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)

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 6

[ Page 6355 ]

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Finance.

Government House Leader.

Tabling Documents

Hon. R. Coleman: I rise to table a number of reports.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have the honour to present the following reports: the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report 2009-2010; the Crown Proceeding Act Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2010; the Environmental Appeal Board Annual Report 2009-2010; Public Guardian and Trustee of B.C. annual report 2009-2010; the B.C. Utilities Commission 2009-2010 Annual Report; and the B.C. Ferry Commission Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2010.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would defer to the House Leader at any time, any day.

Introduction of Amendments by Message

AMENDMENTS TO ESTIMATES —
FISCAL YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 2012

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that said message and the amendments to the estimates attached thereto be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: Good morning, and sorry to my colleague for jumping up there.

I call committee stage of Bill 3, intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2011.

B. Simpson: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

B. Simpson: I would like to introduce in the gallery today Wendy Bergerud, Roger Taylor and Stephen Harrison. They're with the greater Victoria chapter of Fair Vote B.C. We had a very intriguing meeting this morning. Of course, they're proponents of electoral reform Canada-wide and in British Columbia. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 3 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2011

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 3; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: I had a couple of quick questions on section 1. The section refers to 4/12 of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012. So would it be correct that this bill, if passed, authorizes spending until July 31 of this year?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think it would be more accurate to say that this authorizes spending to approximately the end of July. We often talk about getting, you know, four months of supply or six months of supply when in reality it's not a calendar month; it's based on the approval of an amount. So by 4/12 of the total amount for the year, it should get us roughly to the end of July, but it's based on how much actual spending is incurred as opposed to a date on a calendar.

B. Ralston: Again, just for clarity, because this bill is sometimes considered somewhat arcane to the uninitiated — and that might even include some members of the Legislative Assembly — given what you've said about when this authority would end, what would be necessary to continue spending authority? Would the Legislature have to come back into session either to extend this bill or some other procedure?

[1010]

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, it would require an additional authority from the Legislative Assembly to spend beyond this amount. If you look at a typical year, it is not unusual for there to be more than one supply bill in the year. So the first supply bill would get to a certain point, and then if the full estimates have not been completed and the final supply bill passed by the Legislature, it is not unusual for there to be a second supply bill put in place.
[ Page 6356 ]

I think this will certainly allow for the Legislative Assembly to have an adequate amount of time to get final supply done, but given the uncertainty around what the timelines might look like over the coming months, this will at least get us to roughly the end of July. If final supply is not completed by that time, it may potentially be necessary for a second supply bill.

B. Ralston: So would it be fair then for a member of the public to conclude that the Legislature at some point, roughly, before the end of July will reconvene either to extend this supply bill or for a discussion of the main estimates through the supply process?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that is correct.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Ralston: Section 2 says — and I'm looking at the end of the last sentence: "…and being substantially 1/2 of the total of the voted amounts referred to in those Schedules to the main Estimates."

Can the minister explain the reason for that choice of language: "substantially 1/2"?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is typical of every interim supply bill that's brought in. There is typically a…. Well, I can't think of an exception where the interim supply on the capital side is not at least 50 percent, and it's because of the timing of projects. So when you wind up with construction of capital projects, it's not sort of an equal one-third per month that it flows out. So this allows for that flexibility.

The fact that it says "substantially 1/2 of the total" is really just because the amount that is being included has been rounded off to the nearest hundred thousand dollars.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

B. Ralston: Section 3 refers to schedule E, and there are a number of ministries referred to in that schedule. Can the minister explain the purpose of that particular clause?

Hon. C. Hansen: So this pertains to schedule E of the main estimates, and this actually is funds that, while they're collected by the province, flow through to other organizations.

Again, this is typical in every interim supply bill — that 100 percent of that authority is given at the time of interim supply. It does not impact on the spending estimates of particular ministries, and it is really there just to facilitate that flow-through to outside organizations.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:14 a.m.

[1015]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2011

Bill 3, Supply Act (No. 1), 2011, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I don't know if we can top that scintillating debate for the rest of the morning, but I'm sure we can try, as we will now move into reply to the budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. I. Chong: I take this opportunity to speak on Budget 2011-12. Obviously, I feel that it's important to put in perspective a number of items raised, and in particular, I hope to have an opportunity to discuss the budget with respect to the ministries that I currently have responsibility for — that is, Science and Universities, and Regional Economic and Skills Development.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

But overall, I think it's fair to say that the commentary we have heard from a number of third-party organizations and groups has indicated that they were expecting a status quo budget. They weren't expecting major changes, knowing what is happening in the political climate currently, with leadership races on both sides of the House, and that it was important to be able to bring a budget forward that allows for continuity, for consistency throughout until such time as a new Premier and new cabinet make decisions that may provide for different ideas and a different vision.
[ Page 6357 ]

So it was, I think, not an unexpected — I hate to say boring — rather mundane budget that the Minister of Finance brought in, simply because we wanted to provide that assurance that the information that was presented last year would more or less continue on to this year.

I wanted to speak about the Ministry of Science and Universities, and Regional Economic and Skills Development, because there was concern in October when the former Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development was divided. There was some angst in the community.

I have since been out around the province speaking to our universities, to our colleges, to student organizations and others who feel they have a stake in the change, to ensure that there are no fears to be had. In fact, the division was made to better represent and better align resources to very important areas that will affect British Columbia and, indeed, our economy.

