We're putting out 8,500 bucks per student, per child — the highest amounts ever, and they're maintained. As far as I'm concerned, education is being looked after. Health and education are two mainstays we're looking after, and we're going to continue to look after those.

Post-secondary. We've got an increase — $93 million. I have to tell you, for us, post-secondary — that's amazing. Apprenticeships in the northern part of the province — that's what folks in the north look at as their post-secondary. They look at going into a trade. You know, they don't all get the chance and the opportunity to go to the universities — the UBCs and the UVics of the world or the Waterloos or whatever. They have to rely on the local colleges and the apprenticeship programs. We're very proud of the apprenticeship programs and what this government has been doing for the apprenticeship programs.

This year alone, the apprenticeship program is going to hit nearly 50,000 students. That's an awful lot of people to be putting into the post-secondary and the apprenticeship area, and we're proud of that fact.

If you look at the full-day kindergarten…. There we go again — 2010, $44 million and another $107 million in 2011. I think it's awesome that we'd be looking at the full-day kindergarten. When we get a chance to have these young minds learning at a younger age, it helps the parents so that they can get off the child care, get the day care situation looked after a little bit. So it helps them in that respect.
[ Page 453 ]

But you know, young minds…. It's best to train minds before they're contaminated. When you get a little further along in life and you look at the drugs and the alcohol and the opposite sex that happens, these kids get challenged by that. You have to teach them early in life how to learn and develop. So I think that's very important. The younger we can get them moving, the better off all of society will be.

We talk about additional expenses. We've got income assistance — an additional $455 million in income assistance. Now, this government is telling you that they're going to look after people that are having problems out there. People that have lost their jobs — we're looking after you. We're going to help you get trained and get moving on into a different area. That's absolutely critical. So in these tough times, income assistance and helping out that folk — that's something that's absolutely mandatory.

You take a look at additional expenses. Again, we've got forest fires this year. Some $350 million this year in forest fires. I come from an area of the province where most people talk about global warming. You couldn't prove global warming to anybody in my area. They think that global warming isn't even possible. But we'll give all the experts the benefit of the doubt and say that global warming probably is there. Maybe we'll just give them the benefit of the doubt.

But $350 million in extra expenses for forest fires. We better hope that that's not going to be an ongoing expense, because that's going to drive up the budget, and we don't have those expenses in there again for next year. We have to hope that folks will start looking after themselves, watching themselves when it comes to their summer activities, and won't light that fire, as most of them are man-made in the first place.

We've got H1N1. Who could have known? I don't think anybody would have known that we were going to have a flu virus that's going to start knocking people off. Absolutely out of the question. But now we've got another $80 million expense. They just keep adding up.

Here's one that I really like. I'm going to tell you that I had some folks say to me: "You know, Pat, when you get down there, you're going to be a backbencher. You're probably not going to have much success." Well, I'm here to tell you that backbenchers can have some success.

I'm going to talk a little bit about the residential energy heating costs. When we originally talked about HST, it was eliminated from that process. Because of caucus and because of the minister, we now have that in our budget. But that's another cost, unfortunately. It's a rebate to our folks. We're not going to see the expense, and that's absolutely awesome. But it's another cost to government — 200 million bucks. These things all add up.

When we talked about reallocating…. Right in our process, when we did the election, we knew that there were going to be some major cuts. We knew that there was $1.9 billion that was going to have to be found in administration costs. That was no secret. That's been there the whole time — $1.9 billion. All of the ministries have gone out, and they found that.

It wasn't enough. So we either had to find some more or run a higher deficit. It's not really a trick. It's just the way it happens to be. So what'd we do? We found another $1.5 billion.

I can tell you right now that there's not one MLA, there's not one minister, that wanted to find that extra revenue to cut out of the system. Not one. There's not one that wouldn't like to do as the opposition likes to do and fund everything that's out there. We'd all love to do that. How do we pay for it? It's absolutely impossible to pay for it, so that's why we can't do it.

Anyhow, as we went through the whole process, one of the things that we did look at and that we've kept in place is capital expenditures. This has been an ongoing commitment to keep B.C. working and to stimulate the economy. Hon. Speaker, $3.4 billion has already been put into capital expenditures across the province — $3.4 billion.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you folks, but $3.4 billion is still a lot of money in my neighbourhood. That's not the last of it. There's still another $20 billion to go in the next three years.

I think this government is looking after the future. We're getting everybody put into position where we're going to be in a stronger position when we get through this recession. B.C. has got one of the best tax regimes in place at the present time, and we've situated our businesses and our employees so that when we get through this, we are going to be stronger on the other side.

The infrastructure funding that we talk about is so important. It's important to every area of the province. It means that there's going to be transit projects. It means that we're going to be doing roads. We're going to be fixing roads. Whether it's in Vancouver or Fort St. John or Fort Nelson, we're going to be building and improving roads throughout the area. That's going to be ongoing.

Water and sewer projects. Schools. We're going to be building more schools in the next three years than we have in the last five.

Hospitals. Hospitals is one that I can certainly speak to. We're building a hospital in my community right now — $300 million. I have to tell you that there isn't one person in Fort St. John that isn't happy about having that hospital open. They're doing it now. We put the shovel in the ground this summer, and it's moving forward as we speak. They'll have a foundation in place by winter, and they'll be able to work all through the winter. It's going to be a project that's going to help our area stay strong throughout the winter.

Post-secondary facilities — same thing. Here's a good one: electrical generation and transmission and distribution projects. We heard that today, and that is
[ Page 454 ]
one of the best announcements that I've heard for an awful long time.

Let's talk a little bit about HST. I think HST is just fine, to be quite honest with you. It's a slight shift to the general public. That might be able to be said. We're trying to figure out just how much that is, and maybe you fellas have an idea. You can tell us how much it is. I think it's somewhere between $25 and $75 a month for most folks in the neighbourhood. That translates into somewhere between $300 and $1,000 a year, or something like that.

If you take seniors and low-income earners, they get a rebate — $230 per year. That pretty much covers most of the cost. For both of them — $460. For that single mother, she gets $230, and for every one of her children, another $230. She'll be able to look after herself.

Business and corporations. I must say that most of the businesses and corporations are all coming out in support of HST, because they know it is the single most important thing that we can do for business in this province.

The restaurant industry. You know, there's a little bit of confusion in the restaurant industry. But I've got to tell you one thing about the restaurant industry. I can honestly stand here in front of you today and tell you that when I go in to buy a hamburger or buy a steak, I've never once asked the restaurant owner how much my GST or HST is going to be on my hamburger.

The other thing I can tell you is that for business in our area, we live in an Alberta-B.C. where…. We've got the cross-border issue going on all the time. This is going to be the single most important thing for that, to level out the playing field for our cross-border shoppers. Where our manufacturers and where our contractors used to have to pay the 7 percent PST tax, they're now not going to have to pay that, and that puts money back in their pockets.

I have one little thing I wanted to read. This comes right out of the Sun. I picked that out of the Sun the other day. It's from Maureen Bader, Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I think this was supposed to be a slam on HST, but honest to goodness, I think she was in our caucus room. When I read this…. Oh, goodness, look at that. "Cutting Personal Income Taxes Could Lessen the Sting on HST," it's entitled.

I want to tell you a little bit, and I'm going to read a couple of excerpts out of this for you. "Harmonization should only proceed if families pay less in total tax." Imagine that. "While harmonization may bring greater investment and more high-paying jobs to the province in the long run," she says…. High-paying jobs to the province in the long run. Well, I have to agree, and I think that's exactly what it's going to do.

It says that "in the short…the reality is that hard-pressed families will be paying more for many goods and services." Fair enough. Then she goes on to say: "The best option would be to cut personal income taxes." Well, I think we've cut personal income tax, and I'm going to show you just that in a couple of seconds here.

"Reducing the burden of income taxes for all British Columbians could best be achieved by increasing the basic personal income tax exemption." Imagine that. Increase the basic exemption. We did that. We went from $9,700 to $11,000. It's almost like she took a page right out of our manual.

She goes on to say: "Although the HST may have some positives in the long run…." It has a lot of positives in the long run, I might add. "The tax change, coupled with higher taxes for consumers makes it mandatory for government to cut other taxes." Again, exactly what we do.

So then it says: "This will get government out of our pockets and allow hard-working families to spend their income in a way that best serves their needs. Moreover, it should be the only way that British Columbians would accept the HST." Well now, I'd like to just show you that exactly what she is saying is exactly what this government has done over the last eight years.

For example, for a family member that makes $20,000, they pay $177 in tax in B.C., the lowest of all provinces. Alberta is $206; Quebec, $761; and Prince Edward Island, $1,091. Let's go to $80,000, the bracket that most of us…. It's reality. In my area a lot of folks do that — $80,000. In tax we pay $4,838. Alberta is $6,037. It's $10,000 in Quebec, and $9,100 in Prince Edward Island.

Guess what it was in 2001 for those that would like to have a little lesson in that: 8,895 bucks — $4,100 more in your pocket today than it was in 2001. I want to just add to that a little bit. That same $80,000 wage earner…. When you add in provincial income tax, property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, carbon tax, health care premiums, federal income tax…. Get this. Federal income tax is $11,231 for that $80,000 wage earner, and that's across the board. That's every province.

Well, guess what it is in B.C. for that total number when you take in all of the taxes. It's $19,553 — again, the lowest in Canada. It's $19,885 in Alberta. That's the closest to us anywhere in the country. I've got to tell you that in 2001 that number was $25,452 — $6,000 more in the pocket of every British Columbian. I must say, I'm very proud of the fact that we've put $6,000 more in every pocket.

You talk about minimum wage. Well, that minimum-wage earner, yeah, they're still making minimum wage. But guess what. They paid $1,000 in taxes in 2001. Now they pay $177. So we put that money back in their pockets, the same thing as a raise.

I must say that there may be a little bit of HST that folks are going to have to pay. But I think now this province has put our tax position in such a good area and a good position that we can afford to pay a little bit of HST.
[ Page 455 ]

S. Fraser: Madam Speaker, I'd like to begin by congratulating you on your appointment. I wish you all the best and thank you for doing the good work that you do from the chair.

I'd also like to take a moment just to thank my constituency assistants, Brenda McLean and Patty Edwards. They do the good work that they do in our constituencies. It's much appreciated. They are the face of the MLA, in a lot of cases, and they do such a wide variety of tasks to try to help constituents and groups. My hats are off to them. We could not do this job without them. I'd like to acknowledge that. And here in the Legislature, Anne Paxton, my legislative assistant. I couldn't do this job without her, so I thank her for that too.

This is a response to the budget. I am always honoured to stand in this great place and do the people's work on behalf of the people of Alberni–Pacific Rim. My response to the budget is…. Well, I've got a number of responses. It's really bad. It's a really bad budget. It's deceiving. It's ghastly. I've heard that too. There have been many responses that I've heard — regressive, bamboozling. Did I say really bad? I think I did. So that would be a response.

It's funny. The Liberal budget has caused some reaction from the public, and those words have all been used to me as MLA. Those reactions really don't vary much in the public. The only variance we see is from the Liberal members. They have sipped the bathwater a bit much — guzzled the tub, I believe — because their responses to this budget are completely different than every other British Columbian that I've ever encountered since the budget has come forward.

It doesn't have to be from the left wing or the right wing or Liberals and New Democrats. There's a consistency here in the reaction that I have not seen before in this province. I have to hand it to the Liberals, to the Premier, to the Finance Minister. They have created a certain unity in the province around this budget, bringing together often very polarized and disparate groups and individuals around a certain theme of this budget — betrayal.

I attended a meeting with a local group in Qualicum Beach. Actually, it's not in my constituency, but they requested a meeting just a couple weeks ago. And 20 minutes into the meeting, they…. Probably a large amount of these people were not my supporters. However, they brought up the issue of: how does recall work? That's the sense of betrayal and outrage that citizens all over the province are displaying, like I say, from all across the political spectrum.

What we have seen from the Liberals that has caused so much outrage is not the fact that they're running either the largest or second-largest deficit in the history of the province. That's not what's causing the outrage. Of course, people are getting used to that. They've done that one before. No, the outrage from the people of the province is around feeling that they've been deceived to win an election. That's where the sense of betrayal is.

The Liberal election plan that's reflected pre- and post-budget is pretty stark. Here's the plan. It's quite simple. The Liberals, before the election, claimed to British Columbians that because they were such great fiscal managers, B.C. was immune to the effects of the worldwide recession. How many times did we hear, "Not a penny more than $495 million in deficit," and that we would ride right through this recession because of these great managers?

So that's a commitment they made, a promise they made, pre-election. They produced budget numbers to verify that management myth. That was the $495 million deficit. "Not a penny more," I think, was used. These are the statements made pre-election. Then we're going to see the difference of this as we discuss the budget post-election.

The next thing that the Liberals did to win this election is they based those fantastical numbers, those mythical numbers for the deficit, on a number of myths.

Increased income tax revenue. Now, as we were leading the country in job losses pre-election and post, the Liberals based the budget on a large increase in income tax. Now, you don't have to be an economist to question that one.

Then they also based their fantastical budget numbers of only a $495 million deficit on increased sales tax revenue, while consumer confidence was plummeting because we were in a recession.

These are very clever tactics to win an election. Next they omitted the facts like B.C. being one of the worst-performing economies in the country or that the welfare caseloads and the pressures that those brought to bear on the budget were going through the roof. They didn't just omit those. They withheld that information before the election.

