2010 Legislative Session: Second Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 8, 2010

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 2

[ Page 3227 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Statements

eXPRESSION OF THANKS TO MEMBERS

K. Corrigan: I wanted to pay homage today to a wonderful wife, friend, mother, teacher and grandmother by the name of Marguerite Henry. She died last Thursday, my mother. I also wanted to thank all the members of the House on both sides who have been so kind, passed on so many words of kindness, e-mails, hugs, and I would particularly like to thank the Liberal caucus for the lovely flower arrangement that I received on Friday. So thank you all for your support.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Polak: On this, the start of Social Work Week in British Columbia, we are joined by Nicole Bressner, Livleen Sanghara, Cindy Nikolic, Christine Stark and Ryan Laughey from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

These five individuals, whom I had the pleasure of having lunch with this afternoon, represent the thousands of social and front-line workers who are a vital part of our public service. Without exception, Nicole, Livleen, Cindy, Christine and Ryan, like so many social workers I have had the privilege to meet, are truly passionate about helping children, youth and families achieve their full potential. They work tirelessly to that end. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: We have one very special guest in the House today. She is one of my hardest-working volunteers, she's my friend, and she always volunteers when we need any help. She's my wife, Isabelle Hayer, who is visiting the House. Would the House please make her very welcome.

L. Reid: I'd like to welcome to this chamber a dear friend, Grace MacIver, and her daughter Cate, who has just turned eight. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the precincts…. I don't believe they've made it into the gallery yet, but we have a group of students visiting from Southridge School in my riding in Surrey. They are joined by their social studies teacher Mr. Dale Kurylyk. I believe there are about 65 or 66 students and a couple of parents. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

L. Reid: It is always a privilege to stand in this chamber and never more so than on International Women's Day. It is a privilege to recognize the gifts, the skills and the determination of amazing women. It is an awe-inspiring opportunity and journey that I believe began with Nellie McClung.

Other glorious woman who have made incredible contributions include Iona Campagnolo, first chancellor of UNBC and former Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia; the late Dr. Myrne Nevison, professor emeritus from UBC, who guided generations of counselling psychology students and continues her work in terms of her chair being available to all students who would apply at the University of British Columbia.

Women physicians who have changed lives include Dr. Margaret Clarke and Dr. Christine Loock. Amazing teachers Janet Powell, Mauri Clemons-Braund, Sharon Chen, Leena Reeves, Marlene Yurichuk, Bosso Gill — magical educational leaders all.

Women in finance Kristi Miller, Elizabeth Cull, Carole Taylor. Business leader Aimee Chan, whose company is assisting in Haiti today. Our Governor General Michaëlle Jean is today visiting Haiti.

Leaders in public policy Sheila Wynn and Cynthia Morton. Leaders in public life Dianne St. Jacques and Chief Kim Baird of the Tsawwassen First Nation. Our first female Speaker, Nancy Hodges in 1950, followed by Joan Sawicki in 1992 and Gretchen Mann Brewin in 1998.

Brilliant author Margaret Atwood. World-renowned musicians Sarah McLachlan, Diana Krall and Anne Murray. Amazing Olympians Clara Hughes, Joannie Rochette, Elizabeth Manley, Maëlle Ricker, our gold medal women's hockey team and countless others. And frankly, countless Paralympians yet to come.

Mary Gordon, Canada's first woman Ashoka fellow. Canadian senators Pamela Wallin and Nancy Greene.

These women have touched my life. I applaud them, and I applaud moms the world over, since our moms often taught us to fly.

K. Corrigan: I, too, rise in recognition of International Women's Day. Globally, women and men are celebrating the achievements of women past, present and future. The proposal that there should be an annual women's day to press for their demands came from a social democrat named Clara Zetkin at a 1911 international conference of working women — a gathering of unions, socialist parties, working women's clubs and a very few female parliamentarians.

In celebrating International Women's Day, we are acknowledging that unions, social democrats and female
[ Page 3228 ]
parliamentarians were and, I submit, continue to be leaders around the world in the fight for women's equality — as are all the organizations and individuals in this province and around the world who continue to advocate and work for the rights of women.

[1340]

In 1911 women were fighting for the vote. We have the vote. Women were fighting for the right to hold public office. We have that right but do not hold office in anywhere close to equal numbers with men. Women were fighting to end discrimination, and whereas we now have the right to be free from discrimination enshrined in our Charter, there is still discrimination here and around the world.

It's not just for women in Canada that we celebrate this day but to show our solidarity with women all over the world. Across the world women continue to be the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, make less money than men, and often do not have access to affordable child care and access to public education in many countries. But we work for a world where these inequalities will not exist, and we will get there together.

As the song says: "As we go marching, marching, we bring the greater days. The rising of the women means the rising of the race. No more the drudge and idler, ten that toil where one reposes, but a sharing of life's glories, bread and roses, bread and roses."

SOCIAL WORKERS

G. Hogg: March is Social Work Month in Canada, and this is Social Work Week in British Columbia. This week we recognize and celebrate the extraordinary dedication and ongoing commitment of social work professionals throughout our province. They truly do make a positive difference in the quality of life for so many, and we must remember that they make those differences 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

They travel late at night through snowstorms north of Fort St. John to pick up an abandoned baby. They work with aboriginal leaders to provide sensitive conjoint leadership models for service delivery. They counsel and assist families to deal with the challenges of Alzheimer's disease, and they do so much more in every facet of lives across this province.

Social workers utilize the very best of social service practices in the provision of a myriad of important services across this province. People are making changes in their lives every day. As they do, they move to improve the quality of their lives, and social workers are there helping them to do that. Social workers make a significant difference, and I ask this House to recognize and to thank them.

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN TERRACE

R. Austin: Over the last four days my home community of Terrace has hosted the 2010 B.C. Winter Games. Over 1,100 athletes from all over the province competed in 16 different sports. Over $1.6 million was injected into the Terrace economy. Not only were our hotels, motels and restaurants all busy, but we even had jets, albeit charter flights, bringing hundreds of attendees to our city.

I should note that in the recent Olympics, 12 of Canada's athletes competed at B.C. sports events, and three of those 12 won medals. It has taken over two years of planning for these games, with the city and school district being the lead local proponents. It was a logistical challenge. The athletes were fed over the four days at Northwest Community College, where they had to bring in a semi refrigeration truck to augment their fridges.

The opening ceremony on Thursday evening was a joyful celebration emceed by Jay Janower of Global TV and enhanced by local rock band Replay. As well, the Sophia Palahicky dance group entertained, along with 11-year-old singing sensation Maggy Ottenbreit.

I would like to recognize the contributions of many who were responsible for the success of these wonderful games. First, the numerous director volunteers led by local president Peter Weeber, who also happens to be our fire chief; the city of Terrace led by Mayor Dave Pernarowski; Northwest Community College under the leadership of president Stephanie Forsyth; Global TV for their continued support of amateur sport; the district of Kitimat for sharing their sporting venues; and last but by no means least, the 1,850 volunteers who gave their time and energy.

Thanks also to Kelly Mann and his team at the B.C. Games Society for their work in promoting amateur sport and creating the Olympians of the future. I hope all members will join me in congratulating those involved in this incredible event.

DIGITAL MEDIA INDUSTRY IN B.C.

R. Lee: The universe looks very complicated, but as the great Chinese philosopher Laozi LI Er had theorized, it came from the supreme ultimate where the yin and yang were derived.

It is not a surprise that the state of matter and information contents can be represented as a series of zeroes and ones. With the advent of the digital computer, featuring binary arithmetic, came the digital era starting in 1941.

[1345]

Over the last 70 years science and technology have developed in leaps and bounds. In B.C. today digital media and the wireless industry is one of the fastest-growing sectors in our economy. According to DigiBC, an association representing this sector, these 1,300 companies in B.C. employ 22,000 people and generate $3 billion a year in revenue.

The combined wireless and mobile, video gaming, innovation and visual effects, Web 2.0 and social media,
[ Page 3229 ]
interactive marketing and e-learning sectors are an important part of our high-tech industry now.

In Burnaby we have many industrial leaders, including Electronic Arts, Canpages, Nokia, Darim, Snaptech Marketing Group, PVE400 as well as education institutes such as BCIT and SFU School of Engineering Science.

Last week I had the opportunity to meet many of the experts, business leaders and investors who participated in the digital media event showcasing the B.C. digital technologies under the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games hosting program. I would like to recognize all the organizers — including Glenn Entis, Ginger Grant, Par Singh and Olivier Vincent — for making the VX conversions so successful.

FRASER RIVER DISCOVERY CENTRE
BOAT-BUILDING EXHIBIT

D. Black: This spring and summer people living in or visiting New Westminster can take part in an amazing opportunity at the Fraser River Discovery Centre. At the build-a-boat exhibit, visitors can learn about the important history of boat-building on the Fraser River. Robert Buller from Douglas College has been working with the centre to build a replica of the wooden boats used for fishing on the Fraser in the 1880s.

Thanks to the work of Robert, the volunteer builders and the amazing staff at the Fraser River Discovery Centre, visitors can actually pitch in to help build the boat, which will be launched on the Fraser in early summer.

I had a chance to visit the exhibit, and I can tell you that it gives you a unique opportunity to learn about and celebrate the multicultural heritage of the industry and to see and touch tools used by builders from that time.

The exhibit profiles aboriginal peoples who have been building boats and fishing in the area for hundreds and hundreds of years, who were joined by immigrants from all over the world. The discovery centre exhibit profiles three boat-building families from different backgrounds — the Davis family, the Keeshis and the Tara family. Their boats were so well designed that patterns have not changed much over the last 100 years.

Fortunately, the Fraser River Discovery Centre obtained original plans for the project, but work catching fish using these boats was not easy. Boats had no motors, so fishers had to put out their gill-nets and reel them in every 15 minutes and then row back upstream against the current. Boat owners also worked hard to keep their boats well maintained to avoid breakdown and rotting from the sun, fungi, barnacles and mussels.

Visiting the build-a-boat exhibit is a great way to gain a strong appreciation for the history of the industry and the vital impact it's made in New Westminster and across B.C. It's an opportunity for folks to give a hand building a boat.

Oral Questions

MINTZ REPORT ON
HARMONIZED SALES TAX

C. James: Today the government released a report on the HST paid for by B.C. taxpayers, which is one more attempt by the B.C. Liberals to convince the public that the HST is good for them.

My question is to the Finance Minister. Why did he wait until ten months after the election to issue a report on the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: We said right from the outset, when we made our announcement last July…. We pointed out that all of the leading economists in Canada were saying that the elimination of the provincial sales tax and the shift to the HST is the single biggest thing that the province of British Columbia can do to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Dr. Jack Mintz is the former head of the C.D. Howe Institute. He is now the Palmer chair at the University of Calgary. He is one of Canada's leading economists. He's one of Canada's leading public policy analysts.

[1350]

This report that will be released today actually shows that over the coming decade, the shift to the HST will result in a net increase in investment in British Columbia of $11.4 billion.

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

C. James: We all know why this government didn't do a study on the HST. It's because the B.C. Liberals refused to come clean with the voters on the real state of the economy in British Columbia. Then they brought in the HST to try and cover it up. Well, they're now desperately trying to convince the public that the HST is good for them.

This government's story on the HST changes every day. Before the election they were against the HST. After the election it was the best thing that could be done for the economy. Next they said it would actually pay for health care. Today the B.C. Liberals released a report on the HST…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …authored by someone they knew would put in a favourable report, to try and convince the public that it was going to create jobs.

Well, my question is to the Finance Minister. Will he admit that this report released after they announced the
[ Page 3230 ]
HST is just one more attempt by this government at political damage control?

Hon. C. Hansen: I was delighted to have a supplemental, because that gives me a chance to tell the rest of the story. Because what I didn't get a chance to point out….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: What I didn't get a chance to point out before I ran out of time in my early answer is that Dr. Jack Mintz, in his study, also shows that this would mean a net increase of jobs in every part of British Columbia in every industry, to the tune of 113,000 net new jobs over the next decade.

The only story on HST that seems to be changing is what the official opposition's position is on the HST. The Leader of the Opposition and the Finance critic said that if they were ever elected as government, they would keep it. The Energy critic said last month that they would get rid of it and instead would jack up a whole bunch of other taxes. So maybe the Leader of the Opposition can now fill us in on what is the real position of the NDP on HST.

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

C. James: The government's story keeps changing, and by the way, the author's story keeps changing as well. The author of this study in 2008 wrote that the HST will cost Ontario nearly 38,000 jobs. That's actually the story of Jack Mintz. Then in a 2009 report commissioned by the Ontario government, which supported the HST, he changed his story. He now says that it will create jobs.

So how can British Columbians have any faith in this report? How can they have any faith in anything this government says about the HST when it's clear they'll do anything to convince the public about this tax?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, Dr. Mintz was asked about some of his previous reports by a reporter in Vancouver today. What he pointed out is that he originally had recommended to Ontario that they adopt their own value-added tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: As Dr. Mintz pointed out to the reporters this morning…. He said that the new flexibility that the federal government was showing this year was the fundamental reason why he feels it is now appropriate for Ontario and British Columbia to look favourably on the HST model.

[1355]

Rather than sitting there giggling, I would suggest that the members of the opposition actually read Dr. Mintz's report, because it's pretty obvious that they haven't read it.

B. Ralston: The Mintz report that the minister is talking about offers dubious assumptions to make very exaggerated claims about job creation, and it completely dismisses in a single paragraph concerns about rising consumer prices under the HST.

Consumers around the province are bracing for the impact on their pocketbooks should the HST legislation come into effect. How much did the minister have to pay to get a report that supports his political argument for the HST?

Hon. C. Hansen: When the member actually makes those kinds of assertions, it's pretty obvious that either he is wilfully ignoring facts or that he is not apprised of them, because when he talks about the significant impact on consumers, he can't support that. Actually, if he refers to the tables that we have in the budget today, he will actually see that the net impact on consumers in low- and middle-income families in British Columbia is, in many cases, positive as a result of the HST tax credit and the reductions of income tax.

Even for those in upper-income brackets — which, again, we set out in the budget documents — he will know that the impact is minor and certainly not the significant impact that he is fearmongering with seniors and others around the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, I can see that I'm not going to get an answer to my question as to how much this report cost. The report in Ontario, which was ten pages in length, cost $9,000. So I'll look forward to that answer from the minister at some future time, perhaps.

Can the minister just simply…? Why doesn't he just simply admit that this is nothing more than an attempt to sell a deeply unpopular tax to an unconvinced public?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that the member should look at the various organizations that are supporting it. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia — 100 percent in support of harmonized sales tax. The Certified General Accountants of British Columbia — 100 percent in support of harmonized sales tax. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been advocating to
[ Page 3231 ]
this province to take on the harmonized sales tax going back to when the NDP was in government in British Columbia.

There is list after list after list of organizations and associations, including the Law Society, that are 100 percent in support because it is good economic policy. It is good public policy. That is why 130 countries around the world have adopted a value-added tax system, and that is why now all but three provinces in Canada will have eliminated the archaic provincial sales tax, which is a drag on our economy and a drag on job creation.

N. Macdonald: The minister forgot in his list of supporters for the HST to include the 11 percent of British Columbians who agree, after eight months of government propaganda, with the government's HST proposal.

There is no public support, and there is no public support because the public intuitively knows that this misrepresentation by the B.C. Liberals takes us in the wrong direction. We can look back at other faith-based sorts of initiatives by this government, such as the PST exemptions.

In 2001 the government put their faith in the PST exemptions of $110 million per year for the forestry sector, saying that it would create jobs. There was no study done before it; there is no study done since. The PST exemption, like the HST, was put forward as something that would create jobs, and since 2001 we have lost over 30,000 family-supporting jobs.

[1400]

So how can the Finance Minister stand in this House and prepare to betray British Columbians with the imposition of the HST when he can offer absolutely no credible evidence that it will have any positive effect at all?

Hon. C. Hansen: With the work that Jack Mintz has done…. I understand why the members don't like it, because it's good public policy. It's good analysis. This is one more piece of research, one additional opinion by a leading economist, in terms of why HST makes sense.

I am interested that this member, as the former forestry critic, would not have talked to some of the employers in his own constituency. For example, Downie lumber, one of the big employers in his constituency, is supporting HST because it will create jobs for his constituents.

Two other employers in his constituency — Tembec and International Paper — are supportive of HST because it will allow them to create more jobs and put more investment into his constituency, which will make sure that those workers who were laid off in the forest sector will be able to get back to work and that those who are working will have more job security than they otherwise would.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I'll give an accurate description of exactly what Downie said on this topic. Downie said that there were benefits for the company but, compared to the cost to Revelstoke Mountain Resort and other businesses in Revelstoke, that it was something that they thought would not be good for Revelstoke.

You have your 195 public affairs bureau people. You can go and look that up. It's the Revelstoke Times Review. Have a look at that.

It is a fact that you have initiative after initiative that this government lays out as job creators and that time after time they fizzle and they pop. They burst. In forestry there are 30,000 jobs that have been lost.

The question to this minister is clear. This is a gun for hire that has produced a report that is exactly what the government wants. It is eight months after this initiative was put forward. How can the government proceed with an initiative that over 80 percent of British Columbians, after eight months, reject and that this government ran on the promise of not introducing? How can the government proceed with that sort of record?

Hon. C. Hansen: Dr. Jack Mintz is actually one of Canada's leading economists. He is widely regarded as one of the top public policy analysts in Canada. I think, given the aspersions that that member just cast, he owes Dr. Mintz an apology. But I'll put our job creation record in this province over the last eight and a half years up against any government in Canada, including the NDP government of the 1990s.

I can tell….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't know of very many unemployed forest workers that can afford to go skiing at Kicking Horse. What this study shows is that there will be a net increase of 113,000 jobs in British Columbia. Those are going to be workers with paycheques who will be able to go and afford to take their families out for dinner on a Saturday night or afford to be able to take their kids skiing in British Columbia. It's only through that kind of job creation and support for the economy that we can ensure that there is a dynamic and successful service sector in British Columbia as well.

[1405]

S. Herbert: This government hasn't done its homework on the HST. But the tourism and the restaurant associations have, and they will be devastated by this tax. The tourism sector says that they will lose up to 10,000 jobs, the restaurant sector another 10,000 jobs — numbers that prove that today's report is nothing but an attempt to spin the HST to a public that just doesn't buy it.
[ Page 3232 ]

To the Finance Minister: did this report's terms of reference include the HST's impact on the tourism and restaurant sectors?

Hon. C. Hansen: Dr. Mintz looked at all sectors, and what it demonstrated is that there would be a net increase of 113,000 jobs in British Columbia.

I think it's the hon. member opposite who actually should do some homework. I urge him to read Dr. Mintz's report. I urge him to read the writings of other economists that have talked about the advantages of value-added taxes. The reason why over 130 countries around the world have adopted it and got rid of the archaic provincial sales tax system is because it does attract investment. It does create jobs.

We were elected with a mandate to strengthen the economy, create jobs in British Columbia, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON RESTAURANT
AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES

S. Herbert: The B.C. Liberals have no credibility on the HST. They said they were against it. They said they wouldn't do it. They told the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association that, no, they actually wouldn't do it, because it was bad for consumers. Oh, but that was pre-election. Somehow things change once you already get your votes and get in the door as government.

The Minister of Tourism was recently on the radio — today actually, I believe. He said that actually restaurants thought, generally, that the HST was a positive move. Well, according to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, 10,000 jobs lost. According to the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, 10,000 jobs lost.

Maybe the Minister of Tourism can let this House know when 10,000 job losses are a positive move.

Hon. C. Hansen: I suggest that the member actually look at the study that was done by the restaurant association. Actually, what it will show is that a job loss happened in 1991 because of a recession that the country was going into at that time. This is actually the time that we make this kind of shift — as we're coming out of recession, as global investors are looking for investment opportunities that will result in job opportunities for British Columbians.

I think when it comes to credibility, that member should talk to his colleagues. There is not much credibility from a party that's saying on one day that they would keep the HST and on the other day saying they would eliminate it, would jack up $5 billion worth of taxes in other sectors. I think it's the official opposition that needs to come clean with the B.C. public.

FUNDING FOR SupportS TO
DISABLED AND LOW-INCOME PEOPLE

S. Simpson: Last Thursday, late in the afternoon, the Minister of Housing and Social Development rolled out an announcement of over $26 million in cuts to some of our most vulnerable citizens, including persons with disabilities and the homeless. The minister had the gall to allow the heading on this to be "Province Protects Services for Low-Income Clients." Cuts to nutrition, medical services, supplies and equipment, dental services, shelter allowances, contraceptive services and funeral services — all part of 50 pages of regulatory cuts.

Could the minister tell us why the most vulnerable in this province have to pay for the incompetence of him and his government?

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, when you're facing a $1.7 billion deficit and you need to go look at your programs, you do that. Last summer we went and looked at a number of things. The member opposite is couching it one way, and I'll explain it to the member opposite.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

[1410]

Hon. R. Coleman: For instance, on the dental side for persons with disabilities, they actually asked us for more flexibility on the dental stuff. They said, "You know what? It's $700 a year," and $700 a year, in cases where they felt that sometimes that expense would be higher, was unfair to them. They asked if it could be blended over two years — it would be $1,400 over two years — so if they had a higher expense in one year, that could be handled. That actually saves us — administrative savings.