For example, in the area of science and universities, the area of research was included because our universities provide so much of that research-based knowledge. British Columbia produces world-leading research in the life sciences, in information and communication technology, in particle physics, in material science, in oceanography, resource management and alternative energy. We should be proud of that.

Our government-supported research, innovation and technology provide a long-term foundation for a strong and vibrant economy, for a sustainable environment, and safe and healthy communities, both within British Columbia and worldwide. Our universities are best aligned to do that, to best maximize their potential in research.

In fact, since 2001 our government has committed $1.8 billion to research in British Columbia, and we've levered an additional $1.3 billion in research funding from other sources. That's significant, and we want our universities that are doing research to be the very best they can be, to attract the very best they can be, because it is going to be the foundation going forward in this 21st century in terms of the knowledge-based economy.

[1020]

Since 2001, Madam Speaker, you'll know that our government has created seven new universities to serve British Columbia, including the Thompson Rivers University and the University of British Columbia Okanagan campus, two of which I think have really had a huge increase in enrolment and interest, more particularly for students to learn closer to home. There have been new universities and expanded campuses that also provide more choice, again providing more choice closer to home for B.C. students so that they can certainly get the training and skills they need to succeed.

That's the other ministry that I want to quickly speak about — Regional Economic and Skills Development. They represent our colleges, and our colleges provide the basis for upskilling a number of our individuals and our employees, providing the right job training in the right job vacancies in the right regions of the province. This is why it's regional economic development — not economic development as a whole but regional — and skills development, because we need to have those skills in those places for those communities to have a viable, healthy, vibrant community. That has been particularly important.

I just wanted to make that very brief clarification, because I know there has been some concern, but also for the members opposite, because we haven't had the chance to have that dialogue that we would ordinarily have, I would suspect, during budget estimates debate. It's important to know that with changes like that, there also needs to be an alignment of ministry financial resources. Therein is where I want to take some time to speak in specific relation to the budget.

In this House we acknowledge there is usually very healthy debate — in fact, vigorous debate. We do not always agree. In fact, disagreement occurs frequently, I think we would all admit. Sometimes members even mischaracterize, sometimes mislead or make statements that are misleading, but no member is actually permitted to deliberately or knowingly make a false or misleading statement. To do so would be tantamount to, as we know, the word that we don't use in this chamber.

So as I stated, sometimes there is vociferous disagreement, and sometimes members don't completely represent, or they mischaracterize. But when a false statement is presented as fact, that is just not permitted.

Madam Speaker, you may wonder, and I'm sure others are wondering, why I am speaking to that. I think it is important that if one were to follow the debates today or to review Hansard at a later time, why is it that I am broaching this obviously very sensitive subject matter? It's because I want to take time this morning to make a specific clarification for the benefit of all members in this House but particularly for the NDP official opposition members who have spoken to the budget of late and who may be speaking to their media with respect to the budget that I have responsibility for.

When I hear the Finance critic, the member for Surrey-Whalley; the member for Stikine; the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan; the member for North Island make specific reference to this year's budget that there has been a $34 million cut to the student aid program, I need to say that that is absolutely wrong. As well, the member for Kootenay West was quoted in her local media making the same statement. She is also wrong. Our student aid program remains the same as last year.

I know, in looking at the budget materials, that the NDP Finance critic…. Perhaps the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke also made it, and I appreciate him rais-
[ Page 6358 ]
ing that. When you look at the budget materials, the NDP Finance critic made a very quick assumption when looking at the student support program. He saw a reduction there, and I understand that he made the quick assumption that the student aid program was being reduced when, in fact, it was a student support program that includes a variety of programs.

[1025]

Because of that, the variety of programs that were in there needed to be better aligned and reprofiled with the Ministry of Regional Economic and Skills Development. It is an accounting change, but the dollars that were previously there have in fact been aligned to a ministry that has been created to take care of the responsibility and mandate that was afforded there. So while there have been some reprofiling and some transferring of those dollars to a different ministry to align with that…. As I say, they represent accounting changes, not a cut to the student aid program.

The reason why I want to make that statement very clear in this chamber is because I know it is a general acceptance that when the Finance critic provides information to members — because I've been in opposition before — members will take that information as fact, and member after member will come into the House and make the same statement or provide it to media. I know that is practised. I've been in opposition. I've done that. Being in government, you also make the same kind of assumptions.

But I wanted to take this opportunity, because I think it's only fair to provide that clarification because there may not be the time to do so at a future date. I don't want that statement to be perpetuated in the media and public for longer than it needs to be, providing concern and worry for students and parents when in fact it is not true.

I have to say that. It is just not true. The student aid program remains the same as it did last year. I would be happy to provide a briefing to any member of the opposition, any member of the House, if they so desire it, because I am concerned that that statement has already caused some alarm, some fear to students and to parents.

It's not about disagreeing with government policy. It is simply a fact, a false statement that has been made. To blatantly disregard the truth, now that I have made it clear — to blatantly disregard that statement and that truth…. I do not think members will want to do that. If they continue to do so, I think, then, that that leads to a very serious infraction.

Therefore, I provide that, as I say, not to suggest that members don't have an opportunity to disagree when they don't like government policy or government programs, when they have a different idea on how it should be presented, but I'm asking that all members of this House, not just the NDP official opposition, do not deliberately or knowingly mislead the public by continuing to make that statement.

