2011 Legislative Session: Third 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)

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 5

[ Page 6309 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Tributes

OLYMPIC ATHLETES AND VOLUNTEERS

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise today to recognize that exactly one year ago today, February 16, 2010, Squamish resident Maëlle Ricker became the first British Columbia Olympian to win an Olympic medal on Canadian soil.

[1335]

I know everyone in this House is proud of the accomplishments of British Columbia's Olympians and Paralympians. I am pleased to inform the House that the government will formally recognize these special achievements. Seven proclamations will be made to declare commemorative days in the names of British Columbian athletes who won medals during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.

Athletes will be recognized on the one-year anniversary of their medal-winning performance. An eighth proclamation will honour the volunteers who made the Olympics and Paralympics such a great success.

Proclaiming days in honour of our Olympic medallists and volunteers is a small token of our appreciation that we can show for everything they have done. Our athletes have inspired a generation of youth to pursue their own dreams. Our famous blue-jacketed volunteers became the face of our nation.

We begin by proclaiming today, February 16, 2011, Maëlle Ricker Day, marking the one-year anniversary of her gold-medal victory in snowboard cross. I ask the House to join me in recognizing Maëlle and all British Columbia's Olympic and Paralympic medallists.

Introductions by Members

D. Black: I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Cody Walker, who is here with us in the gallery today. Cody is a student at the University of Victoria and has come to work with the official opposition caucus through the University of Victoria's law co-op program. I'd like to ask everyone in the House to please make Cody welcome.

L. Reid: I have the pleasure today of introducing a brand-new British Columbian. He is three months old. His name is Joseph Gered MacDonald. His mom is Bree MacDonald, and she and I used to work together many years ago. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. James: I'd like to make an announcement during introductions that has been a long time coming. I want to admit to this House first that I have been struggling with envy over the last six years as member after member stood up to announce their grandchildren. The member for Chilliwack announced enough grandchildren for the entire House in the Legislature over the last six years. So I stand very proudly today to announce the birth of my first grandchild.

On February 3 Charlie Deane Dunsmoor-Farley James was born, nine pounds ten ounces. He has a lot to live up to with that name. Someone told me it's too big for a campaign sign, so perhaps that will be good. He won't be going into politics. Evan and Bronwyn, his mom and dad, and big sister Hayden are doing wonderfully, and I continue to be a proud grandma.

Mr. Speaker: Not to be outdone and exercising Speaker privilege, on November 14, 2010, I was fortunate enough to have our third grandchild. Allison Elizabeth Barisoff was born in Penticton, the sister of my granddaughter Kayla.

Hon. I. Black: Joining us in the gallery today is the president and CEO of WorkSafe B.C. I know that all members in the House are very mindful of the work that the men and women who comprise that excellent organization do on a daily basis to help keep people in British Columbia safe and get them home from work safely. I ask all of the members of the House to make Dave Anderson feel most welcome.

M. Sather: Joining us in the gallery today are 46 grade 11 students from Westview Secondary School in Maple Ridge. They are here with their teacher Patrick Glover and four other adults. I got the opportunity to meet them earlier, and they enjoyed our fine precincts, as they all came over on a volunteer basis. They stepped up to the plate, and they're here to learn about democracy. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.

[1340]

B. Simpson: It would be an understatement to say that my life has changed somewhat since the last time I stood up in this House. Some of it's good, and some of it's sad.

The good part: I want to introduce two new staff members that have joined my team. Tracey Janes will be helping me with policy and research and Brian Kowalski with outreach, and they're a great complement to my hard-working staff back in Quesnel. I ask the House to please recognize them.
[ Page 6310 ]

On a more sombre note, I want to recognize the passing of my father, who loved this place. All of you were characters in his daily soap opera, as with my mom. Whenever they came here, they loved to meet all of the famous people in the hallways and speak to you as if they'd known you forever, and some of you experienced that.

My dad passed away from pancreatic cancer December 14. He passed away the way he wanted to. He maintained his dignity, and he did it with intestinal fortitude. I want to thank the staff at Kelowna General Hospital, who were incredible for the few days that he spent there, and especially the staff at the hospice house in Kelowna because they made it easy for all of us to say goodbye to him.

I want to thank all of you who sent condolences and to recognize my father today.

J. Horgan: I want to recognize in the gallery two individuals — one, Bernard von Schulmann, here from the capital region; and also, for aspiring leadership candidates on both sides of the House, his son Ben, who has taken out a membership in a party that I will not disclose. So keep your p's and q's on both sides of the House. Would you please welcome Ben von Schulmann, a newly activated partisan of indeterminate nature.

R. Austin: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a dear friend visiting from Kitimat. Rob Goffinet is a now recently retired teacher, after having spent 35 years in that wonderful profession. I'd like the House to join me in making him feel most welcome.

Statements

ORGAN DONATION

K. Conroy: I, too, wanted to take the opportunity to rise today, because it's actually the first time I've had the opportunity, since I donated a kidney last May, to thank all of you for all your warm wishes and support. It was really overwhelming. Both Ed and I survived. Ed survived remarkably well. I want to thank our friends and family for the support we had from them, as well as the B.C. Transplant Society, Canadian Blood Services and the team at VGH in Vancouver as well as the team at Toronto General.

I want to ask you all to take the time to sign up to be an organ donor. It's really easy. You can get on the website, transplant.bc.ca, and type in your CareCard number to find out if you are a donor. But if you're not, please register. It's a really easy thing to do. I'm testament to that. You don't have to wait until you're gone to pass on something as valuable as the gift of life, and you can do it through donating blood. So please, all take the time to do it, and thank you again for all of your warm wishes.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill M201 — Recall and Initiative
Amendment Act, 2011

D. Black presented a bill intituled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011.

D. Black: Mr. Speaker, I move that a bill entitled Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

D. Black: This bill amends the Recall and Initiative Act to require an initiative vote be held within six months of the initiative petition and draft bill being referred to the Chief Electoral Officer for an initiative vote. It addresses the concern that the time period between an expression of the will of the people being made through a successful initiative petition and the actual initiative vote is too long. It also addresses the concern that such a time delay may create uncertainty with respect to the province's economy.

Additionally, this bill allows an initiative vote to be held within nine months of referral if that referral occurred before the coming into force of this act. This means this amendment would allow British Columbians to have their say on the HST before the end of June.

The petition to scrap the HST was deemed to have been successful in August 2010, but under the current rules, a final decision cannot be made until September 2011. The people of B.C. have made it clear that this is too long, and they've made a compelling argument for an early vote.

Finally, after facing significant public backlash, every leadership candidate running to become Premier has committed to an early initiative vote. This bill establishes the framework and paves the way for just that.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

[1345]

Bill M201, Recall and Initiative Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION EFFORTS
IN COMOX VALLEY

D. McRae: When you travel north on the Old Island Highway between Courtenay and Campbell River, you
[ Page 6311 ]
pass by one of the most beautiful farms in British Columbia. Shelter Point Farms is owned by longtime Comox Valley farmers, the Evans family. On February 2 I had the pleasure of visiting their farm for a monumental announcement.

The farm has long been recognized for its tremendous value to migratory waterfowl and other wildlife. The land provides valuable feeding opportunities and resting sites for water birds as they travel between their northern breeding grounds and their southern wintering habitat.

The Evans family has always been a great steward of the land, but I'm pleased to say they've now partnered with Environment Canada, Ducks Unlimited and the Comox Valley regional district to ensure that the biological integrity of this valuable wildlife habitat is protected for future generations. Through their combined efforts, a conservation covenant is now on the farm, which will ensure the continued production of its traditional agricultural crops and at the same time protect its value as wildlife habitat.

Ducks Unlimited and the Comox Valley regional district also purchased 161 acres of woodland, wetland and river floodplain upstream of the Oyster River estuary. This area is teeming with birds, bears, deer and rich fish habitat. This land has now been named Bear Creek Nature Park and will provide recreation and public education opportunities for the residents. In particular, it will allow the volunteer-led Oyster River Enhancement Society to continue work restoring salmon stocks in the river.

Conservation of Bear Creek Nature Park and the Shelter Point Farm has secured almost 520 acres of wetland, agricultural and forested habitat through a combination of donation, acquisition and conservation covenant. I want to express my gratitude to the Evans family, Ducks Unlimited and the CVRD for having the vision to make this happen. They have preserved this priceless jewel for future generations of people and of wildlife.

ALEX CUBA

D. Donaldson: One reviewer has said: "A Cuban immigrant in the Canadian backwoods is the new and unconventional face of Latin music." Well, I'm not sure about describing Stikine or Smithers, in particular, as the Canadian backwoods, but Alex Cuba is definitely the new face of Latin music.

He won a Latin Grammy for best new artist in Las Vegas in November, and on Sunday night he was at the STAPLES Center in Los Angeles, nominated for a 2011 Grammy award in the best Latin pop album category. He didn't win — this time — but as a reporter put it, "He comes to the Grammys as a left-field nominee, an absolute outsider," while the other artists in the same category are all on music label giants like Warner and Sony.

Alex has his own indie label, Caracol Records — phone his home number in Smithers, and that's what you get on the answering machine — and recorded his Grammy-nominated album right here in Victoria at Joby Baker's Tillicum studio.

I last saw Alex perform on a cold winter night in mid-December in Smithers. It was magical — a small venue, a building renovated by volunteers run by the Bulkley Valley Museum Society. Alex also honed his skills at other arts group venues in small towns in B.C. like the Kispiox Valley and in Smithers, at music festivals.

That is why funding to arts groups in small communities is so important and why cutting it can rob the world of the skills and talents of those living in rural B.C., let alone the lost economic and social benefits to those of us living in small communities.

Alex is very dynamic on stage and delivers his powerful performances as part of a trio. It's his approach of doing more with less. Doing more with less — now, that has to be the rural, northern influence on his music.

So congratulations, Alex. An amazing artistic achievement from what some call the Canadian backwoods.

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES OF
PETER MAARSMAN

D. Hayer: I'm honoured to speak about the incredible value of volunteerism to our city of Surrey and the importance it has to our entire province. Throughout B.C. we have many not-for-profit organizations, such as the Rotary, the Lions, the Kinsmen and a host of other non-profit societies who do amazing work for the betterment of all of our citizens. Without their dedication and devotion to improve the life of all of us, British Columbia would not be the special and spectacular place that we all love.

[1350]

But none of those great organizations would operate without the willing support of the individual members and volunteers, because volunteering is all about the giving of time, work and money to help others.

One such individual in my city of Surrey is Peter Maarsman, helped greatly by his wife, Sally. Peter has lived all his life in Surrey, volunteered with many non-profit societies and spent all his effort to make our community a better place to live, work and do business in.

Peter is a governor and former president of the Surrey Board of Trade and former executive director of the Surrey Crime Prevention Society. Under his leadership, the Crime Prevention Society grew from just one employee and a handful of members to a thriving organization that has eight staff, hundreds of volunteers and hundreds of members.

He was also the president of the Green Timbers Heritage Society and through his efforts saw our government turn over a huge Green Timbers property to
[ Page 6312 ]
the city of Surrey for heritage and the community development project. Peter has also been named Surrey's Citizen of the Year.

I ask the House to join me in thanking this outstanding resident for all the hard work he has done to make our community and our province the best place in which to live, work and do business.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

K. Corrigan: Between 2003 and 2008, 12 percent of all homicides in British Columbia were related to domestic violence. Domestic violence cases constitute the second-largest case type for Crown counsel after impaired driving. The impact of domestic violence on women is immeasurable, but even more immeasurable is the toll that it takes upon the children who experience it as victims or as witnesses.

I'd like to take a moment to honour the memory of Christian Lee, who had turned just six when he, his mother and his grandparents were stabbed to death by his father. This tragedy is made even greater by the fact that it may have been prevented by more coordination between the justice, victim support and police services systems.

Domestic violence not only puts children at risk of physical harm but also exposes them to the psychological trauma caused by witnessing violence. We need strong, direct action to protect children from domestic violence, but support for these children has been sadly lacking.

As the child and youth representative said in her report into the tragic loss of Christian Lee: "The child welfare, criminal justice and family justice systems must all work together to provide effective support for victims and especially for children in these dangerous and sometimes lethal situations. They are not working together now, and the need for change is urgent."

There simply hasn't been enough urgency in the response to this report and in the response to the instances of domestic violence that are reported in courthouses and police stations every day in communities all across this province. We need to do more on a policy level to prevent these tragedies. Beyond that, we must change the behaviour of individuals and of society to make it clear that we are united in our demand that domestic violence will not be tolerated and that we will not let children become the collateral damage of domestic violence.

Those of us who didn't know Christian have an added responsibility to not only remember him but also to continue to honour his memory through seeking positive change both within our institutions and within our society.

OLYMPIC GAMES EVENTS AND
LEGACY IN RICHMOND

R. Howard: This week marks the one-year anniversary for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, where we all adopted the phrase: "Go, Canada, go!" The world came to British Columbia, and we gave them one of the most popular sports events of all time. Nowhere have the games left such a lasting legacy than in Richmond. Two projects in particular I had the pleasure of being involved with from start to finish, from inception to up and operating successfully: the Richmond Oval and the Canada Line.

The Richmond Oval stands as a monument to B.C. sports. With its majestic roof made from pine beetle wood, this breathtaking riverfront venue and its Spirit Square park offer Richmond a place to come together, to compete and get active. Whether it's the two Olympic-sized ice rinks, the indoor soccer fields, personal training or meeting and events spaces, at the Richmond Oval, there is something for everyone.

[1355]

Then there's the Canada Line. Now almost two years in operation, this rapid transit service has far exceeded ridership expectations. Its popularity was already growing when the Olympics arrived, and it soon became an integral part of getting visitors and residents to the pavilions and world-class sporting events.

It's been a year since the world came to British Columbia, a great opportunity to reflect on the legacy of the 2010 games, but it's also a chance to look to the future — a new year to move forward, carrying the spirit of those 17 days in 2010, sharing and renewing our common bonds, enjoying the diversity in our communities and the growth my riding now enjoys. The future has never looked brighter.

CULTURAL EVENTS IN NORTH COAST AREA

G. Coons: The north coast of British Columbia is renowned for its natural beauty, but the cultural diversity and beauty are equally impressive. Despite the economic difficulties this region is facing, cultural celebrations and collaborations are strong.

In January Prince Rupert saw its first-ever Sugar Shack Festival. For four days the Association des francophones et francophiles du Nord-Ouest hosted a film festival, brunch, live music and much more.

Last week Prince Rupert had the pleasure of hosting the 52nd All-Native Basketball Tournament. This annual event brings in thousands of players, spectators and vendors from First Nations communities throughout British Columbia. Prince Rupert was bustling with life and energy. The basketball skills were highly impressive, and the abundance of delicious fried bread, clam fritters and roe on kelp was remarkable.
[ Page 6313 ]

This weekend on Haida Gwaii the village of Queen Charlotte is hosting an agricultural strategy meeting to discuss food security, rising transportation costs and local food production and storage issues on the islands.

In the last week of February one of my favourite events, Hobiyee, is happening in Kincolith — a tremendous new year's celebration for the Nisga'a and many other First Nations. It begins on the full moon in the month of February with the coming of the vital oolichan. I have the honour of drumming with the Gitmaxmak'ay Nisga'a Dancers from Prince Rupert and look forward to partaking in the revelry in the village of Gingolx.

Today I've only highlighted a handful of the many cultural festivities and events that are happening in the region I represent. Despite the loss of employment and growing challenges of living in rural communities, the constituents in this region will not lose their identity or connections with each other and the land.

Oral Questions

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES
IN B.C. RAIL COURT CASE

D. Black: Yesterday's budget cut funds to Crown prosecutors by $6 million, the same amount of money the government spent to cover the defence costs of two Liberal insiders convicted of corruption in the B.C. Rail trial.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Why did his government bend the rules to cover the defence costs of Dave Basi and Bob Virk?

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the same amount reflected in this budget was reflected in the fiscal plan last year. There is not anticipated to be any change to the deployment of prosecutors within the ministry.

The balance of the question I will take on notice on behalf of the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition has a supplementary.

D. Black: The minister knows that the rules were broken. The government only covers defence costs in the event of an acquittal, but two Liberal insiders were given a last-minute sweetheart deal that cut short the B.C. Rail corruption trial.

So again to the Deputy Premier: why is there one set of rules for B.C. Liberals convicted of corruption and another set of rules for everyone else?

Hon. R. Coleman: This case was before the courts for seven years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

[1400]

Hon. R. Coleman: It was thoroughly investigated by police. A mass amount of documentation was provided to the defence and to the court. A special prosecutor had conduct of the case and acted independently of government at all times. The results were that charges were laid and two individuals pleaded guilty to committing criminal breaches of trust.

Those individuals also pleaded guilty to wrongfully disclosing confidential information and providing assistance for which they received financial benefit. Regrettably, they put their personal gain ahead of the public interest.

In a statement of fact filed with the court at the conclusion of the case, the accused confirmed that they acted alone and were solely responsible for their criminal acts. The decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by the government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. These two senior public servants acted on their own authority without any political direction, influence or approval. These issues have been extensively canvassed by the media and by the courts.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

D. Black: It's clear that the minister will not answer my questions. Maybe they will answer the questions posed by someone who wants the job to be leader of the Liberal Party. Here's the question: "Why did the Crown offer the plea deal in the first place? Did they feel they needed to throw in the $6 million in order to get the accused to sign off?" That was a question from Christy Clark last October — a good question.

British Columbians want to know why they were fleeced out of $6 million. So to the Deputy Premier: would he now like to answer Ms. Clark's questions in the Legislature?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said in my earlier answer, a special prosecutor had conduct of this case and acted independently of government at all times. I also told you that the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by the government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. Those two public servants acted on their authority without any political direction, influence or approval.
[ Page 6314 ]

L. Krog: Of course, now that Ms. Clark is running to be leader of the B.C. Liberals, she's running for cover on the B.C. Rail deal. The former Attorney General and B.C. leadership hopeful had to apologize when he tried to pin the blame for this repugnant deal on the special prosecutor in the criminal justice branch.

Here's another question from Christy Clark: "Did the former Attorney General sign off on the agreement or not?" Can the Deputy Premier answer that question?

Hon. R. Coleman: I will repeat for the member opposite that the decision on the fate of the legal fees which were reimbursed by the government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. These two senior public servants acted on their authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Look, here's what we know. Just as the B.C. Rail corruption trial was about to hear from the former Minister of Finance, the former Liberal Minister of Finance, a special deal was cooked up to end that trial. The former Attorney General said publicly that he signed off on the deal. That's what he told the public on October 18 last year. It was his final decision.

Again to the Deputy Premier: so if it was his decision to say…. The simple question is this: why on earth did the Attorney General cut that deal for B.C. Liberal insiders who were convicted of corruption?

Hon. R. Coleman: Again to the member opposite: the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. Those two senior public servants acted on their own authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

[1405]

N. Macdonald: If you are a non-political civil servant convicted of a crime related to your job, you can count on one thing. The government will come after you hard for your defence costs. It will be your house, your assets. Everything is on the table. But if you happen to be a B.C. Liberal insider with a politically embarrassing story to tell, then things are completely different, aren't they?

Dave Basi put up his house as collateral for his defence costs. Why did the government not collect?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said before, the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances.

The members opposite should know that the policies in which they were operating were policies that operated in the 1990s as well as during the term of this government. These two senior public servants acted on their own authority without political direction, as they should have, and without influence or approval.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: This is the point. This is not how it works. There was a conviction. Look at the contrast. Before anyone in this province can collect welfare, they have to sell almost all of their assets. A single mother who is desperate has to sell almost everything that they own before this government will help them at all. But if you are a B.C. Liberal insider, this government will bend over backwards to help you, to the tune of $6 million.

So the question is for this government. Why is there a special set of rules for B.C. Liberals convicted of corruption?

Hon. R. Coleman: I do find it offensive that the member opposite is impugning the reputation of some professional public servants in the province of British Columbia. But I will tell you, hon. Member, that the decision of the legal fees reimbursed by government….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: Knowing the public servants who would have made this decision, I think it is improper to impugn their reputations.

As I said, the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out the circumstances. These two public servants acted on their own authority, which they have, without any political direction, influence or approval.

R. Fleming: The people of British Columbia want answers into this $6 million deal that shut down the case, because the deal stinks.

Let's look at it. It was an agreement that let one defendant walk. It let two plead guilty to corruption charges that carried sentences up to ten years in prison and put them under the mildest terms of house arrest. It let them keep their houses when government had a piece of paper saying: "Your legal bills are in exchange
[ Page 6315 ]
for it being repaid if you're found guilty." All of that was given away.

The question is to the Deputy Premier. Can he cite one precedent anywhere where taxpayers have paid for the legal fees of convicted criminals — in this case, B.C. Liberal political aides? One case?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said, the decision on the fate of the legal fees was handled. I know the members opposite still want to see if they can impugn the reputation of dedicated public servants.

I have in my hand, which I'm glad to provide to the House after question period, the statement by the Deputy Attorney General, David Loukidelis, on the Basi-Virk matter, dated October 20, 2010.

[1410]

I will read one paragraph to the members opposite. Maybe they can go look and read this statement that was made by the Deputy Attorney General. This is what it says.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. R. Coleman: If I have time, I'm happy to read the entire thing into the record. But in the second-to-last paragraph, it states this: "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or involvement. For clarity, neither the special prosecutor nor the Attorney General had any knowledge of the matter and any involvement in this."

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: The question is why the B.C. Liberals, this government, violated longstanding indemnity policy for the province of British Columbia when they covered the legal fees for now convicted criminals who came from their own party, who were political insiders with this government. Why did they give away $6 million for the taxpayer when they could have forced the sale of the now convicted criminals' assets?