We decided in the case of bottled water that bottled water…. Our tap water in British Columbia is perfectly drinkable for anyone, and the fact of the matter is that by not providing bottled water, we're saving money. We are protecting the essential services by doing this, because there are pressures on the welfare rolls. Every single dollar that is saved gets reinvested into our ability to be there for people on social assistance at the time that they need it.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: Well, I don't know who "they" are that the minister talks to, but it wasn't people with disabilities. It wasn't their advocates. It wasn't the homeless who said: "Cut our services." We can be assured of that.
[ Page 3233 ]

What might be more telling is that on the eighth of March, the minister is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: "We felt these were, frankly, add-ons that weren't necessary to healthy living of folks on social assistance." That was the minister on the eighth.

Nutrition; medical services, supplies and equipment; dental services; shelter allowances; contraception; funeral services. And the list just continues to grow. Hon. Speaker, for everybody else in this society, those kinds of services are essential. For everybody else, those are important. Why does the minister think those are frills for the poor and the disabled?

Hon. R. Coleman: Anybody that's on social assistance in the province of British Columbia receives Medical Services Plan. They receive non-deductible access to Pharmacare. People that are on low income get premium assistance. None of that is changing for these folks.

A lot of the services that were duplicated in this ministry were already provided either by community service groups or through the Ministry of Health because of the MSP and the issues that are already supplied. We went and looked at this. We felt this was the best way to do these things. It was a tough decision.

I know you guys don't like making tough decisions. I get that. I know you'd rather not have the $2 billion extra that's being invested in health care over the next three years. I know you'd rather not have the extra money that's invested in education, but I'll tell you what, hon. Member. This is the only government that's ever raised social assistance numbers in the province in the last 16 years, the only one that's ever raised shelter allowance dollars in the province of British Columbia in the last 15 years. In this country, there is no better place as far as the services, and by putting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, by actually making sure your system is streamlined and making sure that services go to the people that need it the most, you're being prudent, you're being fiscally responsible, and you are protecting the services for your most vulnerable citizens.

medical SUPPLEMENTS FOR
DISABILITY BENEFITS RECIPIENTS

N. Simons: A part of the announcements last week was that people receiving nutritional supplements would have to meet higher criteria in order to receive those.

It's not about making tough decisions. It's about making the bad decisions that this government is doing. Mr. Speaker, these are people with disabilities who are suffering from nutritional deficits, who require assistance in order to meet those deficits — people who are malnourished, people who have lost the use of a vital organ, people who are in desperate straits and who this government has decided to turn their backs on.

How can the minister justify economically or morally the decision to cut these benefits to people with these needs?

[1415]

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member opposite would just read the information that was provided last Thursday, he'll find that if any person has two of the issues relative to malnutrition or weight loss or whatever, they're still eligible for the $205 a month for nutritional supplements.

It was the advice we received that there should be some measure with regard to what it was that was actually being funded. Therefore, all that does actually is make it clear what it is that people could be paid for, for the issues that they need.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Well, judging from the reaction from even that side, they obviously don't buy this explanation.

The minister mentioned the problem in his answer. You require two of the following symptoms in order to be eligible for nutritional supplements. Well, tell that to a constituent who has written to all of us, who had his bowel removed but doesn't suffer from malnutrition, doesn't suffer from severe weight loss, doesn't suffer from severe muscle loss. Yet he needs those vitamins. He needs those supplements in order to stay healthy.

The benefits of this program keep people from the acute health care system. So if this government is devoid of any ethical reasons for supporting people with disabilities, there's an economic reason as well. Will this government reconsider its ill-advised decision to cut nutritional benefits to people with disabilities?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think that on balance, the member, if he reads the information, will find that we have been pretty prudent in our discussion in taking the people's concerns into account, as we made these changes, to protect the absolute vital services for people on social services in the province — who, by the way, do get MSP and Pharmacare and other services from government and will continue to do so.

A. Dix: These are the very programs that allow people to take care of their own health. I mean, how can it be justified? Who told the minister? What group, what individual told the minister that people with disabilities shouldn't have access to orthotics? Who or what group told the minister that people with disabilities should not
[ Page 3234 ]
have glucometers to deal with their type 2 diabetes? Not covered by Pharmacare, by the way.

Who told the minister that people with severe health issues do not need food? What report? What group told the minister to proceed with these plans, which will only increase health care costs in the acute care sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: Most of what you just described is covered under MSP or through Pharmacare.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, we'll get to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the nutrition issue, the member knows, if he would read the information, that any person who has malnutrition and weight loss…. Those two alone would actually allow them to get a $205-a-month supplement.

We work with our client base. We try and work with them in such a way that we can protect the vital services for people on social assistance. In tough economic times the budget has gone up for this ministry so it can do that, both in housing and in social services that will still be there for the people that are the most vulnerable in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call budget debate.

[1420]

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to again rejoin the debate on the budget. I had the opportunity last Thursday just prior to adjournment of debate to begin my discussion of the issues in and around the budget, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to proceed here again.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

What I'd like to do today, and I guess this will be the general theme today, is answer a question that has puzzled mankind for centuries — that is, do I really need to spend thousands of dollars on airfare in order to have a conversion on the road to Damascus? This is an important question, of course, and the answer to that question will be definitively a no. There are plenty of examples — and we've seen a number of them in this House — of conversions. Certainly, there's a convert right across the way from Juan de Fuca, who would be among those who have enjoyed conversions on important issues.

I remember the 2005 election, and all of my NDP friends and opponents with their slogans about "health care, not Olympics." Somewhere between 2005 and 2010 there was a remarkable conversion, as the New Democrats became ardent supporters of not only the Olympics but Mr. Furlong and all of the team that were putting the Olympics on. That hadn't always been the case. It's true. Even the member for Juan de Fuca, I'm sure, at times nursed some doubts about the Olympics and probably expressed them as well. But remarkably, he was able to convert into a great supporter of the Olympics as he stands here even today.

There are many other examples as well. British Columbians will remember with great clarity the 2009 provincial election campaign wherein the New Democrats spent millions of dollars attempting to convince British Columbians that the carbon tax was a really, really bad idea that would bring an end to life on earth as we knew it, as a consequence of its imposition. Then of course, since the 2009 campaign there has been a remarkable conversion among New Democrats with respect to the carbon tax, and we should welcome that. It's a huge step in the right direction.

Today — and we've just recently seen it again in question period — the NDP are firmly and irrevocably, I am sure, opposed to the harmonized sales tax, and that's interesting. I think it does reflect the politics of expediency on the part of the New Democrats. The HST, as they observed in question period today, is just marginally more popular than a skunk at a picnic, and as a consequence it's great politics for New Democrats to oppose the HST. Is it good economic policy? No, it certainly is not that, but arguably, it's good politics, at least in the short term, for New Democrats to oppose the harmonized sales tax.

The NDP strategy, I think, is pretty straightforward. I would describe it as a two-part strategy. The first part of the strategy is to let B.C. Liberals get beaten like last Christmas's pinata over the HST issue. [Applause.]

I'm appreciative of the applause from across the way, Madam Chair.

The second part — and I'm sure they will applaud even more fulsomely for this — of the strategy, post our being beaten like last Christmas's pinata, is to march triumphantly through the gates of victory in forming the government in 2013. That, I think, would be the second part of the NDP strategy re the HST.

[1425]

What will follow then? What will follow the 2013 election in this NDP fantasy? Well, I think predictably, we'll
[ Page 3235 ]
see a great deal of gesticulation. We'll see equivocation, probably some prevarication, I'm suspecting, but we'll also see a conversion. We will see a conversion as surely as night follows day. We will see a conversion on the road to Damascus with respect to the HST. The NDP will decide that after all, the HST is a really good idea and that they're going to keep it. There is no question about that.

Following that conversion, we will see a very angry column by Michael Smyth condemning the NDP for their flip-flop, and that will be widely circulated among members of the House. We will see their former anti-HST bedfellow, Bill Vander Zalm, come out roundly condemning the NDP for their flip-flop with respect to the HST. Again, to reiterate just how wise William Shakespeare was in what he said, hell hath no fury like an ex-politician spurned, and that will be the case with Mr. Vander Zalm. He will mount a provincial crusade against the NDP and against the HST.

Well, that will all be fascinating, I'm sure, but one really shouldn't, as I've just done, encourage the NDP in such fantasies. If inflammatory rhetoric, personalized attacks and vitriol were a substitute for vision and direction, surely the NDP would have won the elections of 2005 and 2009. But they did not, notwithstanding what I thought was, particularly in the 2009 campaign, a remarkably bitter, vitriolic and very personalized attempt at convincing the electorate to vote for them. But they did not provide any vision or direction, nor did they win a victory in 2009 — certainly fell far short of that.

I'd say that while opposition to the HST may make some sense in terms of the short-term politics of this, I do think the NDP sell themselves short. They can read that most of the economists in Canada are supportive of the harmonized sales tax, and I think they are not building much of a launching pad for their next shot at government in 2013 by taking the remarkably negative and narrow line, as they have with respect to the harmonized sales tax.

Economists, just like politicians, come from a range of ideological perspectives. But on the HST, the harmonized sales tax or value-added tax as it's often referred to, there is a remarkable and in fact astonishing degree of unanimity with respect to the HST and in support of the HST. The politicians, I would submit, including the NDP, should as a consequence sit up and take notice of that remarkable unanimity among the economists in relation to the harmonized sales tax.

I can't recall the last time that we saw the right-wing Fraser Institute, the left-wing Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the centre-of-the-road Conference Board of Canada…. I can't recall a time when all three of those quite different ideologically or diverse ideologically organizations were of one mind with respect to a public policy. But interestingly or remarkably, they are of one mind with respect to harmonized sales tax.

[1430]

They are that, notwithstanding the attempts by the B.C. New Democrats to demonize this whole process. Just to provide examples of the point, with respect to the Fraser Institute, I would submit to the attention of members an article of July 28, 2009, in the Vancouver Sun, an article submitted by the Fraser Institute entitled "Harmonizing Sales Taxes is Smart Thinking." The article says, among other things:

"It will make B.C. businesses more competitive, encourage investment and provide significant and lasting economic benefits to the province."

Further in the article it notes — and they certainly were accurate on this, given some of the comments we heard even just in the last hour:

"Unfortunately, British Columbians will likely be exposed to many faulty objections and misconceptions regarding the HST over the coming weeks and months by those seeking to derail this reform."

It goes on to say:

"The tax shift argument ignores the fact that the provincial sales tax is currently embedded in the price of many of the goods and services that are currently exempt from the PST…. Some business inputs — goods and services — are currently taxed. Consumers pay higher prices, even if the final good or service is not taxed. In fact" — and this makes reference to an article by Professor Smart — "it found that consumer prices in the harmonizing provinces fell after the 1997 reforms, which somewhat offset the imposition of the sales tax. In addition, the tax shift argument fails to recognize that the burden of all taxes ultimately falls on people — consumers, workers or owners — in the form of higher prices, lower wages or reduced rates of return on investments."

So that's the Fraser Institute.

The second article that I would invite members to have a look at is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning think tank, as it's referred to. They produced in December of 2009 a document of about 17 pages entitled, remarkably, Not a Tax Grab After All: A Second Look at Ontario's HST. This is a document which members should read with interest. Particularly, New Democrat members of the House should read this with interest, because it looks at a number of the questions which were raised by New Democrats earlier in question period.

I'll note, for example, some of the points that are made in this — that the net combined effect of all these changes is very close to neutral, and in fact, it is Ontario families with the lowest incomes that will be better off by $119, on average, while the richest families will be worse off by $324 annually, or approximately 0.2 percent of family income. So all of that, I think, points out, again, that those on the left side of the spectrum also appreciate that the harmonized sales tax will be a positive thing for the economy of British Columbia.

Finally, in terms of documents which members may wish to access, there is a document by the Conference Board of Canada which is entitled Harmonize Consumption Taxes to Improve Economic Efficiency. This is, I think, a very good and very readable article. It builds on some of the academic work which has been
[ Page 3236 ]
done with respect to the impact of value-added taxes like the harmonized sales tax versus retail sales taxes like our provincial sales tax. I'll just quote briefly from the Conference Board of Canada:

"The benefits of adopting harmonized value-added tax in lieu of a retail sales tax are manifold. Harmonization of all remaining sales taxes into a single VAT system would improve economic efficiency across the Canadian economy.

[1435]

"It would simplify tax administration, minimize the potential for tax evasion, eliminate distortions caused by the absence of a sales tax rebate on business inputs, promote increased domestic investment by Canadian firms, reduce compliance costs for business and increase the competitiveness of Canadian exports."

I think all of those things are things which members of this House ought to be thinking about as we form our conclusions about the harmonized sales tax, because it is important to have a dynamic economy. If we don't have a dynamic economy, we will not be able to sustain all of the very important government services which we provide.

So again, as British Columbia and Ontario become the fifth and sixth jurisdictions in this nation to embrace harmonized sales tax, you ask the question: "Well, why? Why should we do that?"

Well, it ensures that British Columbia products remain competitive nationally. Again, I know that some members on the opposition side have minimized this important element, but they shouldn't. If British Columbia's manufacturers face a 7 percent penalty relative to Ontario manufacturers, it could have a devastating impact on British Columbia's manufacturers, so it's absolutely critical that we have a harmonized sales tax to match that of Ontario, that of Quebec and other manufacturers in Canada.

It would also make B.C. products more competitive internationally. That's, again, a huge issue, especially when one considers that some 130 jurisdictions internationally now have adopted value-added taxes versus the retail sales taxes. So to be competitive internationally, we need to have that harmonized sales tax to assist those who are producing jobs in British Columbia.

Why would we care whether we are competitive nationally or internationally? Well, jobs is a good start. The Finance Minister mentioned earlier, in question period, that the likely consequence of the HST would be more jobs for British Columbians. That's hugely important. It also means more investment in British Columbia. That's hugely important. Taxes, services…. All of those things are why we need to have a harmonized sales tax in British Columbia.

Again, I know that the members opposite are often seduced by the siren song of short-term political expediency, and it may be no different in this case, but that's unfortunate. I think the harmonized sales tax will be something that will assist in the economic expansion and diversification of our great province. That is hugely important.

We are at, I think, a crossroads in terms of building an economy that is more inclusive of First Nations, that is more inclusive of new Canadians, more inclusive of those who have often been marginalized in our society. I think we have a great opportunity in the decade ahead to build a very powerful province.

Today as one looks across the world — and of course, we've just had the great opportunity of hosting the world here for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games — you see that British Columbia is, in fact, the envy of the world. We're the envy of the world for our remarkable resources, for the wonderful quality of water that we enjoy, the fabulous landscapes that are a part of our province and that make us such a wonderful destination for tourism, and the remarkable contributions that British Columbians have made to science and research.

In many, many ways our great province is the envy of the world, and I believe that with the harmonized sales tax, we are going to continue to build on that opportunity we have to make the 21st century British Columbia's century.

C. Trevena: I take my place here to respond to the government's budget, and I don't think it's going to surprise anyone that I'm not in support of it. I find it, in fact, a frightening reflection of the government's approach, an approach built on regressive taxation, on subsidies for industries and on undermining the public social framework, which has taken years to build.

[1440]

Further, in my response to the throne speech, I spoke about the need for a different vision and a lens which can be used to ensure we're working towards a truly sustainable future, not just one based on words but built on a solid foundation. This budget fails that test miserably.

But first, I'd like to talk about one of the general premises which I find deeply troubling. In my response to the throne speech, I talked about the neoconservative philosophy which has been the foundation for the last nine years of B.C. Liberal governance.

That philosophy, essentially, is one which denigrates the concept of society and boosts the role of the individual. It undermines public provision of services and replaces them with a private provision of those services. It's a philosophy which I first lived through with Margaret Thatcher's brutal conservatism in the U.K. in the 1980s. At that time she likened the public purse, the government's expenditures, to that of an individual running a household. The good housekeeper would always balance her books so that no more money was spent than was earned.

This is a simile beloved of the New Right. In fact, in an earlier debate in this House, one of the members of the government side was applauded for repeating the adage that if you didn't earn it, you didn't deserve it.
[ Page 3237 ]

What is so worrying is that these household homilies are being taken as the basis for running a government. It's not that simple. A government is not running a household. It's running a province with millions of people, a complex social and physical infrastructure, businesses large and small, and trade both foreign and domestic. It's integrated with other provincial, territorial and federal governments and has working relations with foreign governments.

Governing B.C. is not simple household economics. A government's role is to invest in its people — to provide services for people, to provide infrastructure for people and to recognize that some people are not able to make it on their own and will need government assistance. And at a time when we're still uncertain about our economic future, when we're still talking about recession, the need for public investment is even greater.

This budget's underlying principle that "balancing the budget is more than just a financial imperative; it is a social imperative as well" is, frankly, repugnant. It's not a government's job to be the canny housewife. It's a government's job to look after the people who live in its jurisdiction. It's a government's role in our western society to ensure that everyone has access to safe and affordable housing, to public education and post-secondary education, and to guarantee that everyone has access to public health care. Let me emphasize those last few words for members opposite: public health care.

It's a government's role to make sure the infrastructure is in place so that people can live and businesses can operate — public transit, the roads, the ferries, the low-cost public hydro and clean water. Social imperatives are sorely lacking in this budget.

We've had a number of question periods about education even before the budget. In my own constituency, school district 85 is looking at closing three schools. This is in addition to the three it closed last year and a fourth it closed a couple of years earlier.

The chair of the school district recently wrote to the Minister of Education, and I'd like to quote from that letter: "Closing one-third of our elementary schools in one year, the year we should all be celebrating the Olympic Games in our province, is not only distasteful to us, it is wrong and damaging to the education of children and the life of communities. As partners in education with us, we sincerely hope that you, too, will be appalled."

Sadly, I don't think the minister is appalled. She and her predecessors refuse to acknowledge that the funding formula on which the education budget is based simply does not work. It undermines all education but particularly impacts rural school districts where student numbers are small.

So I return to the philosophy of this government. I don't think it actually wants public education to work. If you undermine the public system enough, then parents who can will turn away from it and go to the private sector. It is part of the neoconservative approach that is part of the Liberal government's strategy.

[1445]

The government has started talking about new ways of delivering education. It has stated clearly that the private sector will be involved in the delivery of preschool. But public dollars should be spent on public education.

The government says that everything is going to be okay because of their plan to introduce all-day kindergarten into half of our public schools this year. School district 72, the largest district in my constituency, decided not to go ahead with all-day kindergarten this year because they didn't want to leave half the parents not able to send their children to kindergarten if they wanted to. For them, it is an issue of social equity. It was simply not right that the school district had to pick and choose about which children would be the lucky ones and benefit.

I'm sure the Minister of Education has read the joint letter signed by that district, by its trustees, DPACs and unions, which berated the ministry for its sweeping changes, lack of consultation and downloading of costs. I'd like to quote from that letter: "The moneys have failed to keep pace with the burdens that school districts are experiencing. New requirements for which we are being inadequately funded include Medical Service premium increases, carbon neutrality offset regulations, teacher pension plan increases and full-day kindergarten implementation."

As I say, school district 72 decided not to go ahead with full-day kindergarten because of the principle of equity.

This is a government which, in its tax-cutting mania, has established a scenario in which there is more money raised through post-secondary student fees than is raised through corporate taxation.

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland opened this last weekend and is appropriate, perhaps. "My," Alice might exclaim at the weird world of B.C. in which corporations get a better deal than students who are supposed to be the future of our province. "A looking-glass world indeed that has been created here."

A couple of years ago the light — I hope fluorescent — came on in the Premier's office. Climate change was the most important issue we as a province had to deal with. There it was in the budget then: carbon tax, climate action secretariat, action on change.

Well, it's two years later, and climate change is still the most important issue we have to deal with. This is our social and our moral imperative — not balancing the books like the canny housekeeper. We have to act on climate change to shift our economy so we move away from the carbon economy. We also have the opportunity as we work our way out of this recession to change the way our economy and our communities evolve.

What do we see in this budget? Well, after being publicly excoriated, the government reinstated the LiveSmart
[ Page 3238 ]
program but with just over half as much money for three years that it previously had for one year. We see environmental stewardship, water stewardship and compliance — all areas needed to ensure that our Crown lands are looked after for future generations of all species — are cut by almost a fifth. We see parks funding cut 13 percent.

But go tell Alice that subsidies to the oil and gas sector are going to be more than $1 billion — $1 billion. This government's looking-glass world is clouding over with emissions. So much for climate change. So much for the future of our province and the future of our planet. Be a B.C. Liberal, keep on subsidizing oil and gas, and remind people there is no money for the development of environmental alternatives or for social alternatives, for welfare increases, for benefits for people on welfare or for the minimum wage to go up.

The environment is important. People get it. They know that climate change is an issue, and they know that what's happening in our back yards, in the Crown lands that form so much of my constituency, is not good. People see no reassurances here in this budget that the large corporations who are trying to industrialize our rivers, like Plutonic Power, who want to dam 17 — that is 17 — rivers in Bute Inlet, will have any oversight.

Who is going to pay for this desecration of the natural heritage of the people of this province: we, the people of B.C., through hydro rates that are going to go up and up and up to ensure that the corporate friends of the government make a profit. This is for power that probably we don't need, but we don't know whether we need it or not because the government has not had any studies done to see if this massive destruction of our natural environment is even remotely justifiable.

[1450]

Likewise in forests — a 41 percent cut in compliance and enforcement in the Ministry of Forests. These are the people who look after our Crown lands and make sure that the U.S.- and central-Canada-based forest companies that now run our forests without providing local manufacturing jobs are not overcutting and are not leaving valuable wood to go to waste, nor are they cutting on riverbanks or in protected habitat. Likewise, resource management, the branch responsible for sustainability — cut by almost 27 percent. So much for the sustainability of our land base.