Again, I rarely try to be as specific when I do a budget speech response, but I do so because I am very worried about the statements being made and am concerned about the ramifications they may have. The budget is an important process that we all go through. It is important that when there is an opportunity to debate, as we do in estimates debate, there is that vigorous debate.

Again, we will disagree with programs. We may disagree with policy. There will be clarification that is often sought, and I would be more than happy to provide clarification such as that. But I can say that from this point onwards, should I hear members opposite make a direct comment that there has been a $34 million cut to a student aid program, I will have to make the absolute assertion that they have deliberately or knowingly misled the public as well as their constituents.

Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Interjections.

Hon. I. Chong: I hear members opposite disagreeing….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I will caution you.

Hon. I. Chong: I understand, Madam Speaker, which is why I'm taking the time to be very clear that from this point onwards…. I recognize that previous to this point, members may not have had the opportunity to have the clarification that I'm providing, which is why I'm doing so and why I also want to provide that information and to also suggest heartily that if they wish to see that information and speak to members of my ministry, I am offering that.

To do so from this point onwards, now that I have made the clarification, is very dangerous for members on both sides of the House, any member who makes that statement. As I say, I rarely take the time and effort to be as clear as I wish to have been this morning because I know we have this healthy and rigorous debate that takes place. But I do so because I do respect the House.

[1030]

I do respect the opportunity for rigorous debate, but I think it's important to do so with all the facts. If a member refuses to take up the offer of trying to find out the facts by not taking advantage of a briefing — which again, for the third time now, which I've said, I've offered — then they do so at their peril.

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed my opportunity to provide some comments on the budget. Going forward I know that I will continue to hear some very interesting comments and disagreements from time to time. But certainly, again, I caution members that I will be watching very closely how they take their comments further from this point onwards.
[ Page 6359 ]

B. Simpson: I want to start off by expressing my appreciation to the House Leader of the opposition for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I know we're all going to have to learn how this House will work with, hopefully, more independents and others involved. So I do appreciate that that room was made.

I do want to comment on something that the Minister of Science and Universities has just commented on, because I think she did make her point very clear.

But unfortunately, as we all know, and I'll speak to it, debate is truncated. The actual nature of the debate that should be going on in this House and that would get to the heart of the issue as to whether the opposition is correct in their characterization or the minister is correct in her characterization is what we call estimates debate, which of course we're not going to get until after the game of thrones is completed and we get to come back and do the real work of this Legislature.

Having said that, I want to reflect on something as I tried to figure out what I wanted to say on the budget, because I only have a few minutes here. Everything's truncated. I do feel as if the business of the House was completed at 10:10 or whatever this morning when Bill 3 was passed, because that's the real reason we're here. It's to get the interim supply bill passed so that people can get paid, the lights can stay on until the game of thrones is completed and we can get back to the work of the people's work in this House.

In my reflection, what I was thinking about is that my wife and I are involved in a renovation of our home. We took about ten days, which is fast for my wife because it's usually about 18 months for her to decide on things like this. It took us ten days to figure out what blinds we wanted in the house and then for back-and-forth with a supplier to get them to keep sharpening their pencil, to get them to give us good quotes, etc. On balance, that proportion of our renovation budget is minuscule. It's about 1 percent of the budget, but we spent about ten days doing that.

Here we are with a $40 billion budget, $60 billion-plus in debt, an unaccounted-for allocation to money for a yet-to-be-determined Premier to do with as he or she wills, and I as a Legislative Assembly member get 15 minutes to give my comment on it, and all of us collectively get two days. I have a fundamental problem with that because it is not the way our democracy is supposed to work.

The budget is the set piece for the province. It's the set piece not just for the finances but for the policy direction for the province. It's the set piece for the direction we're going to go on in the first year and then gives a sense of the next couple of years. Yet in the Finance Minister's speech he explicitly states that no new direction will be set. Why?

Madam Speaker, 85 of us are here. We were all duly elected. We are the representatives of the province of British Columbia, duly elected, and yet because one of the 85 has not been anointed because the game of thrones has not been completed, we can't do the people's work in this House. I think that's unconscionable. I think it's unacceptable.

I think what we've got in the budget speech is an admission — and the same in Bill 3 — that politics, and the internal politics of political parties, trumps the people's business. And this is supposed to be the people's House.

[1035]

We have the Finance Minister admitting that the Liberal leadership issue, the opposition leadership issue and, of course, the HST issue, which is bad process, bad politics from the get-go, have prevented us from meeting in this House and convening and actually debating the people's budget and giving certainty to the people of British Columbia.

That's critical — that word "certainty" — because as we know, the child and youth advocate has told us that we must get on with the job of addressing child poverty. Children should not be forced to wait until political parties get their houses in order. There is no excuse that the 85 members of this Legislative Assembly could not deliberate and come up with a strategy for legislated targets, for budget assignment to address that fundamental issue. How many vulnerable children at risk have to die in this province before we get that job done?

We have communities right now that have the issue of a potential wildfire season looming ahead of them again. We can debate in this House whether or not we've done sufficient work around fuel management and various other things. I lived in the heart of the wildfire season last year. I know how close we came to those wildfires crossing the Fraser River into where the bulk of the population was.

I know we have a lot of work to do. I believe that the Minister of Forests knows we still have a lot of work to do, not in the fire protection — kudos to the fire protection, to the people who get out there and put those fires out; we've got work to do to make that process and system better — but on the front end, in the spring, when we can do fuel management work, when we can actually make sure that those communities are better protected, ranches are better protected, infrastructure is better protected.