To the Deputy Premier again. Maybe he'll get on his feet. Will he end the cover-up today and do, at a minimum, what some of his leadership candidates are calling for and call for a public inquiry so that we can finally get to the truth of the matter in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Coleman: Deputy Attorney General of this province David Loukidelis served this House as Information and Privacy Commissioner with distinction over a number of years, and I believe his reputation is impeccable. He has written this letter on the 20th of October and outlined it.

To the members opposite I will repeat that the decision on the fate of the legal fees reimbursed by government was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance, supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out these circumstances. I invite members to go and read the public statement if they wish.

It wouldn't hurt you to do that. These two public servants acted on their own authority without any political direction, influence or approval.

S. Simpson: The deputy ministers aren't in this House to answer for the conduct of this government. This House Leader is answering, and he should provide some answers. The House Leader has mentioned the comments of the Deputy Attorney General. Let's look at the comments of the Attorney General of the day.

On October 21 he told Christy Clark's radio show: "They told me about the decision, and I agreed with it. I agreed with it then, and I agree with it now." He went on, on January 7, to say this: "I was informed of the decision. I have never shirked from my responsibility. I think I held it this time to answer politically for it. I was the Attorney General."

Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General is not here. The House Leader is speaking for the government. Accept political responsibility. Tell us why you paid the $6 million to end that trial.

Hon. R. Coleman: The decision on the fate of the legal fees, as I told the member opposite already, was made by the Deputy Minister of Finance and supported by the Deputy Attorney General, who issued a public statement setting out those circumstances, which you are quite allowed to go look for.

I will reiterate that it was done under the same policy that existed when the NDP government was in existence in the 1990s. These two public servants acted on their own authority without any political influence or direction or approval.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1415]

S. Simpson: No government before this one has ever paid out $6 million to pay the legal fees of convicted criminals. This decision by the B.C. Liberal government is unprecedented, and it's outrageous, and it in fact impugns the public trust of these democratic institutions and of this place. That's the reality.

If this minister and this government have any concern beyond their political survival, any concern for the integrity of elected officials, you'll call a full public inquiry now. Get to the bottom of a political scandal and a lousy payout. Do it now.
[ Page 6316 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I invite you to go look at the October 20 letter, which I'm actually happy to photocopy for every member opposite in the House, from the Deputy Attorney General, David Loukidelis. I can tell you that the two public servants acted on their own authority without political direction, influence or approval.

ELECTION CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REPORTING IN VANCOUVER-FRASERVIEW

K. Corrigan: A June 15, 2010, letter from Elections B.C. sent to the Vancouver-Fraserview MLA, his financial agent and the B.C. Liberal Party says the campaign's financial report "did not completely and accurately disclose the information required by the Election Act. Specifically, it appears that not all election expenses and contributions have been reported."

To the Deputy Premier: your government has known about this letter and the forensic audit that prompted it for eight months. Why has your government not taken any action in an effort to avoid embarrassing this government and degrading its integrity even further?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, I'll rule the question out of order considering that it's dealing with a sitting member that is before a special prosecutor.

Do you have a different question, Member?

K. Corrigan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a different question.

I want to talk about the period before the suit was filed in the courts. My question for the Deputy Premier is: in the time period before this was filed, why did the government not direct the member from…?

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, I've ruled it out of order. It's dealing with a sitting member, and it's before a special prosecutor. Now, unless you have something new and a new line, we won't continue.

Continue, Member.

K. Corrigan: One final try. Does this government think that it is acceptable behaviour for anyone, let alone a member of their own government, to not file reports as required?

FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

M. Mungall: Here's what's happening in B.C.'s judicial system today. An RCMP officer charged with dangerous and impaired driving in 2007 — well, that was thrown out in November 2010; two people charged with cocaine trafficking in Cranbrook, thrown out in May 2010; two other charges of impaired driving in Surrey, thrown out November 2010; another impaired driving charge in Prince Rupert, thrown out in October 2010 — all because of court delays, delays due to this government's underfunding of the judicial system.

After yesterday's budget, that underfunding continues. Is this the standard that the Minister of Finance plans to keep, or will he commit today to properly fund the criminal justice system, clear up the backlog and get B.C. courts working again?

[1420]

Hon. R. Coleman: The Attorney General is not with us today because he's at home expecting the birth of his first child, so I will take that question on notice.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplemental?

M. Mungall: I do, hon. Speaker. This is to the Minister of Finance. He, after all, does control the entire budget and presented it yesterday. Make no mistake. The justice system is being starved to death because of the decisions and the presentation that he put forward yesterday.

In his dismissal of an impaired-driving charge because of unacceptable delays in another case, a Provincial Court judge in Surrey said that the shortages are not due to the result of dramatic cuts but the result of attrition from the gradual budget reductions. Like I said, those gradual budget reductions…. We saw them again yesterday in the budget speech.

Will the Minister of Finance stand up to protect B.C. citizens, ensure people's right to a trial and commit to getting our justice system back on track?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Attorney General would have a more fulsome response for the member, but I can reassure the member that the budget that we have set out for the Ministry of Attorney General for the three years of the fiscal plan starting April 1 is consistent with the same numbers that were tabled last year.

S. Chandra Herbert: The B.C. justice system is in crisis. Accused criminals are walking free because the B.C. Liberals have cut millions to courts, to prosecutions, to corrections. The Finance Minister's budget continues that. Accused crooks are getting let off scot-free, while their victims live with the crimes for the rest of their lives.

My question is for the Finance Minister and the Deputy Premier. When will the B.C. Liberals stop letting accused criminals get off scot-free and stand up for the justice system that we're sent here to protect?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated, the budget for the Ministry of Attorney General is going to be maintained, as are virtually all of the ministries of government. They will be stabilized for the third year of the plan and consistent with the three-year plan as we had set out last
[ Page 6317 ]
year. The Ministry of Attorney General is involved with a review of the justice system to find out how the justice system can be improved to ensure that there is more timely access and to make sure that the appropriate efficiencies are found.

SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT
PORTABLE USE AND FUNDING

J. Brar: Yesterday's budget was a huge disappointment for the people of Surrey, as there was no money to build new schools. The Surrey school district has grown by thousands of students since 2005. As a result, we have 292 portable classrooms in the Surrey school district this year.

My question to the Minister of Education: does this government ever plan to deal with the lack of school space in the Surrey school district? If so, when?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Thank you for the question. Certainly, on the several trips I've made to the Surrey school district, I have been well aware of the rapid growth in Surrey. It's clearly a wonderful part of the province in which to live.

To be clear, we have invested in school space in Surrey — over $219 million in the last ten years. It's the most that we've invested in any school district. Since 2005 we've created over 3,000 new spaces in schools in Surrey, and there are more being prepared, even as we speak, for full-day kindergarten. We're working on it, but we do recognize and acknowledge that this is our fastest-growing school district.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Brar: Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to dodge my question, and the minister knows it very well. The reality is this. The Surrey school district did not get even a penny of new capital funding for the last six years. No money in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.

[1425]

My question, again to the Minister of Education: how many years will it take for this government to figure out that Surrey is a growing district and that we need more classrooms in the Surrey school district?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I will remind the member opposite of one of those uncomfortable truths, which is that back in 1998 there were 363 portable classrooms in Surrey. Today there are approximately 250. The member opposite has actually been at the openings of schools that have happened in Surrey in the last number of years.

Clearly, we have work to do, but we have been building schools in Surrey. At the moment there is construction on 58 new classrooms in Surrey for full-day kindergarten and another 18 classrooms for elementary school. The work is ongoing. We are investing in Surrey.

H. Bains: The minister knows that this is a pathetic explanation to a very serious situation in Surrey. They need action, not the lip service from this minister that we've been getting for years now. Every new portable that is springing up in the Surrey school district costs over $100,000. That money comes out of the in-class learning of our students. Their education is compromised.

This is a direct result of this government, because our district is forced to take this money out of the classroom to pay for this government's failure to provide real classrooms for our children.

To the minister, again: will you commit today and ensure that not a single dollar will come out of the children's education in the classroom to pay for these portables?

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Certainly, people on both sides of the House feel very passionately about the education system. That is clear.

This member is unfortunately misinformed. As we have continued to work closely with the Surrey school district, we have acknowledged that the portables…. They were previously paying for portable classrooms out of their budget. We have given them a capital grant of $2 million toward their portable classrooms. We continue to have a good working relationship with the Surrey school district, which I greatly value.

[End of question period.]

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I thought you had a report.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Tomorrow.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. McNeil: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to present the 34th annual report pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, year ended March 31, 2010.

Petitions

D. Thorne: I'd like to present a petition from 407 residents of British Columbia asking that fee increases to residents of long-term residential care be stopped and that care remain equitable and affordable.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to table a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.
[ Page 6318 ]

J. Horgan: On September 19 Tribal Chief Liz Logan of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, along with a number of other chiefs from the Peace country as well as the province of Alberta, attended the Legislature to declare their opposition to the Site C dam on the Peace River.

I was presented, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, a petition in a birchbark, which is the traditional vessel for removing information from one level of government to another. I ask to seek this as a petition signed by five First Nations opposing the Site C dam.

[1430]

N. Macdonald: I present a petition today signed by over 600 residents of Golden and area, calling for a moratorium on the private river diversion project on Ventego and Cupola creeks near Golden.

Tabling Documents

Hon. C. Hansen: I rise pursuant to the Financial Administration Act to table the guarantees and indemnities report.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call budget debate. For the members' information, the budget debate will continue this afternoon until 6 p.m., at which time we will move into second reading of Supply Act (No. 1).

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Ralston: Perhaps if I might wait a moment until members head about their business.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I'll continue. I want to make a few further remarks about the budget. They will be somewhat briefer than I have made in previous years, given that the content of this budget was close to nil. The Finance Minister set expectations very low. He basically promised very little, if not nothing, and I think that is one promise in this budget that he did deliver on — very little in the budget at all.

But there are some telltale signs of what I would regard as classic B.C. Liberal fiscal policy in action. I'm thinking in particular of the forecast allowances that are included in this budget and the contingency. Those are fairly arcane financial terms, but in the preface to the budget signed by the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Whitmarsh, he explains what forecast allowances are.

I'm going to read from the statement at the beginning of the budget document signed by Mr. Whitmarsh: "Forecast allowances of $350 million are included in each of the fiscal years 2011-2012 through to 2013-14 to help achieve operating and debt level targets. These allowances are intended to help recognize uncertainty in revenue forecasts, commodity prices and global economic recovery generally."

So in perhaps less formal language, though a forecast allowance is there, it's added as part of the nominal expenditure to the bottom line as a cushion against certain unpredictable things that may happen. In particular, he does reference uncertainty in revenue forecasts, fluctuations in global commodity prices, and as a resource-driven economy in many respects as a province, our provincial revenue is subject to those kinds of fluctuations. Also, he refers to global economic recovery. So that figure is set out over the next three years.

[1435]

In addition, the budget also contains what are called contingencies, and that is for, again, a different kind of unforeseen expense that may arise during the course of the budget year. In this budget there's a provision for $600 million in this budget year, $450 million in each of the two subsequent years of the three-year fiscal plan. Adding that up for this year, you have $600 million in contingency and a $350 million forecast allowance. That's $950 million, just $50 million short of a billion, obviously.

By anyone's standards, it's a lot of money. The Finance Minister has explained that as, in addition to the words of the deputy minister, wanting to guard against unforeseen fluctuations in the global economy, resource prices, revenue forecasts being off.

That's put in the budget there, as the Finance Minister said, to provide what he has described as flexibility so that the incoming Liberal leader, the new leader, would have the opportunity to spend as he or she saw fit according to the personal agenda that they are developing now or may reveal after they win the Liberal Party leadership convention.

So this all seems, I suppose, somewhat reasonable — particularly, I suppose, if you're a B.C. Liberal. The new leader is going to be given an opportunity to have a stack of cash to dispense, perhaps in a pre-election flurry, perhaps over the course of the next year or two as we look at the now scheduled election in 2013.

But I view this new-found affection for forecast allowances with some skepticism. When I look back at the budget which was tabled back on February 17, 2009…. This was, of course, prior to the last election, and the government had a very different political agenda.

This budget is driven by a political agenda to give the incoming leader a stack of cash to spend as he or she sees fit. The budget back then had a different political agenda. It was designed to get through an election, and it was designed in the economic circumstances in which we found ourselves then to minimize, to absolutely minimize, the deficit. Notoriously — and I think this
[ Page 6319 ]
will be one of the outgoing Premier's epitaphs — he predicted, he guaranteed, a $495 million deficit maximum. He stressed that. I'm quoting him. He made that comment on a radio station — $495 million maximum.

Of course, we know that that wasn't accurate, and the Public Accounts Committee has confirmed that. That budget has now passed through all the phases of approval and spending and came out at just short of $1.8 billion as a deficit — strikingly off, perhaps by design. Certainly, it's the firm view of many people I talked to over the last 18 months or so that that was deliberately so. But in any event, that was what was promised then.

But did the government feel the obligation to have this cushion in the biggest economic downturn in the last 60 years? Wouldn't it be responsible as financial managers to put a forecast allowance into the February 2009 budget when you were in that kind of financial turmoil? Certainly, a bit different from now as we begin to recover from the recession, although there are some troubling signs in parts of the economy, particularly the unemployment numbers.

But wouldn't it have made sense? If what Mr. Whitmarsh says on behalf of the Finance Minister in February 2011 is valid, wouldn't it be even more valid in February 2009? You'd need a forecast allowance for those uncertainty-in-revenue forecasts. February 2009, I think most people would agree, was more uncertain than revenue forecasts are today.

Fluctuations in commodity prices. Certainly, we're always vulnerable to that, but there was a very sharp downturn in GDP, the world economy, the Canadian economy and, of course, the British Columbia economy. The reference to the global economic recovery — again, very prudent. It would have been very prudent to have a forecast allowance.

[1440]

But the political agenda back at that time didn't dictate it, because what the Finance Minister's job was, was to shorten up, to reduce, to make it as plausible as he could and as small a deficit as possible. So there was no need for forecast allowances back then.

In fact, here's what the former Deputy Minister of Finance and secretary to Treasury Board said in the same statement that he wrote at the front of the February 17, 2009, budget: "Unlike recent years, there are no forecast allowances included in the fiscal plan, and government will be managing risks to the fiscal plan through expenditure management and use of the contingency vote."

Never mind the downturn. Never mind the economic uncertainty. Never mind the prudent practice that the B.C. Liberals urged beginning back in 2001 of forecast allowances and in the fiscal review that was done after the 2001 election. The report there called for forecast allowances equal to 4.5 percent of the total budget. Not 1 percent, not a half percent. Zero percent in the middle of the biggest economic downturn.

Clearly, by juxtaposing those two uses of the forecast allowance now and when the incoming leader needs a stack or a whack of cash to spend on a spending spree when he or she comes to power — and back in 2009, in a downturn when you wanted to reduce the size of the deficit and you didn't need it…. A very cynical, deliberate, calculated manipulation of the fiscal process — not with the best interests of the citizens of British Columbia in mind, not with an eye to good fiscal management, but with an eye to the main chance of the B.C. Liberals. That's what that was all about in doing that.

Yes, while the deputy minister there said: "Well, we're going to use the contingency vote to manage these uncertainties…." Again, very difficult economic times. So was the contingency allocated more than it is this budgetary cycle? One would expect that in 2009 — you have no forecast allowance, and you're managing only through contingencies — you'd set aside more money, certainly more money than you would in 2011. Wouldn't that seem reasonable?

I'm sure most people who thought about it would expect that the risks on the downside to contingencies were greater in 2009 than they are in 2011. But when you examine the two budgets, the amount of contingency set aside in this budgetary cycle, in this fiscal year, is $200 million more than it was in 2009 — $200 million more — once again demonstrating the cynical nature of the budgetary process.

For the B.C. Liberals it's not about fiscal probity. It's not about good management. It's about the main political chance of manipulating the fiscal process in order to give them the maximum political benefit, and that's a very, very clear demonstration of that.

There's no other rational explanation for it. So $600 million in contingencies in this year and $400 million in the 2009 budget, again because the Finance Minister wanted to reduce the deficit, and a contingency counts against the deficit and would have added to it. So you keep it as small as you can, get rid of the forecast allowance and reduce your deficit as much as you can.

Never mind on the revenue side where revenue was overstated in a number of departments, a number of revenue streams, in 2009. That's a separate issue but equally part of the same effort to come up with the fictional $495 million maximum.

So this budget sets aside that amount of money, $950 million in discretionary spending, unallocated discretionary spending. The combination of those two will be used by the incoming B.C. Liberal leader and Premier to spend according to their own personal agenda.

[1445]

An Hon. Member: Slush fund.

B. Ralston: Well, some may call it a slush fund. I don't think the Finance Minister has used that term,
[ Page 6320 ]
but I expect there might be some people who may choose to characterize it in that way. Certainly, I'll leave that to other people to decide.

The government also, in the same spirit of trying, attempting to rebuild trust…. One can regard this manipulation of the fiscal process that I just spoke of as a further demonstration of why people don't and shouldn't and won't trust B.C. Liberal budgets ever again in the future, in my view. Certainly, they shouldn't trust this one, given what the motivation is in setting aside this money.

The government also likes to talk about…. We've heard in the Finance Minister's budget speech him heading back, I suppose, hand in hand with the Premier as they look back to those halcyon days in 2001 when they first came into power, and they began to repeat some of the political myths that they have lived by over the last ten years. Some of those are captured in the budget speech, and indeed, some of those are reflected in the budget.

Let's look at medical services premiums. What has happened over the ten years that the B.C. Liberals have been in power…. If you look at the budget, medical services premiums are projected to year-end this fiscal year to be $1.798 billion — roughly $1.8 billion — and in the budget for the coming year projected to be $1.945 billion. So that's close to $2 billion, a major funding source for the government.

British Columbians will be paying more, 70 percent more, in this fiscal year than they did in 2002, and medical services premium fees will continue increasing next year as well. They increased 6 percent on January 1, and they will increase again next January 1. According to the budget document, a two-income family of four earning $60,000 would pay $1,452 a year in medical services premiums.

That is a substantial burden on families. Like many of the changes that the B.C. Liberals have brought in, they prefer — rather than graduated income tax, in the sense that it recognizes income equality and attempts to compensate through the tax system for it — user fees that fall across the board on everyone with a few exemptions at the very bottom of the income scale.

A two-income family of four earning $60,000…. That would be solidly within or very close to the median income in the province, and I think one would not regard those people as particularly rich or anything above average income. So that's a pretty representative figure — $1,452 in MSP premiums a year.

This decision that the B.C. Liberals have undertaken is unique in Canada. If you look at page 88, table A2 — it's an interprovincial comparison of tax rates — there's a line item: "Health care premiums a month, individually and family." If you look across at the comparison to any other province, there's a figure for British Columbia, but from Alberta, Saskatchewan and straight across to Newfoundland, there is no other province that charges these fees. It's a uniquely B.C. Liberal fiscal solution — a user fee on individual families rather than using the tax system in a fairer way.

Certainly, the B.C. Liberals like to trumpet the fact, and we've heard it in the budget speech, about reductions in personal income tax. But you have to offset that against what the reality is in terms of things like the medical services premiums, which are unique to British Columbia according to page 88, table A2, and are rising all the time.

[1450]

Much has been spoken of yesterday and today about the $6 million in legal fees that was forgiven by representatives of the government. It would seem that there's an offsetting reduction in Crown prosecutorial services. I don't think that's deliberate. That's simply an illustrative contrast. B.C. Liberals chose to forgive $6 million in legal fees to two convicted B.C. Liberal political assistants who worked here in this building prior to their arrest — to forgive them that money.

Yet when it comes to the prosecution service, which is facing extreme challenges…. One thinks of the complicated nature of prosecutions in contemporary criminal law, whether they are drug conspiracy trials, whether they are the complicated gang prosecutions requiring volumes and volumes — I suppose now disclosed on disk — thousands and thousands of pages of disclosure requiring complicated legal judgments, vast legal experience and a work ethic and determination to see those kinds of prosecutions through faced by very experienced defence counsel.

These are the kinds of prosecutions that the public is demanding. The police are gathering the evidence and concluding cases and presenting them to the prosecution services expecting that they will go forward to trial. Yet when we see this kind of budgetary reduction, one wonders about the commitment of the B.C. Liberals to the prosecution service of the province, notwithstanding some of the political rhetoric that we hear from time to time on that side of the House and from individual ministers.

The document or the reference that I'm looking at is on page 49. The voted appropriation for the prosecution services is on page 49 of the Estimates document. The voted appropriation last year, $112.6 million. The estimates include the number $106,856,000, hence the close to $6 million reduction that was spoken of.

This is documented, notwithstanding the contrary view perhaps expressed by the Minister of Finance a little bit earlier here. This is documented. This is in the hard-copy document in the estimates. That's what government runs on, and indeed, we'll be speaking about interim supply. This is the document that will guide the operations of government in this service as well as the rest of government when the interim supply bill is passed. So it is reality, and that speaks to the lack of commitment and to the misplaced priorities.
[ Page 6321 ]

If, as B.C. Liberal leadership candidates say, we've lost our way — that people don't trust us; that we really, since the HST debacle, have to rebuild the confidence and the trust of people in British Columbia — this is no clearer illustration that there's a very, very high mountain to climb, maybe even higher than some of the highest peaks in the world — the Mount Everest, I suppose, of credibility. This government has a long, long hike, a long, long way to go.

I don't want to speak at too great a length, but the minister, in his remarks in his budget speech, reverted back to some of the political rhetoric that we've heard too many times in this chamber and, I suppose, outside. It's been, I suppose, the rallying cry, the leitmotif, of the B.C. Liberals. One of them is that under the NDP it's alleged that British Columbia became a have-not province. What the reference is here….

[1455]

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Just wait for it, Minister. Just wait for it.