The impacts are undeniable. Large and small, these sorts of cuts give no security or hope for many people who are dependent on our forests for their living, whether the loggers, the millworkers who still aren't working in Campbell River or others. The impacts of cuts mean people aren't on the ground to do the job, and that means they're leaving the communities in which they work. For small communities, that hurts. Port Hardy is smarting because parks and conservation officers are moving to Port McNeill. It's a small distance on the map but a large impact for the community.

We also have to remember when we're talking about cuts to these sections and ministries that these ministries are responsible for our commons, for our lands and our waters. These should not be simply commodities but need to be treated with respect and as a trust for the future of all species, for the future of us and for our children. This is a real problem with this budget. People have decried its lack of vision, but there is also a lack of responsibility.

We should all have reached the understanding that in making economic decisions we should not just be looking at the economic bottom line, but we must also include the social and environmental costs and outcomes in our thinking. In the desperation that this government has to eradicate the deficit to balance the budget and implement the privatized, deregulated agenda in which it so fervently believes, the social and environmental implications of these decisions have been ignored.

Using the sustainability lens that I told the House about in my response to the throne speech, let's see how this budget matches up. Ecosystem protection — fails. Resource conservation? It fails. Biodiversity? It offers no protection. Resilience for our communities? It offers nothing for our rural communities. Protection of the commons? As I say, it's a sell-off and a sellout. Food security? There are cuts in the Minister of Agriculture's budget and no recognition of the importance of local food production.

Social equity is only there if you can afford it. Full-cost economics are ignored. The precautionary principle is again ignored. Adaptive management is deemed as cuts. And democracy and due process? Well, the government again ignored the bipartisan Finance Committee and its recommendation on spending priorities, and the government also forgot to tell voters that, if elected last May, it would bring in the HST this year. Both of these alone undermine people's trust in democracy and in due process.

The HST, the harmonized sales tax, may be a defining moment in the abuse of electoral accountability. We still await the bill which will enable the government to bring in this regressive flat tax, but what can only be described as spin has increased.

A recap. The B.C. Liberals go into the election saying we wouldn't be having such a tax. The B.C. Liberals get elected, and a couple of months down the road the B.C. Liberals suddenly say we'll be having the HST and claim loudly that this is the single most important thing that could revive our economy.

Then in this budget, the B.C. Liberals abruptly change directions, and now we're told that we desperately need the HST to pay for health care. All the moneys raised from this tax would be directed to health care.

So let me get this straight. We're encouraging people to spend — to eat out at restaurants, buy bicycles, get a haircut — on items that will have the HST applied so
[ Page 3239 ]
that our public health care can remain healthy. The government's spin doctors are going in so many different directions that there's a risk they're going to crash into each other.

[1455]

It isn't good enough that we are the only province that relies on people paying a flat fee for our health care. Oh yes, we have fees for public health care in B.C. — our MSP premiums, which are going up again. Other provinces managed to build the cost for health care into a progressive tax system, which means the more you earn, the more you pay. Now we are turning to a new flat consumption tax to further help fund health care. That means if people don't spend, if they don't consume like the good consumers we are all supposed to be under the present economic models, the holes will appear in the health care budget.

In my constituency of North Island we're already seeing the impacts of cuts to health care. Not even the big-picture costly items — the delays and cancellations of MRIs — but cuts very close to home: the closure of emergency rooms in hospitals in the real north Island, the cancelled endoscopies because Campbell River Hospital was too efficient in doing too many of them, the loss of Vancouver Island Health Authority crisis lines.

I cannot stand here and respond to the budget without recognizing the closure of these local services. In Port Hardy and Campbell River the volunteer lines devoted to serving our rural communities will be lost to be replaced by a centralized service. Volunteers have committed years to those lines, but the system which works so well for our communities did not fit in the big-picture priorities of a centralized south Island–based health authority.

We've now seen nine years of B.C. Liberal budgets, nine years for a heartless government to pick apart our social fabric, leaving people truly vulnerable. Nine years to take apart the public lands, water and resources — our lands, water and resources — and sell them off. It doesn't have to be this way.

We can have a vibrant province with our lands and waters in trust for future generations. We can have strong local economies using the resources that made us a rich province but using them wisely, so they, too, will sustain future generations. We can have a strong public education system from kindergarten through to post-secondary, helping our youth be prepared for new ways of dealing with our social, our economic, our environmental demands, and we can expand our accessible public health care.

It means changing the way we do things, and changing the way we do things is never easy. But we have to have the courage to start, to find new ways of dealing with the problems which work for our people, for our communities and for our ecosystems. That should be our true economic imperative and our true social imperative.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm pleased to rise to speak to the budget today. The last I spoke in this House was on the throne speech, just prior to the Winter Olympics, and I think I'd like to spend a couple minutes on that — as to what the Olympics means to me and to my constituency and to British Columbians and the future of our economy.

Quite frankly, you know, I think that what I want to talk about is this. As the minister responsible for the Liquor Distribution Branch, which included the liquor stores and liquor licensing, back last year when the Olympics were coming to British Columbia, we had to make a decision about the maturity of our province and our nation.

The maturity was around whether we could somehow create some licences that would allow for the large international event to come in such a way that we'd be able to welcome Holland House and the house that Germany put together and that Sochi, Russia, and Molson's Canada house did, in a licensing regime that didn't exist.

We had to actually change our licensing regime to invite the world. The big challenge is when you add 10,000 liquor seats, for lack of a technical term, in a city the size of Vancouver and then a number more up in Whistler, you want to know that people could maturely enjoy an international event and actually show maturity around the use of alcohol, because in actual fact, we hadn't seen that in previous events, like with the Stanley Park riots and issues we've had with the Celebration of Light in Vancouver.

[1500]

I was very, very pleased and impressed not only with how people were able to handle the celebration in a responsible manner, but being down there on several nights and finding just how incredibly the people of our province and our country came together, but even more so how much fun it was just to talk to a Slovakian or a Czech or a Russian or a Finn or a Swede or someone from Switzerland. These folks had a great time too. They really enjoyed being in Canada, and to a person I met they told me they wanted to come back.

As we went into the Olympics I also witnessed what I thought, on television, was one of the most despicable things I'd seen in a long time. That was a group of people deciding to protest the Olympics, to deny people the enjoyment, the privilege and the joy of carrying the torch in the final days of the Torch Relay. What bothered me the most, though, was that they did it near the cenotaph. They actually turned their backs and cut off the opportunity for veterans of this province and this country to enjoy the Torch Relay and the Olympics.

Now, they can't be very bright people. If they were, they would know that the very reason they get to protest is because they and their comrades have put their lives on the line for peace so that in this country you can have the freedom of speech and the freedom of association that exist in this great country of ours.
[ Page 3240 ]

You know, we got past that. We got past that, and then we saw some people take advantage of the poor in a tent city in Vancouver and refuse access to people with social services to come in and identify who was legitimately homeless, who needed supports for mental health and addictions — the services we were prepared to offer. Once that access was allowed, guess what. We found homes and places for people to go. But the same people, the activists, that decide to use the poor in this particular case as a shill rather than legitimately put together services don't do it.

We got past that, too, to the opening ceremonies. At the opening ceremonies of the Olympics, quite frankly, we witnessed something absolutely remarkable. From there on, as each individual event built on the momentum of the friendship and the peace and the cooperation of countries from all over the world and with 3.5 billion people watching it on television, you couldn't help but be actually excited about that and to enjoy it and be pleased about your country and your province and the job that was done by VANOC and the thousands of volunteers and the people who put it together.

Then we came back to the House the day before the budget. We celebrated. We celebrated the Olympics in this House. Both leaders spoke. People applauded; people clapped. People on the opposition side, who never actually supported the Olympics once and had an epiphany as the event took place, applauded.

Then something happened in this House which was absolutely, for me as a patriot and a Canadian, fantastically wonderful and at the same time the saddest moment I've spent in this House in almost 14 years. You see, Madam Speaker, we broke out in our national anthem in this House. Members on both sides of the House stood to sing our national anthem.

When you sing our national anthem, you celebrate your country, you celebrate your patriotism and you celebrate the people who are over there in Afghanistan or other parts of the world in peacekeeping or military missions on behalf of you so you can sing that openly in your country. You celebrate the fact that you have a free country, freedom of religion and all these sorts of freedoms.

Madam Speaker, I will never say the name or the riding of the individual, but I can tell you that at the same time that event was taking place in this House, one member of this Legislature didn't stand for Canada's national anthem.

[1505]

I was ashamed, I was offended, and I thought it was wrong. I still do. The individual finally stood in the last couple of bars of the national anthem, I'm sure from pressure from the members around him.

To that member and to those folks who know that now, I'm telling you that we have a right to celebrate our country. We should stand and be proud of our national anthem. We should not, as people in public office, demean the history of this country that allows us to have those remarkable freedoms and the ability to, quite frankly, have an event like the Olympics take place in peace and harmony and the spirit of cooperation like it did in this country and in British Columbia just a week or ten days ago.

Budget 2010 deals with fiscal priorities. It's a budget that has to recognize a number of things all at one time. It first of all has to recognize that the world has changed economically in a heartbeat, so fast that no one could have possibly predicted it. It was a remarkable thing to watch. It was a remarkable thing to deal with.

It was a remarkable thing to talk to people who you knew were some of the smartest people in business and didn't actually see this coming. They were caught. It cost them money, it cost them investments, and they actually had to re-establish themselves or their business by being fiscally prudent and responsible so that they could survive to protect the jobs of the very people that they employ.

Well, government is no different. Government had to adjust and adjust fast and make tough decisions. As you do that, you come through a period of time where you find the savings that might allow you to not be like so many other jurisdictions around the world — and in this country, quite frankly — that have decided: "We can just add another $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion of deficit. We don't really have to get fiscally responsible. We don't have to review our programs and our costs, because the public knows that we're in a recession, and they'll just accept that."

That would be irresponsible, totally irresponsible, because at that point you're actually turning your back on the future of what's right for the people, the citizens of your province and your country. So what you better do is find ways to, frankly, do things smarter, do things better, be competitive and be able to attract investments so that when things are over, as this recession comes out, you are the one economy that's best positioned to be successful in the future.

So what do you do? You actually, first of all, set some priorities. What would those strategic investments and priorities be? There's not a member of this House that wouldn't tell you that health care is pretty important to their constituents. There's not a member of this House that wouldn't say to you: "You know, there are things like hips and knees and heart surgery, and there are things like insulin for diabetics and drugs that are needed for people with epilepsy and other diseases. We should be there for those folks in our health care system."

If you're going to do that with an aging population, you first of all have to prudently decide you're going to be fiscally responsible and, secondly, decide where your strategic investments in health care will go.

I applaud the Ministry of Health in this government. I applaud it on a couple of levels. First of all, for the fact
[ Page 3241 ]
that it actually said to health authorities and people involved in the Ministry of Health across government last year: "You will actually balance your budget. You will operate within the envelope of money that you've been provided, because it's not going to be a case of just uncontrolled spending because you think somebody's going to come along and make up for the fact that you're not going to actually focus your priorities on the most important things you need to invest in and maybe make some adjustments on some others."

They brought that under control. As they did, we also know — given, as I said, the demographics and other issues we face within government and health care — that we as government, while being very prudent and tight on our deficits, still managed to make a commitment over three years of $2 billion more of investment into health care.

[1510]

That investment is there for the aging population that we know is coming. It is there for our children. It is there to make sure that the capital investments in the new Surrey hospital, the hospital in Abbotsford and the other hospitals throughout the Interior and Kelowna and Fort St. John have the operating dollars to operate those new facilities in the future. It's also there to make sure we invest in the new technologies that can actually make health care more efficient and do a job for us there.

The budget also hits another priority, that being education — and education on both ends of the spectrum, which is absolutely critical to a successful society both economically and fiscally and, frankly, for the health of their citizens.

We're investing in all-day kindergarten. We're actually investing in early childhood education. We're investing in post-secondary education. Those budgets were protected, and they were also added to. The reason? We believe an education is probably the best health care plan you could give anybody.

It also is, in addition to that, probably the best job creation plan you can give anybody. In actual fact, if you give people education and opportunity and training, they can move on with their lives and make the decisions they want to make in order to be successful.

We had some other strategic investments we needed to make in Children and Families, which is for the more vulnerable children in our province. The Minister of Children and Families has actually gotten pretty innovative. She's streamlined some programs, reinvested the money in a way that's good for the children of British Columbia for the best outcomes.

She's received an increase in her budget because she now knows where she'll need the services for children. Those services for children will be there because the investment is made strategically by this government.

Then there's housing and social services. During the Olympics one of the most interesting exercises I went through…. While others might have been doing other types of media, I was dealing with the international media, who were asking me about what we were doing in housing in British Columbia. What about your homeless issues?

It was interesting that each time I spoke to somebody, no matter what country or city they were from, when I explained to them what their own situation back home was and how we had wraparound services, how we took care of people with mental illness and addictions, how we had programs for people for low-income housing and how it all worked….

I was proud to actually talk to any reporter from anywhere and tell them about the 7,000 people that were previously homeless three years ago, who have been housed in British Columbia today.

I was proud to tell them about our intervention strategy where we put together a team of people in Victoria and Vancouver and Surrey and Kelowna and Prince George and said: "Go get severely addicted and mentally ill people that can't be housed in traditional housing, connect them with supports in places like the Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions, and let's transition these folks into a level of care that meets their needs."

We said: "We'll give you a goal — a hundred a month for 18 months." Eighteen months is still nine months away, but we've done 2,100 of those folks, as well, because of that type of intervention.

They said: "What about your social housing?" I said: "Well, what do you do where you come from?" Some said: "We build projects, and they're not so successful." Others said: "We don't do anything." Others said: "We don't really have a program." Another said: "We built things, and now we're tearing it down. It didn't work out because we built places where everybody of a certain income lived, and we didn't integrate into our communities, and we actually created what we refer to" — they refer to — "now as slums."

I said: "Well, it's unfortunate, but you can learn from us. Go back and think about a rent assistance program, where people who are in low income, whose only barrier to affordability is their rent…. See if you could give them a cheque quietly every month to offset their rent wherever they live, integrated into a community."

We've done that in B.C. We have almost 9,000 families on that program and 15,700 seniors on it as well — households. We didn't have to build the housing, which would have been a remarkable cost to government in a debt service to affect our debt-to-GDP. We wouldn't have got as good outcomes as we're getting anyway.

We're getting remarkable outcomes for those folks who now have the affordability factor and can live in the community where they want their children to grow up, without having the stresses of saying: "You're going to go on some waiting list and wait and wait and wait and wait until you get a home."
[ Page 3242 ]

That's changed so many lives. When you do that, you actually get a chance to have a dialogue with people about shelters, about short-term shelters and long-term shelters, how you transition to transitional housing, and you continue to build new housing across the province.

[1515]

The interesting thing about even a global event like the Olympics is that there's always this sort of centralized thinking of where an issue is — that is, the city of Vancouver versus maybe the Lower Mainland or the Fraser Valley or other communities across a jurisdiction.

So you start to explain that you need adaptable programs, opportunities for people to make choices about their addiction and mental health issues and places that they can go. They don't all have to be centralized in one location, because oftentimes you're not going to get the results you're looking for. When you do that, you actually get some interesting responses both internationally and nationally.

There's one thing for sure. The issue that people who wanted to stop the torchbearer from going past the cenotaph where veterans were waiting, where they wanted to highlight housing as the issue during the Olympics, did not happen. I believe I know why. Because we had a very good story to tell — one that's remarkable, one that's been cooperative and collaborative with communities and one that has housed more people than anytime in the history of any province or jurisdiction in this country and possibly in North America.

So as you move past those things, those particular priorities for a budget, you have one more, and it's a very important one — that is, public safety. Now, there are two things I want to say about public safety here. I used to be the Solicitor General. I love the term "integration in policing."

Let's go to the Olympics for a second before I talk about public safety, because I've got to talk about this.

I've always maintained that the police officers of this province and this country, all together, want to accomplish the same thing, and that is to keep our community safe. I always believed you could have integrated units of different members from different police forces, whether it be homicide or major investigation or whatever, integrated into a team of people across a jurisdiction with success.

So I walked out of an event at GM Place one night, which was actually called Canada Hockey Place, but it's hard for us that are used to calling it anything else. It is GM Place. I saw this. I saw a guy from the Ontario Provincial Police, the Toronto metropolitan police force, one from Ottawa, one from either Lethbridge or Medicine Hat in Alberta and some RCMP officers. I saw Vancouver police department guys. I saw guys from Vancouver Island. And what were they all doing? Working together.

I've got to tell you. The hats have got to go off to our Solicitor General of the day today and the team of people he had at ISU, as he made sure that the integration took place and that everybody was protected during the Olympics.

What wasn't the story at the 2010 Olympics? There was no story about people feeling unsafe, because the imminent domain, which was managed by the Vancouver police department down on Robson Square with the cooperation of police officers…. Even on the nights we thought they needed more help, they came from the Fraser Valley. They came from other areas, the ISU, which coordinated international security, and the military.

What we found was we just put on an Olympics that didn't even have a blip about people feeling afraid or scared. That credit goes to our minister, and it goes to our police forces. It goes to Bud Mercer, who led that team, and all the people that worked with him so that we could have a safe Olympics. They did one heck of a job on behalf of Canadians.

Of course, I digressed, Madam Speaker, but that is not unusual for me. On public safety itself, you also have to decide that you need to invest in that. So this budget actually does that. It actually gives additional resources to public safety in B.C.

So now you look at this whole package. You've got police officers and their technology and their supports. You've got municipal forces who pay some and some who get support from the province and federal. Then you have your provincial police force. Then you have the services of the emergency response teams that we have and all of those guys that need to be supported financially and morally by government.

Add them in now to your health, your education of your children and your grandchildren, the housing of the homeless and those people with mental health and addictions, and being there for the most vulnerable citizens of our province, and making sure our streets and our province are safe with public safety. You can go do the math, Members, but when you do, you're going to find this. There is not a whole lot of money left over for other services.

[1520]

When you as a government set your priorities, you have to make adjustments to your spending in order to make sure that you can focus your resources to absolutely be sure that those vital public services are taken care of — whether it be transition houses or programs for abuse, whether it be all of those things that are caught in that package of resources needed to run a province.

Those are the services that many of our citizens probably, in many cases, take for granted. But when we explain to them how prudent we have to be to make sure there's not duplication of contracts, that there's not any waste of money because we need that money to be reinvested in those public services, they get that too.
[ Page 3243 ]

So as we do a budget, it's not as simple as…. You will hear, both in debates and question period here, where people will say: "Man, you know, you could have just put another billion in." Another billion is another billion in debt. Keep adding it up, and you get to the point where your interest costs are actually outstripping the cost of a number of ministries. That's bad government. That's what we saw in the 1990s. So bad that we had at the time…. In 2001 our interest payments on our debt were bigger than the budgets of 12 ministries.

Now, if you're fiscally prudent and you are protecting these services, which you've done, what do you do? You're in a worldwide recession. A smart business person actually looks at how they can make use of adversity when it comes to an economy. A smart government should do the same thing. A smart government should look at what it wants its province to look like in two, three, five and ten years from now.

I know what I want it to look like. I want it to be a province that attracts the most future investment of any jurisdiction in North America. I want it to be a province that attracts more jobs than any jurisdiction in North America. I want it to be a province where everybody says: "Those guys got it. They did it right."

So when we're at the Olympics, you get a chance to talk to somebody — whether from Boston or somewhere else in the U.S. or people internationally, like from Australia or Europe. You start explaining your tax regime and your personal income tax being the lowest of anybody in Canada. You explain to them how the income tax system works and how much better it is. You talk to someone from Finland sometime and find out what their personal income tax is. It's about 60-some percent.

Then you say: "On a business tax, we're going to zero for small business tax within a couple of years, so we'll be down there." That's competitive to attract investment. We'll have the lowest corporate tax of anybody in the country, at 10 percent, as a result of the budget changes that are being made here.

Then you say to them: "We made one other thing." I said to one guy that was talking to me at an event…. He said: "I was reading your paper before I came here. There's a bit of controversy over your HST. That's a value-added tax — right?" I said: "Yeah, your country has it."

He says: "What took you guys so long? It's the smartest thing you could ever do for an economy — to actually have a tax that is the same as 130 other countries." You're actually on a competitive global platform — one that recognizes the inputs of the costs coming into the tax, so it's not being paid time and time and time again.

You should go look at an analysis sometime about how many times PST was actually put on some things before you paid it at the till. You'd be shocked.

What you should remember, though, is that these are tough decisions that have to be made — whether it's to reduce corporate taxes or to actually believe in changes to do with personal income tax. When you make these decisions, you have to be able to stay the course, because you actually believe in what can happen.

Just a little bit of revision, a little bit of history. I was fortunate enough to be here for five years in opposition to see what it's like from the other side of the House. It's a lot better in government, by the way.

[1525]

I remember the big decision we made in 2001. We came into our first cabinet meeting and made the decision to reduce personal income taxes in B.C. by 25 percent when we had a structural deficit. Man, you should have heard the wailing coming from the socialists. "Oh, this is the worst thing you could possibly do." "You'll never be able to afford health care." "It will destroy the economy." "Nobody is going to be okay here." "How could you possibly, at a time like this, cut personal income taxes?"

Guess what happened. The economy improved. We believed it would. We believed that if you empowered the economy, and empowered it in such a way, you would see the jobs.

We don't want to go back to the day when a former government decided to put a tax on machinery and equipment so that if you wanted to buy equipment for your mill, you got taxed on it because you're going to put in new equipment to build efficiencies to create more jobs in B.C.