Yet what we've got here is uncertainty as to whether some of that slush money that's floating around will be assigned to that, not because 85 of us can't agree on that but because one person hasn't been anointed to determine and sanction whether that work should get done. That's not the way a representative democracy is supposed to work.

We have institutions, organizations, charities that are sitting wondering if they're going to be able to keep their doors open. They don't know that. I have sports groups
[ Page 6360 ]
in my riding that do not know if they have another season ahead of them. I have Big Brothers and Big Sisters organizations that do not know if they're going to have to close their doors and stop servicing those children. Why? Because this government has not explicitly stated in this budget if they are going to truly address the Finance Committee's recommendation, as well as the sum of the calls for action on this, and restore the gaming grants and stabilize them with three-year funding to give certainty and stability to those organizations.

We are now going to go into at least four months of instability and uncertainty that could actually be succeeded by more months, if not an election. That is patently unfair to the people of British Columbia and to these volunteer organizations and to all of the families and individuals serviced by them.

So it is imperative that we do that work, and I think the 85 MLAs in here are smart enough, bright enough, have got the sanction of their own constituencies to come down here, to represent and to be involved in the government of this province, and we should not be in the situation we're in now — that because the game of thrones is going on, we can't do our work.

Madam Speaker, one of the classic examples of what's fundamentally wrong with our system is the HST. I'm not going to argue the legitimacy of HST, whether it's good tax or bad tax. I do believe there are some ideological and policy debates there. I will state, though, that it's my fundamental belief that everybody in this House, including the members in government, got caught off guard by that decision.

That was an autocratic decision. That was a decision that forced everybody and the province into complete uncertainty and, I would argue, significant chaos since the 2009 election, when that position was reversed and HST came down.

[1040]

The proof is evident. There are people in this Legislature who are under recall campaigns because of an autocratic decision. We had an initiative occur in which we got a record, an unbelievable amount of signatures, because people were so angry that the democratic process was not dealt with, that the people were not brought into the fold on that decision, and a reversal of a political statement in this House ended up burdening them with additional taxes that they did not want.

I do hope we get good information. I do hope we get an informed choice. I do hope that the government stands today and, with unanimous consent of the House, passes the legislation moving the referendum up to June 24 to get this thing done. Unburden us from that bad decision.

I had to laugh when the Lieutenant-Governor was in the chair. I laughed when he said the chair seemed to be getting smaller, but I laughed when he said that he was relieving us of our duties — the formal statement that he made when the House was prorogued.

I would argue with anyone that the MLAs' duties have been relieved from them for some time in the Legislature of British Columbia, in the Parliament in Ottawa. Not our duties as constituent MLAs, not our duties as lobbyists to go to a minister's office hat in hand or the Premier's office hat in hand and ask for what our constituents want, but our duties as parliamentarians and legislators have been relieved from us over successive administrations in this province. It needs to end.

Right now is a classic example of how bankrupt that model is. We can't do anything because the game of thrones is going on. There are 85 of us. We don't need the one to be anointed.

In that prorogue, I had to think about what the Lieutenant-Governor said about what we accomplished in the last session, which the prorogue closed. He said we did all kinds of wide-ranging initiatives, etc. The reality is that we didn't do very much. We didn't sit very much.

Most of what was accomplished was undone by a Premier on the way out who announced to the whole world a complete reorganization of government, including the most fundamental reorganization of the natural resource ministries that this province has ever seen, with massive implications for the shareholders of those resources, which are the people of British Columbia, who were not consulted on any of that.

Then he had the audacity to turn around and undermine the Finance Committee and the Finance Minister by saying that he would give all British Columbians a 15 percent tax cut, so that his swan song was 15 percent, while his entry was 25 percent. It was about saving his neck, not about leading and giving vision to the province.

It undermines us as hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly when that kind of thing can be done. What I would assert is that the cabinet did the right thing, because the cabinet at least turned us for a moment — a fleeting moment, mind you, but a moment — into an executive democracy, as expressed through the will of the cabinet that put that 15 percent tax break in abeyance. And we don't see it in this budget. So for a fleeting moment cabinet actually was governing this province, and we broke the back of that.

For a long moment, if each one of us simply does our job better as legislators, not as constituency folks — please don't misunderstand me — but as legislators, as parliamentarians, if we demand the right for this House to be restored to the supremacy as contained in Bill 1 of every session, the supremacy of parliament, if we demand that right that the elected representatives are the supreme entity in a legislative democracy, then I think that we can restore the confidence of British Columbians in our democratic process.

We can restore the confidence of British Columbians in our governance. We can restore the faith of people,
[ Page 6361 ]
like those who are from Fair Vote Canada, that we, as legislators, can represent.

[1045]

Madam Speaker, Bill 1, I think, should be amended, because Bill 1 only protects us from interference from the monarch. I think we need bill 1a that says we are protected from the autocratic rule of the Premier's office, that the supremacy of parliament is actually protecting us from an executive style, an autocratic style of government. I would put that amendment forward if I knew how to do it. Maybe I'll figure it out for the next session.

This is a movement for democratic reform that's not isolated to British Columbia. I dare anybody to look at what's happening in Australia and some of the things that independent Rob Oakeshott is saying down there. I'm running out of time, so I can't read some of his stuff, but please do go on to his webpage and look at it.