What exactly it is…. They're talking about equalization payments. Equalization payments are a fiscal agreement, an arrangement between the federal government and the provinces. There's a formula by which for certain indices the federal government pays money to equalize fiscal opportunity throughout the federation. Indeed, it's one of the features of the constitution. So the minister referred to that in his budget speech and repeated the myth that's there as well.

I'm going to continue as the designated speaker just slightly longer. I'm verging on a conclusion, but I do want to make this point here.

The NDP, as government, received a single equalization transfer, in the 1999-2000 fiscal year, of $125 million. In contrast, the B.C. Liberals have received five such payments, a total of $2.4 billion during their time in office: $158 million in 2001-2002, $543 million in 2002-2003, $979 million in 2004-2005, $590 million in 2005-2006 and $459 million in 2006-2007.

So have-not province — $125 million for the New Democrats, one single payment; B.C. Liberals, $2.4 billion — yet we've heard this myth reiterated by the Finance Minister again in his budget speech. One columnist called this a version of the creation myth of the B.C. Liberals. It's clearly fictional. No shred of evidence supports it. So $125 million to $2.4 billion. If any government made British Columbia a have-not province, as they wish, it's that government over there. They took $2.4 billion in equalization payments. So that's one myth.

Interjections.

B. Ralston: They laugh and guffaw because they don't know any better. I mean, really, they don't. They don't understand this issue; they just recite the cliché. They're undeterred by the facts, as they are in so many other matters, particularly fiscal matters. The myth is more important than reality, the fiction more important than fact, the fantasy more important than what is really happening in the fiscal life of the province.

I want to conclude on this. Regrettably, I have to bring this up, since the Finance Minister revived this old fiction as well. The Premier, on his way out the door, seems to want to waft back in a nostalgic way to the kind of political rhetoric that served him well, perhaps, in 2001 but that everyone recognizes was just political opportunism of the time and had no basis in reality.

When the NDP government was defeated and the Liberals came to power, they had a problem in the fiscal reality of the province in that the deficit, or surplus, that was left actually turned out to be the biggest surplus in the history of the province to that time, in the last fiscal year of the B.C. New Democrats in government — $1.198 billion.

Faced with this problem, with the reality of a surplus, the biggest surplus in the history of the province, they set out to manufacture this so-called fiscal structural deficit. This is revived again as a technique by the Finance Minister.

[1500]

Rather than acknowledge there was a surplus, what they did is they projected a deficit three years forward, created a notional budget three years out, reduced revenue and increased expenditure and came up with a structural deficit of close to $5 billion. Complete, utter rubbish — a fantasy. But it served their political interests.

Rather than be repentant or even slightly apologetic as he heads for the exit, the Premier seems insistent on repeating this myth. Maybe he actually believes it. I don't know. It doesn't really matter, because it's simply not the case. It served the political ends of the government back in those heady days of 2001, but the political reality is elsewhere.

I want to end on that note of caution. When one examines…. We heard from the member for West Vancouver–Capilano an attempt, perhaps a little bit more sophisticated and less crude than many of his colleagues, to fashion the same sort of argument but with an equal lack of success.

When one compares the economic growth record of the NDP government over its decade, growth was at 3 percent on average; for B.C. Liberals over their ten years and the tenure of this Premier, it's close to 2.4 percent. Clearly, on those kinds of basic economic indices, the economic record of the government is not something that's really worth being very proud of. It's a mediocre record at best, but that won't stop, perhaps, the next speaker from wanting to trumpet it.

In conclusion, if you really want to have a good look at the reality of the record, economic and fiscal and social,
[ Page 6322 ]
of the B.C. Liberals, look at the Progress Board report, the most recent report. Middling results.

Paul Willcocks wrote a piece for many of the newspapers around the province. He looks at the Progress Board, which is a board created by the B.C. Liberals, and he gives a tip of the hat to them for that. But by their own measures on income growth, on many of the economic…. On exports per capita, I think he said that this province was ninth out of ten provinces. No change over the ten years.

So on key economic indices, the record is mediocre, and I commend that to B.C. Liberals who want to examine the reality of the B.C. economic record. In preferring fantasy, they seem much closer to Mr. Vander Zalm than perhaps they'd really care to admit.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I expect we'll be back to debate the real budget, because the real budget is somewhere under one of those balls somewhere. The sleight of hand goes on, and we'll be back to debate another budget another day. But for now those are my remarks.

Hon. K. Krueger: That was an entertaining bit of NDP revisionism there. I well remember the sad and dismal decade of the '90s, when British Columbia's biggest and by far most valuable export was our young people, who went to Alberta and places further away because there were no opportunities here.

Thank goodness my children didn't have to do that, because we were elected with our current Premier. We were able to follow through on our principles, establish a very sound fiscal plan that still earns us a triple-A credit rating every year from people who certainly don't buy the kind of NDP revisionism that we just heard.

This is a very unique week, as we all know. We're saying goodbye to two leaders, one on each side of the House. Apparently, that hasn't happened in at least a hundred years in this place. It is a sad occasion, certainly for this side of the House, and when I say that, I refer to sadness about both leaders.

[1505]

During the Minister of Finance's budget speech, I was struck by the accomplishments of this Premier — the things that he has delivered for my children and for all the children of British Columbia and for their children.

I have seven grandchildren now. It was wonderful to hear the former Leader of the Opposition announce her first grandchild today. They bring so much joy to your life, and they make you realize how important the things we do here are to the success of successive generations. Because of the accomplishments of our Premier, who is retiring, and the team that he built — our team — British Columbia is a leader in Canada again, a leader in North America and, in many ways, a leader in the world.

Our tax-cutting principles have workers in British Columbia paying the lowest income tax in Canada up to $119,000 each in income, and Canada seeing British Columbia as the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in the G7. Our initiatives to bust red tape have resulted in a 42 percent reduction in the red tape that was ensnaring job creators and therefore preventing jobs in British Columbia.

Our Premier's leadership on interprovincial trade and employment issues has broken down the barriers across the country. On that and many other issues he is seen as a pan-Canadian leader.

Our government's initiatives, led by the Premier, on First Nations relations have led to a genuine new relationship, have led to modern-day treaties, terrific successes, many economic development agreements, much progress in improving the lives of First Nations and their communities.

This Premier's leadership and our government's hard work and leadership on opening up Asia-Pacific markets are paying off huge dividends for British Columbia. For the first time late last year exports of our lumber to Asia exceeded exports of our lumber to the United States, and it's looking like they may forever now. We have a huge market there. The Chinese people really like dealing with us. There's a tremendously healthy relationship between them and their vast market and this government.

That wasn't the case before we were government. In fact, British Columbia was at odds with its neighbours to the south, to the north, to the east. Pretty much, a fight was picked with anyone that the former NDP Premiers thought might make them look like populists — even with Ottawa. That was a very unhealthy situation that's totally changed.

Our Premier has built tremendous friendships and relationships with Prime Ministers of both stripes, with other Premiers, with the government of the states around us and, indeed, with the American government itself. There was a farewell tribute to him from Bill Clinton that was played on video at the Vancouver Board of Trade's farewell luncheon for him recently.

Whether it's forestry, mining, energy or transportation, this province is showing leadership that is remarkable to people all around North America and all around the world. There's no greater example of that than this province's success and, to be upfront about it, this government's success and our Premier's success in partnering with VANOC and all the other partners to stage the most successful Winter Olympics in history.

Our Premier retires leaving gigantic shoes to fill, and we're very grateful for everything that he's done for all British Columbians, including those on the other side of the House and their families. All of this was accomplished during our decade thus far of being government in British Columbia, even though our decade began with the nightmare of 9/11 and the economic repercussions of that all around the world and certainly across Canada, impacting British Columbia as well.
[ Page 6323 ]

Our first decade in government is ending with the last several years in a gigantic global recession — the worst we've ever seen in our lifetimes, most of us. One of our members actually remembers the great depression of the 1930s, but most of us didn't experience that.

In spite of all those difficulties — 9/11 at the beginning and a worldwide recession at the end — we have managed to deliver massive improvements in infrastructure — health infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, education infrastructure. The debt that is incurred to build that type of infrastructure is no different than the debt people incur on their homes when they buy them or build them, their businesses when they buy them or build them.

[1510]

It is not unhealthy debt as long as the borrower — in this case, the province — can afford it, and we can afford it. We've seen tremendous increases in revenues over the years that the B.C. Liberals have been government and this Premier has been our Premier. Without them, we would never have been able to afford the levels that we're spending on health care, education, social services. I'll talk more about those things shortly, but the difference that those investments have made is phenomenal.

Everyone talks about the Canada Line. People from around the world talk about it. We were able to pay for that. Some of it is borrowed money. But we were hoping for — and I think the target was — 100,000 riders within three years. We hit that within three months, and during the Olympics we learned that we could actually carry 200,000 riders on the Canada Line. It's going to be there forever. Right from the airport, walk out of the terminal straight onto the Canada Line.

It's a beautiful piece of infrastructure, and of course, infrastructure has been built all over the province. The Kicking Horse Canyon bridge — an absolute marvel. Sea-to-Sky Highway — fantastic improvements there. Improvements all around the province.

The universities. We're so proud of Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops. It has changed the nature of our community. We're a university town now, tremendously diversified, and people feel really good about that. We have 1,400 international students right now studying at Thompson Rivers University. They bring in huge economic activity for us.

I was looking back at the last budget of the NDP government of the 1990s, and I see that they budgeted $8.269 billion for health care. We're going to be way over double that at the end of this three-year rolling budget that we've brought out — way over double.

Yet the former critic for the opposition is perpetually criticizing our government, as if we do not spend enough money on health care. We'd like to spend more, and we continually do spend more. The total budget for the NDP's last year when they were government in the sad decade of the '90s, the year 2000 to 2001, was $22.3 billion.

By the end of this budget cycle we will be spending almost that amount, $18.5 billion, on health care alone. That could not have been done by the New Democratic Party or their government, because they weren't able to grow the economy. They shrank the economy.

You can't afford those levels of health care…. British Columbia could not deliver those health care services with that track record. We're doing well over double the best that the NDP ever did funding health care. They shrank the economy, and we've proven that in tough economic times, we can grow the economy very substantially. They shrank the economy in excellent economic times.

We believe, on this side of the House, in British Columbians. We believe in their energy, their creativity, their intelligence, their decision-making abilities, their goodness, and we let them thrive by keeping their earnings in their own pockets, in their own bank accounts, and making spending decisions that turn out to be smart spending decisions.

The people who see what the British Columbian consumers want, create new businesses, create new jobs. That's how it works, and we always thought it would. That was our theory. We put it into practice, and it works — largest income tax cut in British Columbia's history on our first day in office and many subsequently.

The NDP actually shrank British Columbians' disposable income during their decade. In a whole decade there was no advance on British Columbians' average disposable income. The numbers are in the budget speech. We have grown it even in these very, very tough times. Our principles are solid, and on them we've based a fiscal plan that has been proven to work, continues to work.

We've pursued that plan with faithfulness and good stewardship under the leadership of our Premier, who is retiring. But the team is strong, and the team continues. When people say that they don't see enough new in the throne speech, in the budget, it's a wonder to me why they would want any different results.

We had a president of the Kamloops Blazers hockey team in Kamloops, where I live. We're tremendously proud of our hockey team, and we won two Memorial Cups back to back. After that he said that it was time for a new direction, and he fired the general manager and the coach. The Blazers haven't won a Memorial Cup since.

[1515]

Why would anyone ever choose to change this winning formula and pursue what we had in the '90s, marching backward into the '90s? Not very likely, I wouldn't think. We're a team that stays together, and frankly, I was really saddened by what happened to the former Leader of the Opposition, the brutal way that she was treated, the awful events of late 2010. We took no joy in that. That was an awful thing to see.

Our team stays together and never stops working. We have MLAs who care about British Columbians as
[ Page 6324 ]
individuals, and that is very well demonstrated in the Ministry of Social Development — many, many unique and wonderful programs.

A program where our civil servants go out and meet homeless people, befriend them, learn why they're homeless, help them find homes, and add the services that help them ladder into much happier lives.

Community Living B.C. — a marvellous organization dealing with the most vulnerable adults in British Columbia. Our employment programs that help people move….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Member.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Exactly, and you're also inappropriate.

Hon. K. Krueger: Perhaps he's looking for a fight, as he was with one of his colleagues when they were going through that terrible time of beating up on their leader. It'd behoove him to listen — listen and learn.

Our employment programs are successfully bringing people off of the welfare rolls and into full employment. They start at an average wage of $14.30 an hour. We're tremendously proud of those. There's much innovation in the Ministry of Social Development, including the new integrated case management system that's being carefully implemented with the guidance and assistance and constant feedback of our employees.

There is tremendous personalization of our service to the people who need it, the most vulnerable citizens in British Columbia. I went to visit the Downtown Eastside offices of the ministry first, in getting to know the staff, and I thought that there might be a morale problem there. It was quite the opposite. Those people have some of the highest satisfaction scores in government because they're tremendously proud of these programs they're delivering and the very personalized way that they deliver them.

I wanted to talk for a moment about the homelessness intervention project that I mentioned earlier. Over 3,809 people have been housed since this project was launched, and the majority remain stably housed. It's a unique program that considers each person compassionately as an individual and connects them with the services that they need the most. The project takes the housing-first approach, but housing is just one part of the solution. We are also making sure that people have the skills and resources to remain in housing and to lead healthier, more independent lives.

Recent community highlights. In Victoria there are currently 806 formerly homeless people who have been housed as of January; Kelowna, 247; Vancouver, 2,082; Surrey, 374; Prince George, 298. The homelessness intervention program was nominated for a 2010 Premier's Award in the category of organizational excellence and partnership — and rightfully so.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Madam Speaker, I think it would absolutely shock the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast if they could see the behaviour of their member in this House right now and very often. And he wants to be a leader. He thinks he could be Premier.

I'd like to talk a little bit more about Community Living B.C. Their operating budget in 2011-12, which includes operating contributions for the province, is set at $701 million. That includes revenues — an increase of $8.9 million over 2010-11 beyond what it receives from the province — such as interest income. Total provincial contributions increased by $13 million for 2011-12.

There are actually 13,291 British Columbians receiving support from CLBC through a network of 3,200 contracted service providers. The government committed $23.2 million over three years to Community Living B.C. For the personalized supports initiative, which provides support to adults diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder or pervasive development disorder, otherwise known as autism.

[1520]

We are leaders again in delivering these programs. We are the first jurisdiction in Canada to offer targeted supports to adults with FASD, who face significant challenges in daily living. I was at the opening of Yew House in Vancouver last week, a brand-new group home — absolutely beautiful — a public-private partnership, which the folks on the other side of this House tend to deride. The five young adults who will be living happy lives in that home think public-private partnerships are great. The private partner paid the entire cost of the capital so that our money for CLBC can be spent on providing the services.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Krueger: Once again, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast heckles that. He ought to tour Yew House. He would be ashamed of himself, I think.

The employment programs that I discussed earlier are one of our top priorities as government, assisting as many unemployed British Columbians as possible to get back to work as quickly as possible. In 2011-12 we will be investing $341.2 million in these employment services. The province will not receive any federal stimulus funding in 2011-12, although they have been very generous and helpful partners. We're tremendously proud of our relationship with them. It's tremendously productive for
[ Page 6325 ]
British Columbians, including for these most vulnerable people.

Over 26,000 clients receive services through the provincially funded employment programs each year. Since 2001 these programs have been successful in placing more than 73,000 British Columbians in jobs. In 2010 the average wage paid to people placed into a job directly through the B.C. employment program was $14.30 an hour.

We inherited employment and training programs from the federal government two years ago. They arrived with more than 300 contracts delivered from 223 separate locations. So for two years we've consulted on developing a new employment centre model that delivers all employment and training programs under one roof.

It's our goal and our intention that no one will be left behind as we move toward a new one-stop shopping model. When it's fully operational by spring of next year, unemployed British Columbians, including minorities and immigrants, entering an employment centre will have access to a full range of employment services regardless of where they live.

I mentioned the integrated case management system. Again, this is a very forward-thinking decision. This project is going to enable much smoother service delivery across ministries to our clients.

Income assistance, its programs and the way they work have changed a whole lot since 2001. The number of people dependent on income assistance has dropped by nearly 70,000 clients. That was the situation in 2010 — 70,000 fewer clients than when we became government. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of new jobs have been created, and our employment programs are making sure that people are placed in those.

In 1995, under the previous NDP government, 9.7 percent of the population was on income assistance — almost one in ten people, 9.7 percent. There had been some improvement. By 2000 it was 6.2 percent. Today it is 3.9 percent of the population on income assistance in this deep worldwide recession — 3.9 percent, less than half the NDP's rate in 1995 and a 37 percent drop since the year 2000.

So we're pretty pleased with those results. Those are just some examples of our results, as you know, Madam Speaker.

The Conference Board of Canada repeatedly rates British Columbia the best health care deliverer by results measurement in Canada.

We have, as the Finance Minister mentioned, the lowest cancer and heart death rates. When I was in opposition in the sad '90s, people would come into my constituency office in tears because their loved ones were diagnosed with cancer and couldn't get in for treatment. Their loved ones would be diagnosed needing heart surgery and couldn't get in for surgery. Now I constantly hear from people — who have had very, very serious health issues — that they don't feel there's any way they could have been treated better than our health care system treats them.

Our education system famously is delivering some of the best results in the world.

[1525]

You contrast all of that with the terrible condition of British Columbia, its economy and its services in the NDP years. There was not a single seniors extended care or intermediate care bed built in the entire Thompson health region — not one bed. We've built brand-new facilities up and down the valleys, and people love them. They constantly tell me how great they are.

The NDP had a leader of a different stripe, the Leader of the Opposition who recently resigned, very different from the people of the '90s. She was trying to bring about change, and then the wolves pulled her down. They were clamouring for a new leader that they would elect by one member, one vote.

Our party has just completely walked away from that system because we think a leader should be elected to a party the same way a Premier is elected in British Columbia. That's by 85 constituencies, each of whom gets to send an equal representative down to government. It's a progressive change. It's the opposite of what the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was agitating for and, apparently, has pulled off.

During that black time, the current leader of the NDP, the current Leader of the Opposition, said this: "Some of these people, I think, live in a parallel universe." That's the member for New Westminster, on December 3, 2010, talking about the people on those benches, about half of them at least. She said, "Some of these people, I think, live in a parallel universe," and that's what they want to take British Columbia back to, marching backwards into the '90s. I think it was shameful the way that leader was treated. I feel really badly for her.

Now from the dark decade of the '90s they have two former chiefs of staff and two former cabinet ministers. They call them their A-team. Well, they only call three of them their A-team. That is just bizarre to most people. They are the same people with the same approaches and the same words as in the 1990s, the same theories. I feel certain, and I think most people do, that they would deliver the same results.

There was also a quote, the same day, the same radio show, from the member for Port Coquitlam. He said: "What's important is recognizing what the goal is. That's winning an election in 2013." But why would anyone want to win an election with the same people, the same ideas and the same attitudes and words that delivered the sad results of the '90s? Winning is not a good thing if that's going to be the result for British Columbia. What could the NDP possibly do differently for British Columbia than what they did before? How sadly their
[ Page 6326 ]
performance and results stack up to what this Premier and this government have delivered.

We continue with this budget to build on our good work and the good work of British Columbians. We will keep British Columbia a world leader. We are emerging from a deficit situation faster than we thought we could, and it's because of discipline, hard work and a team that never quits working, a team that sticks together, a team of people that really, genuinely cares about British Columbians and shows it every day in our words, our actions and our results.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

I want to pay tribute to both outgoing leaders and especially, of course, our own — a Premier whose shoes will be very hard to fill, a Premier who leaves a tremendous legacy. The people are talking about it all around the province in voices of sadness, because nobody can replace a man like that. We wish him all the very best in his private life. He said recently he got to babysit for the first time. He's experiencing some of those joys with grandkids. The former Leader of the Opposition will as well. We wish her Godspeed. We wish him Godspeed.

I thank you — Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair — for this opportunity to address the House. Clearly, I support the budget. I think it is an excellent budget. I am tremendously proud of our progress in the finances of British Columbia.

D. Donaldson: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the budget. That's what I'll be doing, unlike the member that preceded me. I'll be using most of my time to address the budget, as we're supposed to be doing in this chamber — the budget that was presented yesterday.

This budget is a disappointment, and let me explain why. The budget has been typified by the Minister of Finance and others on the other side of this Legislature as a placeholder or a status quo budget. That's a disservice, hon. Speaker. It's a disservice to the people both rurally and in urban centres who are struggling economically.

[1530]

It demonstrates that this government is out of touch with the people in the province. People are struggling. They can't wait months for a new budget to be introduced by a new leader on that side of the Legislature. They need action now to address the issues. There are very serious issues in people's lives. This is a $41 billion budget we're talking about. It's serious business, and people are struggling.

Yet we have the Minister of Finance quoted in the newspaper yesterday, telling reporters that this budget could be passed into law. So this is the budget we're talking about. It could be the budget that people in this province have to live with, and it's a disappointment.

Today in this initial response to the budget — in the limited amount of time that we both agreed on, on both sides of the Legislature, to discuss this budget in — I'm going to shine some light on decisions that this government has made. That's what we need to talk about — decisions they've made that have negative impacts on our ability to generate revenues as well as provide services.

Let's take a look at one such decision. Now, it wasn't too long ago that a fair-minded person would look at all the evidence and take the conclusion that a decision was made to implement the HST before the last election. Regardless of whether that was the case or not, another decision was made by the entire caucus two months later, including all the five leadership candidates on that side, to pass the HST — to put it before the Legislature and pass it, to support it without any consultation.

So regardless of what you think the merits of the HST might be, over 700,000 people in the province signed the initiative in opposition to it. Now we have that successful initiative campaign and now, in this budget year, a referendum.