We don't want to go back to an era where your capital was taxed with a corporate capital tax. If you invested in a business, your capital was taxed year over year. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine the thinking of: "Let's create jobs in our province. Let's try to attract multi-billion dollars of investment into B.C., and when we do that, we'll tax it"?

Do you know what happens with capital when that happens? It leaves. You either create the environment to protect your significant public services, or you don't. We've done that.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

You protect your taxation regime because it's important for the future and efficiencies of a province — its future, looking out generations. Don't look a year ahead, Members.

The decisions made in 2001 with taxation for business and small business and corporate taxes and getting rid of the corporate capital tax are all reaping benefits today, and the decisions in this budget will reap the benefits in the future. They're all going to reap benefits while we protect those vital public services — the services that are important to our citizens who understand the difficult times we face.

I believe we need to — and that's why I'm pleased to support this budget in the most vehement way — get
[ Page 3244 ]
back to balanced budgets as soon as possible. I believe that the prudence is built into this plan, because I've been part of the budget-making process at various levels of government now for nine years.

I can tell you this, Madam Speaker. This is a very good job done by a very good group of people — Finance, Treasury Board, members of cabinet and caucus. We built a budget to actually recognize what is needed for the future of British Columbia. We should be proud to support this budget. We should be proud of our country, coming out of the Olympics, and should always be proud.

Let's not, any of us, turn our backs on the fact that this nation was built on good government, reasoned debate. It was also built on the fact that people had a belief and confidence in how to do things right. This budget does things right.

S. Herbert: First, I want to send a special thank-you home to my partner, Romi Chandra, who puts up with my being away a lot. I think it's always important that we acknowledge our families and my wider extended family who, as well, helps me in being able to do this work, which can pose challenges, but I think they're wonderful challenges to have to face. What could be better than standing up for your community and for your constituents and working day in, day out to make your neighbourhood and our province a better place?

Something happens when I go out on the street and talk to constituents. I talk about what should happen for our province. Before the budget I did some work. "What would you like to see in the budget?" I asked my constituents that in a number of venues. I think it's important that we actually listen, ask and respond to the needs and desires of the people we represent.

I was disturbed, I must say, by some of the responses I got. I understand where they come from, but what I heard was: "Well, what does it matter? They won't listen to me anyway." "What does it matter? Nobody cares what I think." I understand where that comes from, because for too long that seems to be how this government has operated.

[1530]

I firmly believe that it is up to us to write our future. It's up to us to set the course for our province's growth and for our province's well-being. That's all of us, not just the people in this room. In fact, I think the people outside of this room are the most important people to determine what happens inside of this place.

Now, if we're going to write what happens next, there are two stories, I think, that can be written. One is a story of exclusion — division, destruction, us and them, mistrust of the people, government and the mighty versus the rest of us. Or there's the story of inclusion — connection, creativity, trusting the people that elected us, working with them in an honest and clear way, listening to them, reasoning and building that way forward. Inclusion.

A budget is about priorities. It says where we want to go. I've been clear from the start with my constituents. My starting point is that we need to have a green, creative economy that benefits us all, not just the few.

Another principle of mine is that I don't believe that you need…. I don't think it's good policy to make it harder for the middle class in a recession. I don't think that helps us get forward either.

I believe that in a budget we need to have a long-term plan, not short-term gimmicks. It needs to be an inclusive future that brings us together, that excites the public, and it needs to be about public participation. We see it every day in our communities — volunteers trying to do their best for their communities.

As a government, I believe we need to reach out, because people want to help. They want to be part of the government, because it is their government after all. That's the us and us vision.

It's not: "The government over there — they're bad. But me, myself, I'm perfect." No, it's all of us. I think that goes out to the people.

I talked to some constituents. "Ah, they're all crooks." When I say: "Well, do you think your neighbour's a crook?" "Well, no." "Are you a crook?" "Well, no." "How come they somehow miraculously all become crooks the minute they come over to Victoria?" "Well, I guess you're right," is the response.

Okay, but where does that come from? I think that's because for too long, we haven't trusted the public. We haven't trusted them. Instead, government has tried to play games and to fool people into believing things and fool them into accepting what government dishes out.

It's no surprise that I believe this government, the B.C. Liberals, have chosen that first story — that of exclusion, division and destruction. It's a vision that doesn't support public trust. It's a vision of hoping that you get into power and then, when you're in power, doing all the dirty stuff in the first year, first two years, as we're seeing right now, and then, just before the election, returning some money, giving a little bit back and hoping that that's enough to confuse the issue.

That's one way of doing government. I don't think that's the right way of doing government. I think you need to include the public in these decisions.

Now, we've got an issue here. We're in a recession. We've got the highest child poverty rate in the country, six years running. But that's not just because of the recession. In fact, that was there when the good times were around as well. We've got a low birthrate in our province, an aging population. When you look forward into the future, which we need to do, that's going to pose real challenges for our society and for our economy, but real opportunities as well.
[ Page 3245 ]

We're going to need to open our arms even wider to the wider world, bringing in immigrants to our province, as we've done since time immemorial. That will keep us competitive.

Educated citizens — that's another challenge. The citizens that are here need to be more educated than ever before — more skilled, more creative. If we're going to have fewer people here doing more, we need to make sure that they're more skilled.

We face an issue of climate change. When I talked about the recession, we should also remember that the recession includes our glaciers. The glaciers are receding too. It's a funny rhetorical trick, but it's something we need to recognize — that you can't talk about the economy without talking about the environment, without talking about our social issues.

We've seen seafood — something I enjoy eating — that is threatened with destruction, disappearance, as we've seen with our salmon. Issues of peak oil, water shortages, some of the worst wildfires we've seen in years. We've got record personal debt levels in our province.

[1535]

I'm laying this out because I think it's important for us to recognize where we are so that we know where we can go to. Facing all of those challenges — and those are just some of the challenges we face; we have others — what do you do? Do you divide? Do you exclude? Do you pit neighbour against neighbour? Or do you provide a more inclusive vision, where you tell the truth as it is to all of us, lay out the facts on the table and work through the issues with the public so that we can grow our province together?

But what do West Enders tell me? What do my constituents tell me? Well, they tell me that it's getting harder for them. They tell me that their living costs are going up and it's more difficult to stay in our community.

Fees increasing. I speak of Hydro. We recently heard discussion of a possible 29 percent fee hike. That could be up to $28 more every month for a constituent. We've heard the discussion about ICBC. If you're a driver — and I know the vast majority of my constituents are not — it could make it more difficult for your rates.

Of course, the HST. My constituents raise the HST just about every day that I'm out there, one way or another, and the cost for them and their families, the costs on their jobs. We've got some of the best restaurants — I would say in the world — in the West End, but some of those restaurant owners tell me they're not sure that they're going to make it through the next year. High rent. The addition of the HST. Small profit margin. Either they're going to be laying off staff or going into debt.

Tourism industry. We rely very much in the West End, our businesses, on tourists. Incredible, incredible place to visit, but again, the tourism industry tells me that the HST will very negatively impact their competitive position. Again, my constituents worry about jobs.

Then, of course, they raise the MSP. They say: "You know, I've moved in from another province. I don't really get this MSP thing. We don't have it in our provinces." But we've got it here, that's for sure, and it'll be going up another $7 a month.

They take transit. All the transit fares are going up. Or the vast majority are renters. Rents keep shooting up, and that's another issue that I've been working on for a while. That's for another time, not in response to the budget — although I'll leave it that I believe the Residential Tenancy Act needs to be changed now, reformed to make it more fair.

Now, as I said, most of my folks aren't drivers, so the carbon tax is not a big, big issue for them, yet they wonder why it keeps going up when our transit system, TransLink, is starved for resources, and why we're standing pat when all the climate science says that we need to be moving forward with transit — mass transit increases.

Then I talk to folks living on disability. They feel that they're ignored, forgotten, that they're not valued as people. Their life situation is getting harder and harder. Earlier today we heard discussion about the various cuts that are being made to services that support folks living on disability, whether that's nutritional support or whether that's other support — with dental, for example.

When you add up the rent costs and add up food costs, if you can, and add up costs for prescription medication if they need that and if they have to pay for it and then add in the cuts, most people wonder…. They say: "Well, there's nothing left to cut in social assistance. There's nothing left to cut in disability." I thought they had already made all those cuts when the B.C. Liberals first got into power. But in fact we've seen…. Well, no, I guess there was more to cut, because they've made it even harder for those living with disabilities. It's the most vulnerable, hit even worse than they were before.

My constituents, of course, raise cuts to education and their concern about their children. Now, I mention this because I mentioned earlier about the need to have the most educated population ever, the best-educated youth and children. They wonder how that squares with what we're seeing here.

[1540]

They also raise the large cuts we've seen and continue to see in environmental protection — cuts which the government said it wouldn't make, because it was going to be a world leader in sustainable environmental management during the last election. That's what they said then, but of course today it's a different story, as just about everything they've said in the election has now changed. Division, destruction. Destruction of the public trust. That's what this budget really illustrates here.

One thing that constituents also want me to do, and that I take very seriously, is they want me to put ideas
[ Page 3246 ]
forward as well. What do I think we need to do to help us out of this jam — to help us out of this jam with the environment, to help us out of these problems we face in the economy and to help us with our mass of social problems that we have in many of our communities?

First, as a basis, I think government needs to tell it to us straight, tell us what's actually happening. Before the election they could have told the real numbers, I guess I would say — since I know there are some words that I know I'm not able to say in this House — about the budget, about the situation we're facing, instead of promising $495 million maximum for a deficit, when of course, we've seen it approaching more like $3 billion. That would have been a start.

Government could tell the truth about the HST. Running in the election, I remember that the B.C. Liberals said, "Oh no, it's actually bad for consumers. We don't want to do it. It's not the right thing for our province," when of course, right after the election, they did just the opposite.

I think a principle for a way forward is trust. Tell it to the people straight. Work with people to make the right decision for the province. Government of the people by the people. It seems like a pretty simple principle but one that I think needs to be stated, because very obviously it has not seeped into the collective consciousness of this place.

We also need to recognize that with the recession there's also environmental recession, and with the social programs we seem to be receding from our commitment to supporting those with the least and the vulnerable.

Now, where do we go in terms of the economy? I think creativity is the way of the future, the way of today. Economies all over the world understand that if you have creative people, if you support creativity in your province and your state and your government, you're going to do better. Cuts to the B.C. Arts Council, 50 percent; cuts to gaming, 50 percent — for our creators, for the research and development teams and the arts and culture industry of B.C. That's not on. That doesn't make sense. So I think we need to reinvest in arts and culture in a big way.

Other provinces have done this and seen huge boosts just for the economy, but also because art is about expressing stories. It's about getting to know each other better, as I've said before, and that helps us blossom as communities. That helps build the ecology of our civil society.

Tourism. Well, we've seen more cuts in tourism. We've seen cuts to marketing funding, the loss of the industry-led Tourism B.C. Well, I think there's a basic answer to that for the future of tourism. We need to go back to the performance-based funding model of Tourism B.C., industry-led, get the politics out of tourism so that we're not seeing more and more marketing campaigns of "best place on earth" with fewer and fewer resources actually going to real marketing of our province and more and more going into political marketing of our province, as this government's so good at.

Film. I think we need to support our domestic-owned film industry. These are British Columbian producers. These are British Columbian companies that have their head offices here. We always talk about wanting to attract head offices to B.C., yet here in film, with our domestic producers, we're actually losing head offices to other provinces. They are no longer competitive because of what this government has done in domestic film industry support. They've actually made it worse than it was before. Those are good jobs. Those are creative jobs. That's good for the economy and good for our society.

Transit. It will be no surprise to you that I support public transit. As a cyclist and SkyTrain rider and bus rider, it's the way I get around. We saw at the Olympics that people would actually ride the bus, would actually get on the SkyTrain, would actually take the SeaBus, if it was convenient. We had a massive expansion in transit just for that brief window. We got a taste of what could be.

[1545]

Well, I think we need to take some of that carbon tax revenue and put it into transit. That would be a green solution, and that would be good for the economy. That would be good for all of us. It fulfils all those principles I spoke about: about inclusion, about a green economy that benefits all of us, not just the few.

Now, this is a good one. This is one that's supported by boards of trade, chambers of commerce and others. How about we end homelessness in B.C.? The savings are huge. It's not just lives, although we need to refer to and recognize that, but it's money in health care, legal, policing and the social costs.

Yes, there's an upfront cost, but it's a huge win in the long term, which is, of course, what we should be thinking about. It saves you money. If you don't care about the morality of people sleeping on the streets, the least you should do, I guess, is care about the economics, which also makes sense. But in fact, we've seen the opposite, of course, with homelessness increasing in Vancouver nearly 400 percent since this government took office.

Another good idea supported by the board of trade: child care. I saw a brief mention of this in the budget. We need to…. And I think it's fitting on International Women's Day that we talk about child care. So many of the women in my constituency tell me that it's difficult for them to be able to continue their work world because they can't find child care. There are a number of dads that I've talked to, as well, who have the same issue. They just cannot get their kids into child care when they need to. That's a huge drain on our productivity and a challenge when we need every worker that we can get.

Research and development. We don't do enough of it in this province. Our corporate sector doesn't, and
[ Page 3247 ]
government doesn't, and we lose largely because of it. As I was speaking earlier about creativity, it's about the brains. It's what's in your head. Research and development is the place to go, I think, for the future. That's all about the knowledge base and education that I've been referring to for some time.

I think another area that we need to go is that if we're going to be truthful and honest with our public, with the people that we represent, we need to talk about our connection to the earth, to the environment. For too long, we've gone on with this belief that we can somehow be divorced from it.

Now, in the West End we've got massive, concrete highrises, and people go: "Oh, I don't know if I can live there. It's so urban." But in a minute or two you can be right there at the beach checking out the starfish. You can be right there in the forest checking and seeing the eagles, getting that connection to the environment. I think we need to be stronger as a government in making sure that those connections are obvious all the way through the chain.

I spoke earlier about child poverty. I was disappointed that there was no poverty reduction plan in this budget, because if we're going to truly be ready for the age of our population, our youth need to be strong. They need to be educated. They need to be productive citizens, creative citizens. When you're dealing with just trying to get enough food into your belly, it's pretty difficult to be as engaged as you need to be at a young age. We need a poverty reduction plan.

In my community we saw a funding cut for inner-city schools, for the Lord Roberts and Lord Roberts Annex, and to talk to some of the parents…. They were distraught, and they were distraught because they knew what impact this would have on their kids and on their classrooms.

I talked to students in my constituency who want to be nurses. They're actually in the nursing program, but we've seen cuts — cuts to student aid, massive cuts — again and again and again. We want our kids to be educated, but we won't help them do that. In fact, the help we give them is increased tuition fees, again and again and again. Some help.

[1550]

We talk often about challenges we face in nursing, getting enough nurses. Well, we actually cut a program that supported attracting more nurses, and with the debt load that nurses come out of our schools with…. I talk to them, and they say: "You know, other provinces and states are much more aggressive in trying to get us to move there than we are here." In fact, in some cases, they feel there's actually a disincentive to stay here and practise their trade, practise their skills.

You've heard me speak about what my principles are, about the belief for inclusion and about the belief that we need to work together, trust the public, speak with them, reason with them and provide more opportunities for public participation in the democratic process. I think I've laid out some of the reasons why this government has done the opposite and why their policies and their beliefs seem to be ones of division, exclusion.

The gap between rich and poor has only grown wider and wider under this government. Those with the least have grown as well, and the middle class is feeling squeezed. If we're going to end this recession, build a bright future, we can't do it on the backs of the vulnerable, and we shouldn't be making it harder for the middle class to be able to get out of their own personal debt loads.

The pattern that we seem to be seeing with this government is that we're paying more and we're getting less, and that the telling of truth is a rarity.

If we want to ignite the passion that we saw just a week ago in our province around the great works that we can achieve as a people and as a province, it starts with being upfront. It starts with the government reaching out and asking for participation, asking for the help and asking for the understanding of the population. It doesn't come from misrepresentation, changing the story and trying to confuse the public.

Those are my thoughts on Budget 2010 today. I will have more, I'm sure, and will hear them in my constituency. But I will also be continuing in my work and reaching out to listen to my constituents to hear from them what they think I can do better as their representative, what they think the opposition can do better as an opposition and also, most importantly for them, what they believe this government needs to do better as a government.

R. Lee: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity for me to stand in this Legislature today to respond to Budget 2010.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the support I get from my constituency assistants in Burnaby North: Robert Begin, Nancy Chan and Winney Xin; my assistants in Victoria, Brittany Auvinen, Jordan Grimsrud, Justin Molander and Ryan Pineo. I understand that my former communications officer, Jeff Melland, is now working in Korea. I wish him the best.

Modern convenience in transportation and communication provides opportunity for increasing mobility, be it people or capital. People will move to places to live and work, for personal and/or economic reasons. The world is competing for talents as well as business growth. I believe that the province of British Columbia is becoming more and more attractive to the world's citizens.

Just last month an estimated 3.5 billion people around the world saw how beautiful our province is and how competitive our business environment has become. Owning the gold podium of the Winter Olympics can only increase our attractiveness.
[ Page 3248 ]

Over the years, with fiscal discipline, tax reductions for individuals and business and reducing barriers to investment, our economy has been growing. Our record of this has been proven, and we are without a doubt the most well-suited to manage our economy. We have made over 100 tax reductions — in fact, around 120 since 2001 — leaving more money in people's pockets and restoring B.C.'s economic competitiveness.

[1555]

In every single budget we have delivered as a government, we have been able to deliver tax cuts. This is essential in allowing our economy to prosper. By giving British Columbians more money, we allow the economy to grow. The NDP, on the other hand…. Their 2009 platform called for more than $1 billion in new taxes. At times the NDP have said they would raise taxes and run large deficits rather than accept $1.6 billion in transition payment for the HST, although it's hard to understand just where the opposition stands on the HST. At times they oppose it, and at other times they admit that this is the right thing to do.

At a time like this, it's not the answer to helping our families and businesses. People need to know that this government's confidence and economic leadership will actually bring us out on top. By providing small businesses with tax reductions, we are protecting the province's largest sector of business.

Small business is very important; it's so important to local economies and the whole province. This sector is responsible for the employment of more than one million British Columbians. We have cut the small business tax rate from 4.5 percent to 2.5 percent, a 44 percent reduction. By April 1, 2012, the small business tax rate will be zero — nothing, zero.

The general provincial corporate income tax will be reduced, as well, to 10 percent by January 1, 2011, which is next year — a 40 percent reduction since 2001. Personal taxes have also been substantially cut, leaving individuals and families with more money each and every year. Since 2001 provincial income taxes have decreased by at least 37 percent.

I would like to say a few words about the Asia-Pacific. One of the province's many advantages on the world economic stage is our position within the Asia-Pacific trade markets. Asia-Pacific nations are proving to be some of the global economic drivers and are looking for foreign investment opportunities. Implementation of the Asia-Pacific trade and investment division under the Ministry of Economic Development is focused on increasing trade and investment and establishing trade and investment offices in six key Asian markets, including Bangalore, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Seoul and Tokyo.

To further our optimism and outlook in the Asia-Pacific trade market, we are encouraged that the implementation of the HST actually will also increase the amount of foreign investment in this province. It's going to be imperative that we do everything we can to make the most of our current situation.

Next to our largest trading partner, the U.S., Asia-Pacific markets are accountable for a huge percentage of the province's investment and trade, and we have worked hard to attract business from across the Pacific. We are a very culturally diverse and accommodating province. In fact, more than 22 percent of our population is of Asian descent, and this number is growing every year. Because of this fact, we are able to attract more business than most other North American west coast ports.

Together with the federal government, we have invested heavily to build up the port at Prince Rupert. This port plays a very important and large role in our ability to attract foreign trade, as it takes about two days off of the time it takes to bring goods into North America for redistribution.

[1600]

We just had the Winter Olympics, and we have heard that the Olympics will also attract business to come to this area. As evidence of that, we also have heard in recent days the announcement that Air China will be adding three new daily flights from Beijing to YVR, increasing the total number to ten. That will also bring new opportunities for business to the Lower Mainland.

Our rural regions also stand to benefit greatly as the Asian markets are demanding more of our lumber exports, for example — not only lumber exports but also minerals such as copper and coal — and we work to meet these needs. We can be confident that it will no doubt help our industries rebound from the global downturn.

As we are faced with challenges in terms of managing our provincial budget, the government has less tax revenue since the global economic downturn — less revenue. The current social service tax, PST, can add costs for businesses, and at this point in time it is very much a burden on them as they work to regain competitive advantages.

The savings that will be as a result of the harmonization of the PST and the GST will bring businesses to reinvest and also hire more employees that will be necessary to accompany the growth they will experience, not to mention that jobs are what any healthy economy needs, and the HST will help to add many new jobs by reducing costs to business.

Only the NDP would believe that adding more costs to business would create more jobs. As other Canadian provinces adopt the HST, it is important that we do the same so as not to place ourselves at a disadvantage in terms of attracting new investment and attracting jobs to our province. Many economic studies done suggested that savings businesses get from the HST, will be passed on to consumers within the first year. This will mean foreign investments will be drastically increased as well.
[ Page 3249 ]

Once industries realize the competitive prices that B.C. can offer, they will be attracted to our markets. We estimate that the HST will lower tax on new investment by 40 percent. We are quickly becoming a place for the whole world to invest, and with our abundant natural resources and geographic location, we are indeed a very attractive location for investment.