One of the things that I think would be interesting reading for all MLAs, all MPs, is George Washington's speech and address as he left as the President of the United States. So 220 years ago George Washington warned Americans about the fledgling political parties and what they were going to do to the democracy in America. I would say that that is worth all of us reading.

It is my sincere hope that we do have an opportunity right now, as both parties go through their leadership reviews, to get a commitment from all leaders and to get that commitment fulfilled in the new leaders so that when we do get to return here, eventually, to do the people's business, we also get the opportunity to collectively reassert our rights as MLAs, reassert our rights to be involved in the day-to-day decisions about policy and spending priorities, the day-to-day decisions about legislation.

That is my sincere hope, because that's how we will get people back to the ballot box, that's how we will get people to believe that this place works, and that's how I believe we will truly get good government in British Columbia.

Hon. B. Stewart: Well, along with the members on this side of the House, I am thankful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the budget.

I'd first like to start off to say how proud I am to represent the riding of Westside-Kelowna and what a great opportunity the people of Westside-Kelowna have afforded me. I will continue to work hard to represent you in our constituency.

I just have a few thank-yous of my own. First off, my wife doesn't get to see me very often, but she keeps the home fires burning, our granddaughter babysat sometimes, horses fed, and our driveway is plowed, with the snow we've had this winter.

More importantly, in my constituency office I have two wonderful ladies that work for me — Cheryl Doll and Erica Macnab — who have been doing yeoman's work. To my staff here in Victoria, who really have been doing an excellent job. I was fortunate to inherit a number of people that came over from Agriculture — Heidi Scott, R.J. Senko, Cathy Armstrong and Sabrina Loiacono. For their great efforts here in Victoria.

I'm really proud to call the Okanagan Valley home. I see so much opportunity that we can do by working together.

This year was a special year. We lost a great friend, but I was moved by the decision to rename the B.C. Southern Interior Cancer Centre to the Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Cancer Centre. It's a fitting tribute to a great woman, a great friend, a great MLA and a great minister. But there are new things going on at that clinic or that centre. A new state-of-the-art radiation therapy was added this year. It's an investment that will greatly improve cancer care and treatment in Kelowna and the southern Interior.

I can't help but remember working on the campaign to fundraise with the Kelowna General Hospital Foundation for that very centre. In its early days we were struggling to raise the money for a fixed MRI. Of course, at that time we shared the MRI with Kamloops and Prince George. It's done great work.

There are other great things happening in health care in Kelowna and the surrounding area. My colleague from Kelowna-Mission discussed earlier about the additions that are happening at Kelowna General Hospital. It's undergoing a metamorphic transformation. Because of the nature of the fact that it's a regional hospital that services the southern interior of British Columbia — from the borders in the east to places in the north and the Cariboo and places that count on the services there — there are many different things that are happening.

[1050]

The ground just broke for a $47 million East Pandosy clinical support building, which will be an integral part of a $448 million Interior heart and surgical centre. The IHSC is an extremely important addition to the health care system in Kelowna since it means, in addition to angioplasties already being performed at KGH, heart surgeries will also become available for the first time outside of the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island.

The IHSC has come to Kelowna as a result of the hard work of many but especially the hard work of cardiologist Dr. Richard Hooper. The new Centennial tower at KGH is also under construction and is a little over a year away from opening. I remember when the Royal tower actually opened. I was born in the Pandosy building, which is the one that's coming down for the new clinical service building, but I have to say that KGH has grown a whole lot since my grandmother used to be a nurse there.

This is an extremely significant facility for our area, and I'm proud and very happy to say it will include a new
[ Page 6362 ]
emergency department four times larger than the one that we have right now. The population of Kelowna is growing rapidly, and it's also aging. That means that there are incredible stresses on our health care system in Kelowna.

This much larger emergency department, along with the other improvements mentioned above, is going to make a great difference. We just recently announced $629,000 in new patient-focused funding for the ER, which will help in easing emergency department congestion and reducing patient wait times while this new department is being finished.

Something else significant happened last year in my riding. It wasn't that long ago that we were all talking about the forest fires of 2003. The member for Cariboo North just mentioned forest fires in his area, and fire mitigation is an important and an ongoing responsibility of not only the government but the people.

In my area we were fortunate enough for the regional district to be able to get a quarter of a million dollars of funding to be able to do fire mitigation practices in the parks in and around the area. The district of West Kelowna got a $70,000-some planning grant for fire mitigation, and all governments have worked together. Last June we additionally gave the district of West Kelowna another $249,000 in funding from both the federal and the provincial government.

This initiative will employ ten workers to remove infested trees, heavy loads of pines and needles and other fire fuels as well as thin and prune trees. It also pays for some trail upgrades to allow crews access to facilitate this work.

But you know, the responsibility is still the individual homeowner. If you want to find out what you can do, go to firesafebc.com, which is our new website, and be able to make certain that you know what you can do to fireproof your own home.

The member from Saanich?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, for yielding the floor to the Minister of Environment for an introduction.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Coell: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House 32 special guests from Keating Elementary and their teacher MaryLynn Heron. They're here to have a tour of the Legislature, and they've been over to the IMAX to watch a show. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Stewart: Welcome to all the students that are here today.

On the transportation front, a lot of people remember the days of being stuck in their cars on the old double-lane bridge that we had crossing Lake Okanagan waiting for hours sometimes to get across in the summertime.