They also promised to protect health care and education — a very, very worthwhile promise to make, if there was any truth behind the promise.

Then, of course, they made a point of never mentioning the plans to rip out the heart of Tourism B.C., world-renowned Tourism B.C., a shot in the stomach of all tourism operators. They didn't mention that before the budget and before the election.

They never told the public about their plans to promote and increase on-line gambling from $120 a week to $10,000 a week, basically preying on people with gambling addictions.

The Liberals never mentioned cuts to libraries. No, they never mentioned massive increases in MSP payments. Last but not least, they never mentioned that basic vital public services and funding to essential non-profits in all of our communities will be ripped away with no consultation and no notice.
[ Page 456 ]

Now, that's an election strategy, brilliant strategy. The Liberals are getting good at it — promises like we won't sell B.C. Rail, or we will honour HEU contracts. We've got quite a litany of statements made, designed to be broken to win an election.

Then we get the budget, and it's 600 percent out over the original pre-election budget of $495 million deficit. So we're pushing…. Well, it's probably a $3.5 billion deficit, but they took some blood money for a planned HST, from the federal government, that brought it down to $2.8 billion. But that $2.8 billion represents a 600 percent mistake from pre-election to post-election.

Now, I've been a small business owner, and I know there are other members from both sides of the House who have probably done the same — and larger business operators, corporate owners, corporate elite, CEOs and that sort of thing. Anybody that blows a budget by 600 percent would be turfed out very, very quickly.

I think there'd be a way of doing it without paying severance, too, to whatever individual or individuals actually misled their shareholders or company owners by that much.

This budget…. The outrage it has caused is consistent throughout the province. It spans political parties. It spans the spectrum of left wing and right wing, and it is an outrage. It is an election by deception. In this budget….

It's not an easy budget to actually read through, because we have so many community groups coming to us MLAs, at least from this side of the House — I'm sure the others too, but they might not admit it. However, they're coming, wondering: "Are we on the chopping block? We can't tell. Are we going to lose critical funding for our food banks or our parent advisory commissions or our palliative care facilities, our hospices or our animal recovery facilities or any number of non-profits that do the vital work in our communities that the government refuses to do and refuses to fund through core funding?"

As we go through the budget to try to give them answers of whether or not they're on the chopping block, we can't find it out. There's been an amalgamation of so many things in various ministries and a separation of other things in other ministries, making it a very, very difficult document to compare from previous budgets and to tell who's going to get what or who is going to get devastated by budget cuts. It's been very difficult to go through this.

But trickling out, of course, as the bad news flows through community groups and organizations, we're starting to learn just what that means. What we've seen initially…. Remember the mythical promise pre-election to protect health care. Just on Vancouver Island, what the Liberal promise to protect health care means is a reduction of 4,400 MRIs — just on Vancouver Island. That's the definition, a Liberal definition, of protecting health care.

I don't think anyone buys that. I don't think anybody sees that as protecting health care. I think that's part of the outrage with this budget. There was no mention pre-budget of cutting 4,400 MRIs on Vancouver Island. They're putting people and patients at risk. They're cancelling surgeries. This is not protecting health care on Vancouver Island, not dealing with the paramedics and giving them the fair and just contract to do the good work they do to save lives as part of our health care continuum. That is not a good faith action that reflects a pre-election promise of protecting health care.

Obstetrics at the Tofino hospital in my constituency has ceased to exist in the hospital. If a woman from Ahousaht is having a birth, she faces a 40-minute boat ride on a good day down to Tofino, and the hospital is no longer equipped to handle obstetrics. It's a two-hour, winding road highway to Highway 4, to the next hospital, which is in Port Alberni, which has lost other services. It's a domino effect.

There's no money in this budget. There's no mention in this budget of protecting those services, which was a promise made pre-election. The hospices on Vancouver Island are all wondering if they're going to get their money because they don't get any core funding from this government — even though their own strategy, the framework on end-of-life care that came out two years ago, said that hospice must be supported as an integral part of our health care system to provide quality end-of-life care.

Now these organizations are losing sleep because they don't know if they're going to get their meagre gaming grants. They have to fight for those every year, use up valuable energy that should be spent on helping people and families cope with death experiences that VIHA, the Vancouver Island Health Authority, isn't dealing with and neither is the Ministry of Health.

When there are cuts, these are the worst kind of cuts that you can make. These valuable community groups provide the best bang for the buck, if you will, of any money spent by ministries, any ministries. You bring in community members. You get huge leverage with volunteerism on many of these groups, and their meagre funds are being slashed in a budget deception that defies logic.

I mentioned the PACs. These are the parent advisory commissions that do the good work in our communities and involve parents in the education process, which I think is so important to the health of our education system. Well, they just got an announcement without any warning — this is a week before the school year starts — that their budget is going to be cut in half.

Now, the DPAC in the Alberni Valley provides breakfasts for hundreds of students, and these are the types of
[ Page 457 ]
cuts that this government is making — devastating to children; devastating to people that are dying; devastating to the people that should be prevented from dying, through things like MRIs.

If any of this were talked about openly with the people of British Columbia pre-election, the Liberal government would never have won. The Liberal government basically made a mockery out of democracy through this budget process. Pre-election they say one thing. Post-election they say the complete opposite on almost every subject. That deceit has come back to haunt them these days. We've seen that in the polls. Unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, we may be stuck here for four years with a government that got in illegitimately by misleading the public to win an election.

I'll note the facility grants for our schools. It was also a shock to the education system. That was part of the "we will protect education" promise that was immediately broken post-election in this budget. The facility grants, as most of you know, have for 30 years, I think, been issued to school districts, to school boards, and rightly so. They provide the basic maintenance that's necessary to keep our schools safe and to keep our children healthy, and by extension, to provide quality education for our students.

Of course, the expectation from proper management of school districts, like school districts 69 and 70 in my constituency, is that these works will be done, contracted out in late spring — it's always what happens — as the school year is coming to an end, and then the stopwatch starts ticking as soon as school gets out and the kids get on their summer vacation or go get their summer jobs at a ghastly minimum wage from this government, but I digress.

So these contracts are let, and they're done during the summer months. Less than two weeks before the start of the school year, the school districts, the trustees that are tasked with juggling their insufficient budgets, were told that they're not getting that money. The work has been done. In district 70 I was at a school district meeting, the trustees meeting a couple of weeks ago, and they're outraged. They put forward a resolution that was unanimous to oppose these diabolical cuts to the basic needs of children in our educational system. They've spent all of that money — rightly so.

All the schools in district 70 are old. All of them need work and annual maintenance. If they don't get it, we get the problems of leaking roofs. We get the problems of mould. This puts children at risk. And as far as I can tell from this confusing budget, this deceiving budget, these grants will no longer exist next year either. What about school maintenance? What will happen now? Our children will be put at risk. So while the trustees of various school districts — all of the school districts — across the province are wrestling with this deception and this betrayal, they get hit with a removal of the school sports grants. So the students are hit again.

How $130,000 can be pulled from the provincial budget that affects every school in the province is beyond belief. How the Liberals could make such a ghastly decision is beyond belief in this approach to the Olympics.

The true meaning of the Olympics: involving children in sports, learning leadership skills, teamwork, team spirit, learning about themselves, learning…. It's education. It's an integral part of our education system, and this government pulled it out. They spent $500,000 on a party to celebrate the Premier and the Olympics — but the Premier, mostly. They spent $500,000 in a one-day private party to celebrate a sporting event, and to do so they've removed the equivalent of three years of all the school sports money for the entire province, for all the schools in British Columbia.

When Liberal members stand up and actually start talking about how good their budget is…. They must have drunk the entire bathtub of water. It's beyond belief. The backbenchers and the ministers alike are getting hammered by their own constituents over this ghastly budget, the worst budget in the history of the province of British Columbia.

There's an organization in my constituency. That's Alberni–Pacific Rim. It also includes the east side of the Island, Errington, Coombs, Bowser, Deep Bay. In Errington there's an organization, and it's the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre.

Now, the government doesn't take care of animals that have been orphaned or need to be brought back into the wild. It's a very technical and difficult thing to do, and the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre does amazing work.

They take raptors — eagles, owls — that have been injured. They rehabilitate them, get them back into the wild if possible and take care of them if they can't, to ensure that they can live their lives out. They take black bears that have been orphaned, and they have found a way to rehabilitate them in a way that the public can celebrate and take part in. There's no contact so that the bears do not get acclimatized to people and they can be released back into the wild.

They do this good work, and the only money they get from the government for this is gaming funds. They have a three-year contract for gaming funds. When Dr. Robin Campbell, who is the lead veterinarian at this wonderful facility that's so well supported by everyone on Vancouver Island because of the good work they do…. When he builds his budget he can plan for the long term, because you can't just release an animal because you've run out of money. You have to do your due diligence.

Well, they did at the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre. They built their three-year plan based on some form of trust with this government that they will honour those contracts. Then of course, a couple of weeks ago
[ Page 458 ]
they got the news…. Like all organizations that do the good works of our community, all the non-profits that rely on gaming funds because they don't get core funding from the government, they were told they're not going to get their money. They're halfway through a three-year contract. The Premier said it wasn't a real contract.

Well, you tell that to the orphaned animals in that facility. I don't think they'll understand that. You tell that to the thousands of supporters of the North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre — that it's not a real contract. Dr. Campbell and company had to fulfil their end of the contract, and this Premier said that it wasn't a real contract.

Now, there's been something of a reversal on that from the Minister of Housing, who's responsible for gaming, after a very vocal and volatile question period on it, and there was apparently a reinstatement of that. The North Island Wildlife Recovery Centre still does not know if they're going to get their funds. This is chaos. It's causing chaos in these organizations and hospices and food banks. This government is winging it. They couldn't manage anything. They couldn't manage to tie their own shoes.

We've got $500 million on the table for infrastructure grants announced a year ago by the federal government. Stimulus money in a recession. A good idea — right? This is a 33-cent dollar for this government. It's the best investment you could make. Certainly, the only stimulus money we're going to see is from the feds, because the province is doing anti-stimulus in this budget, with bringing in things like a regressive tax.

We've got $300-plus-million sitting on the table from the feds, and it isn't moving — only in the province of British Columbia. We've lost an entire construction season. We've lost opportunities for thousands of jobs in this province. Stimulus — these guys don't understand the word. It's appalling that we're the only province to allow that to occur. How could that happen in a country like Canada?

The feds come up with money, and you can get, like, a 300 percent return on it for everything you invest as government, and you bungle that. The Liberals bungled that. They couldn't even get their act together. More broken promises.

I remember the Premier saying: "Ninety days. We're going to fast-track that." That's a promise designed to be broken, and it was, just like every other promise made to win this last provincial election — election by deception.

I hope I can get some heckling out of the other side. It's usually a sign that you're getting under their skin. I just….

I don't know if I mentioned it, but my response to this budget is that it is bogus, it is bad for British Columbia, it is the worst budget in the history of the province, and it was built on deceit.

Deputy Speaker: I'd like to remind all members that in the use of the word "you," it sometimes slips into the colloquial, but always remember that we should be addressing through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: It's a great honour and privilege to rise today to speak in this House for the first time on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Vancouver-Fairview. I'm keenly aware of the honour and responsibility that I have as the newly elected MLA for this unique and lovely riding.

I'd like to take a moment first to stop and thank my friends and my family for all their help and support along the way, which continues now and, I'm sure, will continue in the future. I'd like to thank my three brothers, Don, John and Andy, as well as my mom, Bette, and my father, who passed away a few years ago.

My father was a family doctor initially and then an internist, and one of the things that he was for all of us was a role model and a mentor. He told us how important it was for those of us who are fortunate to give back to our community, to give back to our profession, and he modelled that throughout his life, as my mother continues to today. She's a senior citizen who every day does things to make the world a better place and to contribute to the lives of people in her life.

I'd also like to thank my husband, Robert, who's been tremendously supportive throughout my campaign and who is the best husband I could ever imagine.

I'd like to thank my campaign team as well as the literally hundreds of people who helped with my campaign. I was touched and really overwhelmed with the spirit of volunteerism that's alive and well, and I know that the other members here would feel the same way.

Volunteers spent so many hours and gave so much of their personal time. Some of my friends and new friends actually worked full-time and more on my campaign, and I was just so touched.

I've only been here as an elected member for a short time, and I'm really struck by the beauty of this place — the chamber and the legislative grounds as well as the surrounding area. I'm also conscious of the history that's been made here. I often actually stop in the hallways or outside the building and look around because of the beauty but also think about the men and women who've served before us, debating and setting policy and serving British Columbians here. If the walls could speak, I know they would have remarkable stories to tell us.
[ Page 459 ]

I know it's meaningful for everyone here to be here as an elected MLA. It's particularly meaningful for me. I feel especially fortunate, because just two years ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I actually had almost a year where I could not work at all.

I was very lucky to be here in British Columbia, where I had an early diagnosis and absolutely wonderful treatment. I had the best possible care from highly competent and compassionate care providers — pharmacists, nurses, doctors and technologists and a whole host of health care providers at various institutions.

The months that I had of chemotherapy and radiation were sometimes quite hard. Although I always knew that I would be better, always knew I would get better, I did find myself sometimes wondering exactly when that would happen and when I'd be able to work again. But here I am now. I am entirely well, and I'm just incredibly grateful for the care I received in this province, where we have such wonderful health care.