Whether this is increased investment or for job creation, the HST is widely regarded as one of the strongest economic policies. Opposing this new harmonization would indeed deny the province the opportunity to come out even further ahead in the next two or three years. The NDP seems to believe that by spending more of our money, we would be able to spend our way out of the global economic downturn, whereas this government has recognized that we have an opportunity to take advantage of our many strengths and use the benefits of replacing the PST with a value-added tax to ensure long-term economic prosperity.

We're still paying down the NDP operating debt. We banished the NDP-style fudge-it budget by adopting generally accepted accounting principles, which the Auditor General described as leading the way in budget transparency. In the last decade we have used our record surpluses in paying down debt that the NDP government had accumulated during their time in government. In fact, we made the largest single debt paydown in B.C. history in the 2004-2005 year — $1.891 billion.

[1605]

Through surpluses, we have reduced the provincial operating debt from $15.7 billion in 2002-2003 to $6.4 billion in 2008-2009, a reduction of almost 60 percent. We have had success in balancing the provincial budget every year between 2004 and 2008.

Given the numerous external factors as a result of the global economic downturn, we have continued to come out in better shape than most jurisdictions in North America. Today, despite this being the worst recession in 27 years, to ensure that long-term discipline is maintained, we passed legislation requiring a balanced budget again by 2013-2014.

This government has had the record of sound fiscal management that has led us out of difficult times in the past, and this has been proven with our ability to pay down the debt left by the NDP government and to keep the provincial debt at the lowest level relative to the GDP. This leaves us in the best position to continue to provide services that British Columbians value the most.

Our new legislation also requires that discretionary year-end spending through supplementary estimates is prohibited and must go to pay down the operating debt until the debt is eliminated. We have recognized the steps that need to be taken in order to bring B.C. out of the global economic downturn, and we are confident in these measures.

We recently passed the ministerial accountability act, which holds every minister individually accountable for meeting their budget targets and for collectively balancing the budget by holding back 10 percent of their salary until it's confirmed that they have not overspent.

Our record of debt management and credit rating upgrades is saving British Columbians tens of millions of dollars every year, which would otherwise be spent on the interest payment. The 1990s NDP left a fiscal mess with a $3.8 billion structural deficit by 2001. The 1990s NDP brought in eight consecutive deficit budgets and doubled the provincial debt between 1991 and 2001. The 1990s NDP actually had five debt management plans in eight years and did not meet a single one on target. They missed every target forecast during their term.

The 1990s NDP also received two credit-rating downgrades and had the worst fiscal record in Canada. Is this what the NDP want to bring us back to? Since November 2004 the province has received seven consecutive credit-rating upgrades. We have clearly proven who the most responsible financial managers are. We do in fact expect to see our economy grow this year, which is far more than what many provinces can say.

I am glad to see a number of benefits for my riding of Burnaby North. We are all aware of what digital media and the film industries can bring to our province and the importance of supporting this sector in our province. We have the competitive edge when it comes to this industry, and we are committed to offering businesses competitive tax rebates and incentives to attract their business. We have established this digital and film industry in this province, and it has a very high reputation in North America as one of the most experienced and accomplished.

[1610]

The three largest studios in the province are located in the city of Burnaby — Bridge Studios, Mammoth Studios and Canadian Motion Picture Park — so I'm very familiar with the importance of the business that the digital media and film industry creates. Our budget recognizes the convergence of the conventional film industry and the new digital media. This type of foresight will reassure this industry that we know its strengths and recognize the potential it can give to our province.

Schools like BCIT and SFU are very important in my community. These institutions are very much integrated in the expansion and delivery of health care services with the valuable nursing and medical training that they provide. These institutions are also pivotal in the media industry, as they offer specialized training delivered by experienced professionals.

Madam Speaker, I was also pleased to hear that young families will receive new benefits. An additional $26 million in funding over three years will be used to support child care programs that assist low-income families with the cost of child care through direct assistance to families for child care.
[ Page 3250 ]

This type of support is invaluable for our young families, coupled with the property tax deferral program for homeowners with children under the age of 18. These families will have the option of deferring their provincial and local property taxes, in recognition of the high costs of raising a family. Burnaby is quickly becoming home to many young families, and we want to make sure that we help them as they grow.

The world is warming up to the green initiatives and the clean energy alternatives. We have been really attractive in establishing and also very active in our position as a green province, meaning that we are on the forefront of practising green and clean energy alternatives.

In fact, we'll become the first place in the world to have a 100 percent carbon-neutral public sector. We are setting goals for reducing our carbon emissions, and we are having a lot of these goals met. We are developing our clean energy option by promoting new energy alternatives such as natural gas–powered vehicles.

To encourage the development of clean energy technology, we are investing $100 million over three years, building the success of our innovative clean energy fund. We have provided more than $47 million to 34 projects in communities throughout B.C. in areas such as solar power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power and bioenergy.

This support is very important not only to the protection of our environment but also in supporting our local businesses. These companies can begin to expand and attract investment from around the world as they look to our province as a better example of clean energy practices.

Improving the safety of our communities is very important. It's always something that we need to be aware of. We have increased the amount of police officers in the province since 2002. We have added more than 1,100 additional police officers, including 168 more police officers dedicated to fighting organized crime and gang violence.

We most recently introduced and passed legislation aimed at making our roadways safer for motorists. By banning the use of cell phones on our roadways, we are eliminating the threat of vehicle accidents. It's estimated that one in four accidents is caused by distracted driving. The new law took effect two months ago, January 1.

[1615]

We are also investing in arts and culture. We have a very vibrant and diverse province that displays its personality through the arts and culture. We recently saw this with many excellent displays that took place leading up to and during the Olympic Games — what many people recognize us for, and we are proud of this.

In the 2010 budget we have dedicated $60 million for the sports and arts legacy. Half of this will be used to enhance our existing support for the various art, music, theatre and dance programs. We have always recognized the importance of arts and culture, and our record is indicative of that. Since 2001 we have provided arts and cultural groups with more than half a billion dollars, more than any other government in B.C.'s history. Despite fiscal pressures, we are still able to provide $8.9 million this year for the 350 arts and culture groups through the community gaming grants.

In conclusion, everywhere in the province people are gaining confidence from Budget 2010. They are aware of the changes we are making, and I want to say that I am proud to see this government embracing the challenges we face and working to ensure that there are safety nets in place for those who need them and that British Columbians are being given the confidence to face the future.

We are committed to ensuring that health care, education, child welfare and social programming, which matter most to British Columbians, are protected. But more than that, we are committed to injecting stimulus spending into our economy to help people across the province fight the tough times that we face and come together as a community to emerge stronger and better off.

So 2010 will be a challenging year, but it will not be impossible for us. We will get through these tough economic times and come out of this stronger and more prosperous than before because of our innovation and fiscal management. The future of this province is extremely bright, and this budget shows that this government is dedicated to not only the people but also the future of B.C. This government is taking the necessary action to ensure that the youth of today and tomorrow are not burdened by deficit, by debt. Instead, they will be able to take advantage of all the opportunities that this wonderful province offers.

Madam Speaker, I want to end by saying that Budget 2010 has my full support.

M. Mungall: Hon. Speaker, before I get started on my comments around this current budget that was delivered on March 2, I want to wish you and all the women in the House a very wonderful and happy International Women's Day.

Thank you to the brothers in the House who have also shown their appreciation for what is a 99-year history of International Women's Day, where women through those 99 years have done a tremendous job of bringing forward women's issues and the issues of equality. A lot of that, of course, is around economics. In the budget, we're talking about the economics of the province and how that impacts people in their day-to-day lives.

For women, there's no doubt that there is a correlation between the decisions made by this government and any government in their budget creation and how that impacts women every single day.

I'm particularly proud on this day, International Women's Day, to be part of a record-setting 34 percent
[ Page 3251 ]
of women in our caucus, in the opposition. That's a record, hon. Speaker; 34 percent of our caucus is women. That is a tremendous accomplishment in Canada, where the ceiling has been around the 20 to 22 percent mark.

[1620]

This Legislature as a whole has actually also broken that record, with 28 percent women in this entire Legislature. Right now I am one of the 28 percent women in this entire Legislature. That, I think, is a tremendous accomplishment, and we're celebrating on International Women's Day.

I'd also like to acknowledge my constituents, who are really a wonderful group of people who provided me with so much support in the last few months since the election. They've been giving me a lot of feedback, and one of the things they actually say is that it's okay to take a holiday, that it's okay to take some time off.

They encouraged me to do so, which is very generous of them, and so I did. Last January I took a wonderful trip to Cambodia, where I was able to train 45 women who were election candidates in their upcoming local elections. That was a tremendous experience, and it taught me a lot not only about what politics is like in Cambodia but of course comparing it to our very own system here in British Columbia and in Canada.

It's a very fortunate thing here in B.C. that as an opposition member, I have the privilege to get up and criticize the government at any point and not have to worry about repercussions because I'm just doing my job. That's something that women in Cambodia have to worry about. So in the spirit of being an opposition member and this being the budget speech, I will do my very best to uphold the role that is on our side of the House.

You know what, hon. Speaker? It's not difficult at all to oppose and criticize this budget. When I came back from Cambodia, before the House sat, I was listening to CBC radio one morning. The Premier was on the radio saying that there were going to be cuts and that it was going to be a very tough budget. Of course, this didn't really come as much of a surprise, but I did notice that what was going on, though, was that the Premier was softening people up for the blow that he and his Liberal government were going to inflict on the people of British Columbia.

There's no doubt that we have had an economic recession and reduced revenues. There's no doubt that that is the case. In fact, most British Columbians say: "How can we work together as a province to move forward?" But they don't expect it through cutting back essential services that they need every day: health care, education, also the very things that generate revenue for this province and that prepare us for the future — post-secondary education, the arts and other initiatives that we need so desperately to do so that we can move forward in this era of climate change.

How do we reduce our greenhouse gases? How do we prepare for our resource management, our land management in an environmentally sustainable way? These are the things that British Columbians want to come together on. Instead, they had a soft blow from the Premier about how they are going to be having to cut and cut.

You know, hon. Speaker, I also was sitting there listening to the CBC radio and thought that maybe this wasn't just a soft blow that the Premier was putting forward, softening what was going to be a very difficult budget for a lot of British Columbians. I also thought maybe he was just preparing us for the severity of the hangover after a very big party.

Make no mistake. I support the athletes. How can you not? How can any Canadian and any British Columbian not have such incredible pride in the accomplishments of our athletes? Fourteen gold medals — that is a world record. Just like the record of the increased women in this House, it is something to celebrate. It is something to be proud of. They earned those medals through their blood and their sweat and their tears and, in the process, made us incredibly proud. They were inspiring, and they were amazing.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

As chair of the NDP opposition women's caucus — and, I have to admit, also as a fellow snowboarder — I wrote to salute one of our very own B.C. women, Maëlle Ricker, to say job well done in capturing the gold.

Interjections.

[1625]

M. Mungall: The other side is getting into the spirit. They were distracted, but they're getting into the spirit, and they're realizing that yes, Maëlle Ricker did make everybody proud. She did have quite the accomplishment. She did a fantastic and amazing job.

If anybody else in the House doesn't snowboard, let me tell you that as a snowboarder, I know firsthand what a great job she did. Back in the day…. Yes, some people might look at me and think there's no way that I could possibly have a "back in the day." But really, I do. I have a "back in the day." Back in the day when I was living in Banff, snowboard cross didn't exist as an Olympic sport. We just did that sort of thing for fun. To now see it as an Olympic sport and to see a Canadian woman win gold at it was just awesome — absolutely awesome.

But — and of course, I'm sure the members across the way were waiting for that "but" — how the Olympians did in their gold-winning performances is completely separate from how this government manages the province. That's an important thing to note, because one of the things we've been criticized for over here on this side of the House is that we've been opposed to the Olympics.
[ Page 3252 ]
Every time we criticize this government for their mismanagement, we're opposed to the Olympics.

That is not the case. The fact of the matter is that it is our job to ensure that that side of the House manages this province properly. So far we have found that they don't do that at all. No one on that side of the House is earning a gold medal with this budget.

The other day, after the blow softening and the closing ceremonies, just last week the Liberals changed their tune to say they have done such a great job with this budget that they are increasing funding all over the place. So all that talk about it being a tough budget, and we're going to have to do a lot of cutbacks and so on…. When I sat on this side of the House, from my seat, and listened to what the Finance Minister had to say about the budget, of course he went on. He gave what was a very nice-sounding speech.

Sorry, hon. Speaker, I was expecting some of the members from the opposite way to actually applaud when I gave the Minister of Finance a compliment. A little slow on cue, but there it is.

So the Finance Minister gave a nice-sounding speech, a very nice-sounding speech, and a lot of people in my community called me up and said: "Hey, you know what? That doesn't sound as bad as what I was thinking it was going to be, because I remember I heard on the CBC radio — just like you, Michelle — that it was going to be so much worse."

Well, I have to say that that speech sounded so good that it definitely is proving that the public affairs bureau, which some of my constituents will call the spin wing, is working very hard to justify its 2.5 percent budget increase. Write the Minister of Finance a good speech; you get a good budget increase.

But this initial statement of, "There are going to be a lot of cuts," and then a nice-sounding speech that says: "Oh no, we're doing so well. We are increasing funding. We are definitely protecting health care and education. We are making good investments for clean energy…." All these stories and this difference that we see isn't a flip-flop, really, although I do know that several of the members opposite have been buying several pairs of flip-flops down at Wal-Mart. This is part of a larger budget deception.

Interjection.

M. Mungall: Yeah.

Just to back up there, one of my colleagues over here has just reminded that you can go buy flip-flops. No carbon tax on the flip-flops. A question, though: is the HST going to be on those flip-flops? In fact, the flip-flops are probably made specifically with HST written all over them.

Anyhow, this wasn't a flip-flop. This is part of the larger budget deception and public misleading that we saw less than a year ago in the election.

[1630]

The biggest deception — the biggest one, without a doubt — is the HST, adding another 7 percent onto many everyday consumer items. Just to name a few, we've got haircuts, bikes, bike repairs. I've been talking to people, especially people who get haircuts. They're not too impressed with that, so you can imagine that's a lot of people in B.C. — even in my area, where a lot of people have dreadlocks.

Bikes. The people who have dreadlocks might not be worried about a 7 percent increase on a haircut, but they have bikes. They're quite worried about a 7 percent increase on their bike and on bike repairs. It was just last week that there was a rally outside on the HST on bikes, cyclists from all over the Lower Mainland and Victoria and Vancouver Island saying: "We don't want to see the HST on bikes." One woman had a fantastic sign that I think summed it up perfectly, and it read: "HST — hinders sustainable transportation."

Here we have the HST, another 7 percent on bikes. We have it on school supplies, restaurant meals. Of course, there's a large campaign going throughout the province to stop that HST because of its increase to restaurant meals and the restaurant sector.

Home renovations and the movies. Johnny Depp is just coming out right now with his latest film, Alice in Wonderland. Thank goodness I'm going to get to go see it, and yes, in 3-D. Let me just say it's in 3-D. If nobody saw Avatar in 3-D, it's very worthwhile to go see Alice in Wonderland in 3-D. It's fantastic. It's a whole new way to see movies. But HST on 3-D, though — how low will they…? What's next? What's next after HST on 3-D? Car repairs.

How about the gym membership. Ever since I was elected, I've noticed that we do a whole lot of sitting as MLAs, so going to the gym is becoming a much more frequent thing that I do. Well, my gym membership is now going to have HST on it. I'm trying to stay healthy, and I have to now pay more on my gym membership.

Interjections.

M. Mungall: Despite some comments, I actually do pay for my gym membership. I do.

This is a long list. I could go on and on. It's a very long list of the things that will now be having an increased 7 percent tax — a very long list. It goes on to the tune of $1.9 billion. So a $1.9 billion tax shift from the big corporations, who no doubt often donate quite heavily to the opposite side of the House in their campaigns for elections. It takes taxes from them, which they would have been paying, and puts it onto individuals and families, onto everyday items — the big corporations who can afford it. They are experiencing a recession right now, but over the long term they absolutely can afford to and they need to be contributing to our society.

They have access to our labour markets, to our resources, to our land. These things are important for them
[ Page 3253 ]
to make their profits, and part of the social contract is that they then pay their fair share of taxes. They have not been doing that for nine years, and now they have another excuse to not do that, and that is this HST scheme. That is exactly why 82 percent of British Columbians are opposed to this tax shift.

Earlier in the day the Minister of Finance was talking about all these organizations throughout British Columbia who are pro the HST. Well, make no mistake. It was no accident that he did not mention the 82 percent of British Columbians who are clearly opposed to the HST. Those are the people who are going to have to pay that bill at the end of the day. They are angry, the people in B.C. They are angry, and they feel lied to.

Two of B.C.'s top five employers are retail and accommodation, and this is the sector that's going to see a negative impact because of the HST.

[1635]

During the election the Liberals promised in my constituency — I saw the signs everywhere — jobs, jobs, jobs. They promised people jobs. [Applause.]

They should keep applauding, because they might be out of a job themselves in three years' time.

We have job losses projected. This is not some study that was bought and paid for to justify a bill, a tax that's going to be implemented. This study that identified 10,000 jobs being lost in the tourism sector was done objectively and independently by that sector to identify how they were going to be impacted by the HST. They found out that they were going to be negatively impacted.

This was research that should have been done before any commitment by this government, before any commitment to implementing this tax shift. That is exactly what they should have done — do their research, do their homework — before committing British Columbians to a $1.9 billion tax shift. But that's not what they did at all. That's not what they did.

They talked to a few of their buddies, got to hear exactly what they wanted to hear, which was an excuse to take $1.6 billion for a one-time offer from the federal coffers. They got their excuse. They went for it.

They blindsided every single British Columbian on July 23, 2009, including the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. They had no idea. They had no opportunity to even negotiate, on behalf of their members, ways in which to implement the HST that was going to benefit all of their members. They didn't have that opportunity. It was announced.

What's interesting is that this was actually an organization that was promoting the HST, that was advocating for it for quite some time. But they, too, were blindsided. That's not the way to run a democratic government. The Liberals know this. They know it.

Now they are trying anything, absolutely anything, to sell the HST. The way they're doing it from this budget is as revenue for health care. They're spinning and spinning. But Joannie Rochette did a much better job than they did, and that's why she's won the bronze, and without a doubt, she deserved that. This spin job doesn't deserve anything.

In fact, saying that it's good for health is bad medicine. It makes me think of the medicine that I was forced to take as a kid, and I had to ram it down my throat. Unfortunately, if I had a virus, that medicine for the bacteria wasn't going to do anything. That's exactly it. They've got some bad medicine for the wrong, wrong ill. Trying to say that it's going to be good for British Columbians and it's going to be good for health care is misleading at best.

In fact, I have a few more other words — but I know that I would be ruled out of order — for this latest scheme. Instead, I will use words from the pundits. We heard them last week. We heard "flimflam," "sleight of hand," "a joke," "stupid," "transparently phony," "contemptuous," "lame," "laughable," "silly." And that's what the pundits had to say about this idea of HST for health care.

An Hon. Member: And they are right. They were right.

M. Mungall: As my colleague reminds me, those pundits were right, and weren't they ever. They know exactly what's going on. They can't be fooled, and nor can the public. Nor can the public.

While members from the other side might laugh and think that they can get away with this, the public….

Interjection.

M. Mungall: The media will never have lines like that for me. [Laughter.] No. Because I know how to be an honest MLA. Being an honest MLA, I would put forward good policy to the people of British Columbia, and I would do research before making such a massive commitment. That's what I would do.

[1640]

The fact that they laugh on the other side of the House at my comments about being honest shows exactly what kind of integrity they have.

The pundits have identified this HST for exactly what it is. The public has identified the HST for exactly what it is. This new attempt at saying that it's going to be good for us, that it's going to be good for our health, that we're going to put it all into health care…. The only thing that's transparent about this government is their desperate, desperate attempts to justify this tax shift, and like I've said already, it isn't working. It absolutely isn't working.

Interjection.
[ Page 3254 ]

M. Mungall: The member across the way says: "Time will tell. Time will tell if it's working." Essentially, what he is saying is that time will tell if their spin job is working — not their honesty — on the public. It's very clear that a spin job isn't going to work, and time will tell that, absolutely.

One group of people who are struggling with poverty and who can't afford any more cuts of living expenses are, of course, students. The HST isn't going to help them make ends meet, not at all. Any time we increase the cost of living, we put a greater burden on students to not only meet their tuition costs, the fee costs, the cost of books, but the daily cost of living they need to just go to school.

If that wasn't enough, if the HST coming in wasn't enough to make life more difficult for students, let's go to what has come out of this budget for post-secondary education. Before the election, though, the Liberals put forward a budget in February 2009, just a year ago, and they ran on that budget. They ran on that budget and made promises based on that budget.

They promised to protect advanced education, which you'd think would mean investing in this essential economic development tool. Investing in post-secondary education, of course, means ensuring that the costs that post-secondary institutions have are met with the funding so that they can do their job in providing training and education and so that students can do their job in learning and then giving back to our economy.

In fact, the value of post-secondary education is quite intrinsic. It's an incredible experience for young people — or people of any age, for that matter — to go to school and to learn a trade, to learn a skill, to learn how to do research, to learn about the world around them, to learn critical thinking skills. The list goes on. I don't know of any person who hasn't looked back at their own experience in university or college with incredible fondness.

More importantly — I shouldn't say more importantly at all; in fact, this is equally important — is that in our future economy, where we're looking down the road five or ten years, more than 75 percent of future job openings require post-secondary education. The sectors where most of these jobs are going to be are health care and social assistance.