What's the cost of that referendum in this year's budget? Because of their decision not to be forthright and their determination to implement the HST before any consultation, it's going to cost in this budget year $29½ million — all because of their decision not to be forthright. So there's $29½ million. Keep that number in your head.

There's another choice this government made. They made a decision to spend $6 million to pay the legal costs of two Liberal insiders at the centre of the B.C. Rail trial. Where else could that money have been spent? Well, it just so happens that when the budget was announced yesterday, funding for Crown prosecutors was cut by $6 million — $6 million in a payout to Liberal insiders, a $6 million cut.

Interjections.

D. Donaldson: "Money in, money out," as one of my colleagues says.

Now that means fewer cases will be brought to trial and will contribute to longer delays in those cases that are chosen to go ahead. I can tell you that there are very many frustrations in small communities in B.C. concerned about crime, especially drug dealers.

The RCMP will do their best to collect the evidence, but whether Crown prosecutors will be able to proceed with the case is hampered by cutbacks announced yesterday. That's a disgrace, and that $6 million could have been spent elsewhere. It was spent bailing out former aides to this Liberal regime — a very sad state of affairs.

So there's $29½ million and $6 million. We're up to $35½ million that could have been spent elsewhere
[ Page 6327 ]
in this budget and that's been poorly decided upon by this government.

I'm going to talk about areas where that money could have been spent to generate more revenues for the province in ministries that deal with natural resource issues. That's not just me pointing this out.

I have a quote here from the president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. He presented before the Select Standing Committee on Finance in the fall. He said: "We do feel that you're at risk of cutting off your nose to spite your face by making these kinds of cuts to the very ministries that are there to help the economy grow."

He went on to say: "It's for the government to figure out, but we have recognized now that really, frankly, the cuts have gone too far." That's from someone in the know — the president and CEO, Pierre Gratton, of the Mining Association of B.C.

[1535]

Now, who else is in the know? Well, let's look at the former minister of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In October what did he say? He said that the biggest challenge for the resource ministries right now is money.

"The fundamental problem facing the natural resource ministries is they're underfunded. We work the heck out of them"— the employees, that is — "and we don't have enough funds within the ministries to get the permits out the door, to develop the policy to deal with stakeholders, to do the work that actually leads to the majority of the revenue that comes in to government." That's the former cabinet minister on that side of the floor.

How did this budget address these very real concerns from the industry, concerns from within the cabinet on that side? Well, let's take a look at the new ministry that was announced by the Premier in his last days before resigning, the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations.

Oh, and by the way, I should remind those present in the House today of what the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources actually had to say about this reorganization around the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. He said that it came with no consultation among cabinet and caucus. "It's my understanding that the process has been continuing for eight months. They've been working on this without the involvement of elected people" — without the involvement of elected people.

Well, here we are with the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations. What happened in yesterday's budget? Well, under that ministry there's something called provincial operations. It deals with things like the analysis, administration and stewardship of items like Crown-owned subsurface resources and water use regulation — cut by more than $3 million.

How about regional operations budget line? It deals with things like research, protection, monitoring, reporting related to forests, range, water, soil, biodiversity, species at risk, fish and mining resources — cut by more than $5 million, here in the ministry where staff are already stretched so thin, as the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources pointed out.

What was needed was an increase, not a cut. I agree with the president of the Mining Association of B.C. That is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Another area where spending money will increase the ability to generate future revenues is First Nations consultation.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Please continue.

D. Donaldson: I'll give you a very current example of First Nations consultation. This is over the northern transmission line and the Gitanyow First Nation. Over 40 percent of that line will traverse the territories of the Gitanyow First Nation. The decision is imminent. Next week we expect the provincial Minister of Environment and the federal Minister of the Environment to announce their decisions on the northern transmission line.

But unnecessary delays could occur because of bungling by this government, and part of that can be blamed on a lack of adequate resources to the last two ministries I've mentioned. For example, we have a letter here from the Gitanyow First Nation to the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro, dated February 3.

It says: "We" — meaning the Gitanyow First Nation — "are in complete disagreement with the B.C. environmental assessment office conclusion that the Crown has satisfactorily discharged its duty to consult and accommodate Gitanyow aboriginal title and rights in connection with the proposed project."

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: I hear some noise coming from the other side, from the Minister of Social Development. He previously was referencing a colleague of mine about his behaviour, and I think if anybody has something to be ashamed of, it's the minister who's chirping up right now, when he had to apologize publicly for making inappropriate comments about guns and having people in sights. He had to publicly apologize. That's shameful behaviour, and he's the one who needs to correct his behaviour and be ashamed of what he's done.

Going back to the Gitanyow First Nation — and I'm using this as an example to talk about the budget document — they spent seven years and four court cases to come up with an agreement with the government on a joint land use plan.

[1540]
[ Page 6328 ]

It was a compromise, but the hereditary chiefs agreed on it, and negotiators from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation agreed. That was in mid-September. The EAO, the environmental assessment office, refused to take this joint land use plan into consideration in making its recommendations about the northern transmission line.

Here's a letter that the Gitanyow wrote to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Forests, Mines and Lands on January 21, where they said: "The EAO is not prepared to incorporate the joint land use plan recommendations into their report." In fact, they are asking both ministers to suspend any kind of decision on the northern transmission line until they can have a meeting, and if they can't do that, then to put off the decision until a meeting can be arranged.

They've not got any response to this letter, and that was January 21 — no response from the Minister of Environment; no response from the Minister of Forests, Mines and Lands. This could lead to unnecessary delays in the northern transmission line approval process.

So what was the response from this government yesterday in the budget to a very, very important topic around development in this province and revenue generation? A million fewer dollars in the negotiations and implementation section of the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation — a million fewer dollars. So $800,000 less in the strategic initiatives section of that same ministry that deals with supporting and enhancing the new relationship — can you imagine that? — and a decrease in the environmental assessment office budget under the Ministry of Environment.

How on earth are we going to move ahead with that kind of approach by this government? Again, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The list goes on about bad decisions in this budget. A $21 million cut in the forest stewardship resources item in the Ministry of Forests responsible for things like silviculture investments, forest health and forest inventory. What kind of commitment is that to the future? What kind of commitment is that to the future revenues that drive this province?

The Ministry of Agriculture — cuts to the Agricultural Land Commission budget when the Attorney General's office has said that they already don't have the tools to fulfil their mandate around the agricultural land reserve. We have many competing interests around the agricultural land reserve. I know members on both sides consistently are getting serious concerns expressed to them in their offices about that. We need better support in the Agricultural Land Commission to deal with competing land uses.

There's been an overall decrease in the Ministry of Agriculture budget. That's just not a sector you can start up overnight. It takes years to build a successful farm, and again, a 25 percent cut in 2009 in this ministry's budget — absolutely no support for farmers and farms in this province.

The Ministry of Energy — over a $4 million cut to electricity and alternative energy, alternative energy development advancing the leading energy technologies. This is the responsibility of that section of that budget, and they were cut $4 million. I thought alternative energy was a priority of this government, a priority to generate revenues and their priority around climate action. That's a heck of a funny way to show your support for one of your priorities — cutting support by $4 million.

Most disturbing, though, is the $34 million cut in student aid and a failure to invest in training and colleges. How are we supposed to ensure that the people of this province, the young people, are the ones who benefit most from the development that occurs in their own backyards?

I'll give you an example, a shameful example. We in the northwest are on the cusp of a development boom that could generate revenues for the entire province. Dease Lake in the middle of that boom has lost their campus that provides training opportunities to the youth and to the people in that area. They cannot get operational funds from the ministry of advanced education to provide training opportunities for people to take advantage of the mining opportunities that will occur in that area, and the minister of advanced education has known that since April. That is a shameful record.

[1545]

These decisions that I've talked about have prevented the government from investing in these areas that I've mentioned. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Instead of choosing to spend the money, they chose to hide the fact that they were going to implement the HST, a $29½ million decision; they spent $6 million on the legal costs of convicted criminals; and this is the most shocking part, they have put away an unallocated amount of money in this budget — a record unallocated amount, $600 million — in a contingency fund, which is $150 million more than predicted, and $350 million in a forecast allowance. Almost a billion dollars not tied to any ministry, not tied to any program and not tied to any service.

What for? Why did they put away $950 million in unallocated revenues? Well, to quote the Minister of Finance in yesterday's paper: "We have tried to maintain as much flexibility as possible to allow the new Premier and executive council at that time to set a new course and new directions." So this government is holding back almost a billion dollars for whatever the new Premier wants to support as pet projects.

Meanwhile, what's happening in the different ridings and constituencies in this province? Well, I can tell you. Seniors are wondering how to pay for increased care
[ Page 6329 ]
costs. Residential care facilities are struggling with staff shortages. Seniors in rural areas like mine are forced to travel five hours to access driving test services.

Rural elementary schools are shutting down. Librarians were cut. School completion rates for aboriginal students are 49 percent, 30 points lower than non-aboriginals. And we still rank the worst in the country when it comes to child poverty.

You know, when I think back on setting aside $950 million that could have been spent on those kinds of issues, those kinds of concerns, those kinds of services, I think of Bill Nannings, who just last month I visited in the Wrinch Memorial Hospital in Hazelton.

He waited seven days with a collapsed lung and the prospect of rapid deterioration in a hospital bed in Hazelton waiting for a bed to become available so that he could see a thoracic specialist at St. Paul's in Vancouver. He was on a wait-list called a bed list, with a collapsed lung, while this government decided to set aside almost a billion dollars so that a new Premier could have flexibility.

Those are bad decisions — not the kinds of decisions people in B.C. support, not the kinds I can support. It shows that this government is out of touch with the everyday lives of people in this province, and that is very sad.

J. Les: It's a delight to rise this afternoon after having listened to the comments of my friend opposite, to which I listened carefully. Actually, over the last several years he and I have travelled around the province a fair bit as members of the legislative Finance Committee, and we've had a great time doing that, I must say.

There are many things, I suspect, on which we do not agree, but we've had a lot of fun meeting various people around the province and visiting various communities. I think our relationship has certainly been a good one. However, we find ourselves…. However, it is the same as saying "but…."

By the way, I heard several references already to the outgoing Leader of the Opposition and the outgoing Premier and the commendable work that they have done on behalf of British Columbians.

[1550]

Forgive me if I add one more person to the list of people who I think should be commended. Over the last 2½ to three years we have undergone some of the most challenging financial circumstances in a generation, and we have been served, I believe, incredibly well by our Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

J. Les: No, there is no rumour at all that he is retiring or not running. I hope he stays around for many years to come.

But I think it is worth noting that he has been that steady hand on the tiller through that last 2½ years as the entire world, almost, has gone through these excruciatingly difficult financial circumstances, which we have weathered here in British Columbia not without difficulty but, in many respects, in much better form than most other jurisdictions, including those in Canada and the United States. I think that does bear underlining.

I'm not going to take too much time this afternoon, because I know that I have colleagues who wish to address some remarks as well. Let's just look at the facts that are laid out in the budget. Let's look at the facts as we find them around the province of British Columbia today, as we are starting now to come out of this economic downturn.

We find, for example, that in 2010 we actually created an additional 45,200 jobs in the province of British Columbia. Where other jurisdictions are still seeing their unemployment rates going up and, in some cases — the United States, for example — approaching 10 percent unemployment, we've had a 2 percent increase in employed people in British Columbia. That is part of the story that we've been telling since 2001. We have 360,000 more jobs in British Columbia today than we did ten years ago.

We on this side of the House tend to talk an awful lot about jobs, because a job is really a pretty important part of a strong and cohesive social policy. Without a job, lots of people, frankly, don't have too many prospects. So it's important to keep focused on making sure that the economic climate continues to produce good, strong, family-supporting jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Speaking of family-supporting jobs, it's also worthwhile, I think, to point out that the average hourly wage in British Columbia last year went up to $23.12 an hour. That too was up 2.3 percent over the year previous.

Interjection.

J. Les: My friend opposite says thanks to the unions for that. However that may be, it is nonetheless an average increase of 2.3 percent by wage earners in British Columbia in this last year, as we were coming out of that economic recession. That too, I think, is indicative of the strength of the economic recovery that's starting to take hold in the province of British Columbia.

On top of that, another important measurement that we have out there is consumer confidence. Confident consumers are consumers that have a job and consumers that spend and support businesses in their communities. Consumers in British Columbia are the second most confident in all of Canada, which I think is a pretty outstanding fact to keep in mind as well.

On top of that, we are a government…. I must point this out again because I think British Columbians need
[ Page 6330 ]
to understand what differentiates members on the government side from members on the opposition side, and it is simply this: we believe in low taxes and restrained spending.

Now, members opposite, in a variety of forums, make it very clear that they wish to see increased taxation and more spending. The member for Stikine, who was on his feet just before me, made it very clear that we're not spending enough. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who is running to be the leader of the New Democratic Party, has made it very clear that we need more taxation.

[1555]

I think it's important that British Columbians keep that in mind — that we have been very busy on behalf of British Columbians, lowering taxation since 2001. The average British Columbian has seen their income tax drop by some 37 percent, which I'm sure they very much appreciate. Our philosophy is that a hard-earned dollar is better in the pocket of the taxpayer than in the pocket of government.

Today in British Columbia hard-working taxpayers pay the lowest taxes on the first $118,000 of income compared to any other Canadian. That is a fact that is starting to become pretty well noticed and is going to make our economy more competitive in comparison to all of the other Canadian provinces, the United States and many of the other G7, G8 or G20 countries — however many Gs there are today. We are in a very good, competitive position to thrive and to grow this economy in the future.

When we look at how well our province is doing, of course we also have to look at exports. We are a province that does a lot of exporting — forest products, minerals. Last year B.C. exports increased by 15 percent over 2009 — again, a pretty good indicator of the fact that we're coming out of the recession and that British Columbia is participating fully in that economic recovery, to the extent that it's going on, on a global basis.

I must say, as well, that our efforts over the preceding years to make sure that we're fully able to take advantage of that economic growth that's going on in China, in Korea, in India, is really starting to show some benefits.

If we had maintained our traditional strong and almost exclusive linkages with the American economy, our economic performance today wouldn't be doing as well as it is. But the fact is that we have those strong and growing economic bridges in place with Asia. I think we are well positioned to participate in that economic growth that's been going on in that part of the world.

Forestry product exports, for example, have grown 21 percent in the year past to $8.6 billion. Members in this House, I'm sure, are fully aware of the mills that are opening up across the province, almost entirely due to the phenomenal increases in the amount of lumber that we are now selling into China, which is a direct result of initiatives undertaken by our government.

There is, I think, no doubt that as we go forward, there is going to be an insatiable demand, almost, in China and other Asian countries for B.C. lumber. Again, that competitive environment that we've established and that strong focus on the Pacific Rim economies is really starting to come into its own.

It's interesting to focus on export markets and those kinds of things, but a major percentage of our economy is small business — mom-and-pop operations, perhaps people with five or ten employees. We have a great many of those around the province, and they too have benefited from the taxation policies of our government.

Next year we will have a small business tax rate of zero in the province of British Columbia. We will out-compete the rest of the country in terms of our small business tax. I know that small business owners and operators across the province are very appreciative of the fact that for them, as well, we have set up a great, competitive environment where they can keep their dollars in their pockets, grow their businesses and provide more jobs for other British Columbians.

Now, there's another very important debate going on across the province. I do want to touch on that briefly, and that has to do with the HST. There is no question that this budget that was presented yesterday is premised on the HST, as implemented, going forward.

[1600]

With every fibre in my body, I sincerely hope that it does remain in place going forward. It is, quite simply, the best economic policy for our province.

Now, there's been a great deal of debate. A lot of it is politically inspired. Very little of it has been economically inspired. It's probably futile, but it would be interesting if the members opposite would drop the political rhetoric and actually focus on what the economic facts are.

I do not believe for a minute that members of the New Democratic Party actually have an ideological disagreement with the harmonized sales tax. I don't think so. It is simply convenient politically for them to oppose the implementation of the HST. I think we need to recognize that and put that on the record, because that's the way it is.

There are other Labour governments, socialist governments, NDP governments around the world that are quite happily carrying on with a value-added tax or an HST. No problem at all. As a matter of fact, the NDP government in the province of Nova Scotia recently increased their harmonized sales tax from 13 percent to 15 percent. I didn't hear Jack Layton comment about that. I didn't hear the opposition Finance critic comment about that.

I guess it's okay if the NDP government in Nova Scotia does that, but if we're talking about implementing
[ Page 6331 ]
an HST, the lowest HST in all of Canada, right here in British Columbia, well, that's politically inconvenient, I guess, for the members opposite. Therefore, they're bound to oppose it.

Later this year British Columbians will actually be asked in a referendum whether or not to carry on with the HST or to return to the provincial sales tax. It's actually an extremely important question for British Columbians. It is not a political question for them. It is an economic question and a fiscal policy question. It's all about: how will our economy do best? Under which tax regime will we have more jobs? Under which tax system will we have more investment in the province of British Columbia?

Those are the questions that I hope and expect British Columbians will be asking themselves. When they do and when they look at the evidence and they listen to the experts — not to me, not to the members opposite…. When they listen to people who don't have an axe to grind, they will have to come to the conclusion, I feel very strongly, that the HST, as inept as the implementation was, is actually the best way forward.

This is not a flippant exercise that we will be going through later on this year. This is going to be a serious moment, where British Columbians are going to play, individually and collectively, a very large role in shaping our economic future. It's something that I think completely transcends the usual partisan political debate that goes on in here. I would hope that we can bring that discussion to an economic and financial discussion, rather than playing political games with the economic future of this province.

I think our children and our grandchildren deserve a lot better than having a question like that decided on who is going to best obtain a little political advantage in the short term out of this exercise.

I'm not going to carry on too much longer. Obviously, I strongly support this budget. It sets the correct tone for the times. We would all like to tax even less. We would all like to have more to spend, but we have come through some extremely difficult times. With this budget in place, I think we are going to be well situated to take advantage of the growing world markets.

We're going to be able to take advantage of bringing more jobs to British Columbia, to give ourselves the broadest economic base possible, with all of the resources we have, with all of the human resources as well, and being able to take advantage of all of the new education opportunities, particularly in the post-secondary sector, that we have made available over the last number of years.

[1605]

I think we are looking at a very bright future here in the province of British Columbia. There is never a state of perfection. There are always more challenges. Of that there is no question, but with the circumstances that we've had to deal with and where we're at today, not only here in the province of British Columbia but across Canada and around the world, this truly is a beacon of light that I think a lot of others envy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: We have a very special guest today visiting us here in Victoria. We have Sarabjit Romana. She is a doctor, one of the first Chinese medical practitioners from the Indo-Canadian community. She represents the Indo-Canadian community, Chinese and, of course, British Columbians, and she is here with us today. Many members will know that her husband, Jasbir Romana, is one of the hosts on one of the radio programs, Sher-E-Punjab, and he conducts talk shows with all of us from time to time. With her is her daughter, Ekum Romana. She's also visiting with us today.

They have three special guests who are visiting us from Sydney, Australia. Dave Mani is there, his wife Anita Mani is there, and their beautiful son Arnaf Mani is there. I would like to ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Debate Continued

L. Popham: It's a pleasure to be back in this House and to have the opportunity to respond to the budget speech. I have been allotted just minutes to speak, and I have to be honest that I take strong exception to having that little time. My constituents deserve more time to be represented in this House. Saanich South deserves more than 15 minutes in 256 days.

As MLAs, we were elected as legislators, and I believe this government has denied us our democratic duty. We were elected to be legislators, and by refusing to let the House sit for 256 days, this government is undermining our democratic tradition.

There are many things we are concerned about in Saanich South, and I have only been allocated enough time to touch a few of them. Food security and climate change are just two of the topics we need to be addressed more seriously at the provincial level.

As New Democrats, we believe that a strong climate change action plan involves becoming more self-sufficient with our food production in British Columbia. This idea of greater self-sufficiency is widely accepted, but it needs provincial support to be successful. In fact, you have a 2007 study on one of your dusty shelves called the B.C. self-sufficiency report. The message is clear. We are not currently producing enough food in this province.
[ Page 6332 ]

Being the Agriculture critic, I will respond to the disappointing lack of support for agriculture in this budget. The B.C. agricultural community is made up of diverse, resilient and amazing British Columbians. They are farmers, they are agriculture supporters, and they are people who care about sustainable food systems in B.C.

It's people like Harold Steves in Richmond, who has fought his whole life to protect agriculture, and it's Dan Jason from Saltspring Island, who speaks out on the importance of local seed production. It's Donna Passmore in Langley, who is an activist for farmland. She knows that the highest and best use for the ALR is not a giant overpass for single-occupancy vehicles.

It's Dirk Becker, whose passion for farming in Lantzville is contagious, but he has to fight to farm. It's Joe Sardinha from Kelowna, who is fighting to keep the B.C. apple growers' heads above water. His pleas for support fall on the deaf ears of this Liberal government.

It's Lin Steedman and Oliver Egan from Windermere, who are two young farmers trying to make a go of it because they believe in sustainable farming, but as new farmers, their access to farmland is almost out of reach.

[1610]

It's Dan del Villano, a local beekeeper fighting to save our honeybees on Vancouver Island, but he has run up against foolhardy policy changes by this government. It's Ken Hueston in Colwood, who sets up the Island Chefs Collaborative, making a connection between farmers and restaurants, to try and keep our farmers in business.

It's Nathalie and David Chambers of Madrona Farm in Saanich, who have spent years farming and providing local food to our community, at the same time fighting just to stay on their land. It's Dave Fernie of Rodear Meats in Big Lake, who struggles every day to stay in business because of the meat regulation debacle that this government is responsible for. It's Rochelle Eisen, who worked for years as B.C.'s only organic extension officer, a position recently cut by this government.