I had already decided before my diagnosis that I wanted to change work and work to be elected and become an MLA, but this experience as a patient with a serious health problem really strengthened my resolve and made me even more convinced that this was the right work for me.

I've experienced a health care system in a very personal way as a patient, but I've also been a provider for many years. I've been a family doctor for 23 years, most of it in a small town called Trail. You may know it as the home of the Smoke Eaters. It's a wonderful community in the West Kootenays — again, the spirit of volunteerism being alive and well there.

It was a wonderful place to live and work, and now in my home of Vancouver I'm also finding a wonderful place to live and work.

I can say I always have valued education very highly, but as a family doctor, my work revealed to me just how important education is in the lives of my patients. I'll talk more about that in a moment.

In addition to my work as a family doctor, I was a member of the board of the Canadian Medical Association for several years and also of the British Columbia Medical Association. I was the president of the medical association here in B.C. three years ago, and it was during that work that I became really aware of the important work that government does. I went from being, previously, a somewhat harsh critic of government to being someone who realized that the work of government is so valuable. It actually made me want to be part of government.

When I was president, I had an experience that is one of the reasons that I wanted to come and work here, and I want to just briefly talk about it. I had the opportunity to meet with the Select Standing Committee on Health, which at the time was under the leadership of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano.

That committee was working on the very challenging area of childhood obesity. They were making recommendations in that area, and what made a great impression on me was how members on both sides of the House were able to work together very collegially in a non-partisan manner. Not only that, but there were a number of government ministries that set aside their differences and worked together, as well as a number of associations — the medical association, pediatric association, dieticians, public health folks — a whole bunch of different people all working together.

It was clear to me, working in this important area of child health, that barriers were broken down and people came together. I'm not naive enough to believe that that will happen every day. I know it can't always happen, but it was a very impressive accomplishment. My hope is that we can find ways to work like that together, because I believe that will be some of the best work we'll do for British Columbians.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about Vancouver-Fairview. It is a vibrant and diverse part of our province. It's made up of a number of neighbourhoods, distinct business districts and wonderful people. It's the home of the B.C. Cancer Agency, Vancouver General Hospital, G.F. Strong, the B.C. women's and children's hospital, Genome B.C., the Blusson Spinal Cord Centre and many, many biotechnology and technology firms, as well as the place where many medical researchers work.

In addition, there are, of course, parks, schools, seniors facilities and lots and lots of neighbourhoods, as I mentioned. Vancouver-Fairview will be the host of one of the 2010 Olympic venues, the curling venue, which is a beautiful new facility in Riley Park.

Campaigning helped me to get to know my riding in a different way. As I knocked on doors in every corner of the riding, I met many people — residents and business owners as well as people who were the researchers, the doctors and nurses, the people who worked in the tech and biotech industries. I heard stories from all of them. I certainly found myself saying many times as I knocked on doors: "What a great neighbourhood."

I asked people, when I knocked on their door, what their concerns were and what they would want me to do if I was successful in my bid to become their MLA. I certainly heard lots of different answers, but the thing I heard most often is that people were concerned about the economy.

Many of them said they were okay, but they were concerned about their children, their neighbours and friends and just generally concerned about what was happening in the province. They recognized that we were being impacted by a global downturn, but they told me what they were looking for was a government that would have strong leadership, that steps would be taken to protect jobs and to create economic opportunities. And they
[ Page 460 ]
told me they wanted support for valuable programs like our health care and education systems.

I also heard from many constituents how important it was to them that government take strong action on climate change, and people told me that they were specifically going to vote for me because of our carbon tax. They wanted strong action not only for themselves but in particular because of their concern for the next generation.

I strongly support the budget that we will soon vote on because it addresses the very issues my constituents told me were the most important to them. This budget protects vital services that British Columbians treasure as well as takes steps to strengthen our economy.

I spoke earlier about my work as a general practitioner, and it was wonderful work. I really did feel that I made a difference for my patients, one at a time, but at times this very rewarding job became rather frustrating. I'd be sitting with a patient, perhaps in my office or in the emergency department or in a nursing home, and I'd realize that the health problem they had really, totally could have been prevented years earlier.

Usually at the root of their problem was a problem with education. Either they were undereducated, or they hadn't had educational opportunities. Some of my patients had struggled with literacy, and they couldn't read their pill bottles. If I gave them written instructions, that would be a problem. It made it very difficult for them to be a partner in their own health care, very difficult for them to follow directions. At the root of all of this, really, was a lack of education or just the wrong kind of education.

Education is such a tremendously powerful thing. It determines what directions our lives will take. It opens doors. It plays an enormous role in our health — in fact, determining our future health — and above all, it really helps to shape the quality of our lives. It's therefore, actually, hard for me to find words to describe how I felt when I was appointed the Minister of Education and the Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy. I cannot imagine more meaningful and important work, and I can't thank Premier Campbell enough for entrusting me with this work.

Since I was appointed Minister of Education, I have learned an astonishing amount about our education system. In fact, I'd say this experience has been highly educational. I'm tremendously proud of our system. I would like to share some of our accomplishments and our plans for the future with you.

Madam Speaker, I've met students, parents, educators, leaders in aboriginal education and have spent time with many of the ministry staff. On a daily basis I'm impressed with the dedication and devotion that people have to their work in education. I want to thank every single person who makes that their work in this province, because it's such important work, and they do such an amazingly good job.

As I've said, we do have one of the best education systems in the world. Our students do outstandingly well by all international and national measures. I can't say this often enough. We have so much to be proud of and to celebrate.

We're continuing to work towards our goal of making B.C. the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction in the continent. We're doing that in spite of these very challenging economic times. One of the things that we're doing is preserving and actually increasing education funding. So this year in classrooms across B.C. we'll be investing $4.5 billion. That's an $84 million increase over last year's funding, and this is in spite of the fact that we believe that there will be about 7,000 fewer students in British Columbia classrooms this fall.

Since 2001 the decline in enrolment was about 60,000 students, and that's just the reality of the demographics that we have faced in British Columbia. It certainly has made education and the work of school districts and educators very challenging.

Total funding this year for students with special needs will again be higher than ever before. We'll be investing about three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Of the $14 billion infrastructure plan announced by the Premier, $1.3 billion is earmarked for schools. This year alone, with accelerated infrastructure spending, there will be $447 million which will go toward new schools, upgrades in schools and seismic mitigation.

It's important to know the numbers, because the numbers are significant. But I would like to just stop and talk about a school that I visited just before the school year started, and that was the new secondary school in Penticton.

Here's a school that is actually partly new and partly a renovation. They've done things like taken bricks from a school that was nearly a hundred years old and reused them. This building now has got amazing environmental standards that will reduce operating costs, as well as having a state-of-the-art gym and many other facilities. The principal took me around along with the superintendent, and they were so excited about getting students into those classrooms.

We're providing an education system that's focused on achievement for every student, and we're working toward a brighter future that involves new approaches to benefit our youngest learners. Starting in 2010, we'll be offering full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds across this province. In the meantime, we're continuing to expand our StrongStart B.C. centres, which are preparing early learners for success before they reach school. We're hearing a lot of success stories from these StrongStart B.C. centres.

Districts are involved in new strategies to create more inclusive, culturally relevant learning opportunities for B.C.'s aboriginal students. We're continuing to work on
[ Page 461 ]
neighbourhoods of learning. Finally, we're using the opportunities that the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games present to engage students in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for learning.

The throne speech shows that our government recognizes the importance of investing in early learning, and the budget speech provided the support that we need to implement this program over the next two years.

In 2008 we created an Early Childhood Learning Agency and looked at the feasibility of full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds as well as full-day learning for four-year-olds and three-year-olds. We carefully looked at this agency's findings and their recommendations, and I'm so delighted to say that we will begin implementing this full-day kindergarten next fall. The feedback that we've had from parents, educators and school districts is absolutely positive.

In the meantime, as I've said, we are continuing to work to set up our children for greater lifelong learning success, even before they reach school. We know that through early intervention and early education, we can better prepare our children to enter school. We know that at the moment about one in four British Columbia students isn't ready to start school when they enter kindergarten.

When children are better prepared, they do better academically in school and they're much more likely to graduate. They also experience more confidence, higher success rates, fewer health issues throughout their lives and higher employment rates. So we're investing this year $43 million for the StrongStart B.C. centres.

These are places where our early learners can go with their parents or their caregiver and learn in a fun and supportive environment. The caregivers can also learn how to foster early childhood development that will lead to learning success later. There are currently more than 200 StrongStart B.C. centres operating in communities all across B.C., and this number will expand this year — substantially.

I'd like to talk about our aboriginal learners. The province is committed to working with school districts and aboriginal communities to help all British Columbia students succeed. Aboriginal students have made some important gains, but we still do have a long way to go.

We know that currently, of our aboriginal students, only about one in two of them will graduate from high school, and we know that we need to do better than this. We're supporting these goals through our approach to aboriginal education. Last year the province provided about $52.6 million in funding for aboriginal education, and this is a 28 percent increase since 2001. Over that same period, aboriginal completion rates have gone up about five points.

We've also developed some aboriginal-specific courses. This year English 12, "First Peoples" was offered for the first time. This is a unique aboriginal course with an aboriginal perspective for students who take this course. It maintains the same rigorous requirements as English 12, and it's an accepted entrance requirement for all B.C. universities and colleges.

Another thing we are doing is working together with school districts and aboriginal groups to ensure that aboriginal education enhancement agreements are in place in each school district. At the moment they are in place in 45 of the 60 school districts. This is another way that we're building an education system that allows aboriginal learners to reach the high achievement levels we know are possible.

The first thing I did as the Minister of Education was attend one of these signing agreements. It was in Vancouver at the longhouse out at UBC, and this two-hour ceremony was truly an amazing experience. I heard from — well, all of us present heard from — aboriginal students and from aboriginal leaders and educators. There was singing and dancing from various performers, and it was such a positive experience. There was so much positive energy in that room.

I learned a lot from the ceremony and from talking with people before and afterward. I learned that the ways we measure success may not be the same at all as how our aboriginal partners measure success.

What I learned is that it is critical that our aboriginal learners feel that the school they attend is their school, that there is respect for their culture and traditions. That's why incorporating aboriginal lessons into the curriculum is so important. When they hear their music and their poetry and their books being read, that makes a difference.

I'm confident, after meeting with aboriginal educators and the other educational partners, that we can and will do better. I'd like to just talk about one example of the success of one of these enhancement agreements.

School district 28, Quesnel, signed their aboriginal enhancement education agreement in 2003, and their six-year high school completion rate increased by 16 percent in four years — just a phenomenal increase. It demonstrates clearly how these agreements are making a difference. We'll continue to work together with our partners and make sure that our aboriginal learners are succeeding in our school system.

I'd like to talk about another government initiative, the neighbourhoods of learning. This government has a vision to bring education and community services together under one roof in schools throughout the province. This vision became the $30 million neighbourhoods of learning initiative.

We have sometimes underutilized school space because of our declining enrolment. In this situation that school space can be used for any community purpose, such as early learning or child care programs. There can be space for non-profit organizations or health clinics.
[ Page 462 ]
There could be seniors programs, and in some cases there's industry training and branch libraries.

With the expansion last spring, there are now nine of these neighbourhood of learning model schools being developed in six districts across British Columbia. We'll continue to work to incorporate neighbourhoods of learning into any area in districts where they are planning new and existing capital projects.

I'd like to talk about what we think of as a once-in-a-lifetime learning opportunity, and that is the 2010 Winter Paralympic and Olympic Games. I've talked with students throughout the summer and this fall about the different initiatives — first of all, just about the Olympics but then about the different education programs.

As soon as you talk with one of our students about the Olympics, their eyes light up. They've heard about it. They know the Olympics are coming, and they're excited about the sporting activities. You can tell there's enthusiasm that's just ready to be harnessed.

The games will be one of the most significant events in this province's history, and B.C. students will take part in the excitement. So we have a remarkable chance to engage students in a learning experience that they will remember for the rest of their lives.

We had an event at the beginning of the school year where we announced some of our programs, and one of them is the Adopt a Country program. Again, anytime I've spoken with students about this, their eyes light up. They immediately think about which country they'd like to adopt and what they'd like to know about that country — whether it's the language, the culture, the geography or which athletes are coming. It's something different for all students, but they're excited, and they really want to do it in their classroom.

As well, we announced the student reporter program. We had a grade 7 student called Ian come forward, and he interviewed — in front of probably a couple of hundred people — a Paralympic athlete and an aboriginal athlete. He did a fantastic job, and we said to him: "You are our first student reporter." He took up the challenge, and he's very excited about how he's going to go forward with this student reporting job that he's taken on.

There's a web-based curriculum that students can participate in and that teachers can go to, either on the Web or on a DVD that's been delivered to their schools. They can find a lesson starter for any course at any level, whether it's language arts, music, phys ed or any other course. It's there for them as a lesson starter and a way, again, of harnessing that enthusiasm and that delight that we see with our students.

We have many reasons to be hopeful and optimistic in British Columbia. The economic downturn will end. Economists across Canada predict that British Columbia will lead Canada out of this recession. Our government will continue to invest in our education system — once again this year, record levels of investment. What we're investing in is our most precious human resource — our students. We're investing in the future of British Columbia.