I'm not making this up because it sounds really nice. I don't have a public affairs bureau to write my speeches, so I do my best to make a nice speech — nowhere near as good, I'm sure, as the Finance Minister.

I actually have been reading the government's own documentation on what our future labour market is going to be. In this document right here, 76 percent of new jobs created over the next decade, 2007 to 2017, are expected to require a college diploma, trade certificate, university degree or higher. That's 76 percent — so I was actually one percentage point off — of new jobs being created are going to require post-secondary education.

[1645]

It also says that approximately one-third of all new jobs in B.C…. Sorry, hon. Speaker. See, this is what happens when you don't have a public affairs bureau writing your speeches. You go to a highlighted portion, and it wasn't actually what you were meant to say, so on to the other page.

The majority of these jobs are in health care and social assistance, professional and scientific and technical services, and then there's a list of where all these new jobs are coming from. Another big one is tourism — accommodation, food services and other services. Of course, this analysis was done before the HST, so we need to take that number down quite a considerable notch.

The government's own documentation is talking about how important post-secondary education is going to be. It's talking about the jobs of the future, and here we are at a budget that is not prioritizing post-secondary education.

Another important value of post-secondary education is that it increases dollars to B.C. coffers. B.C. Colleges has done a study, and they found that for every dollar of taxpayers' money that goes into colleges, the B.C. coffers, B.C. taxpayers, get $3.81 back. That is a huge return on investment. They did an economic impact study of what comes back to B.C. taxpayers for every dollar of taxpayer money that goes into UBC, and what they found with direct and indirect is $100 — $100 to $1 is their economic impact. Again, this is tremendous.

Post-secondary education is clearly an economic driver, and that's exactly why we need to be investing in it, but we didn't see that in this budget. Instead, what we see is a systemic cut that reduces per-student funding by 0.6 percent. We see a cutback of several millions of dollars, a cutback into student aid. What this is, is a 28 percent cutback from what they promised in 2009, actually.

We see a 20 percent cutback in student aid. How on earth are people going to get the jobs of tomorrow if they cannot get the loans that they need to cover the cost of tuition, to cover the cost of fees, books and the cost of living, which is also going to go up because of HST?

Students aren't buying the benefit of HST. They're needing assistance from the government. They're not getting it. This budget is not doing justice to the people of this province.

M. Dalton: I am pleased to stand today in support of the budget. I believe that it's prudent, responsible and visionary. I want to take the opportunity, first of all, to thank the residents of Maple Ridge and Mission for the privilege of being able to serve them as their MLA. It's been ten years — ten months now since the election. A lot has happened in those ten months. It feels like ten years.
[ Page 3255 ]

One of the aspects which I have enjoyed the most about the job has been meeting people and connecting with various organizations and businesses. This is essential for me to effectively represent my constituency.

I'd like to thank my wife, Marlene, for her support and my three grown children, Justin, Simone and Hannah. Marlene comes with me most times when I travel to Victoria, so I haven't had to experience the separation that so many of my colleagues have. I appreciate her support.

I'd like to thank my staff in my constituency offices both in Mission and Maple Ridge: Sharen Parkinson, Wilson Sieg and Carly Fedyshen. They competently serve our communities and genuinely care about the residents. Carly has recently joined the team, but both Sharen and Wilson have been constituency associates for many years. It boils down to being able to better help people who need it and who come to us. We are a team, and we're here to serve the constituency and the province.

I also want to acknowledge the different staff here in Victoria, including Brittany, Lindsay, Cayley, Ryan, Razi and others who serve me as well as other MLAs in the East Annex where I have my office.

[1650]

The B.C. and world economies have gone through quite a wild ride in the past 1½ years. Two years ago the world economy and the economy of British Columbia were humming along very nicely. B.C. was in a good position.

Economists and nations were shocked at the global economic meltdown that happened. Essentially, the housing market collapsed in the United States. It had seen consistent positive growth for years.

Millions of Americans took out mortgages with virtually no down payment. As the value of their properties increased, the paper equity was used to purchase other homes and many consumer goods, including cars. Consumers in the States became overextended, and when mortgage rates began to moderately increase, many homeowners found themselves in a position where they could not meet their mortgages and began to default. This led to price reductions in homes and to more and more owners having more owing than their homes were now worth.

U.S. banks like Freddie Mac began to fail, and the economy went into recession. Home starts plummeted, and people began drastically reducing purchases. General Motors and other companies faced bankruptcy.

The United States is by far the world's largest economy. When U.S. imports decreased, it impacted economies worldwide. British Columbia was and is no exception to this, as 70 percent of our export trade is to the States. The B.C. Liberal government has wisely managed revenues and expenditures, and for years it ran surpluses, chopping billions of dollars off from the debt. We have earned a triple-A credit rating, the highest possible.

A couple of weeks ago Chile experienced a gigantic earthquake, and a tsunami hit that cost the lives of hundreds of people. A year and a half ago there was an economic earthquake in the States, and a tsunami was felt worldwide.

We had projected a surplus, but this evaporated by the month and by the week, with significantly less revenues from our forestry, mining and natural gas sectors and income tax revenues. Expenses went up, with more and more unemployment claims. And last year we had our first deficit in years, $2.8 billion.

We were hardly alone in this. Alberta had 15 years of surpluses. Energy prices collapsed, and in April of last year the province of Alberta forecast a deficit of $4.7 billion. In August it moved to $6.9 billion, a $2.2 billion increase. In Ontario's March 2009 budget the province forecast a $14.1 billion deficit. In June this was revised to $18.5 billion, and last October it moved up to $24.7 billion.

As for Canada's federal budget, it had 11 straight years of surpluses, the longest stretch since Canada had become a nation in 1867. In February of last year Canada's forecasted deficit was $33.7 billion. A few months later it was $56 billion. I don't have time to go to discuss the trillion-dollar deficits in the United States.

The point of the matter is that we have gone through a very tough patch. Our economy and revenues have taken a significant hit. We did not want to be in the deficit position that we are in, but we did not want to drastically reduce services that British Columbians need.

We've been very careful with the deficit and debt accumulation, and we are moving quickly to reduce it and bring the province back into a surplus position. Last year the debt was $2.8 billion. This year it is projected to be $1.7 billion. That's $1.1 billion, or 40 percent, less than last year. Next year it's projected to be $945 million, and the year after, $100 million.

Our Finance Minister has always been cautious in revenue and growth projections. Last year even the significant caution that was built into the budget was insufficient. It appears now that things are levelling out, though there still is concern about a double-dip recession in the States.

I am pleased that we are making every effort to control the deficit and to bring it down yet at the same time continue to make significant investments, increased investments, in health care, education and other services. I look forward to the day when we are back into surplus territory and paying down our debt, which is modest in comparison to so many other jurisdictions but is still too much.

British Columbia and Canada have just come out of a marvellous experience, the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. This was a nation-building event from the time the torch was lit here in Victoria to its journey across Canada through 1,000 communities to the time the cauldron was lit at B.C. Place.

[1655]
[ Page 3256 ]

The torch came through Mission at 5:30 a.m., February 8. That did not stop over 5,000 people from coming out to cheer the torchbearers. The Mission city council proclaimed February 8 as Jack Poole Day. Jack Poole was raised in Saskatchewan but spent many years in Mission. It was Jack who spearheaded the VANOC Olympic bid and chaired the committee until he died last fall, of cancer. He would have been very pleased to have seen the great success that these games were.

The torch continued on to Maple Ridge, where many thousands of people assembled. The air was electric as the torch came through that morning in the darkness. The enthusiasm and patriotism displayed during the torch relay continued all throughout the Olympic Games. I don't think anyone imagined what a success these games would become in terms of a nation-bonding experience. If it were just for that, the Olympics would have been worth every dollar.

I had the opportunity, as did hundreds of thousands of other people, to walk around downtown Vancouver during the games. There was a joy and singing of O Canada on the streets. International visitors that I talked to were so taken aback by our hospitality, friendship and joy. When I talked to police officers patrolling, they said the crime rate was down significantly. Street cleaners told me that they were surprised at how little garbage there was lying around with so many tens of thousands of people.

On the last evening of the games, after the hockey game, I drove downtown with my wife, beeping my horn. People would come up to me in the car and give me high fives. Half of all Canadians came to see the torch. The U.S.-Canada game was the most widely seen sports event watched on TV in Canada — 17 million people, from what I understand.

The Olympics have left Canada with a bonding legacy that matches, or perhaps surpasses, Expo 67 in Montreal — Canada's 100th birthday.

But the Olympic legacy goes beyond this. Superb infrastructure projects have been built: the Sea to Sky Highway, which used to be called the death highway; the convention centre, which already, right now, has billions of dollars of conventions lined up; the Richmond Oval; the Canada Line, which had up to 250,000 people travelling on that line on one day during the Olympics; a refurbished Pacific Coliseum; the Whistler Sliding Centre; a refurbished Robson Square and outdoor skating rink, which was a heart of the excitement in Vancouver during the Olympics.

There were also major regional sports facilities that were upgraded and built in places like Kimberley, Fort St. John and elsewhere.

The media exposure during this time was priceless. Over three billion people saw the games at one point or another. What people saw, they liked — the people I talked to — and they wanted to come back.

There was a real focus by this government to bring in new investment as the games went on. Personally, I had conversations with various international business people, and there was real interest expressed in setting up shop. I believe the Olympics will prove to be a springboard for further economic growth.

The expenses are accounted for. Financially, these games are under control. We are not saddled with debt from them as has been the experience of many other games. PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report last year concluding that between 2003 and 2008 alone, the games had generated $684 million to $664 million…. A lot of money — okay? Well, less than a billion dollars in real GDP growth to B.C. and as much as $425 million in 2008 alone, as well as 3,400 more businesses.

The Olympic Games and Paralympic Games are proving to be a great economic success as well as a cultural success and a sporting success. This government has pushed through with the Olympics and has promoted it for years in spite of significant opposition. I think it is clear to the vast majority of people that the benefits far outweigh the efforts and costs. The Olympics and Paralympic Games are a success that all British Columbians and all Canadians can be rightly proud of.

[1700]

There is a saying that you can tell a tree by its fruit. The games are a fruit and visible demonstration of the vision, determination and good sense of the Premier of British Columbia and this government. I believe that the 2010 budget lays out a plan to bear a lot more good fruit for this province. I'd like to address a few areas of major expenditures cited in the budget.

First of all, health care. There is a $661 million increase for 2010-2011. Next year it's moving up to $920 million and the year after, an extra $447 million. This equals $2 billion more each year in three years. This is not a cut. It's been portrayed as a cut. Health care — there are some changes, yes, but it's a significant investment.

As for Maple Ridge, we have seen the tripling of our emergency in size, a new psychiatric ward. Across the river in Abbotsford there's a new regional hospital. There are tremendous upgrades and changes happening in Surrey. There's the Surrey hospital. The Mission hospital — there was a lot of protest there regarding the emergency ward. That is remaining open.

There is an accelerated nursing program at the University of the Fraser Valley, a three-year bachelor of science and nursing. There's $86 million in a new state-of-the-art building at UBC that will house the faculty of pharmaceutical science, an undergraduate program for 72 students. Very significant funding in health care in spite of our finances. I just don't understand how people can say that we are chopping it.

In education — same story. This government has increased education funding every single year, and this budget is no exception. The per-pupil funding is in-
[ Page 3257 ]
creasing from $8,200 to $8,300. The operating funding is $4.66 billion. It's going up by $112 million this year. The facilities grant is being restored at $110 million. I know my school district will be happy about that, but they did have enough funds in reserve to cover this year.

All-day kindergarten is being fully funded, as are the wages for teachers in the new contract — $150 million. As was announced today, PAC funding for schools is increasing and is being restored from $10 to $20 per pupil. I know that this is very important for many of the schools as it helps with so many initiatives, whether it be in physical education, for equipment, whether it be computers, encyclopedia sets, the library, in many different aspects. I know that the school districts will be happy about that.

Yes, there are challenges. We need to keep in mind also the demographics. We're 50,000 or 60,000 students less now as compared to a few years ago. We can't keep funding nearly empty schools. It costs thousands of dollars more per pupil in half-empty schools as compared to full schools. In Maple Ridge two schools will be closing that were at less than 25 percent capacity. But this is releasing funds for, hopefully, new schools in the areas where it is growing in Maple Ridge, in east Maple Ridge.

According to government policy and what is happening, these schools are not just sold off, but they become communities of learning where programs can be held that support the community. If there is a demographic change in ten years, the facilities are still there, potentially to be reopened as schools.

As for taxation, as has been mentioned, we have the lowest income taxes in Canada up to $118,000, which is the vast majority of British Columbians.

I think we need to compare that. What is the situation now, taxation now, as opposed to when the B.C. Liberal government first came into power? For example, for a person earning $20,000 in 2001, they paid a little over $1,000 in taxes. Last year it was $177. That's a savings of $841. For someone earning $50,000 in 2001, they paid in provincial taxes $4,211. Now it's $2,289, which is a saving of nearly $2,000.

[1705]

For a person making $80,000, which is what I was making as a teacher, the taxes in 2001 were $8,895. Last year it was $4,838, which is a saving of over $4,000 per person. Excuse me. I think I need to say that again. That's $4,000 per taxable earner — $4,000.

What can you do with $4,000? Well, let's see. You could use that towards your retirement savings. You could take a cruise vacation for two, airfare included. You could buy a new car over five years and pay for it. You could pay the tuition for your child's education or a good part of that tuition. It's very significant savings, and that's just in income tax.

HST. This, as has been mentioned, is a tax modernization. We're in the process of doing tax modernization. It's used by over 130 countries. It's about jobs. It's about the economy. The B.C. Liberal government ran in the last election on one primary…. Well, on good governance, but on one primary issue, and it was the economy. I believe that we were elected partially because the population recognized that we would make the necessary hard choices.

The HST implementation has been a hard choice, but I think it has also been misrepresented. For one thing, it's been called a 12 percent tax on goods and services. Well, that's not the case. It's a combination of 7 percent PST and 5 percent GST. That's why it's called harmonized.

The issue has been the exemptions. We are maintaining a number of them: basic foods, prescription drugs, children-sized clothing, home heating, automobile fuel, books, women's hygiene products and others.

There's a rebate for new homes up to $525,000. Most homes that are sold are not new homes. Probably about 80 percent or more are existing homes, and there's no HST. There's no increased HST being put on this.

This has been portrayed as a tax grab. It's far from a tax grab. This is not a tax grab. In fact, we're actually obtaining about $100 million less in government revenues as compared to when we had the PST. Why would we do this when we're actually receiving less finances? Well, it's been a tough choice, and we were elected, as I mentioned, to make tough economic choices.

It was advocated by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, by economists, by industries like mining and forestry that employ thousands of people. Today the report came out on jobs — that we're looking at approximately 113,000 jobs with the implementation of the HST. There will be rebates for low- and modest-income earners, and for many of them, they will be financially better off.

Yes, there will be some increases in prices, but there is also an opportunity for prices to go down on many items where there is already a PST. Costs will now be less for the items where there already is a PST. In the Maritimes and in Quebec this proved to be the case when HST was implemented — a reduction in prices for many items. If a business chooses not to pass on the savings in a competitive market that exists, the extra funds can go to expansion of the business or hiring new people.

I do have trouble with the criticism that we've been receiving from the opposition on the implementation of the HST. At the same time that they're decrying a potentially minor tax increase — it has been said, I believe, by the Royal Bank, of up to 0.7 percent — we're being criticized for cuts, so-called cuts. What is the opposition recommending? Going further into debt? That quickly piles up.

[1710]

Right now the province is paying over $2 billion a year in debt-servicing in this time of low interest rates. Overspending only leads to fewer services in the long run. Either you increase taxes or you go further into debt
[ Page 3258 ]
or you grow the economy, which is what we're doing with the HST, which will cover 85 percent of Canada's population this coming July.

It's fine to criticize, but what is the opposition saying that they would do? Perhaps they hope that no one will notice. The Leader of the Opposition has said that the NDP would keep the HST. Another member has said that they would scrap it but bring in new taxes. I, for one, would like to know some specifics. Otherwise, I feel that it's just a smear job.

Over one million British Columbians are employed in small businesses. They account for 34 percent of B.C. GDP — the highest of all provinces. Since 2001 there have been nearly 40,000 new businesses in British Columbia. This government doubled the small business tax threshold from $200,000 to $400,000. In January of this year it increased it further to $500,000. It's a 250 percent increase since 2002, and that also is the highest in Canada.

We cut the small business tax rate from 4.5 to 2.5, a 44 percent reduction, and by 2012 it will be reduced to zero. What does it mean? It means a savings of $1,600 for a small business owner who has a yearly net income of $80,000 — so a big savings there, big savings on income taxes.

Infrastructure. There's $21 billion that will be spent over the next three years. I'd like to just mention a few infrastructure projects in my riding or my area. The first one is Golden Ears Bridge. It was built eight or nine months ago for $800 million, and I know that for the people I talk to, their quality of life is vastly improved. It's now just about a half an hour. They're saving anywhere from about 45 minutes to an hour of time on a return trip. It's time they can spend with their family. So the Golden Ears Bridge….

In October we opened another bridge, the Pitt River Bridge — seven lanes, $200 million. Again, I had a discussion with people with the CPR, and they mentioned to me that this is really improving business and efficiencies for that business as well as for commuters. It's saving time both ways.

We're seeing dike upgrades in my constituency. The Cedar Street upgrade in Mission, $3.8 million, was a cost-share program with the federal government. We've been working on for the past year along with Tim Hortons to see a children's camp, Tim Hortons children's camp, in the Alouette Lake–Stave Lake area. This is something that has been…. They've announced it. There are still some more details to firm up, but it's moving along.

Last week we announced $1 million to help upgrade the road to go to Zajac Ranch, which is a private camp for children with special needs and been very successful, run by the Zajacs. We want to see this road extended up into the Mission forestry area, Alouette Lake and Stave Lake. This is very important for Mission for economic opportunities, for recreation and for children.

Right now the twinning of a section of the Lougheed Highway between Maple Ridge and Mission is just about ready to be completed. We're seeing the downtown revitalization and beautification project that will be happening this year. It's a $5 million project, again shared between the different levels of government. I'd like to express appreciation to the federal government in my constituency for what they have done in Maple Ridge, Mission and in the province.

[1715]

As for supportive housing, there have been very significant investments — purchased hotels throughout the province and transformed them into housing for the homeless and needy. The government is spending over $450 million on housing programs, three times the amount that was spent in 2001, to break the cycle of homelessness and help over 90,000 British Columbian households.

In Maple Ridge we have a 50-unit transition housing that will be opening ground. The work will begin this year in cooperation with the city of Maple Ridge. In Mission we have Logan Place, which is a 20-bed, year-round emergency shelter for the homeless, which is being built.

This budget is also about families. The property tax deferral is an opportunity for families with children 18 years old and younger to defer their property taxes. They have to have 15 percent equity, and what they defer is charged at a very favourable rate. It's at prime.

We're not recommending everybody do this, but there are times when families go through a rough patch. Perhaps there is an illness, or there's unemployment due to the challenging economic times we're in. This is an opportunity for families to have between $200 and $300 more a month for a year, two years or whatever they need.

Hundreds of StrongStart centres have opened up free of charge, and there's $26 million more for child care. So whether it be health care, whether it be education, taxation, infrastructure, social services — this is a good budget. It's good for my constituency, and it's good for all British Columbia.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to be on my feet in the Legislature commenting on the third budget in just over 12 months. I am absolutely delighted to see my favourite people on the front benches on the other side. They'll keep me awake. It'll be entertaining, maybe even informative. We'll see how that goes.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Yeah, not so much.

As we start now…. I know my constituency assistant is at the office right now going: "Why is he huffing and puffing again? Every time I turn the television on, he's huffing and puffing."
[ Page 3259 ]

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Yeah, a long time ago. It's running out into the hallway, hon. Chair. You, of all the people here, understand why I was doing that.

With that comment, I'll thank my assistants: Shannon, who is my full-time constituency assistant in Langford, as well as my two part-time assistants Heather and Hans. Between the three of them they keep me on a relatively straight and narrow course, and they assist the people in my area from Highlands to Langford to Metchosin and all the way out to Port Renfrew.

Without the three of them, I wouldn't be able to do the work that I do, and I know that all members feel that way about their constituency assistants. I think someone was boasting yesterday — having the best CAs on earth. I know that the government is moving away from the "Best place on earth."

We invested — I'm not sure — I think tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars in rebranding in anticipation of the 2010 Winter Olympics. On the eve of the Olympics we decide: "I don't think that's the way to go. I think we should go back to 'Super, Natural British Columbia.'" I applaud the government for recognizing that boastful "Best place on earth" is not the sort of thing that will encourage Americans to come visit.

As they are our number one tourists, it seems odd that we would say to them: "Come here. We're better than you are." They don't respond well to that. I think it was a brilliant move by whoever on that side. It wouldn't have been Tourism B.C., of course, because they don't exist anymore. But someone over there woke up to the fact that perhaps we should just declare what we have here, and that is a super, natural province from top to bottom, side to side.

Before I get into the substance of the budget, I want to just make a few general comments about how things have been going since we had our budget update.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is my third opportunity to comment on the member for Quilchena's fiscal acumen. I have to say that although he seems to be getting better and better at making the statements, I don't know if the statements actually add up. One instance that I want to draw attention to for those in the House and those in the gallery — bless you for coming, thanks — and those at home is what's called the blue book or the budget estimates.