It's all those farmers and food producers who have walked away from agriculture because they just can't make a living. That's the constituency who I'm responding on behalf of today. Let me tell you. I'm sure they would all agree that the status quo is not good enough. Again we see a drop in support for agriculture, and in B.C. that has been the norm for seven years, so status quo it is.

The Finance Minister waxed on about how the B.C. Liberals have helped pave the way for a brighter future. Let me ask you this: what does B.C. agriculture look like to you in our future? We all know this is not something you take seriously, and the people of B.C. will not stand for this kind of apathy.

As I travel around the province, I can't tell you how many times I have heard that the Agriculture Ministry is being referred to as the incredible shrinking ministry. The fact is that nobody supports this government's lack of foresight and lack of vision for our agricultural future. Unless you properly fund this ministry, you have no business making statements about preparing us for our future. Without a strong agriculture sector, we are ill-prepared for what our future will bring.

The agriculture sector needs to be tended like a crop. Neglect one year will bring failure for years to come. The support this sector deserves is like nutrients, making it healthy and allowing it to grow so it can be depended on as an economic driver in our province.

Why is it so easily neglected? Making shortsighted decisions has long-term consequences, and these are consequences that affect our communities — all of our communities in this House. This is especially true for rural areas. For example, by bringing in a new set of meat-processing regulations, you have put small and medium processors out of business.

These processors and producers are an asset to our province, and they have been abandoned by the B.C. Liberals. By driving these producers out of business, there is a domino effect. The demand for local meat is reduced, local economies feel the loss, infrastructure for processing is lost, and skill sets are lost. All of that means that our resilience and food security are in jeopardy.

This scenario is not easy to turn around. You can't replace those things easily. The slow and tedious reaction by this government to fix this mistake is taking too long, and it's becoming too complicated. The longer it takes, the more likely we will become more dependent on out-of-province meat products, the more chance we will move into a mass-produced and centralized food system. None of this makes for a brighter future or a stronger province.

I see that in this budget the Agricultural Land Commission has lost 5 percent of its annual allotment. This comes at a time when the Auditor General has published a report telling us that the ALC is underfunded and unable to fulfil its mandate. This mandate is to protect the agricultural land reserve and to promote agriculture.

It comes at a time when the chair of the Agricultural Land Commission submitted a business plan asking the ministry for support. It comes at a time when a Treasury Board request has been made, due to desperate times. How much clearer does it need to be? Do you need more than an independent study by the Auditor General or a request and a business plan from the chair of the ALC or a Treasury Board request that demonstrates an emergency?

[1615]

How about the wisdom from our people in British Columbia? What will it take to get support for agriculture?

The ALC needs to be funded. Instead, the budget drops by 5 percent. Since 2009 this government has hacked a half-million dollars out of the ALC budget. The
[ Page 6333 ]
ALR has overwhelming support in British Columbia. It is one of the best land use tools we have ever had. Not funding the commission adequately is shortsighted, and it's irresponsible.

This budget puts aside a contingency fund, something for the future. I believe that the best contingency plan for B.C. includes a healthy, producing and growing agriculture sector, and that's a smart investment.

This budget is a good reflection of how the government values agriculture in this province. Even one of your own leadership candidates recognizes this. He is willing to commit $15 million. He notes that this $15 million is the first step towards meeting your own agricultural plan. There is enormous deficit where agriculture support is concerned. But where was this member's concern over the past seven years? Where was his voice then?

The point is this. Nobody is being fooled. Your own people are asking you for support. We're asking you for support, and the people who value B.C. food are asking for support.

It's time to move over and allow the New Democrats to govern. We will protect B.C. agriculture. We're committed to that.

This government has had its chance, and it has failed. This government seems to believe it can't afford to support B.C. agriculture. Well, in reality, B.C. agriculture can't afford this government any longer.

In case there's any mistake, I do not support this budget.

K. Conroy: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Introductions by Members

K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Colin Cameron and Scott Anderson, who are teachers at the Pacific Torah Institute in Vancouver. With Colin and Scott today are 16 young men who are in grades 10 and 11, and I'm looking forward to meeting them later and touring them around the Legislature. Would you all please join me in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to respond to the budget.

I'd like to start out, though, by acknowledging the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who has served in the role of Leader of the Opposition for the last six years and, I think, has worked hard, always acknowledging and recognizing that every member of this House is focused on creating a better British Columbia. I wish that she is able to spend her time — continue to spend it — productively. But I do want to acknowledge and thank her for the work that she did over the last six years.

We're going through a very interesting period of time in this House, on both the opposition and government side, with new leaders likely to be appointed in the next number of months — in our case a little sooner, in the opposition's case a little bit further out.

I would like to reflect on the leadership of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Premier of the province for the last ten years, and on what's been accomplished across British Columbia, particularly focusing on northern British Columbia.

The Premier always had a strong vision for northern British Columbia and was certain that a strong British Columbia was based on a foundation of strong natural resource sectors — forest industry, mining industry, agriculture industry and energy industry — all creating value for our communities and ensuring that we had the level of resources necessary to continue to provide the social services that are so important to British Columbians.

With that in mind, he made several key decisions, starting in the very first early days of office and moving through the past ten years. I have assembled a bit of a top ten of items that I believe the Premier left as a true legacy for northern British Columbia — certainly with a bent, perhaps, towards Prince George, the constituency where I share the representation responsibilities with my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.

[1620]

One of the very first things that the Premier did — in fact, it was in the election of 2001 — was announce the intent to move forward on a northern medical program, an opportunity to train physicians in the north for the north at the University of Northern British Columbia.

What a tremendous success this has been. It was implemented at the time by the Minister of Advanced Education, who happens to be my colleague from Prince George–Valemount, and the program was delivered in a way that has truly changed the face of medical services in northern British Columbia.

To date there have been a total of 32 physicians enter over the last few years, and there have been 70 graduates of the program. In each and every year, as we move forward, we continue to supply northern British Columbia with physicians. In small communities across northern British Columbia this has made a huge difference.

Candidates are selected very specifically for qualities that would indicate their likelihood to want to practise in smaller rural communities. I've gotten to know many of the students over the years at different convocations and opportunities to meet them, and it has been very, very interesting to see the success of this program. It really has changed the face of health care in northern British Columbia and will remain a true legacy of the Premier.

The second project that I'd like to talk about is the Northern Development Initiative Trust. This has been an incredibly successful program. Originally, $135 million was provided to the Northern Development
[ Page 6334 ]
Initiative Trust. It represents an area approximately from Lillooet north in British Columbia, the area previously served by B.C. Rail, and has really provided for local decision-making by locally elected officials and appointed representatives on the board of the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

Through various other contributions, the federal and provincial governments have topped that up, to a total of $185 million, and just under $100 million worth of projects have been delivered through the Northern Development Initiative Trust so far.

But listen to this. This is the most important part of this. Despite the fact that there has been $100 million worth of projects approved, there is still almost $180 million left in the account of the Northern Development Initiative Trust.

It truly is a legacy for the decades to come. It has given northern representatives, locally elected officials at the municipal level, an opportunity to move forward on major development and infrastructure projects — things like the Port of Prince Rupert, the Prince George Airport, as well as many, many small opportunities — and created incremental capacity in little communities like Mackenzie and McBride, Valemount, Vanderhoof, Fort St. James to ensure they do have a long-term viable future.

The third item that I'd like to talk about is the Port of Prince Rupert, and what a tremendous success this has been. To convert that port to a container port, 500,000 TEUs per year, with the potential to expand upwards of 2.5 million TEUs, has created the capacity necessary for us to link into China, Japan, Korea and the remainder of the key Asian trading countries for us.

It was a $30 million initial investment of the province of British Columbia. It levered a total investment of $170 million, and what success we have seen as a result of that. We are seeing lumber flowing at record levels each and every month into the Asian marketplace and pulp going into the Asian marketplace at increasing levels. That would not have been possible without the Port of Prince Rupert. We would have had some success but nowhere near the level we have been able to achieve.

I think, looking into the future, we may look back at the Port of Prince Rupert as the answer to the softwood lumber challenges that we've had with the U.S., creating that new opportunity to move our lumber products into the Asian marketplace and no longer being as reliant on the United States as the sole purchaser of our lumber products.

Moving onto item No. 4, the 2010 Winter Olympics were clearly an exciting time for us. The Olympic legacy in Prince George was the Charles Jago Northern Sport Centre, and what a legacy that has been. This was a $30.75 million investment. It's a 13,000-square-metre facility. There are two large indoor soccer fields, three basketball courts and a 200-metre elevated running track — the longest indoor track, I understand, in western Canada — as well as many high-performance coaching facilities that are located inside this particular facility.

[1625]

I'm very pleased to be able to report that at UNBC both men's and women's basketball teams have taken full advantage of this particular facility, raising the championship banner for the men's team last year and having a very, very good season again for both teams this year. So clearly, this investment has paid off.

What makes it particularly unique is that it was a partnership, with both the city of Prince George and UNBC coming together to agree on the location of the facility and the joint use of the facility. It is open to the public and is certainly something that has provided for tremendous athletic opportunities and something that we look forward to into the future.

Number 5 is the Cariboo connector, and what an exciting project this has been. I have to say that there are days during the summer months where I find it particularly awkward. Instead of taking 2½ hours to get from Prince George to Williams Lake, it sometimes takes three or even four hours to get to Williams Lake. You have to add to your schedule, because there's been so much construction going on through the Cariboo connector, particularly the last couple of years, that it certainly has extended our travel time.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

Once that road is paved and in wonderful shape, as it is this winter…. It truly does accelerate the driving time and the safety of that particular corridor. I know that when I talk to constituents up and down the Cariboo, they all remark on the pace at which this project is moving ahead. Originally, there was a commitment of $200 million over the first five years. That was significantly exceeded. Just under $250 million was invested.

If you look through the Cariboo and northern British Columbia, the Premier has seen fit to invest over $2 billion in that region since 2001. I know my colleague from Kamloops is probably jealous, because Prince George has done reasonably well, but I would strongly argue that he could put together a list of the top ten items for the Kamloops region that would rival the list for northern British Columbia.

Coming in at No. 6 is the Prince George Airport. An interesting little tidbit of information for you. There are a total of 11 runways in North America where the space shuttle can land. Prince George is one of those. So should there be a problem with other locations where the space shuttle would like to land as they were coming in, although I guess they're not really using them anymore…. If they took one of them back out for a spin, then they'd actually be able to land that space shuttle in an emergency situation.
[ Page 6335 ]

But what is much better news about the Prince George Airport is the private sector investment that we're seeing in the logistics park at the Prince George Airport. It will become one of the largest light industrial parks in western Canada — in fact, perhaps in all of Canada.

The new Boundary Road extension that's moving forward is going to enable that sort of economic opportunity, and we see a day in the not so distant future when there are many, many 747s landing and taking off from Prince George each day, servicing the Asian and the eastern seaboard of the United States markets and acting as a refuelling and logistics centre — so a very exciting new opportunity with many, many hundreds of jobs.

No list would be complete, coming in at No. 7, without mentioning both of the post-secondary institutions in Prince George, the College of New Caledonia and the University of Northern British Columbia. I already mentioned, of course, the northern medical program, which was absolutely critical, but nursing seats have increased by 780 percent since 2001.

UNBC received the No. 1 ranking from Maclean's magazine. They tied as the most sustainable university in North America for their sustainability practices, and the college continues to grow and expand programming for First Nations and particularly focusing on trades.

We have two wonderful institutions that have received tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of investment over the last ten years, and this is a true legacy of the Premier's commitment to post-secondary education and ensuring that we have a vibrant future for all of our children.

On the health care front, coming in at No. 8, is a series of projects at the Prince George Regional Hospital, now called the University Hospital of Northern British Columbia, including the Maternal Centre of Excellence, the pediatric wing and the Gateway seniors facility — being just three of those projects, and many, many more that I could talk about.

We feel very well-served on the health care front in northern British Columbia, and the capacity that has been built in health care certainly is a true legacy of the Premier and his leadership.

We're just down to two last items before I will yield my spot on the floor. I'm sure we'll hear much more good news from the opposition. They'll probably go through a list of the top ten things that have been accomplished in their ridings, I suspect.

[1630]

Now, this may or may not be one of those items that are cherished by opposition members, but I certainly do think that this will be a true legacy. Although not built yet, I'm speaking of the Site C dam. I think this has tremendous potential to provide very, very efficient green energy.

There has been much written about this project, much work done on this project. It is really just a widening of the river. It takes the Peace River and widens it to about twice the width of what it is today. Yet it produces over 800 megawatts of clean, green electricity and has the potential to make sure that we are energy self-sufficient well into the future. This project is billions of dollars. It is likely a ten-year construction job with thousands of people working through that period of time, and it will sustain our future.

Sometimes it takes someone with a strong vision to move forward on difficult decisions and awkward decisions like this one. This one, in my view, although perhaps controversial at times, will be a true legacy for the Premier and his ten years in office, and one that I think we all support.

Coming in as the final of my top ten items and legacies during the Premier's ten years…. Again, this one is not built yet. Well, I shouldn't say that. It's under construction — two-thirds built perhaps now. It is the $100 million northern cancer centre in Prince George.

You know, Madam Speaker, there were lots of naysayers. There were lots of people that said that Prince George didn't need a cancer centre, that it shouldn't be built in Prince George, that we didn't need the cancer centre outside of the large cancer centres in the Lower Mainland and Kelowna, but the Premier had that vision. He wanted to have that built in Prince George. It was important for northern residents to be served well, to be served by a unique facility like this. He did believe in the capacity of northern British Columbia to find ways to staff that facility, to make sure that we had the technical expertise necessary.

Although it will open when he is no longer Premier of this province, it is my hope that those that are responsible for the opening ceremonies invite him and acknowledge him for his leadership.

To wrap things up, I could very easily have done 20-, 30- or 100-item legacies that were left behind by the Premier of this province from his ten years of leadership. Although he has not always been popular and we have oftentimes found ourselves defending difficult decisions, I do believe that ten, 15 and 20 years from now — I actually sense that it's already happening now, at least in northern British Columbia — people will look back and say that this was an incredible decade. It was a decade of a man with vision who believed in the north and believed that we could accomplish anything that we wanted to accomplish.

It reminds me of one of his favourite sayings: "Anything that you can do or think you can do, begin it. Boldness has power, genius and magic in it."

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to stand here once again on behalf of my constituents to speak about issues that they have brought to my attention. They expect me to bring them here and discuss them, to bring them to the attention of the government and have some resolution to them.
[ Page 6336 ]

I stand here deeply disappointed that after about nine months — 256 days — away from this place, we are called back for four days. Four days to do the serious business of the people. If that's not the disappointment of a decade, in my mind, I don't know what is. It actually makes people angry in my constituency that this government has the courage to call us back for four days to talk about all those important issues that they waited for nine months to talk about in this House.

[1635]

That's not happening, and I say that that is a shameful, shameful record of this government. The people of this province will remember when they go to the polls how this government operates, shies away from talking about those issues that are important to our people and refuses to talk about or acknowledge those serious issues that face our communities all across this province.

Having said that, I'm also disappointed in the budget that was brought in the other day. We have, like I said, issues. Issues that should have been addressed in the budget are basically glossed over as if nothing is happening in the province out there, as if those issues are not important. The only important thing to this Liberal government is electing their leader. They know that you could go on and elect and go through the leadership campaign. You will elect your leader. But that shouldn't be at the expense of all those important issues that they waited for nine months to discuss in this House.

So I'll talk about some of the issues that should have been brought in here, that should have been debated and passed, to deal with those issues. Since taking office in 2001, this Liberal government has left the education system in complete shambles. They have closed 191 schools across the province and left more than 15,000 classrooms overcrowded. On top of this, they have also downloaded many costs onto the backs of the local school boards, forcing layoffs of teachers and cuts to the necessary programs.

Surrey has been hit particularly hard, being one of the only growing — and, I might say, the fastest-growing — communities in the province, where we have seen over 2,500 new students entering our schools since 2005 and 2006, but not a single dollar has been provided to our Surrey school board to add a single classroom to accommodate those students.

This year alone…. I brought this up before. My colleagues from Surrey have brought this up here before, and the members on that side also have been apprised by the school board officials and by their constituents that 1,300 new students entered this year alone. That's the size of one secondary school or two or three elementary schools that we could accommodate this year with the new students coming on board. But 2,500 since 2005-2006 — no wonder we have 292 portables right now springing up every day around our school yards.

Education is one area that you cannot take lightly, that should not be subject to the budget manipulations we see by this government. Time gone for those students who are in our schools right now is time gone. This is a lost opportunity forever. Money that you save or any dollar that you do not spend that is needed to be spent for the education of children…. You'll pay dearly for years to come if you neglect our students at this point.

This just shows how wrong their priorities are. It's not that the money isn't there. Money is there. But it is being spent on their pet projects. They can find half a billion dollars to put a roof over B.C. Place, but they cannot find a single dollar to put a roof over children who need real classrooms in Surrey. That is the shameful record of this government, and people will remember for a long, long time.

Now, if you move onto the other areas in the governing of this province, we have seen families burdened with extra costs. With the HST, families are now paying an average of $521 more per year. This is a continued trend of tax shift from corporations onto the individuals and families.

[1640]

Madam Speaker, this is not what I say here. You don't have to believe me or anybody else here, but this is where I will quote what was in one of the local newspapers. The Times Colonist said this: "Despite inflation and economic growth, corporations are paying about $1 billion less in readily attributable taxes than they were in 2001" — $1 billion less. In contrast, the families and individuals are paying $8 billion more since 2001. That is a tax shift of over $9 billion onto the working families from corporations.

No wonder families are saying to me, and I'm sure they are telling every member on that side of this House, that they are working harder, they're working longer, but they are falling behind. Those are the real facts. That's what's happening to them out there, and they feel it in their everyday lives.

On top of those extra costs associated with this regressive HST that has been brought in, this government has also chosen to increase MSP premiums. They have been steadily increasing over the last few years. As of January 1, 2011, we will be paying nearly 70 percent higher in MSP premiums than we did in 2001.

Currently British Columbia is home to the lowest minimum wage in the country. Over the last ten years they have failed to help the province's lowest-paid workers. Sitting at $8 an hour, it's not unusual for people to take two or three jobs just to pay the bills.

They have failed British Columbians on the transit. Despite repeated promises to provide adequate funding to TransLink in order to ensure construction of the Evergreen line, they have fallen short again. Surrey is hit hard again here. The city alone is 500 buses short and
[ Page 6337 ]
has yet to see a promise to connect the town centres that make up the south of the Fraser.

Let's talk about the Evergreen line. This has been promised for years, almost a decade now. So $400 million is not there. Even if TransLink can come up with the $400 million to pay for their portion, which the mayors are right now saying there's no way they will agree to raise property taxes to pay for that…. Even if TransLink is able to come up with that, and I don't know where they're going to come up with this $400 million…. Even if they do, they're still short $173 million, and no one has talked about where that money is going to come from.

We're only talking about capital funding here. We haven't even touched on the operation side of the Evergreen line. Where is the money going to come from to operate it once the Evergreen line is built?

As a result of mismanagement by this government and the ministers that sat around that cabinet table, we have $20 million invested in a third SeaBus. That bus is needed. It was put in service during the Olympics, and it was proven that the service is needed for the third SeaBus. But it is sitting idly rusting out there, because they have no more money to operate that third SeaBus right now — none whatsoever. It's parked there. So $20 million is wasted, money that could have been used to improve the public transit in the Lower Mainland.

The other mismanagement, I can tell you…. Golden Ears Bridge was built, and the contractors are guaranteed their money. They're laughing all the way to the bank every day at the expense of the taxpayers. So $71 million will be paid to the contractors this year — taxpayers' money, through TransLink — because they cannot come up with the traffic flow that they anticipated would be there, and they are guaranteed that traffic flow.

Such a miscalculation. How could that have happened? Such a prudent government sitting over there. They always pat themselves on the back. So $71 million that could have been used to put more buses in south of the Fraser and could have been used to pay partly for the Evergreen line that is not being built right now. Many people in that region are saying: "Nevergreen line." No wonder.

[1645]

The third SeaBus could have been put in service right now if that money was not going to these contractors. That's how mismanaged this government is. That's how to waste taxpayers' dollars. That's just one of the examples.

On top of all this, their failed legacy stretches over into health care. Over the last year they've forced needless delays on British Columbians, allowing taxpayer-funded MRI machines to sit idle, creating a year-and-a-half-long wait-list.

The Surrey Memorial Hospital ER is well overdue. It was promised in 2005 that it would be built by 2010. Now they are telling us it will not be built until 2014. That is, we went through the full cycle of three elections, three times by this government, and that hospital still sits there with the emergency room not being built.

That's their record. People see it out there, and people come and talk to us. They are tired of this government promising and not delivering — promising one thing then doing something different. No wonder they will be kicked out. Soon they will go to the election. Soon people in this province will be given their opportunity to elect a new government.

We could continue on. Our elders are also getting neglected under this government. Changes to PharmaCare have meant that many seniors have to pay increased fees for prescriptions, digging into their already-stretched-thin budgets. Many of the drugs that they need aren't even covered under this new plan. Despite promises to add 5,000 long-term-care beds, they decided to cut care beds. Senior care homes are moving towards privatized models and reduced staff, ultimately leading to neglect of our elders.

On top of all of this, this government is facing serious questions about transparency as a government. With questions mounting surrounding the sale of the B.C. Rail corporation, they are trying to stamp out any chance of an inquiry. The $6 million buyout of Dave Basi and Bob Virk did little but add fuel to the rumours that the government officials could have been brought to the stand and answered some tough questions, that the B.C. Liberal high officials could be brought in to answer some of the real serious questions around that.

So I would say that the taxpayers have had enough of this government. The deception and overspending is not acceptable. People are saying: "How could this government have their priorities so wrong that they could have the regressive HST and spend half a billion dollars to put the roof on B.C. Place, but only two blocks away from B.C. Place people are forced to sleep under bridges?" That's the legacy of this government. That's the legacy.