As a government, we have a long-term vision that focuses on our children and our grandchildren. When we pass this budget, we will continue to keep B.C. strong as we make these investments.

Deputy Speaker: I would ask people to turn off the audio for their electronic devices.

N. Macdonald: I rise again. Since being elected, I had an opportunity to respond to the throne speech. Today I'd like to respond to the budget which, of course, like many — in fact most — British Columbians, it's a budget that really doesn't offer very much.

Before I get started, I just want to talk about one issue like I did with the throne speech. It's one that has bothered me for a number of months, and it's around the ongoing paramedic strike. Now, that's a job action. I understand that there are discussions going on and perhaps a resolution, but there are parts of that which need to be talked about and understood.

Too often with this government there is a need for the workers to push for standards that are going to work for the wider community, when it really should be the minister who is trying to figure out how they put in place a system that is going to work for people. And yet you don't have that. Instead, over the past four years, you have a minister or ministers or a government that accepts problems for the paramedic service without looking for the solutions that are needed.

Over the past week we had an opportunity to spend the week with Labour Day back in our constituencies. I went to each and every one of the paramedic stations in the communities that I represent.

The communities that I'm here representing include Revelstoke, Golden, Invermere and Kimberley. Now, each of those paramedic stations has different issues, but they have one thing in common. It is a system that has been set up, which is so unattractive to trained paramedics that to retain people is incredibly difficult. It totally depends upon people with such a high degree of commitment to their community that they are willing to sacrifice the normal economic opportunities people have.

In rural areas you've set up a system that is sort of halfway between a volunteer system and a professional system so that you have people that are really put in an awkward place. I'll just give you a few examples.

In each of these communities you have people that are now required to stay at a station. For the past four years they have been paid $10 an hour. They sit there and in a rural area are called out less often than you would have
[ Page 463 ]
in a built-up area. But when they are called out, they are only then paid a decent wage.

They also are required to be on call, and for that they're paid $2. I'll just give you one example. I met a gentleman in Kimberley. In Kimberley it was 4,000 hours this gentleman worked last year. For those hours a highly skilled paramedic received less than $50,000, and only one-third of that was pensionable. That individual is committed to Kimberley, committed to this paramedic service, but there is nothing about the situation that that person is given that is going to be attractive.

In Kimberley that is a service where you know just how challenging the job is. In the station are the pictures of Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier. It is a service where people know the dangers involved, know the commitment that is needed from members. They are able to work in their station.

In Golden there is a station, but the paramedics are not able to even work in the station. There are mould issues, so like many paramedics across the province, they actually have to work out of a motel. They're based out of a motel. How long that will be is unclear. I understand that in Fernie, it's the same situation. That may have changed, but there are issues there that need to be resolved in a respectful and decent way.

In Revelstoke there has been no station, really, for four years. When the government made the decision to have paramedics stay at the station, the facility that they shared with the fire department was no longer acceptable. So they were forced to move, and they went to a motel. There are communities in the Lower Mainland where a motel may make sense for a period of time, but in a place like Revelstoke, Kimberley or Golden, you're dealing, of course, with snow.

Just to give people an example of how complicated a problem this is, Revelstoke would have the trucks outside of the motel. A heavy snowfall means that obviously people have to go out and clean off the ambulances so that they're ready to go. But in doing that, they're being told by their management that by the way, when you do that, you're not officially allowed to clean off the ambulances, because during the time you're there for $10 an hour, you're not actually working, according to the ambulance service. Therefore, you're not covered by workers compensation. So if you happen to injure yourself, you're on your own.

It's simply not thought through, and the people that have to pick up the pieces and make it work, and do make it work in such an incredible way, are the paramedics. But as we go ahead and look for solutions that we have to find, we have to think of ways to make it better.

We've got to get the facilities done. The Revelstoke station is again going to be delayed. There was supposed to be a new station. It has been put off again and again. That's unacceptable. We have to get that sorted. We have to get the Golden station up and going, and we need to create conditions for paramedics so that they will be retained and so that we show them the respect that the service deserves.

Moving on to the budget. Much has been said here, and I think within British Columbia, about the deception around the deficit. I think that regardless, really, of what is said here, the public has made up their mind on that issue. They feel strongly — the vast majority of British Columbians know — that what was said pre-election around a deficit of $495 million was a fiction that was repeated again and again for political purposes during the election.

That's something that people do not accept as an acceptable standard. So that piece is a piece that people understand. I don't think it has to be repeated again and again, but people have made up their mind on it.

I do want to speak about another piece of deception, and that's the harmonized sales tax, the HST. A clear promise not to introduce this tax. It is a significant shift in taxation. It is a shift that will damage two important groups in the Kootenays, the people that I represent — two important groups. It will have a devastating effect on tourism, and it will have a devastating effect on seniors and those on fixed incomes.

It is a shift of billions of dollars, and it is a shift that comes with absolutely no mandate. Whenever there's a member that stands up and somehow tries to make the case for the HST, the first thing that has to be asked is: where were you before the election making that case? Why were you making the exact opposite case during the election? And does that then give you the mandate to move forward? It does not.

This is a tax that is the exact opposite of what was promised. To put it forward is fundamentally wrong. How will it affect tourism? Well, the area that I represent — and those especially along the border would understand this, in particular — depends, as one of its key industries, on tourism.

In the area that I represent, we have Revelstoke Mountain Resort. We have Kicking Horse Mountain Resort, who were here yesterday talking to the government about the impacts, I presume, of the HST. You have Panorama. You have the resort in Kimberley, and close to me, of course, you also have Fernie.

These are incredible resorts; they are beautiful. They attract people from around the world, but primarily they attract people from Alberta. Panorama says that over 80 percent of the people that come to the resort come from either the prairie provinces or Alberta. They need to drive past Alberta resorts like Lake Louise, Sunshine, Nakiska, Mount Norquay and Marmot Basin. These are world-class resorts in their own right.

What the ski hills are saying, and what other tourist destinations are saying, is that if the HST comes in, it will mean that tourists are going to have to drive past
[ Page 464 ]
Alberta resorts and drive to a resort that is further away and will have an additional 7 percent on the lift ticket, will have an additional 7 percent for any ski or snowboard instructions, will have an additional 7 percent added by this government to any rentals of ski equipment and will have an additional 7 percent to any meal.

All of those are significant and damaging. The industry describes them as devastating additions to the tax. All of this was done not only with no consultation; it was done with a promise to that industry and to the hospitality sector not to introduce this sort of taxation.

With seniors…. I met with a gentleman. He came to one of the public forums that I held with the chamber of commerce in Revelstoke. He brought with him a piece of paper where he tried to figure out how much he thought the HST was going to cost him. He's on a fixed income, as with many seniors — many people on fixed income. They watch each and every penny they spend.

So he broke it down. He broke down what he paid in memberships, what he paid in insurance, how much he spent for haircuts. He broke down all of the things that, according to the information he had, he thought he would now have to pay an additional 7 percent on. The figure that he came up with was about $1,050.

So he added up what he spent last year on items that currently are PST-exempt. Then he multiplied that by 7 percent, and he came up with a figure of $1,050. His question was: "Where do they expect me to find that additional money? What am I going to have to go without?" But on top of the deceit around the deficit, why did the government not try to get a mandate from the people of British Columbia if this is the direction that they were going to go?

The question that often will come up is around the industries that benefit. So you speak to industries like Downie. You talk to people in the forest industry, and you ask the question: "Where does this fit in, in terms of your economic survival?" There are so many factors at play that it is fairly insignificant — the savings.

The connection that is so often made around initiatives from this government and the creation of jobs is a connection that most British Columbians would see as lacking credibility now. I think you just go back to 2002 or 2003 when you had government initiatives where….

There was a degradation of forest worker safety regulations. There was a degradation of forest practices. You had a breaking of the social contract between communities and the surrounding forests, and the explanation at that time was that it would create jobs, that there would be billions in investment. Yet we all know that none of that happened.

From that point on, I think it's 25,000 or 26,000 jobs lost in the forest sector. You have mill after mill — 60 mills or 65 mills — closed permanently. The exact opposite — an unprecedented collapse of our most important industry.

You even had the giveaway of section A lands like Jordan River, where the minister said that the reason that was happening was to create jobs. Well, the exact opposite happened. No jobs were created. It was an argument, now being used for the third time around the HST, that people very correctly question. I mean, it's the third time using the same argument. It simply lacks credibility. It simply lacks credibility.

The HST is a job killer for tourism. That's what the tourist sector is saying. That's what the hospitality sector is saying. It's a job killer. It's as if the B.C. Liberals want to do the same thing to tourism that they did to forestry — destroy good, family-supporting jobs.

In the budget the province — all people in the province — felt a loss of the wealth that the forest produces. If you look at where revenues dropped, an awful lot of them were dropped in revenues produced in rural British Columbia. The problems for the forest industry are problems that all British Columbians share. Yet in the budget hardly anything was in there, in the budget speech, that dealt seriously with the issue.

In forestry the people of this province are going to have to push their government to make the investments that are needed in understanding the forest health issues and dealing with the forest health issues that are there. They are significant. They are complex. They will take investment.

As government moves to make cuts everywhere, forgetting about those needed investments is something that you have to believe this government is going to find easy to do. But it is a huge mistake. We have a forest that needs investment and that needs health issues in the forest understood and needs them to be dealt with.

You also have within this budget absolutely no support for the people that have created so much of this province's wealth, which are forest workers. You have almost no real programs for them, and those that are there have been provided entirely with federal money for years.

For years the NDP opposition has been calling upon this government to make even the smallest investment in workers, and it has not happened. You have a transition program that was barely advertised using entirely federal money, which was there to assist some workers between the ages of 55 and 65 move to their retirement funding. You assisted a few people.

Those that missed that program thought it would be there for them. Again, the government told them that it would be, but when it came forward, it came forward with different rules and regulations. It was something that applied only to workers between the ages of 60 and 65, leaving the whole group with nothing. For all of that, it's entirely federal money — not a penny for the transition, not a penny for the tuition programs from the province. That's something that anybody who understands where
[ Page 465 ]
wealth is generated in British Columbia needs to find offensive and wrong, yet that's what happened.

We have within the budget, again, a line item that represents in this year an accurate reflection of how much was spent. That is a number that is accurate, because it's different than the one that was put in place in February. Having gone through the season, we know that the $63 million that was put in the budget in February was completely inaccurate and predictably so. Instead, we have a number approaching $400 million. In the years to come, though, we have within the budget again $50 million for forest fire fighting.

Appropriately, wherever there's a need, you're going to be spending money. But it makes sense to put in a number that has some credibility, and there simply is none in the budget moving forward. It's a number picked out of the air with no rationale behind it. They used to say it was a ten-year average. It certainly isn't now. It's simply picked out of the air, and there's a problem with that.

One of the things that also isn't in the budget, which needs to be, is around the preventative work that needs to be done as we move into fire seasons that the minister has quite correctly recognized as seasons that are likely to get worse and worse.

We know certain things about the trends over the last number of years in terms of heating. We know the issues that are out there in the forest. We know that the Filmon report's recommendations around community interface work for the most part have not happened. Those are things that we need to talk about, that we need to push the government to make sure are in place so that as we head into a fire season next year, that work is done.

The Filmon report was clear that that's a responsibility of the provincial government. It's a commitment that should have been in the budget speech, and it's a commitment that should have been matched with funds in the budget to do that work.

Overall, as I travelled around the province this summer since taking on the role with my co-critic, one of the questions that came up again and again was around raw log exports. It would be expressed differently depending on where you were.

If you were on the Island, there was deep concern about logs going offshore. If you were in a community like Mackenzie, there was deep concern about any logs that would leave Mackenzie. There is still a strong sense, despite the fact that appurtenance was removed, that logs — the resource that surrounds the community — have to benefit the community. I think that's a tie that makes sense for most British Columbians at some point.

The question that also came up is around the sense that there is no plan. There is simply no plan to deal with forestry. There's no energy. There's no sense that the government has the ideas that are needed to deal with the challenges in forestry.

I think everybody who is dealing with it understands that the challenges are immense — everyone who deals with it. I firmly believe the minister, who comes from a rural area, also knows that there are huge opportunities, that this is a resource that is sustainable. Done properly, it can provide good, high-paying jobs for decades and decades to come.

With the situation we have now, there are both challenges and opportunities. We need to rethink how we do forestry. We need to put in place a plan that will move us forward for the next 50 years.

The other thing that you saw in the budget that is troubling — and again, it comes back to the theme of deceit — is around health cuts. Each one of the health authorities is going to have cuts in services. There will be cuts in services. When that was talked about before the election, you would have either the board of the health authority, who the Premier appoints, or the minister or the politicians…. The B.C. Liberals would say: "That's not going to happen." There would not be cuts to services.

The fact is that they are happening now. They are happening in a way that hurts individuals in each of the communities that we represent. There was nothing that was inevitable about that. It's the opposite of what this government promised, and the damage is real. It impacts individuals. It impacts families. It impacts communities.

You also have cuts to education. There is a message box that is repeated ad nauseam about funding levels. What each and every Minister of Education who stands up and repeats that mantra mindlessly is doing is describing a situation that they must know is simply not accurate.