[1720]

Others will be familiar with this. It's a document that accompanies the budget every year. In the pre-election budget, the government, those on that side of the House, made the statement that they would expend in the Ministry of Education $5.178 billion. That was in the budget year '09-10. That was what was in the document tabled prior to the election. After the election we had an update, and this March we had a revised statement of what we were going to spend, and it's less this year. It's less this year than last year.

Hon. C. Hansen: Look at the restatement.

J. Horgan: Restatement. Oh, I have to look at the restatement. I'm getting a sermon on generally accepted accounting principles from a government that wants to do away with it. I thank him for that.

So we've got two statements — one that's high, and one that's low. That strikes me as a cut. We had the same thing in the Ministry of Energy, same thing in MCFD.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Well, the number is different in one book over the other book. Perhaps the minister, rather than defending the budget, will hear what I have to say, and then perhaps we could talk about it after that.

The point I'm making is each year documents are tabled with the budget, a speech is made, the minister sits down, and we pore over those documents. And each year there are material changes in how those reports are made. The member from Oak Bay is well familiar with this, as an accountant by trade. The challenge for ordinary folks is they don't have the time and the energy to go over this information. We try to do this during the budget estimates, which are contracted year after year after year.

When we started in this place back in 2001, the estimates, of course, were very, very short because there were only two opposition members. But as we become more familiar with the documentation, more familiar with the processes and procedures, it would be incumbent upon the government to recognize that there is a benefit to the public in understanding these materials if we have more time to debate them — not in the exchange we're having today, not in snippy shots back and forth from this side to that side, whoever's speaking, but through the budget estimates.

That's when we can burrow down and find out what the true nature of our financial situation is. With each budget, and it has been this way for some considerable period of time, there are material assumptions that go into the tabling of the estimates — an expectation of what the growth projection will be this year.

This year the minister has landed on 2.2 percent growth, which I think is probably reasonable. It's in the range of forecast projections, not just by those that make up the forecast council for the minister but other private sector firms and other observers of these things.

But there are three risks to those assumptions, which it's important, I think, that we put on the table. The minister has it in his documentation, and I think he might have even touched on some of this, certainly in his media discussions, if not in his speech. I was in the budget
[ Page 3260 ]
lockup. I didn't have the opportunity to hear the presentation, and I don't recall what he said in the speech.

One of our concerns would be a strong dollar. Well, we have a dollar up and around 97, 98 cents. That's a concern. Weak demand for our commodities, whether that be metals, whether that be wood products, and others — another concern. And of course, the largest concern is the so-called double-dip. Will we be seeing another return to recession, a deeper recession in the United States? Those material assumptions will affect how we assume we're going to proceed with the documents that were tabled this past week.

The challenge — and I say this genuinely to the minister and his colleagues on the front bench over there — is that not everybody has the opportunity to review these materials. Not everybody wants to review these materials. They look at the budget. They look at the verbiage that comes out of this place, and they make assumptions of their own on the veracity of the statements that they hear from the government and what they hear from the opposition.

I'm here to tell you that I have grave concerns about several aspects of the documents, and I'm going to proceed into that now. But I want to touch on two things before I do that. In the fall of 2008 the Premier went to the airwaves. He asked the private broadcasters if he could have time to talk about the serious nature of our fiscal situation and the economic downturn worldwide. That's a reasonable thing to do.

I think the leader of any government, even a subnational government like the province of B.C., should, given the opportunity, speak to its electorate, speak to the people he or she represents and lay out as best as he or she is able to what steps are going to be taken to address those issues.

People will remember there was a ten-step process that the Premier put forward. One step, of course, was taking to the airwaves. So we've struck that one off the list. We're down to nine steps.

[1725]

I'm not going to go through them all, but I want to touch on one that the Premier mentioned and that I expected to see in the budget in 2009-2010. It's something that I expected to see in the budget in September when we returned after the election, and it's certainly something that I expected to see in the speech and in the materials that were presented this week — and that is, some form of pension reform.

The Premier talked about providing pension opportunities for people who didn't have access to those types of plans. He said that was one of the ten things he was going to do to stabilize the economy and help working people. Well, there's nothing in these documents about that, nothing in the previous budget, nothing in the budget before that.

It's a significant challenge. I know the Minister of Finance is working with his federal counterparts and other ministers across the country to try and come up with the best way to address the serious challenges we have with respect to savings and providing for the baby boomers and those that are following just behind them in terms of ensuring that they have the resources to meet their needs in their retirement years. That's not something that a provincial government can or should do on its own.

That being said, the Premier committed prior to an election to do something about it. He made the case. He made the argument that the province could and should do this on its own hook.

Since then the Minister of Finance has had the good sense to rein that position in, but we still have a community, a broad community within British Columbia, that doesn't have access to mutual funds. They don't have access to retirement savings, whether they be in the form of public or private sector pensions or savings of their own, other than the Canada Pension Plan that everyone has access to — a significant issue, an important issue, particularly with an aging population.

The other issue I want to touch on that I hear more and more about in my community is the lack of adequate child care services for working families. I think that that, of course, is something that echoes in every member's constituency right across the province.

Certainly, in my community of Langford, a very rapidly growing community, we have — unlike other members in this place — a school district that is actually increasing in terms of student population. With the advent of all-day kindergarten, the pressures and the strains on school district 62 staff and trustees are going to be immense.

Added to that problem is the fact that we only have one high school in my constituency for the communities of Mechosin, Langford, Colwood — which is in the member for Esquimalt–Royal Roads' constituency — and Highlands. The pressures on the middle school and K-to-6, the elementary schools, are significant.

We have a challenge that requires a reconfiguration. The former Minister of Education will know that reconfiguration is not the basis for new capital projects. That's fair enough. You don't want to have districts moving around kids on an Ouija board, trying to find the exact mix that will allow dollars to flow from the province to the school board.

But in school district 62 in the Sooke district, we have a genuine and serious crisis looming with respect to how we're going to manage the mandated all-day kindergarten — which I support — with an aging and dilapidated secondary school that we cannot move grade 9s into because there just isn't any room.

If we can't move the grade 9s into the Belmont high school, that means that we have to keep our grade 6s in elementary school and not move them into middle school, and the problem compounds itself. The former
[ Page 3261 ]
minister knows this. The current minister knows this. I've made that case over and over again to them privately, and I'll continue to do that, but we really do need an answer on capital projects.

As I hear other members from government ridings stand and talk about all of the capital spending in their constituency, it makes me weep when I think about the tremendous opportunity that we have in our community — my community of Langford and the constituency of Juan de Fuca — to really address a growing school district, putting some capital on the table so that we can have a state-of-the-art facility, a green building that will reduce operating costs.

This is not rocket science. Members on that side of the House, members on this side of the House, understand the dynamics here. The economics are: you've got a new building, and you have fewer input costs. You've got to put out the initial capital. Once that's done, you're off to the races.

What we propose to do in Langford, and in school district 62, is to sell the existing facility, the real estate underneath the existing Belmont.

Now, that's a policy challenge for the government. It's a policy challenge for me. I would not normally support selling public assets to pay for capital or operating or anything else for that matter. I believe that these assets, public assets, are for a long period of time. They're not just there to be sold off when the annual larder is bare.

[1730]

That's not what this proposal is all about. What the school board is proposing to do with support from the councils in Colwood and Langford is to have this very valuable commercial property sold off for development for commercial and residential construction and a new facility built on an existing school board property nearer to public amenities that would be provided by the municipalities.

I think it's important that people understand that. It's certainly important that the government understands that this is not a cookie-cutter situation. I don't want to see school districts off-loading public assets to try and meet today's operating costs. That's not what this proposal is about. I think I've been crystal-clear on that.

I get no nods, even from the other side, so at least they're not nodding off. They're paying attention. They're awake. That's good news.

Beyond the school crisis that has emerged…. And I make the argument that there's less money this year than last year. The Minister of Finance is going to educate me after my remarks on why I've missed the mark on that. But I don't know. My friend David Schreck agrees with me, and that's good enough for me.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I'd put him up against the member across the way any day of the week.

There are other issues in my constituency beyond education and child care. Just on the child care issue, I note that when you have a community that has affordable housing….

The member from Oak Bay will understand that people are moving — from the city, from the capital, the core municipalities — out west for a whole host of reasons. First of all, there's more space out there. Second of all, it's affordable housing. If you've got a place that you can afford to live, you want to go there, and you want to raise your family. The problem is that you've got clogged schools, you've got inadequate child care, and you've got transportation challenges.

I've been beating the drum on transportation. My friend from Vancouver-Kingsway supports me whenever he can when I talk about commuter rail and the opportunities and possibilities to have new and modern transportation infrastructure in place here on the south Island.

I note that we've got a promise again, and I know that the members on the other side may well applaud this. The Evergreen line has been promised again. My friend from Maillardville — that's fantastic. We only promised that line four years in a row. You guys are on year nine of a promise, and as they say, why would you wreck a good promise by actually doing it? Thirteen years running. Go Evergreen.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: My friend from Port Moody says it's going to happen. "It's going to happen in your lifetime." I'll believe that.

Hon. I. Black: I'll stake my reputation on it.

J. Horgan: Oh, he'll stake his reputation on it. He knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Nine years running we've been promised the Evergreen line. Well, that's nine years more than we've been promised the commuter rail service on the E&N corridor, but I'm ever hopeful.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Oh, it's not happening now, says my former friend from the Finance Committee.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Be careful, yeah. I'm supposed to be kind because I want something from the government. I'm supposed to be a good boy. I've been told that if I stop poking them in the eye, maybe they'll be nice to me.
[ Page 3262 ]
Apparently not, so I'll keep poking in the eye, then. Let's have at it.

I want to talk about another issue before I get to the harmonized sales tax and how it's the single most important thing, according to this group, that I will not tell the electorate before the election. There's nothing more important than not telling the people that I want votes from that I'm going to tax them again. Nothing can be more important than that.

I don't know if all economists agree on that, but all of my constituents agree, every single one of them. It's almost unanimous. "If you're going to do something, tell me about it. Don't deceive me."

That's what they say to me. I don't know. I don't know if other members on this side of the House have the same experience with their electorate. If you tell them your plan, if you tell them what you want to do and why you want to do it, the chances are pretty good that they'll support you on it. If you don't tell them you're going to do it…. In fact, if you say you won't do it, and then you do, you've got a bit of a problem.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Now, you can pile up economic reports to the sky if you want, and it's not going to change people's perception of the fact that they felt they were deceived. They were told the budget would have a modest deficit. Everything was under control. Ferry fares were going to be cut for two months. "We're going to go on TV. We're going to provide a pension for everybody." Oops, no, that didn't work out — did it? We promised we were going to do that, but the issue was that we were not going to introduce the harmonized sales tax.

Hon. Speaker, you'll remember that vividly, I'm sure. In all of the talking points that were distributed to the government caucus, it said: "Not going to do it. Won't happen. Not on our watch."

[1735]

But all of a sudden, after the election, it was the single most important thing we could do for the economy. That's what we heard from the minister over and over again.

Another thing, like promising the Evergreen line, is if you've got a good message box or you've got talking points that work for you, you should probably stick with it. Now, the Minister of Finance….

I've heard many members, those members from the government side that vacation over here on our side during the week, and I've heard the people on this side of the House way down in the corner there talk about how they support the HST because it's good for the economy. They got a 14-page document just today, hot off the presses, ten months in the making — an epic 14 pages. That's a page and a quarter a month since they said they weren't going to do it, and now they are.

I asked the Minister of Mines, who is a strong advocate for the harmonized sales tax: "Were there any studies done by your ministry?" He said: "Well, you'll have to ask the Minister of Finance." I said: "Well, aren't you the minister? Aren't you the Minister of Mines? It's on the door. You've got the door, you've got the office, and you've got the people helping you out. Did you ask them if they'd done any studies or any analysis of the impact of the harmonized sales tax?" He told me to talk to the Minister of Finance.

So I did. I took his advice, and I said….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: No, not that one. The junior minister — the Junior Mints minister, the one that gets the smaller suitcase. He said that I should talk to the Minister of Finance. So I did. I said: "Have there been any studies done by finance officials, by Ministry of Energy and Mines officials, by anybody to justify the implementation of the harmonized sales tax?" And he said that no, there was not, but that it was the single most important thing we could do for the economy.

Now, how is it that you could make that statement? My colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke called it faith-based policy-making, and I don't have a problem with that. I don't want to get letters from any faith-based communities in my constituency. I'll leave that to the member from Golden. He can answer all of that mail. But it is interesting.

Faith-based policy-making. Wow. I feel like I'm in Alabama or something. This is the Republican House in Alabama where we're going to just have faith that this is going to work. We're going to hold hands. We're all going to hope really hard.

I'm going to have to pay more for haircuts. Can you imagine how that makes me feel? As time goes by, I'm thinking that I should be paying less for haircuts. But no. There's inflation. There's 2.2 percent growth. We've got material assumptions that say that I'm going to have to pay more. On top of that, I now have the insult of having to go in for my ten-minute haircut that now takes about four and a half minutes, and I'm going to pay tax on it. I'm offended by that.

I remember my friend the Attorney General said he was offended by deficits. He would be offended by paying HST on haircuts, as well, but that's another matter. I didn't even get a laugh on that one. I got one. Oh, Nelson-Creston supported me on that. Thank you very much, Nelson-Creston.

I want to, before I get off the harmonized sales tax…. As we all know, because we've been told this by the minister…. He now has in his hot little hand a 14-page document that confirms his assumptions. He paid for those 14 pages, but that doesn't diminish their value. I'm sure they're very important to him.
[ Page 3263 ]

They're not particularly interesting to my constituents, because they're still stuck on the little thing about: "You said you weren't going to do it. You said you weren't going to introduce a harmonized sales tax." They can't shake that. It sticks in their craw. I don't even know where a craw is or what a craw is, but it's something sticking there, and my constituents are unhappy about it.

I also want to talk about bicycles, because my friend from Saanich South, an avid cyclist, as am I, organized a little gathering on the steps of the Legislature just this week or last week. A whole bunch of people showed up — cyclists — and they said that it was a tax against green, clean transportation initiatives.

Now, on the south Island we have many opportunities to move around on cycles. We don't have access to commuter rail services through the E&N corridor, although I have the support of my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway and, I'm certain, from other members on the other side of the House. My friend from Cranbrook is also an avid supporter of transportation initiatives here on the south Island.

Cycling is one of the greenest ways we can get around here on southern Vancouver Island and, in fact, right across B.C. I asked the Minister of Energy during estimates what steps his ministry was taking to reduce their carbon footprint, and you know what he told me? They bought bicycles. I applauded him. I said: "Good idea." Good thing they bought them before July, because then they don't have to pay a harmonized sales tax on those bicycles. It was a cost-saving initiative as well as a green initiative, hon. Minister. Good for you. Job well done.

[1740]

So if the government…. Hon. Chair, through you to the people on the other side: if you're expending revenue, purchasing bicycles to reduce your carbon footprint, why wouldn't you want to spread the good news? There's something that I can have some faith in. There's something we can all hold hands on. Let's try and reduce our carbon footprint.

What was the solution of Premier Green Jeans? He said: "We're going to allow EnCana to open the Cabin gas plant in the Peace country." I look across at the Minister of Energy. Our emissions are going to go up 3 percent when that plant opens up. They're not going to be reduced by 33 percent by the year 2020, which is a nice, catchy phrase from our friends at the public affairs bureau. They're going to go up 3 percent.

The solution? We're going to buy offsets. That's what the press release said. We're going to buy offsets. We're going to buy bicycles. We might even plant trees at Jordan River, if the government gets their head around that issue.

But this is the trick. If you have a bill that says you're going to reduce your emissions, I think most people expect you to actually reduce your emissions. I have no problem with carbon offsets — none whatsoever. I think that is a useful way for individuals, corporations, companies to do what they can to offset the emissions that they may well have.

But to, by policy, support the creation of a gas plant that will increase your emissions by 3 percent seems to run counter to the message that the government members are giving us on their new-found desire to save us from ourselves and reduce the emissions that lead to greenhouse gases and others collecting in the atmosphere, and climate change.

I think, again, that it's a question for my public. I think if people are honest, and I know they all are…. Each and every one of the 85 of us here is here with the best of intentions.

I think if you really stopped and listened to what people are saying back home — and for me, back home is just around the corner — they don't mind paying a little bit more. They don't mind tightening a belt, showing some leadership in their family and their community, in their city, in this province. But they don't like being played for fools. Where's the pension plan, Mr. Premier? Not in this budget. Where's the reduction in greenhouse gases, Mr. Premier? Not in this budget.

We have a new deputy minister of green energy, I understand. Doesn't report to the Minister of Energy; reports to the Premier. This is the latest shiny bauble to go by and catch the attention of the head of the executive council. I think that's good, well and just that he collects deputy ministers to his side so he can debate and deliberate on policy issues that are important to him and some British Columbians. I think that's important and as it should be.

But the challenge, again, for the people back home is: where is all of this leading? Where is all this so-called green energy leading? Well, I'll tell you, hon. Speaker.

Since 2007 it's led to 18 percent increases in hydro rates — 18 percent increases. Now, that was before Monday last week when we learned that B.C. Hydro is going to the Utilities Commission to seek another 9 percent increase this year, a 13 percent increase next year and another 7 percent the year after that. The argument from B.C. Hydro is that they need it to update aging infrastructure.

Again, the public doesn't have a problem with that. I think they understand and respect that these are public assets that over time need a paint job. It's just like your home. If the roof starts to go, you've got to do something about that. You put a little bit of money aside. That's what Hydro has historically done. They put a sinking fund aside so that they can manage all of these issues across the province.

If that were all it was, I think people might say: "Well, a 30 percent increase in my hydro rates…. If it really means that over the long term we will have stable rates, that's a good thing." But the small print, again.
[ Page 3264 ]

My friend — who said that we've changed the way we write our budgets and that we're putting different piles of money in different pockets — is taking another $250 million from B.C. Hydro this year, the highest dividend B.C. Hydro has ever paid — $609 million from the Crown to the treasury.

Tell me, hon. Speaker, through you to the members on the other side…. Maybe I can get a decent heckle out of them on this one. How do you justify increasing rates under the guise of painting up the dams and throwing a new transmission line up when you're yanking a quarter of a billion dollars out of the Crown to shore up a difficult bottom line? That's a tough sell — tough sell.

[1745]

I've got to go to my constituents and say: "Well, the government has the best of intentions. They're taking a quarter of a billion dollars this year and another quarter of a billion more than last year next year and the year after that. But don't, under any circumstances, link that with your increased hydro rates, because that would be wrong, because we've already read the press release and it says that the money is going to upgrade aging infrastructure."

That's a challenge for me. I think it's a challenge for many on this side of the House, and I would hope that it would be a challenge for the people on that side of the House, because when your constituents learn that the 9 percent that Hydro's after this year is not all going to the purpose that's described in press releases but in fact is going to purposes outlined in the blue book that I talked about earlier, they get a little unhappy, hon. Speaker. They get grumpy — grumpy people. You know what that's all about. We get grumpy people. Nobody likes that. Nobody likes grumpy constituents. I certainly don't.

So I'm forced to tell them the truth as I see it, and again, we have a difference of opinion, I suppose, on the issue. We have a government that says: "No, no, this is just what we're doing; it has nothing to do with more money for the Finance Minister to balance his budget. It's not for other purposes, nefarious or otherwise. It's just to improve our infrastructure." It doesn't seem to me to be the case, but I'll leave it at that.

The last thing I want to discuss before I run out of time is the Western Forest Products lands on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I have been pleasant and kind and generous and charitable with members on that side of the House, but it's important that they understand that a policy decision made by the former Minister of Forests has led to a $20 million expenditure by the ratepayers in the capital regional district because they didn't have the good sense and the foresight to do something about it three years ago.

You know what the interesting thing is, hon. Speaker? Most of the people in this region are going to pay that money. They're going to see an increased levy on their parkland acquisition fund, and they're going to say: "Well, that's okay." But if the government thinks for a minute, for one minute, that they can cheap out on this, they're sadly mistaken. And if you ever, ever want to see a Liberal on southern Vancouver Island again, you should wake up to that fact.

You've got a golden opportunity. You've got a golden opportunity to do the right thing. Do the right thing. It's that simple. Fund the park acquisition, address land claims settlements and do something about economic development on the land base or there won't be a Liberal on Vancouver Island for a century.

Hon. B. Stewart: It's a privilege to rise today to speak about Budget 2010. I'm also honoured to represent the constituents of Westside-Kelowna and thank the residents for their support. I'm also wanting to thank today my staff in Kelowna, Cheryl Doll and Kathleen Mansfield, for their continuous and unwavering support in helping answer constituents' requests in my office as we work through these difficult times.

Along with the members on this side of the House, I am thankful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the budget. We have come through an unprecedented global economic upheaval, and while it will take time, we must look forward to the rebuilding of our economy, creating job opportunities and providing British Columbians with solid education, safe communities and an exceptional standard of living.

Our government will protect vital public services and continue to build for the future. Yes, there are challenges, and no doubt there will be more difficult decisions to be made. This budget is a credit to the Ministry of Finance and the Finance Minister for all their hard work given the daunting times that we are in.

We are now starting to see the signs of certainty in the market again. While everyone has had a personal experience with the economic downturn, now people are starting to see signs of recovery in their own lives.

Many of the residents of our province are just going back to work. Recently, on a visit to Burns Lake, one of our staff, Louise Miller, whose husband and father only a year ago thought their jobs at Babine Forest Products were gone forever…. The mill yard was empty. There were no logs. They were sent home with no date to return. But with positive changes in the global lumber demand, they were pleasantly surprised to get back to work late last year.