You want to talk about the forest industry, Madam Speaker, the industry that I come from and that has been an economic benefit to most of the British Columbians, a part of our history. What did this government do this year in this budget? Let's take a look. What have they done? The operating expenses for this ministry are reconstituted and fell by $29 million. This is a 9 percent cut over the last years.

In the last decade almost 1,006 positions, one-quarter of the workforce, has been cut. That just shows that this government is not serious about its forest industry at all. They have given up on the forest industry. It used to be the stand-alone ministry at one time. Now it is lumped, and they call it the Ministry of Forest, Mines and Lands.

So this just shows their seriousness about turning this industry around. No wonder we have had — what? — 75 sawmills shut down under their watch. Some 75 shut down, and 20,000 workers have been laid off.
[ Page 6338 ]

Interjection.

[1650]

H. Bains: The minister is talking about 23 reopened.

Okay, that still leaves 53 shut down, Minister. That's not a record that you want to be proud of.

Let's talk a bit more about this government's forest policy. When this government came to power in 2003 through the forest revitalization program with the promise of $1 billion to be invested in B.C. sawmills, what happened? They gave everything that the industry wanted. What they did, rather than investing here, was that money was invested across the strait.

This minister and the minister previous to that were applauding the industry at that time for taking the jobs over across the line. That's the shameful record of this minister and the minister prior to that and the entire Liberal government. That's the legacy they're leaving behind.

The forest industry workers and the forest industry community where they live have had it with this government. They are looking for a new government, a government that actually will pay attention and bring real changes to the forest industry so that people in those forestry-dependent communities and the forestry workers once again will feel proud to go back to work.

Once again those communities will thrive under this government, the New Democrat government. They have given up on that government. They are waiting for the first opportunity to throw that bunch out, to bring in a new government, where seniors will be respected once again, where youth will have hope and opportunity by reinvesting in post-secondary education and skills and training.

Under that government, our workers will be respected at workplaces, their health and safety will be protected; and business will be encouraged to invest in British Columbia to create jobs and, at the same time, respect our environment values, respect the workers and respect the community where they operate their businesses. That's how this government under the New Democrat leadership will be providing government for British Columbians.

There is a hope. And I challenge those leadership candidates out there. Soon you get an opportunity to become leader out there. Call an election. Give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to throw this bunch out so that we can have a government that they will be proud of once again.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Might I ask all members to keep their voices down for their separate conversations.

Hon. S. Thomson: It's a real honour to be able to rise today in the House to provide my support for Budget 2011.

Firstly, I really want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the continued support of my family in the work that we do. We don't often get a chance, probably not enough times, to be able to say that. To my wife, Brenda, and my children, I really want to thank them for their continued support and their sacrifice, particularly over the last few months in terms of how much you've actually been able to be home and be with the family. So I really thank them for their support.

I also want to again acknowledge the great work that our constituency office does in Kelowna-Mission with Nan and Rebecca. They have been tireless stalwarts on behalf of the community and the constituents of Kelowna-Mission, and I couldn't do this job here without their great support. I want to really acknowledge that and thank them.

Also to thank again the continued support of the constituents and the residents of Kelowna-Mission. It's a great place to live in this great province, and it's a great place to work. I'm very proud and honoured to be able to continue to represent that riding.

I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the projects and investments that have been made in our riding that are the result of the sound fiscal financial management that has been provided by this government and continues to be provided in Budget 2011.

Coming up in March, Tutt Street Place will open in my riding, in the Pandosy district. This is a $10.7 million project which is providing 39 units of supportive housing for women in financial need.

[1655]

I'm very proud to say that the province has invested $9.1 million in infrastructure funding through the provincial homeless initiative. This initiative integrates housing with support services in order to help people to transition from temporary shelter into stable housing, as well as help them to develop the skills they need to find employment.

It's important, when we talk about these projects, to recognize the contributions of our partners in all of these projects. The city of Kelowna has provided a land lease reduction of $550,000 as well as nearly $300,000 in reduced municipal levies, and the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia provided a $100,000 grant. Of course, NOW Canada, New Opportunities for Women, who will operate Tutt Street Place, for their contribution of more than $670,000 in cash equity, part of which was a donation of $50,000 from the Connection Drug Rehabilitation Society….

I'm very proud of, and all the members on this side of the House are very proud of the collaboration the province has in entering into these partnerships. I think one of the hallmarks of our approach is the partnerships that we've been able to develop locally and federally, with our federal partners, in many of the investments we've made in our ridings.
[ Page 6339 ]

I'm also very proud to note that the funding for social housing in this budget is $562 million, approximately four times as much as in 2001. The province continues to invest in these initiatives, and it's a clear demonstration of this government's commitment to help British Columbia's most vulnerable citizens and to strengthen our communities. I'm very, very proud that this new facility will be opening its doors in my riding in March.

I'm just as proud of other recent provincial investments in supportive housing in Kelowna — $4.8 million towards the construction of Willowbridge transitional housing, and I know my colleague for Westside-Kelowna was very pleased to see that project open recently. I know my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country is very pleased to see the investment of $7.3 million towards supportive housing on Rutland Road in Kelowna–Lake Country, in the riding. Again, another very important initiative and very important partnerships in our community.

My colleague from Prince George talked about the many legacies and his top ten investments and initiatives in his riding. We could have, probably, a very similar number. In the time I probably won't be able to get to the top ten, but I do want to talk about a couple of other very significant investments that are a result of the continued investment by this government in the Okanagan and in the region.

I'm very proud of the work being done in the area of health services. Just last week, we were able to celebrate a major milestone with the groundbreaking for the $47 million East Pandosy clinical support building. [Applause.]

I appreciate the support of my colleague from Kelowna–Lake Country. He was there to be able to celebrate this major milestone with us. It was a great morning and a great step forward in all the work that's being done at Kelowna General Hospital.

This will house lab and clinical support departments for the Interior heart and surgical centre and the Kelowna General Hospital as a whole. This is a new 7,800-square-foot building, which will be completed in the spring of 2012 and will open early next summer. It's part of the great new chapter in Okanagan health care.

It's a vital component of the development of the $448 million Interior heart and surgical centre, which will see the creation of a permanent home for the cardiac services program. It will also replace and upgrade operating rooms and support services at Kelowna General Hospital. We're very proud that for the first time, cardiac services are being made available outside of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.

Kelowna General has been performing angioplasties for about a year now. It's very heartwarming and gratifying, in a sense — especially since February is Heart Month — to hear the stories of the people that have been able to have those angioplasties at home, close to their families and right in the community. We've talked to many of the patients who have been through that. You can't believe how much they value that service and how much it means to them to be able to do that, and in many cases, to be out the next day and be able to be with their families and not have to travel out of the region to be able to get that service.

[1700]

Next year heart surgeries will be performed — another exciting development for our area. Heart patients will receive needed care close to home without the added stress of travelling and being far from friends and family at a time when they need them most.

Again, there's a theme here, the major contributions of our partners towards this investment: the Central Okanagan regional hospital district, who has put up $91 million towards the heart and surgical centre; Graham Design-Build for the outstanding work that they're doing in the construction; but I think mostly a great thanks to our doctors, our nurses, our staff at Kelowna General Hospital for the tremendous work they continue to do for the residents every single day of the year but most particularly during this period of significant construction which is all around them; and also the neighbourhood and the community around the hospital that have to put up with this very, very significant construction period over a number of years.

I know that the contractors, the hospital and Interior Health have worked very closely in communicating with our neighbours, but we've had tremendous support from the neighbourhood and community while this tremendous investment continues.

I also wanted to mention that it was great to hear today the comments from the member for Cariboo North in terms of the service that he received, or that his father received, in Kelowna at the cancer centre and at the hospice house. This is just another indication of the kind of incredible work that our doctors, nurses and staff working in these facilities and in our hospitals and centres do every single day of the year. I will certainly take his comments back and make sure that they hear them, because sometimes we don't recognize enough the great work that they do.

In addition to the clinical support building and the heart centre, we're just a year away from opening Kelowna General's new centennial tower. This new patient care tower will cover nearly 33,000 square metres and include a new emergency department four times larger than the one we have right now.

I'm proud to say that this government is producing a major expansion of local health care capacity, capabilities and quality. Kelowna General Hospital will never be the same again. It's going to be bigger and better, and all of us will benefit greatly because of these investments in the years to come — part of close to $1 billion investment in health care in our region, both in Kelowna and in Vernon.
[ Page 6340 ]

If we want to talk about legacies and what sound fiscal management and investment in infrastructure have provided, there's no better example than the investment that we have in our health care services in the Okanagan region. This is servicing not just the Okanagan region but all of British Columbia.

My colleague from Prince George also talked about the legacy of the Olympics. I'd just like to mention one outstanding event that recently took place in Kelowna, which was our hosting of the International Children's Games. These games were held from January 26 through to the 31st. It was the first time these winter games have ever been held outside of Europe.

It was a great honour to be able to host hundreds of young athletes who participated, ranging in age from 12 to 15, as they competed in seven sports, including skiing, skating and hockey. I was very pleased that the province was able to provide support to these games, and the provincial support was gratefully appreciated and acknowledged.

I think when you talk to the young kids there and see, as a follow-up to the excitement and everything around the Winter Olympics, there's a very, very clear connection. I talked to young figure skaters from South Korea, young speed skaters from South Korea, young skiers from Switzerland. All of those young people who were in our community all look forward. Their goal was to say: "One day I'd like to be on my country's Olympic team."

To have that legacy of what those Winter Games provided for B.C. and for Canada and for the world, to see that translate down to these young children from all over the world, was really something.

While in Kelowna these young athletes lived up to the aim of the International Children's Games, which was to increase understanding and friendship between students from different countries and to promote the Olympic ideal.

[1705]

The success of these games was a result of the vision and the hard work of the organizing committee and the provincial and municipal governments and community sponsors and partners who also played a very, very important role.

But I think the biggest thanks in our community has to go to the enthusiastic volunteers. Close to a thousand citizens of Kelowna worked at venues and opened their homes to visiting athletes as host families. The hospitality they showed will be remembered by the athletes, their coaches and their family members for years to come, and I'm sure many of them will be making return visits to British Columbia and to the Okanagan in years to come.

They've come and gone, but Kelowna is still on the sporting map. We have many more tournaments coming up, many of them supported by the provincial hosting program, Hosting B.C. I'm a proud supporter of that program because of the wide range of sporting tournaments it supports. As well, the money that's invested in these tournaments promotes local sport, tourism and the economy in our area.

Madam Speaker, I could go on with many other investments that have been made in our region — the university, Okanagan College, transportation, rapid bus investments. As my colleague from Prince George listed, there were many, many investments that are the hallmark of the last ten years of this government and of the investment that is being made in our communities as a result of the tremendous financial management and framework that we've been able to provide in this province.

I'm Minister of Natural Resource Operations as well as Minister of Energy, so I just wanted to talk a little bit while representing those two different ministries, but recognizing that there's one clear theme. It relates to the budget and the focus on making sure that we have the framework in place to generate the economic activity and provide those important revenues from our resource sectors that contribute so importantly to the critical services of health and education and social services in this province.

Our government is making a focused effort on making it easier to invest and operate, which will create more jobs and stronger rural communities and First Nations. Our identity as British Columbians, our economy and our way of life are tied to our natural resources. Our natural resources help drive our economy, and our beautiful protected areas attract visitors from around the world.

B.C.'s natural attributes generate significant wealth. Whether it's forestry, clean energy, mining, agriculture or tourism, we have the potential to do much more. This government is committed to realizing that potential while maintaining stringent environmental standards and safeguarding our extensive and beautiful protected areas.

I admit that sometimes that can be a difficult balancing act. There are often growing and conflicting demands on our local land base, and there's a growing demand to use Crown land for recreational purpose, for protected areas, for community needs, for resource development.

British Columbians need to trust that the government is balancing the needs of industry, First Nations, community and the environment. They need to know that we'll make decisions in the public interest and in a manner that is fair, timely and well informed.

Investors and businesses expect the same. They have told us that uncertainty over access to land was one of the biggest barriers to development, and they've told us of their frustration with multiple processes. There were nine different agencies and 40 different statutes gov-
[ Page 6341 ]
erning more than 1,200 different types of authorizations. This has resulted in multiple government reviews and duplicated work, often resulting in higher costs, uncertainty, delayed decisions and reduced investment.

We knew we needed to coordinate our processes and do things smarter and faster, while still maintaining our strict environmental standards and upholding our duty to consult and accommodate First Nations.

So how will we accomplish this? We've focused on the process around one project, one process, and sometimes the biggest challenges require the simplest of approaches. One project, one process is a simple concept, a single framework for making land use decisions. The approach will significantly improve timelines, reduce costs and help make better decisions for industry, communities, First Nations and the environment.

Timely, predictable approvals will get suitable projects off the planning paper and into communities that need them faster, creating jobs and building the communities and capacity in First Nations, and ensuring the important revenues for our critical services.

A couple of years ago we began to work closely with the industry to develop this approach, and we have many models that are now starting to be implemented. We have the one project, one process for a clean energy business improvement plan, and we're now implementing that plan.

[1710]

We're currently testing a single-tenure contract for projects. This will replace multiple tenures and make many other process improvements. While the concept is simple, it requires significant coordination and effort by resource ministries to make it all work. That is the focus of the Ministry of Natural Resource Operations and the important work of the linkages between Natural Resource Operations and the work of the environment and land use committee and the line resource ministries.

It brings together all of our natural resource operations into one ministry, and the agencies and authorizations. By bringing these key functions together, it will allow us to extend the one project, one process concept much faster.

As an additional benefit, Natural Resource Operations is regionally dispersed with operational staff living and working in the communities throughout B.C., and that will help us make decisions that better reflect and respond to local community needs. While we still have a way to go before the concept is fully implemented, we are well on our way to making better, more coordinated and timely decisions. It's important to keep working on this because we know the status quo was holding us back.

We also have tremendous opportunities on the energy front. We need to attract more investment as we see major long-term strategic opportunity for British Columbia. In B.C. demand for electricity is expected to grow by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years, and a similar trend is expected worldwide. Due to growing consumer and political demand across the world, renewable resources will continue to displace non-renewable energy.

Even with non-renewables, as global natural gas reserves continue to expand, we expect gas will further displace more carbon-intensive fuels like coal and oil. It's clear there's no better place in the world. Nobody is as well positioned as British Columbia to take advantage of these global trends. We have world-class natural gas reserves. Northeast B.C.'s potential for shale gas is staggering. The Horn River basin alone could account for between 500 and 1,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the ground. To put this in context, the United States consumes about 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year.

With this potential, it is expected that B.C. could triple its natural gas production in the next decade. We're equally blessed with enormous untapped renewable energy potential, including wind, tide, solar, geothermal, run-of-river and biomass.

The key to all of this and realizing all of this potential is to ensure that we have the policy and regulatory framework in place that promotes investment. Budget 2011 provides that foundation — a competitive tax policy and competitive regulatory policy and tax measures, including the harmonized sales tax that stimulates investment in our forest industry, in our energy sector, in our mining sector and in our agriculture sector. I also know that the small businesses in my riding are pleased to see the continued commitment to reduce the small business tax rate to zero by 2012.

Budget 2011 contains the strong record of fiscal management, and I am pleased to be able to have participated today to provide my support and endorsement of Budget 2011.

D. Routley: I'd like to start, as others have started, by thanking people who are very important to me — firstly, my lovely partner, Leanne; my two stepchildren, Brooklynne Baird and Matthew Baird; and my lovely daughter, 15-year-old Madeline Routley. I was a stay-at-home dad with Maddie, and members in the House will forgive me for saying that those were the best days of my life. Even though these are such stellar experiences, those memories are dear to me, and I think any father who has the chance to stay at home with their young children will derive the kind of great benefit that I have had by caring for a child.

I'd also like to thank the constituents of Nanaimo–North Cowichan for entrusting me to bring their views and their issues to this House. This is their House, and we are meant to reflect their values and their lives in the way we conduct ourselves here.

[1715]
[ Page 6342 ]

I'd also like to thank my bicycle. I love my bicycle, and my bicycle has given me back the same kind of consideration. You know, when we cycle, we often struggle up hills, but we can struggle even when we're not going up a hill. I'd refer all the members to the highway. When you're driving down the highway, look at cyclists going in either direction.

In one direction the cyclists will be on a flat road. The cyclists will be smiling and carrying along like it's no problem. There's no struggle here. Then in the other direction there's a grimace and a struggle obvious in the face of the cyclists. They struggle and go much slower than the other ones on the other side of the road, even though it's a flat road. That's because one is being blown along by the wind, and the other is fighting the wind.

It's that way in our communities. So many people that we see struggle, struggle against unseen forces and unseen challenges. That doesn't make the measure of that challenge any less than a huge hill. It's a wind; we can't see it. We can judge that struggle, but we can't measure it unless we experience it.

I think this government is without the experience of the struggles of British Columbians. I think this government forgets that people struggle. I think this government forgets that we are meant to serve those, especially those who struggle.

You see, Madam Speaker, that's a value statement. That was cleverly, or somewhat cleverly, wrapped up in an analogy. It's a value statement, just like a budget is a value statement, and the people of B.C. expect their government to use its budget, their budget, as a vehicle to express their values.

This budget fails, as other B.C. Liberal budgets have failed the people of B.C., in reflecting the values, in reflecting the struggles, in reflecting the issues that British Columbians care about.

British Columbians care about children, yet we've seen the report from the Representative for Children and Youth condemn this government's failure to provide services to struggling and vulnerable children.

This budget and B.C.'s values should be about education, yet there's nothing for the people in my constituency who struggle to keep schools open, who struggle to keep services for their children with special needs, who struggle with class sizes that are enormously out of proportion — children who struggle with the deficits that this government truly creates. When they have so many special needs kids with so little support, teachers are struggling to meet that challenge.

British Columbians care about their neighbours. They care about the housing. They care about the poverty issues that are growing in this province, the gaps that are growing, the divisions that this government has created. This budget has done absolutely nothing to address those growing divides in our province.

They care about their environment. They expect this government to reflect that consideration in a budget that doesn't cut from silviculture and planting like this budget does, that recognizes that forest health is in an extremely vulnerable state. Yet this government continues to cut away at the services, the ministry, the forest services that would measure and report to them about the health of their forests.

The leadership candidates for the B.C. Liberal Party have done nothing to address those values. They seek to lead a tired government that has run out of ideas, best exemplified by the vapid vacancy of value in this budget.

This government does have a history, and it's long now. It started so poorly, didn't it? A promise not to sell B.C. Rail. I've got a B.C. Rail jacket, actually. It's really….

An Hon. Member: Don't sell it.

D. Routley: Yeah, I won't sell it. Contrary to rumour, I didn't buy it on eBay; I leased it for 999 years. But that was after they'd stripped all the safety markings off of it, so it was really not at the same value it was before.

This is the government that promised not to sell B.C. Rail and then did so in the most scandal-ridden transaction in the history of this province, perhaps of this country. This is the government that paid $6 million to shut down the trial that would have given the people of B.C., who we seek to represent, a view of what really happened.

[1720]

How did they do that? They spent $6 million of taxpayers' money to shut it down, to pay the legal costs of the two defendants who pled guilty to corruption, Liberal insiders — an unprecedented act. And even more unprecedented: the absolute insult to British Columbians that they should cut $6 million after that from Crown prosecutors — the same amount. This government knows no shame.

The HEU contracts that were torn up. That was another promise — previous budgets, previous failures to represent the values that British Columbians expect us to uphold. That resulted in millions upon millions of dollars of costs to this province, and British Columbians are still paying through a lack of services, deficits in their classrooms, deficits in their hospitals, deficits in their communities.

The HST — an absolute about-face from truth. You know what I would tell Maddie as she was growing up about what an about-face from truth really means? It's a simple word with three letters that I'm not allowed to say here, but that's what they did. They told British Columbians that they wouldn't impose it, and then they did. They say it's revenue-neutral. Well, it may be neutral to them. In fact, it's not. We're paying for it.

But it's certainly not revenue-neutral to the families and the small businesses that have had $2 billion
[ Page 6343 ]
of responsibility for paying the taxes for this province on their shoulders and off of the biggest corporations in this province — the corporations who pay for this government, the corporations who used to be expected to be decent partners and to provide jobs in exchange for harvesting our resources, the same corporations who were granted freedom by this government to export those resources in raw form without benefit to this province — while those small businesses who do provide employment, who do provide the ingenuity and engine of employment that this province needs, are forced to take that burden up.

Our schools, our hospitals, our families, our environments — those are the things that the B.C. Liberal candidates refuse to speak about. It's laughable to see Christy Clark, with her role in B.C. Rail, come swooping in like a falcon falling from the sky with no feathers, to lecture to the province like a priest with no abbot, lecture to the young and the old alike. It's unfortunate.

Deputy Speaker: Member, be careful about how you're approaching your argument.

D. Routley: Of course.

Yet through all of that arrogance, British Columbians yet again are disappointed by a budget that fails to reflect their values. We see a province where our core industry is in a decline never seen before, our forest industry. During a housing boom in the United States we lost tens of thousands of jobs. Now seeking to recover, people seek retraining, seek to upgrade their skills, yet B.C. students have the largest debt west of the Maritimes of any students, yet this government in this budget cuts $34 million from student aid.

My critic area is Citizens' Services, and that includes the Public Service Agency — cut by 14 percent in this budget. The chief information officer, at a time when we have B.C. Rail and HST and all the controversy over access to information — cut by 15.9 percent. This is at a time when this government seeks to expand its integrated case management and other data-sharing systems and proposals that have been questioned by the chief information officer that pose a serious threat and risk to the privacy of citizens.