There are pressures on budgets that are predictable. Each and every school district has made that case to this ministry, to this government, to the minister. The degradation of the public education system, for the most part, has been consistent. Whether it is a time of fiscal challenge such as it is now or a time of fiscal largesse such as two or three years ago, there has been a consistent trend — certainly in rural areas but, I would say, across British Columbia — to degrade public education. In the long term that is a huge mistake.

One of the strengths that this government was handed was the strength of our public education system, which is one of the best in the world. To allow it to degrade is fundamentally wrong.

I'll give you examples. Coming out of education, the system that I left in 1999 and came back to in 2003 saw fundamental changes. We saw cuts. First, I came back to a school district that had closed nine schools, which meant kids were in buses more, had to travel further.

Over the years — and this continues — you have decisions that boards are forced to make that no reasonable
[ Page 466 ]
person would choose to make — cuts to janitorial service, cuts to special education, cuts to supports that are incredibly important to making sure that a child reaches their potential.

You had larger classes. It's often repeated, but it is absolutely true. There was a time when class sizes were in contracts, and they wouldn't be contravened. You had that removed by this government, and then you had consistently larger classes forced on school districts by a lack of funding.

This government often brags about the fact that they have legislation around class size. Well, it is contravened regularly. There are 11,000 — what? — 12,000…. I guess we'll find out this year how many there are, but there are over 10,000 classes that will be oversize — oversize from the very low standard that the government sets in legislation. There is nobody who is going to credibly argue that the special education that is needed for large numbers of our children is being properly done.

This government, again, throws out the red herring of all-day kindergarten. Well, that promise has already been made. That promise was already broken. Now they throw it out again as something to talk about.

Well, where's the credible plan to move that forward? What we saw last time it was put forward was that there was no credible plan. The reason that they stepped away from all-day kindergarten was…. They said there were three reasons, if I remember correctly. They said there were no facilities. They didn't have the facilities they needed, they didn't have the personnel they needed, and the fiscal situation was difficult, so they couldn't go ahead with it.

Well, what has changed? They still don't have the facilities, they still don't have the personnel plan figured out, and the fiscal situation, if anything, has gotten worse. Yet they're here promising that somehow that is going to happen. It lacks credibility.

You also have the cuts to the sports programs and the facility grants. Facility grants are things that districts depend upon, and each district is going to use the money differently. It's easy for the minister to stand up and confuse people with the idea that somehow there were surplus funds out there. The fact of the matter is that most of those funds were already spent.

You do have some districts…. Like the district I represent did have $90 million. Excuse me — $900,000. It didn't have $90 million.

They had $900,000, but the project that they were saving for is a new heating system in Golden Secondary. It's $1.4 million. So like many districts in many places, they have to budget over a two-year period to do the project.

So when you burrow down into the claims made by the minister about the funding, you find that districts are not sitting on pots of money, doing nothing. They have plans, or they've already spent it, and the minister knows that, or should know that.

Therefore, when you cut the facility grants, you are fundamentally undermining a group of people that is trying to make the system work and struggling to do that because there is a consistent downloading of costs that boards of education have no say on, without the funds to do the work that they are mandated to do. It's fundamentally unfair, and it speaks to an incompetence in one of the key areas. It's not just health where there's incompetence — education as well.

You also have within this budget a whole series of cuts. The government has taken extraordinary measures to try to keep hidden exactly where the cuts are, but they're emerging. As I went through the communities that I represent last week, I met with a number of groups that are talking about the impact of the cuts.

As always, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Half an hour goes very, very quickly, and I look forward to an opportunity to speak again.

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Speaker, I'd like, since this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the election, to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I look forward to working with you over the next four years, and I'm sure that you will fulfil the role admirably.

I'd like to start out by thanking a few individuals in my life who have made, truly, Prince George–Mackenzie a successful part of the province, although it's certainly a struggle economically in portions of the riding at this point.

My constituency assistants, of which I have three: Lori Clefstad, who works in Mackenzie for me on a part-time basis, and Charlotte Groot and Judy Jackson, who both work in Prince George. Charlotte has been with me now for, I guess, 8½ years and has done a fantastic job helping me serve the constituents of, previously, the riding of Prince George North, now the riding of Prince George–Mackenzie.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank some of my ministerial staff, who do a great job working with MLAs in this House and with constituents across the province.

My ministerial assistant for the Forests side of the business, Bruce Strongitharm, has done a great job in the Forests portfolio for, I guess, about 4½ years now. He worked with the previous minister, as well, and knows the files very well.
[ Page 467 ]

I know, Bruce, you're probably watching this right now, and I will say that hemlock is a wonderful species. I know that's important to you, so I'll give that to you for now.

Also, T.J. Parhar, who is the ministerial assistant responsible for the integrated land management bureau, has done a great job. We've worked together for quite some time, about six or seven years in various roles, and I very much appreciate the service he provides to all the MLAs in this House and to all the constituents in British Columbia.

Sean Murry has been my executive assistant for several years now. Sean does a great job making sure my life is organized and that I am where I'm supposed to be when I'm supposed to be. Even though that can be a struggle at times, he's done a great job.

The critic. Just as he is standing up at this point, I wanted to acknowledge the critic and congratulate him on his appointment to his role. The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — it's very good to have him. I'm sure that we're going to have some great debates, and I hope we can lift above the rhetoric that's gone on in this House over the years and have some constructive debates. I think that's really important.

I'd also like to congratulate — I'm not sure whether it's the deputy critic or the co-critic — the member for Cowichan Valley and welcome him to the role. I look forward to working with him as well.

In addition, downstairs I have a couple of other staff that keep me moving forward and organized. Kim Birk and Laura Tennant, both administrative assistants and administrative coordinators, have done a fabulous job, and I very much appreciate having them on board.

The campaign team, without which I would not be here today, I must also recognize and thank. Jim Blake has chaired all three of my campaigns now. It seems like he keeps getting better. I don't think that what he has to work with is any better, but I think he's done a phenomenal job with what he's had to work with. He's continued to raise the bar and increase my numbers, certainly, from 2005 to the 2009 election. I very much appreciate his talents, and also Terry Kuzma, who co-chaired my campaign. Terry was with me in 2005 and also now in 2009 and did a wonderful job.

I have to acknowledge one individual in particular on my campaign team, that being Tom Michael. Tom Michael is a long-term resident of Mackenzie. Tom just had his 87th birthday last week, in fact. I can tell you that Tom phoned every single phone number in Mackenzie four times during the campaign. If it wasn't for the spirit and the energy of then-86-year-old, now-87-year-old Tom Michael, I'm not sure I would have done anywhere near as well in Mackenzie as I did — an incredible individual.

Tom, I can tell you that we all appreciate you down here. You're the glue that holds Mackenzie together.

Speaking of Mackenzie, I want to just take a few minutes, if I may, to talk about this community. This is a community that has had incredible challenges, that has faced the full fury of the international downturn in the forest industry and what's gone on, particularly in the U.S. housing market. Yet all of the people in Mackenzie have continued to hold their heads high and work hard to build new forms of industry in the community, to get a sawmill that was closed in Mackenzie reopened and about 70 people back to work.

They've gone through turmoil in terms of the pulp mill bankruptcy that occurred a year and a half or two years ago and, certainly, the turmoil that has occurred since that point in time. But they've never given up. Not for one minute have any of the residents ever given up in Mackenzie. They continue to work hard, to drive forward.

In fact, last winter they hosted the Northern B.C. Winter Games. Here's this community of about 4,200 or 4,300 people in northern British Columbia that brought all citizens from across northern British Columbia together and hosted this huge celebration at the Northern B.C. Winter Games and did a phenomenal job — a community that has had, as I said, unprecedented challenges.

I know you're not allowed to wear props, so I won't point at the pin on my lapel at all. I promise I won't do that, but I will point out that I do put a pin on my lapel every day. That is the district of Mackenzie pin. I do that to remind myself of my responsibility to the community, to make sure that I do whatever I can to help them move forward, to see employment return to the community, to help make sure they have their fair share of resources from the provincial treasury, that we do what we can to support health care and the education services in the community and all of the other social services.

I want to thank the mayor, Stephanie Killam, and all the residents of Mackenzie, because they have shown the true character of British Columbia. They've shown what you have to do when times get tough. In Mackenzie when times get tough, the tough get going, and Mackenzie is going to be back. It's going to be a community that's going to thrive in the future. We're going to have diversity like we've never had before, and it's going to be because of the hard work of the people of Mackenzie. I want to thank them for that.

Moving about 200 kilometres south down the road, I want to talk a little bit about Prince George. Prince George has changed significantly in the about 20 to 21½ years that I've lived in Prince George. It's really matured as a community.

Even in very, very difficult economic times…. I was looking at the unemployment statistics the other day. Of course, we only have the numbers for 2008, and I acknowledge and recognize that 2009 is going to be higher than
[ Page 468 ]
2008. I looked at the unemployment statistics for 2008, and as tough a year as it was…. That was when the full brunt of the economic impact really hit the forest industry and all of the challenges that we were faced with. The member opposite talked about some of the challenges in the forest industry in his speech. As all of those challenges hit us in Prince George, the unemployment rate in Prince George was just over 8 percent.

The interesting part about that is that 8 percent is lower than the lowest number that occurred in the entire period from 1991 to 2001, when the NDP was in government. The previous low rate that they had during that entire ten-year period of time when the economy was booming globally was about 9.1 percent. Yet last year we were just a hair over 8 percent in a very, very tough economic time.

That demonstrates the maturity that's come to Prince George and the benefits from significant initiatives that we've taken forward in terms of the growth at the University of Northern British Columbia, the work that's gone on in the College of New Caledonia.

Also, I think, something that's really important is the improvement to health care that we've made in northern British Columbia, right across the Northern Health Authority but especially in Prince George, in initiatives like training doctors in the north, for the north, which was started in it 2001 by our government. Incidentally, I need to point out that the opposition actually voted against that initiative. That's important to note. They actually voted against the notion of training doctors in the north, for the north. They did.

We now train 32 physicians every year, and you know what's so neat about that? Those doctors are actually staying in the north, and it's making a significant difference to the quality of health care in northern British Columbia. It's building huge capacity in terms of dealing with some of the challenges that we would typically face, and we're starting to see significant improvements — lower rates of smoking, better overall cancer care results, improvements in hip and knee replacements and all of the other surgical services that are provided.

It's something we're very proud of in the north, because it's a solution that was created in the north, for the north. It wasn't created by Victoria. It wasn't created in the Lower Mainland. It was something that northerners came forward with and said: "This is important."

There was a significant rally in Prince George in 2000 under the previous government; 7,000 people in the multiplex in Prince George came out on a pretty nice summer day to display their displeasure over the quality of health care that they were receiving at that point in time. That's where the whole initiative or the concept around having training for physicians in the north all stems from. It was a very, very exciting thing.

Prince George has matured as a community. It's getting through very tough economic times right now, but again, the spirit of the north is carrying us forward and making sure that we will come out the other side of this economic downturn far healthier than we went into it.

I want to talk just a little bit about the HST, because this is an initiative that, clearly, the opposition is opposing. I understand that perhaps it's their role. That's where the word "opposition" comes from. I did hear the Forests critic opposing the HST, and that somewhat concerns me, because either he doesn't understand it, or he's not taking his role as a critic seriously.

That's an important thing for us to consider. Either he hasn't taken the time, or he hasn't really fully grasped his responsibility as a Forests critic. Conversely, he just doesn't understand the HST. There is nothing that we can do that is going to help support our forest industry more than the HST.

Let me just share some of the important components of that. I used to be in the logging industry. I logged for about ten years — still have my class 1 licence, had a number of logging trucks. It's very easy for me to go back and think about what it is that makes HST work for the logging industry.

I'll just share this as an example. A new logging truck, fully rigged out with a trailer and bull board and all the necessary rigging, is about $300,000 today. With the PST model, that represents about $21,000 in PST that's accrued to that logging truck. When we move to an HST model, that becomes an input tax credit. That tax flows through, and that truck actually becomes cheaper by $21,000. That's significant to a trucker.

That is a significant reduction in the overall cost of that piece of equipment. It means that that trucker is going to be more efficient. They're going to upgrade their equipment more often. They're going to be able to pull wood out of the bush less expensively. And in a very tough market like we're in today, it just maybe means that one of those mills is going to operate when it wouldn't have been able to operate otherwise.

I'll give you the example of that. Statistics Canada provided us with some numbers around the actual savings to the forest industry, and it extrapolates out to $140 million a year. I know that members opposite characterize that as a giveaway to corporations. Out of one side of their mouths, they're suggesting these corporations are making incredible profits, and on the other side, they're saying that we're not doing enough to help the forest industry. I have challenges with that in terms of how they're relaying their thoughts on this particular issue.

In a good year — and 2005 was a reasonable year for the forest industry — we would harvest about 70 million cubic metres of logs. If you take that $140 million a year — and it was 2005 dollars — and convert that over to the 70 million cubic metres, it results in a reduction in costs of about $2 a cubic metre.
[ Page 469 ]

We work long and hard to find pennies in every cubic metre in this province to make sure that we're competitive on a global basis. At $2 a cubic metre, that translates into roughly $7 a thousand board feet. So in a market when lumber is selling for $190, $180, maybe $200 a thousand board feet, does that mean a mill is going to be able to operate when it wouldn't operate at another time? Does that mean that mill is going to put 40 or 50 people back to work?