One of the bottlenecks was a major intersection just above the new W.R. Bennett Bridge, but it's going through a metamorphic change. There's a $41 million upgrade at Westside Road, and that change is really going to help open up some of the things that are happening both on First Nation lands under the skilful leadership of Chief Robert Louie but also the fact that we have an increasing and growing population moving up Westside Road.

Last September we announced rapid bus in the Central Okanagan. It has begun operation. This is an excellent addition, and it has changed exactly the way that our transit system functions in the Okanagan with a spine running from UBCO down to downtown Kelowna and soon to cross Lake Okanagan and come into the district of West Kelowna. It is an excellent example of how rapid bus can work in communities to reduce congestion and be able to reduce CO2s as well. I'm looking forward to this next phase of rapid bus.

[1055]

This was made possible through a joint federal and provincial contribution of $43 million as well as contributions from both the city of Kelowna and the district of West Kelowna. This is an excellent example of where the communities have come together to work collectively on a common problem. I look forward to the day when rapid bus spans from Vernon to Penticton.

Recently Kelowna hosted the International Children's Winter Games. Through a grant of $50,000 in funding from the province, the games were hosted from January 26 to 31.

I remember being approached about the Children's Winter Games by Bob Sugden. When Bob first approached me, I didn't really know what this was going to be like. I can tell you that on opening night ceremonies at the Prospera Place arena in Kelowna, I have to say that I was taken by not only all the athletes who came from all over the world but by the choreography and the entire performance of the opening ceremonies that were put on. Frankly — I don't want to diminish the Olympic Games ceremonies — they were fantastic.

The participants, the young people that were singing and dancing…. That really made us proud in the Okanagan. Again, I want to thank Bob Sugden, who was a volunteer who brought this wonderful vision to the city of Kelowna. It's something that we are all proud of.

In regards to the budget, as the Minister of Finance stated at the budget address, British Columbia is going through a time of transition and ongoing economic recovery. This budget confirms the government's commitment to maintain its core services that British Columbians depend on and ensures that we have the ability to manage the affairs of the coming year.
[ Page 6363 ]

I'm proud to say that my ministry remains committed and has succeeded in maintaining the core services that we deliver. The reorganization has allowed us to focus squarely on agriculture. Within the new framework, my ministry transferred programs of responsibility for invasive plants, Crown land administration and aquaculture. These changes are reflected in the 2011 budget for agriculture.

I'm happy to report that the B.C. agriculture plan, done by my colleague from Prince George, is still very much a guiding document for the ministry, with 90 percent of its recommendations either being completed or implemented at the present time.

The province continues its ongoing dedication to strengthening and promoting local food sources. B.C.'s agriculture, aquaculture, food processing, food wholesaling, food retail and food service industries have generated more than $40 billion in total gross revenues and accounted for more than 315,000 jobs in 2009.

B.C. is first in Canada in sales of blueberries, cranberries, sweet cherries, apricots, raspberries and finfish aquaculture. We provide support to the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets, which helps develop markets across B.C. that represent an estimated value of more than $118 million each year to local economies.

I was struck — $118 million turning over at farmers markets. I have to say that I was in the Cowichan Valley recently, and there's a great partnership going on there to develop a farmers market right on the side of the highway with Ducks Unlimited. Frankly, that's the type of collaboration we need.

I've asked the president of UBCM to make certain that they reach out to communities to provide certainty to farmers markets so that they have a place in their community where people know that they can come to get fresh local produce.

In September we held Farmers Appreciation Week in partnership with Overwaitea Food Group. We are working with the B.C. AgriTourism Alliance to promote local agriculture and food. Agritourism is on the rise with over 1.6 million people attending agricultural fairs in B.C. each year and learning about the importance of the agricultural industry to the economy.

We've worked hard to ensure that what continues to be strongly supported by British Columbians, and despite the fact that there are challenges facing government, we're still able to focus and maintain critical ministry services. The ALR is an important part of this work.

[1100]

The ALR continues to be strongly supported by British Columbians and the provincial government. It has been in place for 37 years as a means of preserving farmland, and more than 20,000 hectares have been added to the ALR since 2001 — 20,000 hectares.

We often hear or read reports about reductions. It can be relied upon by B.C. farmers for current and future agricultural purposes. That is why the province has ordered the first significant review in many years, even decades, of the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. I have received the report, and I am taking the time to review it in detail and will share it with my cabinet colleagues and other MLAs. Then I will be making the report public.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

I note that yesterday the critic made comments that the chair has produced a business plan and a Treasury Board submission. I would like to suggest that the critic check her facts before making those erroneous statements.

Speaking of erroneous statements, the members opposite yesterday alleged that this government does not support the tree fruit industry. To the contrary, the province and the federal government just provided $5 million in funding to the B.C. tree fruit industry. This $5 million was provided to the B.C. tree fruit industry through agriflexibility. It's for the B.C. tree fruit market and infrastructure innovation initiative, which will draw on that $5 million. This money is to be targeted at new and innovative ideas with long-term benefits that will raise the profile of this industry.

But I'm also meeting with the B.C. fruit growers this week to listen to their concerns. The ministry strongly supports the B.C. tree fruit industry. We invested over $33 million in replant and grafting programs just since 2001. In addition, the province has announced several initiatives in other sectors.