After the Wainwright scandal, after the Play Now B.C. scandal they cut to the information officer, cut to the logistics and business services system that's responsible for FOI — cut by 4.46 percent. This is the value and priority reflected by this government. This is the lack of consideration for our duty to reflect the values of our constituents, to act in the public interest, a government condemned repeatedly by its own Auditor General for failing the public interest.

[1725]

This is unbelievable, Madam Speaker. We come here, we expect to do the good work of the province, and what are we faced with yet again? Transgression and a failure to meet our primary goal — that is, to reflect the values of our citizens.

A divided province, diminished environment, poor forest health, farmlands in decline, water put under threat, student debt climbing, arts and culture being cut.

First Nations treaties. Is there anything in this budget that can help our First Nations brothers and sisters seek remedy and repair for past injustice, one of the great bragging points of this government? Not a penny to address the increased need and the failure of the treaty system so far.

As I started, I will close, with statements of value, and back to my bicycle. I love my bicycle. In bicycle racing everyone works together. Everyone works together. It doesn't matter which team you're on. You take your turn at the front. I've used this metaphor before, but I said, "Take your turn at the front, breaking wind," and that really didn't communicate the message quite as well as…. But everyone takes their turn sheltering the others from the wind, and we get to the finish line together, faster.

That's a value statement. It's a value this government has failed to do. We are meant to ride at the front and shelter people from that wind, that struggle, and get to the finish line together, with British Columbians intact.

British Columbians expect their budget and their government to reflect empathy. The government failed. Inclusion — this government has failed. Recognition, First Nations — failure by the B.C. Liberals. Empowerment — they have failed to empower the people of B.C.

These are the progressive values and the reflection of our people that this budget should have represented to them. It would be a reflection of them, but instead, it's a reflection on a bad dream. It's time to wake up. It's time to dismiss this government, put it out of our misery and elect a progressive NDP government that will put the values of British Columbians first and foremost every single day — not just four out of 256 but every day.

Hon. M. Polak: As my colleagues have done, I also want to offer some thanks to the people that support me in my work, here in Victoria and throughout the province, as a minister.

First and foremost, my father, Peter Inkman, and my daughter Miriam Polak. Both of them spend a lot of time wondering where on earth I am. It is their great patience and support that helps me to do the work that I do.

I also want to give a special thank-you to Keeley Cavanagh and Cathy Gibbs, the two ladies that work in my office in Langley. They do a tremendous job supporting our constituents in Langley and helping them, often through the maze of government services, in getting them the support that they need.
[ Page 6344 ]

Here in Victoria that thank-you extends to Debbie Maclean, Barinder Bhullar, Linsey Cole and Gail Hudspeth. They do a wonderful job of making sure that their minister knows where she's supposed to be, gets a wonderful decaf coffee in the morning whenever she arrives. More importantly, they just keep me on track with all the work that this ministry entails.

I want to speak, first of all, about the accomplishments of our government over the last number of years and then talk a little bit not only about the accomplishments in our Ministry of Children and Family Development that I think are of most importance but also what we can look to going forward with what I think is a hopeful future.

From the very beginning, in 2001, we have believed that building a strong economy was the way that you can support our most vulnerable. That continues as we look at the many accomplishments that have been in place, going on from 2001 till now.

[1730]

Taking a look at our own ministry, we have a $1.3 billion budget, and 93 percent of that goes directly to support clients in communities. More than a billion dollars has been invested in programs and services in 2011-12. That's a budget that does recognize the need for us as a society to support our most vulnerable.

In terms of child care spaces, another place where we truly believe we need to be investing, and investing more all the time, 97,000 licensed child care spaces are currently funded in communities around the province. Since 2001 the capital funding that we've provided has created more than 6,500 new licensed child care spaces. That's not to mention the others that are supported through child care subsidy.

In terms of the annual investment in child care subsidies, including those that support special needs for low- and moderate-income families, the total is $154 million. The subsidy program now supports about 50,000 individual children each year. On average, those families are receiving a subsidy that amounts to about $5,400 per child — again, key supports to make sure that families with low and moderate incomes are not left behind and are able to take part in the workforce and ensure that they can support their own families.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

As you well know, the province this year introduced the first phase of full-day kindergarten in September, with more than half of the province's kindergarten students beginning this year. The remaining will be beginning in September 2011. While full-day kindergarten was not aimed specifically at easing access to child care, that certainly is one of the positive benefits that has resulted. It's truly positive. It's serving to free up child care spaces for families. Again, that goes to supporting those that we believe need that extra support.

I also want to speak a bit about housing. Much is said in this House about the need to support those who are at risk of being homeless and those who are homeless. Our record here again is very, very strong. Last year the province invested $562 million in housing and support programs. That's four times what was spent in 2001.

Since 2001 our province has invested more than $2 billion in housing support programs, and as a result of that targeted investment, we've built more than 15,000 new affordable housing units. Another 4,200 are currently planned or under construction all across the province.

Clearly, this is about what we believe as B.C. Liberals and as a B.C. Liberal government. It's about building a strong economy to support the most vulnerable.

One of the places where we have had the greatest degree of success — in fact, more success than any other province around Canada — is in the area of child poverty. In fact, our rates of child poverty in British Columbia have fallen faster than any other province in Canada, 46 percent since 2003.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: Madam Speaker, if the members opposite want to say that it's nonsense, they need to take that up with Statistics Canada. They can take it up with First Call, because it was in their report as well. It's an unfortunate fact that they don't wish to acknowledge.

But there is a historic reference from the past, a time when a then NDP Minister of Social Development did acknowledge the challenges that the NDP had with respect to supporting those with low and modest incomes. This is a quote from then Social Development Minister Moe Sihota in December of 1999. He said: "We have just lost it with people that are living paycheque to paycheque. People are just not getting ahead in life, and they are blaming us for it."

We inherited a shameful record in terms of job creation. We inherited a society where if you were a child in British Columbia, you had a one-in-ten chance of living in a family that was on welfare. If you were a single mother, six out of ten of you were living on welfare. I'm proud that today we have fewer children who are in poverty, fewer children who are living on welfare, and we know that we can continue to see those rates drop.

Certainly this budget addresses child poverty through our continued commitments to child care support, child care subsidies, early learning programs and support for aboriginal children, but we have to remember that this truly is a collective issue. It's not only cross-ministry; it's cross-society. Nobody wants to see any child living in poverty, and clearly, there's more work to do to address this challenge, but we absolutely take the issue very seriously.

[1735]
[ Page 6345 ]

It's because of the targeted investments we've made that we've seen that child poverty rate drop so substantially in British Columbia, faster than any other province. It's because of child care support, child care subsidies, support for aboriginal children, affordable housing, rental supplements, reduced MSP premiums for low-income families, the lowest personal provincial income taxes in Canada and an annual HST credit of $230 per family member. That's benefiting more than 1.1 million low- and modest-income British Columbians.

The truth is that you need to have a strong economy in order to support those most vulnerable. We've proven that by taking that approach, by targeted investments that allow us to lower the cost of living for families, lower their taxes and increase the support they have to get ahead, we can see poverty rates drop. We will continue to see them drop in British Columbia, and we will lead Canada, as we have done, in dropping those child poverty rates.

I mentioned that I wanted to talk about some of the accomplishments in the ministry that I believe are perhaps the most important and the most overarching changes that have taken place in government in many, many years. I speak now of the services and supports that we provide to aboriginal people, aboriginal children and families — the work that we are doing together with them.

This year there has been an increase of $3 million to enhance direct supports to aboriginal children and families. It would be easy for members of this House or members of the public to think: "Well, that's just another $3 million to fund a few more programs." The reality, though, is that what has been taking place in our work with aboriginal children and families since about 2006 has been an absolute sea change.

We've gone from a situation where there was little trust, where there was very great difficulty in seeing any advancements for aboriginal people, and we've instead come to a place now where there are a hundred different First Nations with whom we are dealing directly and where we are starting to see the fruits of those efforts. I want to just describe to the House a few very specific examples of success that not that many years ago, only a few short years ago, we would have believed would have been impossible to achieve.

Before I describe those, I want to just say a word of deep gratitude to my deputy minister, Lesley du Toit. She leads a very difficult ministry, and I am so proud to have had the opportunity to work with somebody who is so well skilled and knowledgable in the field of supporting indigenous families and communities. What I am about to describe are things that I truly believe would have had little chance of success were it not for her leadership in the ministry.

Firstly, there are currently 22 delegated aboriginal agencies in British Columbia with four agency agreements established since 2005: Haida child and family services on Haida Gwaii — that was in June of 2006; the Desniqi child and family services in Williams Lake in June of 2005; Surrounded by Cedar, south Vancouver Island, May 2005; and 'Namgis child and family services in Alert Bay, January 2005.

The term "delegated aboriginal agencies" doesn't tell a person very much. What it means, though, to First Nations is that it's the beginning of First Nations having the right to jurisdiction over their children and families, and thus, to the services that support their children. It's a beginning that is about to take us very, very far, Madam Speaker, if we are willing to continue the partnership that we have in allowing First Nations to be the leaders for a change instead of us telling them what to do.

In January 2008 — another just huge success — MCFD signed an adoption-enabling agreement with the Cowichan Tribes First Nation. I'm proud to say that made them the first aboriginal delegated agency in B.C., and only the second in Canada, to have full adoption delegation giving them back their inherent right to plan adoption for their own children.

I had the privilege of attending one of the ceremonies during which they celebrated the placement of nine aboriginal children. It truly was just such a moving and heartwarming event. Words would be difficult to find to describe it, but it is truly about these people being able to take back what is theirs.

[1740]

In July 2008 the Interim First Nations Child and Family Wellness Council was established at the second Indigenous Child at the Centre Forum. In March of 2010 that interim designation was lifted. Now we have a permanent council in place. That council is guided by a commitment to work together on child and family wellness issues, and they set out the fundamental principles and goals that are shared by B.C.'s First Nations.

The example that I want to provide to you that I am most proud of is what happened in the summer of 2010 in the Stikine. But I would be remiss if I only spoke of the event in the summer.

The event in the summer was possible because three First Nations who had traditionally battled each other on very many fronts and even today continue to have some disagreements in other areas decided that their families and their children were important enough that they could put those disagreements aside and work with their communities and their elders in a very, very lengthy and very community-based process in the Stikine that involved the Kaska, the Tahltan and the Taku River Tlingit First Nations.

I'm proud to say that as a result of the work of those three First Nations together, in the summer of 2010 we signed the first child and family wellness agreement in history that demonstrates the partnership between the Kaska, the Tahltan and the Taku River Tlingit First
[ Page 6346 ]
Nations. That is something that would have been unheard of only a few short years ago.

There was a time in British Columbia where, in particular in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, First Nations were not thought of as being competent to look after their own children. In fact, sadly, during the 1990s under the NDP, child apprehensions increased by about 66 percent, and a very, very huge portion of that were aboriginal children being taken out of their homes. It's a sad, sad legacy, and I am so proud to say that it is finally turning around.

I want to share with this House some of the comments of the leaders with whom we've been working. It's not for us to say that what is happening is successful; truly, it is to hear from the leaders of First Nations communities.

I want to begin by sharing what Chief Maureen Chapman shared with us, from Stó:lô. It is really the overarching principle that guides us. She cautioned: "When this work becomes about you — your job, your inconvenience or your discomfort — it is no longer about the children. The children must always be at the centre of everything the Creator sent us to do." With that work in mind, here is what we have heard from First Nations leaders with whom we have been dealing over these last few years.

This, first of all, is from Annita McPhee from the Tahltan Central Council. She's the chair of that council. She says: "The government is acknowledging respect for our families and First Nation values. Not long ago we didn't have a choice in how we were able to take care of our families. We watched as children were apprehended and sent to residential schools. Now we have the support to raise our children in safe homes."

From the Tahltan Band, Chief Rick McLean: "When our three nations got together to address our challenges, the possibility of positive change in our families and communities was realized. With the help of our communities, the ministry and front-line workers, we are going to see our children raised with traditional supports. This is the first step on a long journey ahead to healing and healthy communities."

From the Taku River Tlingit, their spokesperson John Ward: "I am thankful the government of B.C. saw the potential in what it is we are trying to do."

From Daylu Dena Council, Chief Walter Carlick: "For the first time ever, the government has asked us how we are going to deal with our children and families. They've asked us for our advice and listened to our voices."

The investment that we are making in our ministry to redirect funding to the priorities of aboriginal children and families is one that we are not only exceedingly proud of, but we are humbled to be able to play a small part in assisting these First Nations as they lead their communities and as they take on the jurisdiction that inherently has always been theirs, to look after their own children and families.

[1745]

It speaks to a whole array of values that are supported by the same ideal. That is that when we give British Columbians a chance to manage their lives, to make their choices, to manage their money, British Columbians are strong, British Columbians are proud, and British Columbians have the wherewithal to do whatever it is we see in front of us as a province, to take hold of the opportunities that were presented to us through things like the Olympics.

We know that the best thing we can do is get out of the way of families. Let them be supported to make their own choices, their own decisions. It is certainly even more true as we work with First Nations families. But it is a principle that overrides everything we do as we recognize that building a strong economy, creating jobs, giving those opportunities to families is truly the way that British Columbia will continue to move forward and continue to be strong in the coming decade.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to do as others have done — recognize that it's great to be back in this place doing our job representing our constituents, and I would also like to thank the staff who I work with in my constituency, who make things really happen in the constituency. I think they often go unnoticed.

So I would like to thank very much Lynne Stone, Sandra Doran and Norm Prince, my constituency assistants in Campbell River and in Port Hardy, and my assistant here in Victoria, Teresa Scambler, and without question, the person who makes everything happen in my life, my husband, Michael McIvor.

I did hear one of the members — I think the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — thanking his dog. My dog Molly would like it if I thanked her, but I'm not going to go that far.

We were challenged earlier by one of the members opposite to put together a list of great things that have been happening, to look at the legacies that have been happening over the last ten years since we have seen the Liberal government. I think it goes without saying that the view of our legacy will be very different on this side of the House than on the other side of the House.

I have to start by responding to not just the budget, which I think it goes without saying I will not be supporting, but by responding to the Minister of Children and Family Development, who ended her speech, a very thoughtful speech about the work that her ministry has been doing, with the concept of giving people more choice, that this government has given people more choice.

There really seems to be a disconnect and a continued disconnect. I've raised it in the past, and I raise it again now. Before going through my top ten list, I would like to talk a bit about this disconnect.

The concept of choice is very good if you have the money to support your lifestyle, if you aren't feeling oppressed by circumstance, and I think that many of the
[ Page 6347 ]
people whom the minister is talking about don't really have a choice.

Over the last ten years they've seen the cost of many things that were covered before go up. They've seen MSP premiums going up, they've seen fees go up, and they've seen B.C. Hydro costs go up.

At the same time they have seen their disposable income go down. I have many times talked to people who are holding down one, two, three minimum-wage jobs to try and get by. Three jobs to get by.

One woman who came into my office not long ago — it was heartrending. She does hold down three jobs. She has a disabled son, she can't get supports, and she came to my office and said: "Help me." We know the system that is in place now after ten years, and we know that there is really no help for this woman and her disabled son.

She's doing her best, but she has no choice. She really has no choice. That is the sad reality of so many people in B.C. at the moment.

The challenge for the ten legacies, the legacies of this budget, the legacies of the last ten years, in what is — I think people are sort of talking about — no longer the status quo budget that was presented yesterday. It is very much the lame-duck budget. It's the placeholder budget. It's the budget that gives whoever does come in from the five remaining leadership candidates and Liberal Party a bit of money to play with, and it gives people in B.C. not much for the coming months.

[1750]

There is, as one of my colleagues has said, a slush fund, and for everyone else, there is the wondering of how cuts can actually be a status quo. How can you cut things and still keep a status quo? It really is an anomaly.

My ten areas where I think that the government has some answers in their legacy, where there has been serious damage…. I'm going to start with the one that is boasted so often by this government, and that's health. There is no question that health care in this province…. We are very lucky that we live in a developed world where we can have access to health care. But that access to health care depends on where you live, and the quality of that access to health care depends on where you live.

You're not particularly lucky if you're living in a place where, because you can't get the staff, your emergency room closes down every other day. That's the reality in rural areas — that you don't actually get equality of health care. That isn't addressed in this budget. Nor is the reality that in the cuts to services, we as individuals are paying more in the flat tax of MSP.

It's going up again every year. That was introduced last year. We are paying 70 percent more in MSP premiums now than we did in 2002. It's going up another 6 percent. So we're paying for our health care in what should be a public health care system.

Number 2 would be education, and I'm going to wrap two parts of education. I know we do try to keep K-to-12 and post-secondary separate, but I'm going to touch on both parts there. Education. I received in my office today a letter from one of the school districts in my constituency, school district 84. It's addressed to the minister — I'm not sure whether she's received it yet — talking about how in the school system these days the teachers have to be social workers, how the needs are so desperate in rural communities that teachers are doing everything.

The underfunding. The per-pupil formula does not work for rural education. It may be very great to say that we've got extra money for every student, but it does not work where you have a diminishing number of students in rural areas and you have no options. The parents don't have a choice to say: "Oh well, I'll send my kid to another school." There are no other schools. They're already being bused to schools. That is the reality that has to be dealt with, and that is one of the failings under point 2.

Second one under point 2 is post-secondary. We're seeing under this budget that there is a $34 million cut to student aid and that there's no money going in for training or colleges. We have the whole renewal of the political system in B.C. at the moment, and I've challenged candidates to look at post-secondary education.

I would like people to be very brave and to say that people who want to go to post-secondary don't have to pay for it. If they make a commitment to work in B.C. for a few years, they don't have to pay for it.

I've got to say it works in other jurisdictions. It has worked in the past. I benefited from that in Britain. I was extraordinarily lucky that I didn't have to pay for my post-secondary education. You can see the advantages of not paying for post-secondary in the investment it makes to people in the future, that they no longer have to worry about debt and going into their adult life worrying about that.

Number 3 in my list is poverty. It has to be poverty. The fact is that there is extra money going in for income assistance, so much so that it's quite clear that this government is expecting more people to need income assistance in the coming years.

This is again an indictment of a government that talks about choice, a government that talks about helping people — that they are expecting more people to get to a desperate situation where they need income assistance. Poverty. I could talk for hours about poverty, about social injustice that has come through the last ten years as a legacy.

I don't have much time. We are trying to make sure that many people can talk about this because one of the further things I have to talk about is the accountability that we are only back for four days. We are here to do the
[ Page 6348 ]
people's business, and we are rushing through it in four days so an internal political party issue can be dealt with. Yes, it's very important that we have fair elections within our party systems, but we can still be here deliberating, discussing important issues.

[1755]

Number 4 on my list: forestry. I come from a forest-dependent community, and yet we have seen a massive cut in forest stewardship, a massive cut in the Forest Service. In the last decade there has been a quarter of the Forest Service staff that has disappeared. Forest Service staff is responsible for about 94 percent of our land base, of our Crown land, and yet we've seen the axe come down.

What do we see in this budget? We see more cuts. We see cuts to stewardship. We see cuts to tree planting. We see cuts to essential parts of keeping a healthy forest. This is the government whose legacy, the Premier's legacy, was supposed to be on climate change, was supposed to be on the environment, and yet we see continuing cuts to the service.

Continuing on in the environment, point 5 — parks. The parks budget is now, under this budget, about the same as the public affairs bureau. We love our parks. I mean, I think people have seen the sticker: "B.C. Parks. I camp. I vote." We all love our parks. It's the centenary of B.C. Parks. Strathcona Provincial Park is in my constituency, large parts of it — 100 years old. And yet we have seen cuts to the parks service down to the level of the public affairs bureau. It's absurd.

Continuing with the environment. I think I am now on point 6 — briefly, rushing through them. Environmental sustainability — cut by 5 percent. Parks I've just mentioned. Climate action secretariat — this was a good one. This was a legacy one. Cut 11 percent. Compared to 2008 — 66 percent. It's a brave new world when we're going into the very dangerous area of climate change. This was something that B.C. could have led the way with, but it's been neglected. That is the real legacy.

Cuts in the environmental assessment office. Cuts throughout. It is no longer a serious dealing with the environment.

Point 7 was climate change. This is how it's done with this government. Climate change is now secondary to the environment. Climate change is no longer being taken seriously.

Number 8. Now, this is a bit about accountability. This is a bit about transparency. This government has, again, cut corporate taxes. It's very interesting. This determination that while we cut everything that services the communities, that services what people need, services health care, education, the environment, social services — areas where we desperately need money going in…. They're cut, and so are corporate taxes, so the friends of the government also get bonuses.

The argument we hear back — it's a bit like choice — is that: "Well, it's really good because corporate tax cuts mean that corporations can invest in the economy." Well, it's very interesting, if you look at the figures, that cutting corporate taxes allows about 20 cents growth from every dollar cut. If you spent on infrastructure, you make $1.50 for every dollar spent. Now, I am not an economist, but that does seem to indicate to me that you would be better off spending on infrastructure than cutting corporate taxes.

It also, apparently…. This is what economists say. Both StatsCan and the federal government economists say that if you invest in supports for unemployment and those on a low income and put money into housing, you're getting $1.40 back for every dollar spent. Now again, if you estimate 20 cents growth for every dollar in a tax cut for the corporations, $1.40 if you invest in people or $1.50 if you invest in infrastructure….

Number 9 — ferries. No mention here of ferries. Our ferry system — been privatized. Our highways, highways for people who live on the Island — been privatized. We're going to see a 100 percent increase in the cost of our ferries, but it's okay. The head of the ferry corporation does earn a million dollars, and he is very comfortable. The people who are living on the islands and trying to make their lives work on the islands are terrified by this and what this is going to mean when they're already seeing, as I mentioned earlier, MSP payments, HST and other costs.