Does that mean maybe an existing mill that's closed is going to open? Does that mean more loggers will be going out, bringing those logs in from the forest? And instead of us only harvesting 50 million metres or 45 million metres, maybe we harvest 50 or 60?

The important thing about all this is this. Of the 30 OECD countries around the world, there is only one country that imposes a PST-type tax on its lumber manufacturers. There's only one jurisdiction that is competing with that 7 percent shackle around its ankle, which it has to drag along as it moves down the road and tries to export its lumber.

That extra 7 bucks…. The only place is Canada. With Ontario going to an HST, the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a forest industry that has that big shackle around its ankle is British Columbia. So by removing that shackle, we're helping the competitiveness of our forest industry, allowing our forest industry to compete on the same playing field as any other jurisdiction so that those people go back to work.

Hon. P. Bell: The member from Surrey is always chirping away there. He's chirping away because he doesn't understand the economics of B.C. He doesn't understand that it's the forest industry that drives the economics of this province. It's the mining industry that drives the economics of this province.

Without the forest industry and the mining industry and the energy industry, the real challenge we have is that we don't have an economy. Those are the industries that drive this province, that have always driven this province and that are always going to drive this province.

I don't want to spend all of my time on HST, because I do want to comment a little bit on some of the things that I think are very important about our forest industry in particular. I've often heard members opposite say that we don't have a plan. I'm a bit astounded at that, because you can go talk to virtually anyone in the forest industry, and they'll tell you what my four priorities are.

I've been very consistent on those four priorities for the better part of 15 months or so that I've been in this role. I'm going to continue to be consistent with these four priorities for as long as I hold this role because I'm absolutely convinced that they're the things that are going to drive the economics of this industry and make sure that we're successful over the long term.

The first one — very simple — is that we need to focus on capturing full value from the land base. I've said consistently that we're not very good at that historically. It doesn't matter whether it's that government or this government or any other that sits in government. We've not done a good job extracting full value.

In the last year we've made significant headway in this area. A year ago there was not a slash pile being recovered in this province. There was not a single piece of that incremental volume that was coming in from the forest to a user, an end user or a consumer. We made some strategic changes. We pushed hard on utilization, and throughout the central interior part of the province, most certainly, we've made huge headway over the last year.

We've got people out in the forest today creating jobs, bringing in biomass, utilizing that biomass for a variety of options, including the manufacture of pellets, the manufacture of energy through hogging systems, and utilizing it to some degree in our greenhouse facilities in the Lower Mainland. But it's also being used for things like medium density fibreboard. It's being used in pulp mills as incremental chip supply.

The industry has done a great job taking up this challenge, and we've made significant headway in this area. I don't know what the end number is going to be at the end of the year, but I think we could be approaching three million cubic metres.

To give you some sense of what that means, for each 100,000 cubic metres that we bring in of residual biomass, it's about ten or 11, maybe 12, direct jobs — something in that range. And then those jobs, of course, spin off many, many times in terms of putting truck shops, equipment shops back to work, fuel dealers and all those sorts of things. It's very good news in terms of utilization — significant headway there.

The second key priority I've established in the ministry is a real committed focus on advanced silviculture practices. We've operated under the same silviculture regime for about 21 or 22 years now, and I think it's time for us to have a hard look at that. My parliamentary secretary, the member for Nechako Lakes, is going around the province talking to people in the silviculture industry. We've produced a discussion paper that closes off at the end of this month, and we intend to look very, very hard at what the right model of silviculture is, going into the future.

We've got a tremendous land base. You know, previous Ministers of Forests have never really been challenged with the notion of us running out of timber, but because of the mountain pine beetle challenges that we have out there, land constraints brought about as a result of species-at-risk initiatives, parks initiatives and other
[ Page 470 ]
protection initiatives, we need to be far more effective in the practice of growing trees. We've got a real commitment inside the ministry — including our Forests for Tomorrow initiative, which is a significant one — to make sure that we deliver on that.

The third key initiative is China. We've a huge commitment to China in terms of growing the forest products exports into that marketplace, and we're seeing real headway in that market right now. If you go back a number of years, we were seeing ten million or 15 million or 20 million board feet of lumber going into the Chinese market per year.

Last year we did 720 million board feet of lumber — lumber products, not logs — going into the Chinese marketplace. To put kind of a simple way of analyzing that in place, that's equivalent to the full production from three large Interior sawmills. That's significant. That's lumber that used to go into the United States that doesn't have a home there.

It's now going into the Chinese marketplace, and they're using it to build homes. They're using it to form concrete forms. They're using it to build parks. They're putting roofs on their apartment buildings. This is a country of 1.4 billion people, so there's a huge opportunity.

So 720 million board feet last year, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you that this year we're at very close to double the pace of what we were last year. I think the objective of being up around 1.3 billion to 1.4 billion board feet is very reasonable.

For the first time ever, China will become the second-largest receiver of our B.C. lumber exports, ahead of Japan. Japan has historically always been No. 2. March of this year was the first month that China ever exceeded Japan, and that number continues to grow.

Finally, the fourth key priority is our wood-first initiatives. Everyone has heard about those, and there are great examples, the Richmond ice oval being perhaps one of the best examples. The Richmond ice oval might actually be in Madam Speaker's riding, if I'm not mistaken. If not, it's very close to it.

What a spectacular facility. Some 330 feet under an arched, wooden composite roof, or a hybrid construction truss system — just a phenomenal facility and structure. It's a combination of lumber from the Kootenays, lumber from the Chilcotin Plateau, and plywood actually manufactured in British Columbia at Richply, as well, which I think happens to be very close to Madam Speaker's riding, if it's not in her riding. What a tremendous story of products produced in British Columbia, especially products of new technology.

We need to grow that technology. The wood innovation and design centre that's going to be developed in Prince George is a key piece of that equation. Over and above that, the opportunities around developing large structures are going to be vested in this House.

We've committed to bringing forward legislation in this House to guarantee that any building that has provincial dollars in it, any provincially funded building, will have wood as its primary construction material. It makes all the sense in the world to do that, because wood is the most environmentally friendly building material.

I don't want to disparage the concrete or steel industry, but both concrete and steel produce a large amount of carbon dioxide in the manufacturing process, because they burn a lot of fossil fuels to manufacture either concrete or steel. Wood, in fact, sequesters carbon away, so it's a very environmentally friendly product.

Just the decision to build more public buildings out of wood will give us a clear benefit in terms of removing the potential of carbon going into our atmosphere. It's something that we're very proud of, that we're committed to and that we're going to push hard on.

The four key initiatives, just on the off chance that the opposition hasn't heard them before — I'm sure there's someone very carefully writing these down, and they'll brief the critic and make sure that he now knows what our plans evolve to — are a full utilization of our forests; making sure that we are far more effective in our silviculture strategies in growing trees, building a huge silviculture industry in B.C.; marketing our forest products into China; and utilizing wood in large commercial and institutional construction.

I know that rumour the opposition has been spreading that we don't have a plan will be gone now, because I know the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke most certainly will embed that in his memory and won't repeat those false statements.

I do want to touch just briefly, if I may, on the integrated land management bureau, because I know I'm down to my final five minutes or so at this point. The integrated land management bureau is a part of the ministry that I'm very proud to have responsibility for. It was in my previous portfolio of Agriculture and Lands from 2005 to 2009. I moved out of that portfolio in 2008, but it's a great fit to have it in the Ministry of Forests and Range.

The quality of people that we have in the integrated land management bureau are second to none. Steve Carr, my deputy, is a committed individual who is innovative. He's productive. He works hard with first nations, with the environmental community, to make sure that we have balanced plans and strategies in the delivery of cross-ministry initiatives coming out of the integrated land management bureau. That's really what ILMB is all about — cross-ministry initiatives.

We have responsibility for four key lines of business. The first one is all of the planning processes that go on around land use in the province. The integrated land management bureau was the one that completed the Haida Gwaii land use plan, the north coast–central coast land use plan, the Morice land use plan and the Sea to
[ Page 471 ]
Sky land use plan, previously, when I had responsibility for the portfolio.

We continue to work on key land use plans around the province to make sure that in an increasingly complex environment, an environment in which there are many different land users wanting to utilize that same piece of land, that we do so in a planned and effective way so that we don't have cross-initiatives working against each other and create difficult situations for all the various tenure holders on the land base.

We have a key role in developing species-at-risk initiatives, because we have responsibility for making those land use decisions. I'm very proud of the work that's gone on in the integrated land management bureau, although it doesn't continue to host the species-at-risk coordination office. That's moved over to the Ministry of Environment.

When we did the mountain caribou recovery strategy, it was a tremendous plan, one that's been heralded around the world. The environmental community and first nations alike have all come to support it. I think they've done a great job there, particularly on the planning initiatives. There's been tremendous work done there.

We also have responsibility for GeoB.C. For those who are interested in maps and tenures and understanding what goes on in the province, I would urge you to go and take a look at the website for GeoB.C. We have about 70 or so staff huddled here in Victoria that work very hard to consolidate this different partial or mapping fabric.

We can do up layers of maps and tenures that tell you where everything is going on, when it's going on and how it's going on in the province — very, very bright individuals working. I had the opportunity to go over and tour that particular office during the summer months. They're doing a tremendous job over there, and certainly they're some of the real untold heroes of the province.

FrontCounter B.C. is another initiative or another key line of business that we have in the integrated land management bureau. We have about nine offices around the province in rural areas. FrontCounter B.C. is an initiative that's intended to streamline the permitting process for land users in the province, for those that want to acquire tenures.

It's interesting, because someone that wants to acquire, say, the rights to a gravel pit, just as an example, may require six or seven different permits. Depending on the nature of where that particular gravel pit is, it could require a permit from the Ministry of Transportation, a forestry cutting permit, a Ministry of Energy and Mines mining permit. There could be a water use permit. There's a wide variety of different permits that are necessary.

I was in Cranbrook about 1½ or two years ago, opening the FrontCounter B.C. office in Cranbrook. There were two young individuals who came in, and they had a consulting business that worked for the heli-ski and cat-ski industries. They said they used to have to travel through three different communities and visit five different government offices to acquire the permits that were necessary to support that particular heli-ski tenure or cat-ski tenure that they were consulting for.

With the new FrontCounter B.C. initiative, what they discovered was that they were able to go to one office, deal with one individual and acquire all of the permits in a fraction of the time that was necessary.

It's a very, very, well-thought-out, reasoned strategy that we've put in place. The folks at FrontCounter B.C. across the province are doing a tremendous job delivering those services, and it's making a big difference to small and medium-sized businesses in the province.

Finally, in the integrated land management bureau we have the first nations consultation division, headed by our ADM Charles Porter. These are individuals who go out and work with first nations across the province, developing strategic engagement agreements, working with them to make sure that we best understand what the challenges and issues are for that particular first nation in their region and helping develop projects as we move forward.

Madam Speaker, this is, I guess, 8½ years that I've had the honour of sitting in this chamber, and I want to close off by thanking one person in particular.

You know, all members of this House come down to Victoria from our respective regions. There are a few, I suppose, that live in the area, but the vast majority of us leave at home a spouse or a partner, and I often think that this isn't as hard on us as it is on our partners at home. I don't think it matters whether you're in opposition or whether you're in government. I think that they have such a key, integral role in our lives. It is very challenging for them to have to put up with us leaving for a significant portion of our time to be here in Victoria.

I want to close off by saying: "Brenda, I love you. Thanks for letting me be down here." We're going to continue to move this province forward together.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on the September 2009 budget and the opportunity to comment around a number of things related to the budget and, of course, a number of things also related to my critic area in Housing and Social Development.

I guess the first thing that sort of jumps out at me when I look at this budget, and it probably is really key to this, is that this budget is very much a discussion now about integrity. It is the integrity of government that's at question here with this budget. We saw that, and we saw that it commenced, and it started before the election.

In February the government introduced budget 1 for the year, claiming, at that time, a $495 million deficit —
[ Page 472 ]
a deficit that was questioned by a whole range of people, including some very well-respected economists in this province who didn't believe that that budget would stand up.

What we know, of course, is that the budget deficit was there because of this global economic situation that we were facing, one that has confronted governments around the world. The challenge isn't so much that the government necessarily created the economic climate, but the challenge for the government was to show us how they would manage that challenge.

The government's claim and the Premier's claim and the Finance Minister's claim was that this government was the best government to do this. They claimed that, and they claimed that British Columbia would do better and survive this situation better than all other jurisdictions in the country. I heard that claim. To suggest it was smug would not be going too far when I heard the Premier making those claims.

Of course, what we know is that the day after the $495 million budget deficit was announced, it started to unravel. The challenge isn't: was the $495 million deficit number correct in February on the day that it was tabled in this House? The issue is: why did the government, the Minister of Finance, the Premier, every member sitting on that side of the House choose not to be frank and open with British Columbians about the situation as it began to unravel in the province?

We know, of course, that the Minister of Finance has acknowledged he spoke to his deputy. The deputy told him a month into the year that it was about $300 million in the ditch, the numbers, but that didn't seem to matter. The Premier still was standing up during the campaign saying $495 million maximum — the debt.

That's what the Premier was saying. Of course, the Premier…. It wasn't true. The Premier acknowledged that he talked to his deputy, and his deputy told him that there was a problem. But he still chose to stand in forum after forum and talk about being this economic manager.