In the past few months we've announced the federal and provincial governments' $5 million investment in the B.C. beef industry through the agriflexibility fund; $5.5 million to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to deliver several different range-fencing upgrades on Crown land, including fence line protection and replacing of aged fences; $1.55 million for a pilot project to protect B.C.'s commercial livestock sector from wildlife predators; another $3.5 million for cross-ministry management of invasive plants.

Last year the Ranching Task Force brought forward recommendations about how government and industry can work together to achieve a more profitable, self-sustaining industry. We followed up with our first-ever B.C. Beef Day. I think I saw all the members of the House there enjoying wonderful wine-fed beef on the grounds of the Legislature.

In October the Ministry of Agriculture led a trade mission to Asia. I'm happy to report that the results of that trade mission are already starting to come through. We've had the Chinese government here doing its inspections of our meat production facilities to make certain that we can access that market not only for beef but for cherries and soon blueberries.
[ Page 6364 ]

One of our primary focuses on our trade mission was market access for B.C. beef. We built new relationships with our partners and our friends in China and Japan, which are priority markets for B.C. We anticipate that by 2012, China will begin a risk assessment for B.C. blueberry crops that will open doors to one of this province's great-tasting food products.

Last year we exported $2.6 billion worth of total goods to China. Of that, more than $98 million in B.C. agriculture and seafood products were exported to China. I think that we can expand on that significantly. My colleague the Minister of Forests has shown what he can do with lumber. I hope that we can replicate that in agriculture.

But you know what? We've seen an 8 percent increase in the agrifood and seafood exports for the first ten months of 2010, even considering how challenging these times are. With B.C.'s economy in recovery, we need to be assertive and sell our province to potential overseas businesses and investors.

One of our top priorities in government is to support innovation. Through a federal-provincial Growing Forward agreement, we have invested $2 million in innovative initiatives and pilot projects over the last four years.

Ministry staff are hard at work collaborating with industry to create an innovation and commercialization centre to promote collaboration among businesses and organizations, to build product development capacity within the province. Together we're planting the seeds of innovation and making sure the right conditions exist for them to grow and prosper in the industry at large.

[1105]

By the year 2013, B.C. will have received over $553 million in federal funding for programs that benefit B.C.'s agricultural sector through Growing Forward. We are currently planning for a new policy framework to take place in the Growing Forward agreement which ends in 2013.

The critic believes that we do not care about our farmers and our future — another erroneous statement. Our government has continued to deliver business risk management programs to support farmers that are dealing with weather-related challenges — whether it has been drought, flooding — as we've seen in B.C. this past year. Production insurance, AgriStability programs, are in place to help agriculture producers.

During the past few months regional assessment data for drought on the Peace River was gathered by industry and in late December was presented to the province. During that time the government had already processed approximately $11 million in production insurance payments to nearly 200 farmers, and we are working with them on millions more in payouts under the AgriStability program.

We also had potato crop losses, and I'm sure that you all saw the footage on that. The province also has both business risk management and disaster financial assistance programs in place to help these farmers.

Production insurance claims are very near complete, with over $4 million being provided to these growers. Ministry staff are working hard to match all the available program benefits to the situations faced by farmers this past year.

Budget 2011 also allows us to maintain our state-of-the-art containment level 3 lab and the facilities located at the Animal Health Centre in Abbotsford. This ensures that we retain the capacity to properly respond to animal and plant disease outbreaks, to protect the environment, meet important biosecurity objectives and protect plant and animal health.

We are also reviewing the existing animal health legislation and policy, focusing primarily on the Animal Disease Control Act and the related legislation and regulation and policy. The Animal Disease Control Act is B.C.'s centre animal health statute. It's over 50 years old. What hasn't changed in 50 years?

The goal of this review is to develop a robust framework for the management of animal health in B.C. You know, of course, one of the other things that's troubling is…. Animal health and welfare has been top of mind for many British Columbians due to the recent report of the sled dog killings last April.

On February 2 the Premier announced that a special joint task force would be reviewing the related and reported incident. The task force will initially focus on the dogsledding industry and then review the specific incident after liaising with the B.C. SPCA and the RCMP. This report is due on March 25. The report's recommendations will be publicly released following my review. The humane treatment of animals is something that we all expect in this province, and we will work to ensure something like this never happens again.

The agricultural industry has asked for a simplified tax exemption system for farmers. The HST accomplishes that. I don't know how many members opposite have actually farmed before, but I think that if they knew what the farm goods list looked like and the exemptions and the holes and what was covered and what wasn't covered….

The HST and farming is a perfect example of how the harmonized sales tax can work for an industry. It makes it simple. The B.C. Ag Council estimates that the HST could save B.C.'s agricultural industry over $15 million a year.

B.C. farmers, ranchers and food processors are taking advantage of the many benefits that these changes represent for our agricultural sector. The HST reduces costs, eliminates the administrative burden of tax duplication and increases productivity at a time when our front-line food producers need it most. The HST puts B.C. farmers on a more level playing field with the farmers in Alberta and in other provinces who currently enjoy the advantages of the harmonized sales tax.

[1110]
[ Page 6365 ]

Producers of livestock, poultry, greenhouse vegetables, grains and more will benefit from being able to get back more of the tax that they used to pay. The HST is good news for agriculture and aquaculture in B.C., for both food producers and processors, giving them a new competitive edge.

As I mentioned earlier, we have now transferred the regulation of aquaculture to the federal government in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling. The province will retain responsibility for land tenures under the Land Act.