[1800]

The final area, which I did want to touch on — No. 10. After ten years, No. 10 is accountability. This was supposed to be a transparent accountable government. Open cabinet meetings. Everything was going to be open. We were going to hear a lot.

We have heard a number of times, today and since we've been back, about what has happened to B.C. Rail and the accountability there: $6 million paid to two people who were Liberal government insiders to end a trial. We never found out what really happened. That is not accountability. Nor is it accountability for us to be back just for four days.

We all know we work hard in our constituencies. We all thank our constituency staff. We have a lot to do. I have a very large rural area. I love being in my constituency. But my job…. I was elected to come here and represent the people of the North Island. I was elected to be their voice.

I can go off and talk to people as much as I want, but they expect me to come here and argue their case. They expect me to stand up here and say that they have no choice, that this government has not given them a choice. Instead, we are here, we're going to be discussing the budget, we're discussing the way that we can carry on paying for government while we're not here, and we'll go away. We'll let the government side elect the Premier-designate, and hopefully, we'll be back then, but we don't know. That is unconscionable.
[ Page 6349 ]

We have set terms of this Legislature: two months in the fall, four months in the spring-summer. We should be here. We should be here doing the people's work. We should be here representing our constituents. We should be here talking about issues that matter to people in our constituencies and matter to people in B.C.

Those are my ten items that I think this government has left as a legacy. These are just touching the surface. Each one deserves a lot more, and it deserves our being here to discuss them and to try and find solutions together — not always in opposition. Let's try and find some solutions. We know that there are issues, that there is common ground, but let's make this system work. At the moment, it's not working.

This budget is a sign of more failure by this government. Because of that, I will not be supporting this budget.

Hon. R. Hawes: I rise today to speak in support of the budget, but I want to touch on some things regarding mining in British Columbia. Before I do, I do have to make some comments about some comments that were made earlier today by the member for Surrey-Whalley.

Several times this budget, which…. As everyone knows, there's a leadership review going on, on both sides of the House. There will be a new Premier; there will be a new cabinet. This budget attempts to leave as much flexibility as possible for the new government to look at programs to see which direction and how the government will continue in the direction it's been going. I think it's prudent to allow that kind of flexibility, and I don't think many people would argue with that.

The critic for the NDP for Finance, the member for Surrey-Whalley, has referred to it as a slush fund. It's over $2 billion, he claims — or a billion dollars, or whatever number he puts on it. "It's a slush fund," he says.

I just wanted to first talk about the word "hypocrisy." I'm going to go back to 1996. In 1996 the then NDP government in British Columbia designed a scheme to kind of, I would suggest, hoodwink the public. It was called warehouse borrowing. It was where the government would borrow…. Here, I'll just quote from Russ Francis, who wrote a column about it. "Warehouse borrowing is a scheme in which the government borrows money before it needs it as a hedge against rising interest rates."

Earlier in 1996, in March, the government borrows a billion dollars to warehouse the money in case we need it later, and that debt shows up in the books for the 1995-96 year.

[1805]

On March 31 a new year starts. Here's something from May now. In May of 2006 the borrowed money counts against last year's budget rather than this year's budget, but it's borrowed money just the same. So the money was spent to create an artificial surplus or a lower deficit to just pile the money on a previous year, and it was a trick that was used by the NDP government of that era to hide from the taxpayer the true facts — partly why it was always called the fudge-it budget.

The member for Surrey-Whalley wanted to boast today about a balanced budget in the year 2001, their last year in power in this province, when they had delivered, in his words, "a balanced budget."

Now I want to quote. I noticed that the member did quote from several opinion columnists — Paul Willcocks and others — so let me quote from one too. This would be something from a Vaughn Palmer column. "The New Democratic Party is resorting to an accounting change of more than $1 billion to deliver on the promise of a balanced budget this spring." Ujjal Dosanjh's promise — right? The so-called balanced budget.

The change…. What happened was there was an accounting change in the civil service pension plan, where the plan was moved over to a trust. Through that accounting change, there was a billion-dollar artificial accounting surplus created — right? What they did was spent the money on increasing programs right before an election.

As the column says: "The New Democrats aren't thinking beyond the remaining two to three weeks of the run-up to the provincial election" — in 2001 — "because they can read the polls as well as anyone. They aren't likely to be presiding over provincial finances past voting day. So this week's billion-dollar accounting swap will be someone else's problem, not theirs."

It goes on to explain how, as events unfolded, there was what we call the structural deficit — $1 million plus, he was estimating. It turned out to be more than $4 million, what the Finance critic for the NDP has called fiction. But frankly, that accounting change is what created a notional budget, a surplus that really wasn't there.

There was a deficit, and it was left for future governments in a ploy by the NDP to try to win some voter favour or, at the very least, leave a wreck for the government that they knew was going to take over. That's according to Vaughn Palmer, and I happen to think that he was absolutely bang on when he wrote that column. It's pretty obvious.

Here's what happened. When the pension fund was changed, one of the things that was happening — through this accounting change, it was obvious — was that the government had been putting too much into the pension fund. So with the changeover to the trust, less money goes into the pension fund.

The $1 billion is gone — an accounting change — but there are a number of benefits that retired civil servants get from their pension, based on whether or not there are surpluses in the plan. But as everyone knows, the interest rates dropped. There was a little more difficulty
[ Page 6350 ]
with investment income for the pension fund in subsequent years after 2001, and many of their benefits were taken away because they were contingent on surpluses — surpluses that that government took away from the pension fund.

I know that many of the retired pensioners at first thought it was this government that caused this problem. The truth is that if one were to go back and really examine the changes that that government made in the pension fund, they stripped retired workers of their pension rights in this province. I think that's absolutely appalling. And then for that member to stand up and say that this is a slush fund is even more appalling. That's what I call hypocrisy, the height of hypocrisy.

Madam Speaker, this budget is extremely transparent. It shows the money that is there, the contingency money that will be used by the next government to make choices.

[1810]

They can reduce debt. They can reduce the surplus or the deficit. They can do all kinds of…. Or they can increase program spending. That's a choice that the new cabinet will make. But the money is there, very prudently and transparently.

I'm quite proud of the way that this budget has been presented — in a very fair, straightforward and transparent way — as opposed to what happened under that government and what I'm sure will happen with that government were they ever, ever, God forbid, to be given power again in this province.

There have been some comments lately about mining in British Columbia made by a number of the members opposite. I'll start, perhaps, with the member for Juan de Fuca, who's looking to be the leader of the NDP party. He's one of the aspirants to that position. He has talked about the environmental protection agency in British Columbia and our process. He thinks that our process is not as stringent as it should be, that we should be looking at the federal system. I'm wondering. What province does he live in?

Interjection.

Hon. R. Hawes: I notice the member for Stikine talking about that we've gutted it. That's absolute rubbish. However, we do have one of the most robust environmental assessment processes in the country. That member, the member for Juan de Fuca, has said about the Prosperity mine decision, in which the federal government differed from the British Columbia decision, that obviously their process must be more stringent.

The truth is that we have a completely rounded and fulsome assessment process that considers more than just the physical environment. It also considers the economic environment. When you look at the economics in that area and the offsets that were offered through the application that was made with a replacement lake for Fish Lake, the conclusion was, from the physical environmental standpoint, exactly the same both provincially and federally — a devastation to that lake. The lake would be there no more.

The conclusions were the same on the physical environment side, but on the other parts of an environmental process, the more fulsome parts, were looking at: "Well, just a minute. We need to find some balance. What are the economic conditions in that area? What are the social conditions in that area?" It came up in favour of the mine — on our side.

The federal government process looks only at the physical side. It turned it down based on the physical side of the decision. They didn't look at the economic side and the devastation that exists in that area because of a number of factors, including the pine beetle and the way that the First Nations really haven't had, probably for 200 years…. I would be the first to say that I don't think they've had a fair share of the bounty of this province. That's happened all over the province. We're trying to build that fair share through revenue-sharing, which is another thing I want to talk about quickly.

When a new mine opens in this province, we engage in revenue-sharing with the First Nation on whose territory that mine is going to be built, whether it's a new mine or an expansion of an existing mine.

We have so far concluded three revenue-sharing agreements that are going to pay tens of millions of dollars to the First Nations on whose territory those mines exist. That would be for the New Afton mine, and there are two bands there that are going to benefit; and on the Mount Milligan mine, where the McLeod Lake band will benefit with tens of millions, probably over $30 million over the life of the mine. Also through jobs and employment and training there are a lot more benefits that are going to accrue to the First Nations in those areas.

The member for Stikine — I heard him the other day on the radio claiming that we haven't had a mine for years, that things are terrible and that we don't know what we're doing with mining. Well, I just want to give a little list to that member. Elk Valley is in the middle of an expansion, Teck, for its coalmines. Highland Valley copper is going to expand. Tulsequah Chief has now been taken over and is going to reopen, and it will be a mine. Yellowjacket, Ruby Creek are in the approval process.

Copper Mountain is in construction and is going to open very shortly, transforming Princeton. If you go to visit Princeton, talk to the mayor there about the benefits of that mine on that community. It's absolutely astounding the change in outlook and the positive nature that Copper Mountain has had on Princeton.

[1815]

Red Chris is approved. It's going to be a major mine on Highway 37, and the power line we're running up Highway 37 is going to create more opportunities for
[ Page 6351 ]
mines in that area. Endako is expanding — a major expansion. New Afton, as I said, reopening — a major mine employing hundreds of people. Mount Milligan, a greenfield mine going to open in the Prince George area — a great project employing, right now, lots of First Nations people in the construction of that mine.

Prosperity mine was turned down. For 17 years they've tried to open that mine. They were forced to look at destroying a lake, eliminating Fish Lake, but now they're taking another look at how they can work with First Nations, maybe do some redesign work.

That will probably come back for reapplication. I'm hopeful, and certainly everyone on this side of the House is hopeful, that we can come to an agreement with the First Nations and with Ottawa and that that mine will go ahead and provide great prosperity for the whole area, including the families in Williams Lake that are devastated at the loss of the forestry industry and the pine beetle devastation in that area. It's really important to the families in Williams Lake.

I don't understand why the folks on that side of the House are so opposed to that project going ahead. They're out there saying that this should be a dead deal, that that mine should not proceed, and I think that's absolutely wrong. Really, what they're doing is saying, "Let's turn our backs on the families of Williams Lake," and shame on the members on that side of the House for doing that.

Mining in this province is alive, it's well, and it's growing. As Pierre Gratton from the Mining Association of British Columbia says, we are in the middle of a mining renaissance in British Columbia. When I talk to the mining industry as a whole, the first thing they say is, "Please, please do everything you can to make sure that the NDP never ever return," because as they left in the '70s under an NDP government and left in the '90s under an NDP government, they would leave again if you on that side of the House ever took power again. So God forbid.

Let's not allow that to happen. Let's make sure the jobs in mining continue to grow, and let's not have our families and our youth have to leave this province again, as they did before under that government's rule.

M. Sather: It's my pleasure to respond to budget 1.1, I guess, of 2011. It's always fun to follow the member for Abbotsford-Mission, who is pontificating about the '90s. The Liberals are wont to do that. In fact, the Finance Minister also made some comments about the '90s during his delivery of the budget. One of the things they love to talk about is: "Oh, the people that were leaving in droves, the workers that were leaving in droves from British Columbia in the '90s." "Tens of thousands," the Finance Minister said.

Well, actually, he is correct, if you check with B.C. Stats. In fact, total net out-migration between 1991 and 2000 in British Columbia was 44,717 individuals. At the same time, total net in-migration for that period was 189,414 people. So the overall positive balance of net in-migration was 144,697 folks, which averages out to 14,469 people per year.

Now let's look at the current regime, 2001 to 2009, where we have had total net in-migration of 60,287, according to B.C. Stats, and total net out-migration of 11,473, for an overall positive balance of net in-migration of 48,814, or an average of 5,423 per year. Madam Speaker, if you compare the numbers, that's an average of 5,423 people per year net in-migration during the Liberals' reign and 14,469 per year during the NDP's reign.

[1820]

Net in-migration under the NDP was 2½ times better than it was under the Liberals so far. It's only getting worse, of course, under the Liberals, and it obviously is going to continue to get that way. They could only dream of having such good net in-migration, but nonetheless, the fantasy continues.

Let's turn to economic growth. More fantasies. Back in the '90s, every year during the '90s, B.C. had positive economic growth despite the deep recession that was faced in the early part of the decade, that hit the U.S. and Canada in 1991. In the last year, in fact, the economic growth under the NDP was 4.6 percent.

The decade of the 2000s, of course, we know is marked by a major commodity boom, having nothing to do with the Liberals, plus very generous equalization payments from Ottawa. Global commodity prices in the '90s, on the other hand, were in decline. Yet despite that, the Liberals' best years of economic growth in 2005 and another year — I'm not sure of the other year — were less than the two best years under the NDP.

Overall economic growth for the NDP in the '90s was 3 percent, whereas for the Liberals, from 2001 to 2008, it was 2.8 percent, and the economy then shrank 3.4 percent in 2009. It rebounded a bit last year in terms of percent growth.

Now, the deficit. The member for Abbotsford-Mission was talking about the deficit of the Glen Clark era. So, you know, let's have a look at the deficit that occurred prior to the last election, and we learned about it after the election. You will recall, of course, that the Premier said during the election that the deficit would be $494 million, maximum. So how did the Finance Minister get to that particular figure?

Everyone will recall that the recession hit in the fall of 2008. The Premier, at the time, said that it was, you know, terrible — worst since the '30s. So with that backgrounder, you would have thought that the Liberals would have been pretty cautious. The tax revenues for 2008-09, for the fiscal year, totalled $17.5 billion.

Yet the next year, when we were right into the midst of the recession, the Finance Minister raised the tax revenue
[ Page 6352 ]
forecast to $18.5 billion, or a whole billion dollars more than it was in '08-09. He certainly knew by February of '09 that tax revenues were falling, yet he raised the projected tax increases prior to the election.

Actual revenues for '09-10 were only $16.4 billion, $1.1 billion less than '08-09. So the $1.26 billion deficit that we have this year, according to the latest update, was over 2½ times larger than the government said it would be. That, you know…. Any indiscretion, if it may have been, that Glen Clark committed with regard to budget is small compared to what we saw prior to the last election in this province, and no apology forthcoming.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Another thing that the Liberals love to talk about is: "Oh, you know, the NDP drove British Columbia into a have-not province." Well, they have got to look at some of the evidence here. When you're getting the equalization payments, you're considered a have-not province, and between 2001 and 2009 B.C. was a have-not province six times, receiving a total of $2.4 billion in equalization payments.

On the other hand, between 1991 and 2000, B.C. received only one equalization payment of $125 million. So who is on the dole? Who has been on the dole? Check it out, man. Check it out.

Let's look at the most ridiculous aspect of this government, the most troubling aspect of this government's fiscal mismanagement. That's the debt in British Columbia, and this should truly give anyone cause for deep concern.

[1825]

With this budget, debt is projected to increase to $60.4 billion by 2013 — $60.4 billion. That's an 80 percent increase since 2006. Wow, an 80 percent increase to $60.4 billion. According to the TD Bank, the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio rose by a significant 2 percentage points to reach 15.5 percent in fiscal year '09-10 and is expected to keep rising to 18 percent of GDP by '11-12.

The indicators are flying badly in the wrong direction, and the accumulation of debt is the most troubling. But that $60.4 billion is only half of the horror story that we're facing in this province, because there's another whole load of debt out there that is not counted on the books but is very much there. It's called the contractual obligations — in other words, the P3s. The public-private partnerships, which this government has indulged in so frequently, are now, according to the public accounts of '09-10, at $55 billion.

We've got $60 billion plus $55 billion. That is $113 billion that this government is racking up in debt for this province, and that's going to affect every person in this province. God help us when the interest rates go up, because they are going to go up. Everybody is predicting that they're going to go up, and it's going to be mayhem.

You know, all the time that the Liberals promulgated this P3 policy, it was like: "Oh, man, they're taking all the risk. The builder is taking all the risk. You don't have to worry." It reminded me of being on a Mexican beach, you know. The hat seller goes by and says: "Oh, cheap, cheap, almost free, almost free." Well, it hasn't been almost free. There's no free lunch out there, and this government is putting British Columbians hugely at risk.

Just look at the Golden Ears Bridge, for example, which is a good bridge insofar as it stands. It takes you quickly from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows over to the Langley side, notwithstanding some cracks that mysteriously appeared shortly thereafter. But the fact of the matter is that revenue on that bridge has fallen far short of the contracted price we have to pay to the builder. The bridge has only been open a year and eight months, and we already owe the contractor $63.8 million for the shortfall — $63.8 million. So we're now 44 percent short of the mark in terms of its paying for itself.

This bridge is not paying for itself. We're paying for it, and my constituents are paying double. First of all, they pay the toll — the only people in the province who have to pay the toll. If you go over and back every day to go to work, it costs you about 700 bucks a year. Then, in addition, they have to pay out of their taxpayer pocket for the fact that there are all kinds of overruns in terms of the amount of money that we're not making on that bridge. That is, of course, in addition to the $5-million-a-year subsidy it gets and the additional costs for the acquisition of lands and so on. Let's hope it changes, but so far, it's another financial white elephant that this government has put forward.

I don't have long to speak, but I just want to talk briefly about the tax cuts and the wealth inequality that have happened in this province. B.C. has among the highest income and wealth inequality in Canada. We have experienced high poverty and homelessness, even during the boom, the commodity boom in 2006-2007, and we do have the highest poverty rate in the country. In 2008 one in seven B.C. workers earned less than $10 an hour.

Personal income tax cuts have benefited high-income earners the most. If you earned $150,000 a year, the tax cut was 4.6 percent of your income. If you earned $60,000 a year, it was 3.3 percent of your income, and if you earned $30,000 a year, it was 2.4 percent of your income. The reality is that not only do the highest-income earners benefit more in actual dollars, but they benefit more, relative to low-income earners. That's not fair, Mr. Speaker.

[1830]

Of British Columbian taxpayers, 4/10 of 1 percent earn $250,000 a year or more — four out of a thousand. They receive 15.2 percent of the total tax-cut dollars. In
[ Page 6353 ]
contrast, the 60.8 percent of British Columbians who earn less than $30,000 a year receive only 17.2 percent of the pie. So 4/10 of 1 percent get 15 percent; 60 percent get 17.2 percent.

It leads to the kind of inequality that we're experiencing in our province and the fact that we have so many problems with homelessness and on and on.

I think that at this point, we're going to move on to the next order of business, so I will move adjournment of the debate.

M. Sather moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 3, intituled Supply Act (No. 1).

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — SUPPLY ACT (no. 1), 2011

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 3 be read a second time now.

Bill 3 will provide interim supply for the continuation of government programs until government's estimates for the 2011-2012 fiscal year have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

Interim supply is required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2011, and it is unlikely that the 2011-2012 estimates will be debated and passed by that date.

Both this government and the official opposition are in transition to new leadership. The four months of interim supply provide time for orderly transition, enabling the new leaders to be in place during the debate of the 2011-2012 estimates currently before this House.

The first section of the bill provides supply for the first four months of the 2011-2012 fiscal year based on the voted expenses as presented in the 2011-2012 estimates. The second portion provides for 50 percent of the voted financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C and D of the 2011-2012 estimates. These disbursements are not evenly distributed throughout the year. The additional appropriation is required to accommodate project timing.

The third section provides for revenue collected for and transferred to other entities which appear in schedule E of the 2011-2012 estimates. As there is no impact on the surplus, borrowing or debt resulting from schedule E financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements are being sought in this supply bill.

B. Ralston: I want to speak briefly to Bill 3. The Supply Act will authorize the government to continue spending for what is described as 4/12 of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates. In other words, it will authorize expenditure according to the main estimates until the end of July of this year.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules says that "interim supply provides the government with money to meet its obligations during the time before the main estimates are approved," and that's customary parliamentary practice throughout the history of this parliament and others.

What I think is significant here in this approval is that although interim supply is approved by this bill, approval of interim supply does not authorize spending by the government on new programs. It only authorizes spending in accordance with the main estimates.

It's significant that in the main estimates under "Other Appropriations" at page 183, there's a summary there in Vote 45. The main estimates for the coming year include a contingency of $600 million. That's the contingency that's been spoken of by the Minister of Finance in some of his earlier comments when introducing the budget.

Although the government doesn't have the authority by the passage of this bill to spend on new programs, it has reserved to itself in the contingency, Vote 45, the sum of $600 million, and expenditure of that would be authorized as a contingency.

[1835]

Just for comparative purposes, in the estimates of last year the similar vote was $450 million. So this is a considerable expansion of that amount. Beauchesne goes on to say that ordinarily "interim supply is normally requested in the first supply period for the first three months of a new fiscal year for all departments of government." This request is for four months, which is a slightly longer period than is ordinarily the case.

The only other comment that I would make is just that the Minister of Finance has referred to paragraph 2 of the bill, which authorizes capital expenditures and fully one-half of the capital expenditures. Given that in this climate in British Columbia, particularly in other parts of British Columbia, capital expenditures, in particular construction, usually proceed at this time of year, in the spring, and are completed in the summer and early fall, that is a prudent measure in order to get capital projects underway rather than delaying and niggling and being picky about that particular clause.

The official opposition supports interim supply. Indeed, I think that's really the main purpose of being here this week, if I can put it that way — with all due respect to the Finance Minister and the budget that he's introduced — because that budget will likely be substantially revised at some future date to be determined by the incoming Liberal leader.
[ Page 6354 ]

We are, therefore, by agreement with the government, prepared to support interim supply. Obviously, this will enable government to keep the government going, keep people paid, keep the hospitals open and all of the other things that the government services provide. Naturally, we here on this side are in support of that. With those brief comments, I would end my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier closes debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move second reading of Bill 3, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2011.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 3 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2011, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:38 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 © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175