So this goes on. Then, of course, we find out shortly after the election…. I believe the Minister of Finance said the 14th of May that he and the Premier were briefed by the Deputy Finance Minister and found out that now it's $1.1 billion, or something to that effect. Over a billion dollars. But the Premier and the Finance Minister continued to say $495 million. "We can make this work" — $495 million deficit.

All that time most of the economists in this province were just shaking their heads, because they knew that every place else this was unravelling. They knew it was unravelling in British Columbia. We had seen the kinds of numbers that told us that. We had seen the dramatic increases in the temporary welfare rates — a 58 percent increase over the period from June to June. Those numbers were all there.

We all knew. Retail sales were dropping. House sales were dropping. All of the indicators were there, but the government continued to profess to being able to put a $495 million deficit in place.

Of course, we know that once it came time to actually be forthright with the people of the province, that deficit became $2.8 billion — when they couldn't hide any more. Arguably, it becomes $3.5 billion until you throw the signing bonus in for the HST.

So you have a government that had told the people of British Columbia a story, from the day in February right through a provincial election and after the provincial election, that was just not true — a government that told a story that simply was not true. The story was defended from the highest offices of this government.

We also have during this time, and heading into the election, the HST. The HST, which is the harmonized sales tax, which member after member on that side spoke against prior to the election, which the B.C. Liberal Party put in writing that it would not do this during the election…. Then, of course, within a nanosecond after the election is over, the government is signing on to the HST, with no discussion with British Columbians, no discussion at all.

What has the government done? The government has been clear about one fact, and that fact is that it's a $1.9 billion shift from the corporate tax base onto consumers and small business people. That's what this is.

It's not like this is going to generate…. It's not like this tax is generating a lot of new revenues to go into health care, to go into education, to go into services. It is simply a tax shift.

I note that while the government has been pretty good at being able to walk out the other 50 people who signed the pro-HST Facebook site — along with members of the government, the other 50 people on that side — a number of those corporate leaders who say this is good for us….

But what I notice is that the government has had some challenge in walking pretty much anybody else out who is a consumer, anybody else who is in the service industry and small business, to say: "This is a good idea" and "This is good for me, and it's good for my business." We haven't seen those people, because those people aren't prepared to come out and say that.

One of the most remarkable things about the HST, of course, is that the government chooses to do this at a time when arguably the most important thing we need to do is stimulate consumer confidence and get people to spend money. That's what our economy needs, and I can't think of anything that would be worse for consumer confidence than to slap this tax on. But that's, in fact, what has happened.

What we have is a government that misrepresented the facts to win an election, that told people they wouldn't
[ Page 473 ]
do the HST and did the HST, a government that said they would protect health care and education and social services and, in fact, is not doing that.

So you now have this incredible cynicism on the part of British Columbians that's aimed at the government but sadly affects the democratic institutions here. We see that in the levels of confidence in the government, in the Premier, in these ministers, which is running at about 18 percent, I think, the last time we saw the Premier's numbers.

Integrity is a huge question here, and we have a government that has lacked that integrity in terms of how they've conducted themselves. Part of the problem here with this is that it's been a government that has been in chaos since the election — in total chaos.

You know, it's interesting. I read a piece that I thought was pretty insightful, by Vaughn Palmer, and I've heard him comment on this, that this was a government that during times when the housing industry was booming in the U.S., and commodity prices were high, and there was lots of money around, their strategy for getting out of problems they got into was to throw a few million dollars at it here and throw money at it there.

Now that the government doesn't have that ability to throw money, now when it would have to actually manage through an intelligent and thoughtful approach rather than the ham-handed, haphazard approach they've taken for years, they don't have any capacity to do that. So we have this chaos going on.

You have this inept government, and then the inept government misrepresents the truth around these issues in order to be able to get around the fact that it's not competent, and it's becoming increasingly apparent to everybody in this province.

So you have this problem with this, and now you have a government that says: "Okay, well, we're now going to…." They introduce this budget. They talk about a billion and a half dollars of discretionary spending that will be cut. Okay, fair enough. Where is this discretionary spending?

Of course, we can't find that out, because the government won't tell us. The government will not be forthright with British Columbians and tell British Columbians where, in fact, those discretionary cuts are. But we learn about them. They come out a bit at a time — a hospice here, a food bank there, a kids' sports group here, a neighbourhood house over here. They lose a few thousand, and they lose a few thousand. Schools lose $110 million to be able to stay in repair. School sports lose a few thousand dollars — $130,000. So cut by cut, they're becoming increasingly clear.

The interesting thing about these cuts, and I'll talk about this a little bit more, is that there's clearly not much thinking that has gone into this. What the government isn't able to do is just tell us what the impacts are, and not just the impacts of the financial side, but what are the impacts on the social fabric of these cuts.

We see this with the gaming grants. There's been a lot of discussion about the gaming grants. What we now know, of course, is that last year 6,800 groups in this province shared $157 million in gaming grants.

That went to a wide, wide range of groups, groups that are integral parts of the social fabric in this province, that deliver meaningful services on the ground in communities. We now know that those same 6,800 groups are going to share a pot that's about $80 million — about half of that amount.

They've been slashed. You have parent advisory councils getting $10 a kid instead of $20 a kid for kids in school. You have sports teams getting their budgets cut. You have environmental organizations losing money. You have $10 million of sports money down the drain for these groups, and all of this comes out of the gaming money. While the Minister of Housing and Social Development may be saying, "We have no obligations or commitments around this money," I don't buy that argument, and I don't think British Columbians buy it.

We made decisions in this province a number of years ago to go into the business of gambling as government, knowing we would generate revenues. It was an uncomfortable decision, and an uncomfortable decision for many British Columbians to have governments play a direct role. But the decision was made that we would do that, because there clearly was an understanding that there was a social contract and an understanding that a significant portion of that money would go to the organizations in the communities that support those communities.

That agreement was there. That social contract was there, and this government has torn it up. They have torn it up with total disregard. They went so far as to rip up three-year written agreements and only reversed themselves on this…. Well, one day they ripped them up, and the next day they reversed themselves.

For all the talk of the ministers, I'm pretty confident in saying that the only reason for reversing themselves on this is because somebody's lawyer in the government somewhere said: "You might want to think about this, because you're probably tearing up a contract." That's why they reversed themselves. I don't believe there's any other reason for that.

You have the government that tears up these contracts. We don't know where the rest of that $1.5 billion will be, but we'll find out. It will come out a cut at a time. It will come out here and there. We will find out. Those organizations and those communities will know, and we will hold the government accountable for that over the coming months and years.

Now, I was talking about the gaming grants. Just on the other side of that gaming and gambling issue, this is a government that is prepared to do anything to generate a few million dollars of money here. So what the
[ Page 474 ]
government has done is they have approved the Lottery Corporation going into this business of Internet gaming. Very, very questionable.

There is no shortage of ministers on that side, including the Minister of Housing and Social Development and other ministers, who have previously made comments about how Internet gaming was wrong, that we shouldn't proceed with it and that it was the most troublesome area of gaming and gambling when you look at people who are problem gamblers.

What do we know now? Well, they've all changed their tune, of course. We have a government that not only is going to proceed to allow people who before could gamble up to $120 a week on Internet gaming to now be able to gamble $9,999 a week…. In theory you could put half a million dollars down on your computer gaming if you were so inclined and if your credit card would allow it.

So what do we know? We know the government does this. The Lottery Corporation announces a whole bunch of new games come next March so that they, in fact, can begin to take this money from people.

But when you look under this, it gets even more troubling. The B.C. Medical Association in March of this year released a report on addictions. What that report on addictions said is that there are about 128,000 people in this province who are problem gamblers, and there are 31,000 people in this province who have a serious addiction to gambling — a serious addiction.

The B.C. coroner released a report that said that between 2003 and 2008, the B.C. coroner's office had identified 19 suicides that they attribute to gambling.

This government brings forward this form of gaming which the federal government has recognized as the most problematic for problem gamblers. They suggest that 41 percent of the people who play on the Internet are problem gamblers. That's what they suggest.

So we have this problem, and how does the government deal with this? The government is expecting in the next few years to generate another $50 million out of this Internet gaming. Well, this year what do they do? What they do is cut the funding for problem gambling. Two years ago $7 million was the budget for problem gambling. The budget here is $4.6 million for problem gambling.

This is a government that opens up and encourages the most troublesome form of gambling for people who have problems and addictions with gambling and, at the same time, cuts the budget to provide those people with help when they need it. If that's not cynical, I don't know what is. But that's how this government works. That's how this government functions. That's what's important to this government.

What do we see here? We see this whole series of grants that have been cut. When we talk about the cutting of grants…. Sometimes in this place we can talk about this, and it's fairly theoretical, but we really need to think about what the social fabric of our province looks like and what's important about it and the role that the non-profit and charitable sector plays in the social fabric of our province and the role that it plays in making the quality of life in our communities what it is and what we aspire for it to be.

Those organizations do that with very little money, as a rule. They do it quite efficiently in most cases. They deliver services quite efficiently, yet they're being cut. They are modest amounts of money. It's $20,000 here. It's $30,000 there. The value for that money is remarkable, and how it hurts those communities will become much clearer over the next coming years.

But we're going to see those cuts, whether it's sports groups, parent advisory councils or social service agencies — all of those groups. We will see those cuts, and we will see the pain that those cuts provide.

We also see this other game that the government is playing. We have these remarkable decisions in the areas of addictions and mental health. We see the government slash those organizations that deliver those services very effectively, and what they say is that the health authorities will deliver those services directly.

Now, be clear. There's no more capacity in those health authorities. There are no additional dollars being provided to them to do this. There's just the government saying: "We will provide direct services through those that we control, and we will slash the organizations that do this cost-effectively and smartly on the ground in neighbourhoods and in communities. Instead, we will do it directly." But they provide no additional capacity for that to occur.

What the reality is going to be is that it's not going to occur. People are going to fall through the cracks. They're going to be hurt by this. They will be hurt by this budget. What we will see with this budget, as we've seen in many instances, is that the people who will get hurt are those who are most vulnerable. It will be those poor kids in poor families, those poor kids that have had us at the top of the list of child poverty in this country for year upon year upon year.

Those kids didn't get poor by themselves. They're parts of poor families, and we are cutting the services to support those families. Those services come through direct government statutory programs. They come through the work that's done at the community level, and we are cutting the work that's done at the community level.

As we've talked about before this election and as we continue to talk about, when you look at that poverty, at those people and those families and those kids that live in poverty, it's interesting to note that half of those families have an earned income coming into the household. They're not living on income assistance. They're not living on some kind of government benefit. They earn a paycheque, but because their paycheque is so low, poverty continues to be the issue for those families.
[ Page 475 ]

As we know now, we have another shameful claim this government can make. It's succeeded in taking British Columbia and leaving us with the lowest minimum wage in the country. A shameful, shameful claim that this province gets to make — the lowest minimum wage, and in a province where we know we certainly don't have the lowest cost of living.

Those families are out there. People are out there working in minimum-wage jobs. They're working hard. They're trying to do for their families. They're trying to do the right thing, and they can't get by. They can't get by because this government doesn't value what they do and doesn't value the work and doesn't value them as citizens of British Columbia.

That's tearing up the social contract too. That's what tearing up the social contract is all about, and that's what this budget does. This budget adds to the erosion of that social contract.

We know, as well, of course, that we've had key ministries in this government that have taken a hit. The Ministry of Environment has taken a hit on its budget. We know that the whole initiative that the government was…. We had the green Premier there for a year or two. Well, all of those initiatives now have taken a back seat. We've seen it in the cuts to the budget to the secretariat. We've seen it in a number of ways in government, as government initiatives have overcome the attention to climate.

But the remarkable thing here — and this is with all due respect to the member who holds the job now — is that while all of that's going on, we have a Minister of State for Climate Action. Like, what's that all about? If you wanted to find some money and save some money, that might be a place to save some money, to save the expenses that go into that minister's office.

It's not the only one. Over the last few days we've talked about the potpourri, the array of health and sport ministers that we have. We also, of course, have the Healthy Living and Sport Minister and the Minister of State for the Olympics and ActNow. That's $745,000 that goes in to support those two ministers' offices and that we certainly could find a better way to spend. I'm sure that if you ask British Columbians, they'd be the first ones to tell you to give $130,000 of that to B.C. School Sports and to put the rest in the bank, because those ministers don't bring anything to the table. Those ministries don't bring anything to the table, quite frankly, that could not have been done by other ministers in this government.

But the government bloated up. The Premier bloated up the cabinet. This is at a time when it's belt-tightening time, and he's loading up more ministers, trying to figure out how to deal with his challenges in his back bench. We could deal with that.

Tourism. We always hear, and quite rightly so, about the important role of tourism in British Columbia, the important role that tourism will play and why we need a new convention centre that's $400 million or $500 million over budget — the role of tourism.

So then what do we see in this budget, if tourism is such a big player? We see a budget that's cut from $350 million to $105 million for the ministry. They eliminate Tourism B.C., essentially, as a functioning organization. An organization that people across the industry — not those on this side of the House…. People across the industry decried the abolition, the end of Tourism B.C., because of the important role that it plays. But they do that.