Today there's a growing sense of optimism in Burns Lake as they work towards regaining full employment and knowing that we all need to work together to ensure a long-term, sustainable economy.

[1750]

The residents of Burns Lake know the importance of jobs and working together. We have all had to take a hard look at how we do business and what our true priorities are.
[ Page 3265 ]

In my own ministry we are thinking about how we deliver services. As Minister of Citizens' Services, I'm committed to ensuring that the services people need and expect from their government are delivered as efficiently and as effectively as possible. I'm proud to stand in this House and acknowledge the work that this government is doing to protect the public services.

I also think it is vitally important to acknowledge the public service — the people who deliver these services. In the last year alone the B.C. public service has been named one of Canada's greenest employers, one of Canada's top 25 family-friendly employers, one of Canada's top 100 employers and, for the second year in a row, one of B.C.'s top 50 employers.

The public service isn't just the headquarters offices in Victoria. It's those far-flung offices in small communities across the province. Just a few weeks ago I had the opportunity to spend some time with some of our government agents. When it comes to the delivery of services to the public, the GAs are the professionals. I stopped in at several of the Service B.C. offices while the Olympic torch made its way from Prince George to Prince Rupert. The government agents were helpful and friendly as they served people with a whole variety of needs.

Whether it's renewing a driver's licence, registering for the Medical Services Plan, getting income assistance or help in finding a job, Service B.C. centres don't just deliver the basic services. These are British Columbians helping British Columbians. They combine services from various ministries, tailored to each community's needs. One centre may combine services from ICBC and the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, while the other might see court services integrated with services from the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

No matter what agency is inside, everyone coming through the door is welcomed and promised the best possible service. What impressed me was that when the staff asked how they can help, they truly meant it. You know right away that they will always go that extra mile and step to make people feel welcome. This is really the new model of how services are going to be delivered in the future. Whether people call, click or come in, it's got to be a one-window operation where it's up to government to deliver services and not the citizen to find where those services are.

I also mention that Service B.C. offices now have welcome signs that come in 12 different languages. I'm proud to be the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. British Columbia is widely recognized as Canada's most multicultural province. Never before has our province's diversity been on view like it was during the Olympic Games. Visitors from around the world got to see firsthand British Columbia's cultural diversity.

I had the pleasure during the Olympics to extensively use our public transportation system in the Lower Mainland. One day, on one of my many journeys across the Burrard Inlet, I met Sam the barber, who sat herself down next to me on bus No. 230 heading down to Lonsdale Quay. She struck up a conversation that was very animated, as you can imagine with any barber named Sam. Needless to say, we quickly discovered we had lots to share.

More importantly, as we entered the SeaBus and started to see more and more people, we encountered three Asian snowboarders. As our conversation expanded to include them, they proceeded to share their British Columbia experience. These were Japanese English-as-a-second-language students who had left the previous evening to spend the night skiing on Grouse Mountain and then celebrate the Olympic feeling by watching the sunset and sunrise over the harbour and skyline.

They proceeded to show me their camera, their photographs. I was left thinking how easily British Columbians embrace different ethnicities in their daily life and why it is vitally important that we support a welcoming B.C.

[1755]

This budget continues to support programs to build a province that is both welcoming and inclusive — a province that celebrates differences. The EmbraceBC program will continue to support community-based projects that promote multiculturalism. And just as recently as the 2010 Winter Olympic Games we hosted the second annual provincial Nesika Awards. These awards recognized individuals, organizations like the Karen foundation and communities for their outstanding achievements in multiculturalism.

As we expected, this budget predicts another difficult year for government. It will take time for the improving economy to translate into improved government revenues. We know that this is an uncertain time for many people in the public service. We are very sympathetic to anyone who is worrying about what will happen to their job, but we remain committed to keeping the impact of the workforce adjustments to fewer than 5 percent. For those employees that are affected, we will make every effort to make certain that they have the support and the information they need.

We know that even without an economic challenge, maintaining our top-notch public service employees will be a challenge. Our public work force is shrinking. More than 700 members of the public service retired in that last year. The key is transforming how we deliver services and working with our staff to retain them.

Shared Services B.C. is in my ministry. It's a good example. Shared Services is the back office of government. You may not see them, but you see everything that they do, whether it's supporting telecommunications, Internet services or massive projects such as the refurbishment of Robson Square in time for the Olympics — our Olympic showcase, the zip line. Shared Services are the people who get the job done.
[ Page 3266 ]

This division has streamlined itself so that more time, energy and resources can be freed up for front-line services. To do this, they have had to transform and simplify their business processes, and they are doing this as we speak now.

Another aspect of this budget that needs to be acknowledged is that it brings a new level of transparency to government operations. For many years the operating functions of government — the phones, the rent, the computers, the utilities — were spread across ministries. This year all of these costs show up in a single vote. Shared services already were and still will be provided by Shared Services B.C.

The centralization of funding allows government to place the accountability for the Shared Services budget in one organization rather than being dispersed amongst different ministries. It also lets our citizens know clearly where their tax dollars are going. I know that my ministry will be operating with a smaller budget than it has in the past. But we are ready and we are eager to face this challenge by collaborating on how we modernize the operations of government and how we become more efficient.

Another commitment that this budget continues to support is our commitment to bring economic opportunities to all parts of the province. Although Internet connectivity doesn't have the high profile of health and education, it is in some ways just as vital. High-speed Internet access helps citizens access vital services, especially when they live in rural and remote communities. More than that, it is an opportunity to build social and economic links with B.C., Canada and the world.

Our commitment to bridge the digital divide in British Columbia continues. We look forward to working collaboratively with communities, First Nations, the private sector and other levels of government to achieve this goal.

Another goal we are working towards is using technology such as social media to engage with citizens in new ways. Conversations about government policy are already taking place at this time on line. In order for the government to be a part of the conversation, we need to be where the people are, so we are moving ahead to engage citizens through all venues that technologies offer.

[1800]

We are rethinking about how we deliver services across government. For example, I was recently speaking with the Minister of Environment about the e-licence program, which was a huge success last year. It shows how we can deliver services in a simplified, cost-effective manner and is a model that can be applied in many other areas.

On another visit to our offices in the northeast this year, one of the sports stores that had originally been against the idea of the e-licence came out and was telling me about how enthusiastically they supported it and how quickly they'd like to see it expanded to include hunting and tags that they sell for their other game licences.

So it shows that we can deliver services in a simplified and cost-effective manner and is a model that could be applied in many other areas. Sometimes, to be able to deliver more efficient services that save time and money, we have to make the initial investment, but the overall benefits are worth it.

Another thing we are doing is looking at standardizing archetypes within professions within government. Different service providers require certain tools, and we are looking at ways to provide the needed equipment in a cost-effective fashion.

This budget is about providing certainty so people know that the services they rely on will still be there when they need them. School boards will have the funds to meet the need to pay teachers' wage increases. As well, the school facility grants have been restored to an amount of $110 million.

This budget also sets out $60 million over the next three years as a legacy and sports fund. Building on the legacy of the most successful Winter Games ever, the $60 million legacy fund will enhance opportunities among British Columbians in the arts, such as the visual arts, music, theatre and dance. It will also facilitate increased participation in youth sport, including improved athletic and coach development.

This has a great impact for groups in our communities that provide opportunities for young people to develop in sport, like something in my local riding, the Mount Boucherie figure skating club in Kelowna — organizations I heard a lot about during the last budget when we were not able to fund them to the full level that they had received in previous years, supporting youth and disabled sports in our community.

We are continuing to invest in providing the best health care system to British Columbians. We are adding $2 billion to our health care over the next three years.

From an economic point of view, the budget shows good fiscal management and discipline. It's been hard work, but we are all sharing in the work to support this process to ensure a strong future for British Columbians.

This budget supports communities, businesses dedicated to reinvesting in their operations to ensure sustainability — businesses in my own community like the Gorman Bros. mill in West Kelowna that has a labour force of over 325 people. Their founder, Ross Gorman, who founded an operation on continued reinvestment and ingenuity, has continued to successfully pass that on to the next generation and again on to the next generation as they come up in their business.

Gorman Bros. have successfully reinvested in their facility to ensure that the latest technology is in place to make the best products of their kind on the market while generating the least amount of waste possible. They have
[ Page 3267 ]
taken the initiative to diversify their trade and open up new international markets beyond the United States.

I genuinely believe in a bright and prosperous future for British Columbia, especially after travelling through the north and speaking to some of the students at UNBC. I have to say that I was very impressed meeting the students from UNBC, talking to them about the future opportunities in their own community and how they grasp the difference about the fact that they had an education that they got in the north.

The fact is that they were looking at opportunities that we don't even see, being down here in the lower part of the province, which they see every day. They're optimistically looking forward to getting their degree and getting out there to work. Their optimism, their energy and dreams for the future….

The certainty that this budget provides by positioning us in a strong place to be aggressive and opening up new markets and adding value in all of our endeavours…. British Columbia is going to come out of this downturn so much stronger than it ever has been in the past. While B.C. is moving past the recession, we still have work to do.

[1805]

The 2010 Winter Olympics were such a success for our province that I felt excited and privileged to be a part of the experience. The Winter Games gave us an opportunity to showcase this beautiful province as a great place to live, work, holiday and invest.

It is not over yet. With the Paralympic Games just around the corner, we are using the energy and the enthusiasm generated by these games to keep building the province we dream of. The games have improved our situation. We must capitalize on the hard work that we have already done not just since the recession but for the last ten years.

This government has taken B.C. from a negative credit rating to a triple A, even in an economic downturn. We have not only improved the credit rating; we have paid down the province's operating debt by $9 billion. We have built new trade and investment partnerships worldwide, but this is a time to recognize that we still need to set and keep our spending priorities in line.

We must focus on putting money into the services that are vital to the public. We are not going to turn our backs on this province's most vulnerable. In fact, this budget is going to protect those who are most at risk. This is why we are putting money into health care, into education and into programs to assist families, sports and the arts.

I am proud of this government's record of sound fiscal management, and we are building on that foundation. We have set a goal to return to balanced budgets in the next three years. This budget is a sound fiscal plan that rises to that challenge, and I am proud to invite all members of this House to support the 2010 British Columbia provincial budget.

B. Simpson: I rise, shockingly for the members opposite, to speak against this budget.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: They're already calling on me to note the time, Madam Speaker. That's just patently unfair.

Before I get started, I do want to recognize, as others have and as we all ought to do, all of the people that make it possible for us to be down here doing the work we do here — my two constituency assistants, who beaver away at home to keep constituents happy. I was home on the weekend and got an opportunity to attend a number of events, and people have told me time and time again that they really appreciate the timeliness, quality and professionalism of the response that they get from my office. I want to thank Adam and Angie for that.

I've had lots of comments on my tie today. I want to recognize my lovely wife, who bought this for me, and let her know that I miss her dearly, and this is a reminder of her. I'm not going to wear it every day, though, just to remind me of her.

I want to go off on something that the Minister of Citizens' Services has stated before I get into the substance of what I have to say. As Corky Evans used to say, for the folks at home, what we're doing here is a budget debate. We all get an opportunity to say our two bits about the budget.

The real substance of this debate will occur in the ministry-by-ministry estimate debates. That's when we get to peel apart the layers of the onion and find out what's really going on. As we saw in an exchange earlier today between one of our opposition critics and the Finance Minister, back and forth about what numbers were real numbers and what numbers were right numbers, it is confusing, I think, for most people, because we get multiple books.

You have to peel through it, and there's really only one person in this building and in this chamber who has enough intimate knowledge to know how to reconcile all those numbers. That's the Minister of Finance, until such time as we all get an opportunity to peel the layers of the onion apart.

I've often said here in the five and a bit years that I've been speaking in this House that I would love to figure out ways to make this place work better. The Minister of Citizens' Services raised an issue that allows me to speak to that, and that's the issue of e-licences. It would have been great if all of us could have been apprised that that's the path we were going down, what the time frames were and what the parameters were.

[1810]

The e-licences cause grief in my riding, where I have whole communities that are major fishing outdoor communities that have no Internet access either at the household level or at the commercial level. We had situ-
[ Page 3268 ]
ations where we had individuals at Quesnel Lake, for example, that only have to go two feet to fish but have to drive 80 kilometres to get a licence and drive back and, as they would point out, pay carbon tax on that drive back and forth. Their local store couldn't issue them a licence because nobody had Internet.

I don't dispute, and I said that to the folks, that this is the path we have to go down. We have to get more efficient. We have to do these things, but we're a very diverse province. I've often stated that we have people on the west side of the Fraser that are still on party lines, let alone on dial-up and modem.

There are realities in British Columbia that we need to be confronted with. Somehow if we can figure out how to work together on those kinds of initiatives and get that feedback loop working in advance of rollouts like that, I think we can take a lot of the pain and cynicism out of the system that doesn't have to be there. I look forward to continuing to work with the minister on trying to make that a successful program.

What I want to do today — again, for the folks at home, I'll speak a little bit today and then a little bit tomorrow just because of the timing — is start with HST and what happened today in the Legislature, or outside the Legislature, when we finally got a report from the government that we've been asking for, for some time about what the logic was that the government was applying to the HST and why they thought it was good for British Columbia.

It's really unfortunate, because the timing of this report is not going to take away from the cynicism. It's going to add to the cynicism. As we pointed out in question period, it feels like a bought report at a particular time in this government's history where it's struggling with a populace that still doesn't buy the arguments that they have presented. It is a bit of a sordid history. Those arguments are, first, no HST and no campaign during the election on HST, and then after the campaign, the first rationale that came from the government was that we had to do it because Ontario did it.

Well, I can tell you that in my constituency people were going: "Huh? Because Ontario did it, we have to do it. We have to line ourselves up with Ontario." That didn't make any sense to anybody. Then, of course, it was revenue-neutral, and as we're finding out in this budget, it's not. It may actually be revenue-negative, but it's certainly cost-positive to households.

Then we had the whole export industry side and the job benefit, and so on. We had major export industries coming out and saying that this is something they needed, etc., for jobs. I want to talk about the relationship between HST and jobs momentarily.

Then an interesting thing happened in the throne speech where somehow it got tied into take-home pay — that somehow HST was necessary to stabilize take-home pay. Again, that doesn't wash with most people. So in the budget speech a short time later, we got that HST is actually a health tax.

Of course, one of our members read out how laughable that was seen by pretty much every pundit who looked at it and saw it as a cynical attempt to make people feel that if they were against the HST, somehow they were against good-quality health care. Today what we see is the government again kind of back-pedalling out of that and getting into the study that we've got.

The study indicates, according to this Mr. Mintz, an economist — and we heard all about him today — that HST alone over the next ten years should see $11.5 billion in investment and should see 113,000 jobs to the province — just HST alone. The problem, of course, is that this is one economist's view of the implications of a particular tax.

I think one of the difficulties we've got right now is that as little confidence as there is in politicians, there's not a lot of confidence in economists that they actually understand the realities of the world we're confronted with. I've heard many of the ministers on that side say: "You know, what economist actually predicted the downturn in the economy?" The economists were caught off guard by that, yet we'll go to them and ask them how a particular tax works.

The way that economists will treat these things is they use whatever models or ideology they have. If they believe a low-tax regime is the best way to stimulate an economy, then you get a report like this.

[1815]

It was pointed out today that Mr. Mintz has reversed his position on HST when he was paid by the government of Ontario and then paid by the province of British Columbia. I would suggest to the government that the easiest way to cut through all of this is….

The government did not run in the election on it, yet day after day they are found to have to defend it. If they truly believe it's defensible, let's have town hall meetings around the province about it. Let's go and defend it in the areas of the province where people are going to have to live with the consequences of this HST.

Don't bring the bill in. They've already given half a billion dollars back to the federal government and delayed getting that, so it's only a small portion that's coming. Delay getting that, and go to the public and say: "Here's what we believe is the rationale for HST. Here's what we think is good. Here are the issues that we're trying to address with the exemptions. And on balance, what do you think?"

Engage. Because they didn't do it during the election doesn't mean they can't do it now. If the government truly believes this is defensible, go out, defend it, hear directly from the people and decide what they want to do with it.

Now, the second thing that happened today is that there's a group of businesses…. I emphasize that it is
[ Page 3269 ]
one of the largest sectors in the province and a growing sector, and that is the tourism and service sector, the restaurant businesses, taxi cabs, bike stores. As we've seen, a whole sector is saying: "This tax isn't good for us."

That whole sector has done their homework. They have their studies done by economists, paid for by them, that say this will result in job losses. Now here we have a group of economists saying that a sector is going to get hurt and jobs are going to be lost, but that report won't be accepted by this government. They pooh-pooh it. They quote the Olympics, actually, and say: "How can anything go wrong in the tourism sector after the Olympics?"

They won't listen to that sector when it says that this is going to have dramatic and immediate impacts on that sector with respect to jobs, because they say it's self-interest. That's how they articulate it — that the studies they have are all just based on them funding their own studies.

Well, the government just funded its own study to rationalize HST. The argument doesn't wash. If you've got economists, if you're going to bank on economists giving you good information, then you should take a good hard look at what that sector is saying, take their numbers at face value and do something to redress that.

Then the third piece that I struggle with, with respect to this, which I don't hear anybody on the other side arguing the point that's been made over and over again, is that HST is a transfer of the tax burden away from the larger corporations and businesses and onto the consumers. It transfers almost $2 billion onto the backs of consumers.

There's some assistance at the lower end of the income scale for this, but it does not address the impact it's going to have on individuals with fixed income, individuals like seniors on fixed pensions, individuals with an inability to increase their wage-earning capability. We've already seen that this government has said no wage increases for the public sector. That means the HST is a pure cost plus to the households of every public sector employee in the province. There's no other way you can see that. That's just the logic of how this thing is going to apply.

This government has indicated that it's good for the export sector, and they haven't argued that it's a transfer to the consumers. The problem with that logic is that, as any economist will tell you, anywhere between 65 percent and 80 percent of our economy is based on consumer spending. It's based on disposable income. The export component to our economy in terms of jobs is diminishing year over year, and particularly diminishing under this government. The lion's share of the economy will be hurt by this, yet the government doesn't want to listen to that logic at all.

Again, the challenge to this government is simple. If it is in fact defensible, stop rationalizing it. Stop giving it a new nickname every day. Stop coming forward with yet another laughable argument as to why to do it. Admit they should have run the election on this and seen what the electorate said and, in failing to do that, take a pause. Don't bring the bill forward. Join with us. Go out and hear directly from people in British Columbia on what they want to see happen to this tax.

[1820]

Now I just want to talk a little bit about the models behind what's in this document, and then I'll have to close off for the day.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As I said before, what economists do is…. Basically, they're as ideological as any politician. They have their own ideology of how things should work. They apply models.

There's an interesting story about one of the former heads of the World Bank and the economic secretary for the Clinton administration in the application, for example, of a thing called the Washington accord to Third World countries, which had changes in land ownership, changes in banks — all kinds of changes.

This individual was sitting with a group of bankers, and a group of people from one of the African nations — I think it was Uganda — came in and said that the application of this Washington accord to that country was destabilizing the country. It was causing social unrest. It was delinking people from subsistence farming. It was causing all kinds of grief.

He said that to a person the bankers and economists who were sitting and listening to that said, "Well, that simply can't be," because their model would not allow reality to come in. That's what happens with economists.

I would challenge this government. Before you go out and consult with people about HST, do a couple of exercises to show people what happens when you give large corporate tax cuts. This government gave 50 percent forgiveness for school tax to industrial ratepayers on the premise that it would create jobs. I challenge the government to bring the study forward, because they've had the time, and tell us exactly how many jobs have been created by that tax cut alone.

Again, all it is, is some economist saying that if you reduce taxes, you get jobs. Yet throughout North America, throughout western Europe, we've seen that that simply does not hold. What you do by reducing taxation, what you do at that level, what you do by deregulation — what you do by giving up what you've gained in employment standards, environmental standards, safety standards — is try to compete with the rock bottom in the economy, and you never win.

What you do is lose the jobs anyway. What you do is make your own progressive society go backwards. This government knows — a 15 percent increase in income
[ Page 3270 ]
assistance recipients just recently. We all know that the poverty gap is growing. It's not getting better.

We're not creating family-supporting, good-paying jobs. Tomorrow, when I get a chance, I'll talk about the fact that somehow we cannot see the public service as a way to create family-supporting, good-paying jobs. Somehow those jobs — 3,500 of which will be cut as a result of this budget — don't count. The only jobs we're trying to create are jobs in the private sector.

Partly, it's a problem with how the government sees things. When they go to economists and say, "If we reduce taxes, will we get jobs?" the answer is yes. The second thing is…. [Applause.]

Again, the member applauds. Take the challenge. That's all I'm asking them to do. Take the challenge. Bring it forward. For British Columbia, year over year, in the cuts to the big banks and financial institutions, it's $100 million to big banks posting billions of dollars in profits, tax deferral for children and families. How does that work, and where are the jobs? Show us the jobs. Bring the study forward that shows the jobs. I guarantee you that you're going to be hard-pressed to find them.

I would suggest that it's time for a rethink of that whole strategy. As I said during the throne speech, there are some great debates that we need to have in this House. One is the debate about how we collectively pool our resources called taxes and how we use those resources to get good government services, which in themselves create jobs, which in themselves also create community benefit and build the kind of society that attracts investment.

[1825]

In a Conference Board of Canada study on what attracted investment, taxes were ninth out of ten. Education, road infrastructure, good health care, availability of a highly skilled workforce — all of those things, bought through the public purse, trumped taxation.

Noting the time, I reserve my right to speak again on this, and I move adjournment of debate.

B. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2010: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175