We also see the government backtrack and make some just inane decisions when it comes to stimulus. First of all, we have the leaky-condos issue. This is a remarkable decision by the government. The government decides to kill the leaky-condo program, a program that is, first of all, a loan program, not a grant program, a program that puts thousands of people to work doing the repairs on these homes and gives people who live in condos, many of them with most of their life savings invested in them, the opportunity to be able to borrow the money it takes to protect their homes.

If that's not stimulus, I don't know what is. It's a loan program, but the government didn't see fit to invest dollars there. The government walked away from that. It's just bad policy. It makes no sense, but it's a part of that chaotic approach of this government to be scrambling to try to find some nickels and dimes, even though the results of those policy decisions are disastrous for many people and just bad policy, in social and economic terms, for the province. But that happens.

Of course, we discussed it today. We know the situation with the federal infrastructure money. The federal government has the money on the table. The local governments are ready to go. The province hasn't stepped up to the table, and this at a time when we saw unemployment in this province grow by 65,000 people from last October, when this opportunity was put on the table, to August — 65,000 more people unemployed in this province. Some 35,000 jobs lost in the construction industry. And this government can't see fit to put the dollars on the table that will create the stimulus that every other jurisdiction in this country and many jurisdictions around the world are pursuing to try to stimulate their economies.

There are tens of thousands of people in this province who wished and wished and thought and hoped when the Premier said in January: "In 90 days the jobs will be on the ground. In 90 days we'll have jobs on the ground." Eight months, not many jobs on the ground. There are thousands, tens of thousands, of people who worked in construction, who worked in this province, who were hoping that by today, if the government had kept its word, they would be collecting a paycheque instead of an EI cheque or a welfare cheque. But they're not in that
[ Page 476 ]
situation, because this government betrayed them by not moving forward and putting those stimulus dollars on the table.

This is a budget that has failed British Columbians. It's a budget that shows chaos. There's nothing much to it other than an apology and a defence of the HST.

But one of the most concerning things is that I believe this is only the beginning. We will see a budget in March of next year after the Olympics, and my fear is that we will see a budget in March that will make this one look kind and gentle. We will see a budget in March where the real cuts will come.

The Premier will have had his Olympic Games where he can showcase himself, and then he will be moving on. He won't be concerned about any of these issues. He will have got the Olympics behind him. He will have reduced the potential for pressures heading up to the Olympics because of inept budget-making, and we will see a budget in March that will hurt British Columbians in ways that people can't even fathom today. It's a sad, sad story.

It's a sad government that's run out of ideas, run out of gas and now can't seem to get its story straight from day to day as it bungles one file after another. British Columbians know that they were betrayed in the election. Sadly, they also know that they probably have to wait four years to be able to recover from that and make the change that they want today.

We will be the voices here in this place for those years until that time comes when the people of British Columbia get to make that change, and then everybody in this province will be better for it — when that side is retired, as it should be.

T. Lake: It gives me great pleasure to rise once again in this House as a newly elected MLA. It's a great experience and a great honour to be able to do so, and I once again thank the people of Kamloops–North Thompson for sending me here to represent them. When I gave my response to the throne speech, I certainly talked about the man who preceded me here, the hon. Claude Richmond, and the contribution he made.

I want to take this opportunity, if I may, to thank some other people that made the contribution to get me here, people who worked hard on the campaign and put in so many hours in the common cause we all had to keep Kamloops–North Thompson on the side of the government.

The campaign chair for me was Hoberly Hove. Hoberly is a man that has given to Kamloops and the surrounding region for many, many years as a secondary school principal and also working with the Historica Foundation to keep the tradition of our rich history alive in the school system and with young people throughout Canada.

Rick Gibson, former mayor of Williams Lake, was my E-day chair and did such a great job making sure we got the vote out. Val Stamer and Nick Brickich, in the wonderful community of Barriere, made so many phone calls and knocked on so many doors and did so much work in that community for me.

Shelley Sim in Clearwater has a small business in the travel industry and reached out to all of her connections and set up meetings for me and did so much work in that area. June Wallin and Bonnie Atkinson in Kamloops got all of our volunteers organized. Those ladies were there in our campaign office every single day, along with people like Paula Culley, Elmer Epp, Brenda Craig, Diana Skoglund, Phil Marr and Mary Ellen Grant. I want to thank each and every one of them for the contribution they made.

The election campaign was hard-fought. We had a close race. Our opponents did a very good job, and I want to congratulate Doug Brown, who was my opponent from the NDP, for the great effort that he put forward and for his contribution. It's always difficult to put your name to stand for public office, and I think anyone who does so should be commended.

It was a great opportunity, also, to have my family around me, as two of my daughters are away at university. To have Shannon and Stephanie back helping me knock on doors with my youngest daughter, Gemma, was a real treat. It's amazing that people are much nicer to you when you introduce your daughter to them before they can grill you on the tough questions, so I thank them for their contribution.

Before I talk about the budget, I want to talk about someone else in our community who has made a tremendous contribution. It was a great honour and privilege for me today to be at Government House to be in the presence of Clarence "Manny" Jules, former chief of the Kamloops Indian band, who received the Order of British Columbia today. He was one of many deserving recipients of that award today.

He has just done a tremendous amount for first nations governance in all of Canada, not just in the Kamloops region. He served as councillor and chief of the Kamloops Indian Band. He spearheaded and was a cofounder of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council and also played a huge role in repatriating more than 18,000 hectares of Kamloops Indian Band reserve lands.

He was instrumental in the federal government's decision to recognize first nations jurisdiction over property taxation on reserve lands. He is a member of the Auditor General's panel on aboriginal issues, the Assembly of First Nations Chiefs Committee on Fiscal Relations and the National Aboriginal Financing Task Force and is also on the Assembly of First Nations chiefs on claims.

He has received honorary doctorates from UBC and our own Thompson Rivers University. He's an outstanding recipient and someone I look to as a real mentor in terms of community leadership and what he's been able
[ Page 477 ]
to contribute to all of our communities in the Kamloops region and across British Columbia and, in fact, all of Canada. I want to congratulate Manny for that.

I also want to just start talking about the budget by reading a letter to the editor that appeared in The Kamloops Daily News today. I don't read this to try and divide the House or talk about how we're so good and the other party is not. It's just, I think, a reflection of how people are feeling in the province at the moment. If I may read this letter, it says:

"It's a really sad state of affairs in our province right now. We want more doctors, more teachers, more nurses, better hospitals, better education, better roads, cheaper post-secondary education, more and cheaper social housing.…" The list goes on and on.

"Everybody seems to have their hand out, but nobody wants to be the one to pay for all of these things. Where do they think that money comes from for all the things that we have and the things we do for people in our province? It comes from taxes. The government suggests an HST tax. Listen to the hue and cry. People say: 'I don't want to pay any more for the things that I buy. Get the money from somebody else.' They call it a tax grab. There is no such thing as a tax grab when every penny we collect, and more, is being used for the people of British Columbia."

The letter goes on to say: "We really have only two choices: we can pay more in taxes, or we can cut services.

"I listen to the NDP, and they are constantly saying: 'We wouldn't have an HST. We wouldn't make any cuts to programs. We would have smaller class sizes, hire more teachers, hire more nurses and have cheaper, more subsidized, post-secondary education. We wouldn't have a carbon tax.'

"The problem is that they haven't really said anything positive about what they, in fact, would do differently or where they would get the money to pay for all of the things they say they would pay for.

"I remember the good old days when the old NDP were in power." Not this group, obviously, but the old NDP were in power. "Businesses were leaving the province in droves, and our family members were following them because there were no jobs to be had in B.C. They cut nursing programs. They made promises to build things that they never followed up on.

"People have very, very short memories and pretty much a me-first attitude. We have just come through the best eight or nine years of economic good times that I have experienced in my lifetime."

"Let's show the world what B.C. is all about when they come here for the 2010 Winter Olympics. I, for one, am proud of our province, and to tell you the truth, I am happy that some of my tax money is going to showcase people being the best that they can be for a change.

"I've had my fill and then some of negative people and people that take from us and don't want to help pay for what they take. It is way easier for them to let somebody else pay for it."

I think that encapsulates what many people around the province are feeling — that there are lots of problems that the world faces and that those problems require difficult decisions. Those difficult decisions are being made by this government.

You know, during the election we certainly had a platform that was based on sound economic advice. The NDP has been criticizing this government for not knowing that the revenues were going to fall and that during the election and subsequently we didn't see that revenues were falling and that the world was changing.

I remember that election very well. I remember that during the election, when we said we would have a $495 million deficit — as much as we did not like to run deficits — the NDP said: "Oh, there's $600 million more out there in revenues that you're not counting." Not only that, on top of the $1.9 billion over three years that we planned to save in the form of cuts to different administrative programs and by cutting travel, by cutting bureaucracy, the NDP said they would find another $1.2 billion — another $1.2 billion. And did I mention that they were going to do away with the carbon tax, which was another billion dollars?

Well, I don't recall during that election, when apparently economists were seeing the world differently all of a sudden, the NDP saying: "You know what, folks? We're going to have to revise our monetary projections. We're going to have to campaign differently." As I recall, the NDP kept saying that they would have $600 million more in revenue and that they were going to cut $1.2 billion more. And they were going to do away with the carbon tax.

Well, Madam Speaker, I don't think that the NDP knew anything different than most of the world knew at that time. Everyone knew that the world was changing, but we were really taken aback by the swiftness with which it changed.

No question that when natural gas revenues that historically have been around $8 now all of a sudden are at $2.85…. For every dollar, of course, that's about $300 million of revenue to the government. I didn't see the NDP seeing that coming and telling the electorate about that, if they were to become government.

Also, we know that we've had the worst forest fire season on record — over $400 million by the time we're finished. Again, I want to take the opportunity to thank the good people throughout the province, and not only our province but firefighters who came from Alberta, from Ontario, other jurisdictions around Canada — in fact, other jurisdictions around the world — who came to British Columbia to take part in that really dramatic struggle against forest fires.

I was sitting out on a friend's dock on Okanagan Lake watching the Terrace Mountain smoke. All of a sudden that Terrace Mountain smoke turned into the Terrace Mountain fire. As it leapt over the ridge, the whole ridge went up in flames. We watched helicopter after helicopter dropping water, trying to contain that forest fire.

The men and women that fought forest fires and are continuing to do so around this province are truly amazing. Through all of this we had, I think, three structures that were lost this year, which is a testament to the effectiveness and the valiant effort of our firefighters. I want to commend them and all the people at the Kamloops firefighting centre that control all of the
[ Page 478 ]
activities around the province to keep our communities safe.

That was another $400 million that no one could have predicted. We base a firefighting budget on a ten-year average, and I certainly didn't see the members in opposition during the election saying: "Hey, you know what? We're going to have to spend $400 million on fighting fires this year."

We have to deal with the world as it is. This budget is a realistic budget that deals with the world as it is, making sure we maintain critical services like health care, like education and, of course, looking after those that are affected most by the economic downturn, the low-income people in our province and the seniors that certainly are on a fixed income.

By increasing health care spending 6 percent each year for three years, by maintaining the highest per-student funding in our education system, by increasing income assistance by over $400 million over three years we will make sure — despite this huge economic downturn, a huge drop in government revenues — that the people that are most vulnerable will be looked after and that we maintain the vital services that British Columbians have come to enjoy and expect in this province.

I want to also talk about a policy in the budget that addresses the world as we see it today. My colleague the Minister of Forests and Range talked about the number of OECD countries around the world that have adopted a value-added tax to do away with a compounding tax that is similar to the current provincial sales tax, an embedded tax that gets rolled over and rolled over so that the consumer ends up paying it many times over. The only jurisdiction that doesn't have that…. And now we will move forward with that, because we know that it's the right thing to do.

Noting the time, I am cognizant that we are soon running out of it, so I would move that we adjourn debate until we sit again, and….

Errata

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 (Volume 1, Number 10), page 227. An error occurred in the report of the Hon. I. Black's response to the budget. The second paragraph above the [1620] time line, beginning "Doing a logical check…" and ending "…centrepiece of this budget," appeared in duplicate. The on-line versions of the transcript have been corrected.

Thursday, September 3, 2009 (Volume 1, Number 12), page 291. An error occurred in the report of Ms. Kwan's response to the budget. The following line was omitted at the [1625] time line: "On April 23 in the leaders radio debate the Premier made his claim that the deficit would be $495 million — maximum." The on-line versions of the transcript have been corrected.

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.


CONTENTS
Page
Routine Business
Introductions by Members	435
Statements (Standing Order 25B)	435
Sarah McLachlan Foundation concert
J. McIntyre
Skeena River swim by Ali Howard
D. Donaldson
Robbie Thompson and World Transplant Games
D. McRae
Terrace and Hockeyville event
R. Austin
50th anniversary of Fort St. John Petroleum Association
P. Pimm
25th anniversary of Craigilea Housing Co-operative
R. Fleming
Oral Questions	438
Federal funding for infrastructure projects
C. James
Hon. S. Bond
B. Ralston
S. Fraser
D. Donaldson
M. Farnworth
Funding for repairs at Johnston Heights Secondary School
J. Brar
Hon. M. MacDiarmid
Mining exploration permit in Flathead Valley area
R. Fleming
Hon. B. Lekstrom
Orders of the Day
Budget Debate (continued)	443
D. Hayer
M. Karagianis
P. Pimm
S. Fraser
Hon. M. MacDiarmid
N. Macdonald
Hon. P. Bell
S. Simpson
T. Lake