A sustainable, stable aquaculture industry remains a priority for this government. We will retain the thousands of jobs that come with this industry that is particularly important to First Nations. The aquaculture industry provides an estimated 6,000 jobs and over $224 million in wages for British Columbians.

We continue to protect core programs and key services.

I also want to take this opportunity to express my personal gratitude to Premier Gordon Campbell.

Premier, you were a trailblazer. It was your vision and leadership that made B.C. the place it is today. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication in making B.C. the best place on earth.

In closing, I'd like to leave you with the words of William Arthur Ward: "If you can imagine it, you can create it. If you can dream it, you can become it."

G. Coons: I rise today to respond to the budget.

I'd like to acknowledge some special people in my life — my spouse, Lois Elliot; my daughter Breton, who is a teacher in Victoria; and my other daughter Hannah, who just graduated last year from UNBC in commerce and human resources and who is travelling in Thailand.

I'd also like to thank some people in my office — Pauline Woodrow and Anna Lamb-Yorski, who work hard on my behalf and on behalf of our constituents; and of course, Lucy Mears in the Legislature.

Again, Madam Speaker, here we are. Budget day passed. We get a few minutes to respond. What did British Columbians get? Well, basically a status quo budget — a placeholder budget, an empty budget, a slush fund budget, a whitewash budget — and one that I cannot support.

After nine months, 256 days, this B.C. Liberal government, along with their handful of leadership retreads, brings in a budget that's empty and completely out of touch with what's actually going on in the province.

We get called back for four days — well, actually two days, two working days — to discuss and debate a budget that lives up to the expectations that will eventually lead to the downfall of this out-of-touch and arrogant government. We got a nothing budget — zilch, nada, zip, zero, nothing, not a thing, an empty budget, status quo, slush fund — and now, basically, a two-day sitting to discuss this, two days to do the work necessary and ensure that this government is accountable and that they treat people fairly.

I want to bring that up. It's appropriate that I'm speaking after the Minister of Agriculture. Last September there was horrendous flooding in the Bella Coola Valley. Three to four feet of water came rushing through. Homes destroyed, businesses, small producers. Their agriculture industry destroyed.

Great work was done by the Central Coast regional district with Christine Hyde as the chair and Joy Mackay, the administrator. The emergency program coordinator, Steve Waugh, did an outstanding job. The Canadian Red Cross, Salvation Army, the Mennonite district relief society came in.

Great work was done by the ministries. I kept in touch with the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment, Solicitor General, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Small Business, Community and Rural Development because of the issues. It was a disaster, and the disaster financial assistance was available — but only available to small businesses and small producers if it was the major source of their income.

In a region like the Bella Coola Valley, that just doesn't work. There has to be an allowance for areas where there's seasonal employment, cottage industries and developing farms. Dozens of small farms and producers and small businesses were wiped out, with no help or support from the disaster financial assistance.

[1115]

I want to relate that to the meat regs that came in. The meat regulations were provincewide, and due to a lot of pressure from producers and from the opposition, there were special licences granted to Haida Gwaii, Powell River regional district and Bella Coola because they were geographically unique and distinct from anywhere in the province. They got special licences and they were treated differently because of the remoteness.

Our financial assistance in disasters should relate to the same as the meat regs, in my opinion, and that is something that we need to discuss. The people in Bella Coola got hit twice: once by the floods and again by lack of support and recognition of their remoteness.

This budget, out of touch, highlights the dismal failure of this government for the last ten years. No new ideas. No help for B.C. families. Nothing for rural or northern British Columbia. Nothing to stimulate the economy or jobs. Definitely not a rural B.C.– or northern B.C.–friendly budget.

After 256 days away one would expect a budget with some thought, some purpose, some hope. Some of the headlines…. It's interesting to read the headlines after the budget. "Budget Swimming in Slush for a New Leader." That slush was basically the slush fund put in there for whoever the new leader of this B.C. Liberal Party is. I don't think they're swimming in slush. They
[ Page 6366 ]
may be knee-deep in something that is going to lead to their downfall, but it's not slush.

"B.C. Budget Built on HST Revenues." We knew that. We knew that it was a $1.9 billion tax shift on to consumers, this HST scheme that was put forward. It was built on the backs of restaurants, small businesses, tourism, real estate, homebuilders and average British Columbians.

They didn't have a mandate. This government didn't have a mandate to bring in the HST. It was done through deception and not bringing out the reality of the situation. In two separate surveys they said they had no plans, but right after the election the deception started.

Another headline that was out there basically looked at "A Budget Built on Liberal-Created Myths." We hear quite a bit — the chatter on the other side, the rant on the other side — about the '90s. When we look at what happened between 2001 and 2009 under this government, it was a have-not province six times, receiving $2.4 billion in equalization payments. Between 1991 and 2000, B.C. received only one payment of $125 million. So there's a real indication of the failure of this government.

Economic growth. The best two years under this B.C. Liberal government were 2005 and 2006, which saw the economy grow by 4.4 percent, whereas in 1993 and 2000 it grew by 4.5 and 4.6.

The Finance Minister talked about British Columbians leaving in droves, tens of thousands during the '90s. The reality was that between 2001 and 2009, under this government, approximately 5,400 per year…. There was a migration in. During the 1990s, between 1991 and 2001, there were about 14,000 per year. So again, the myths just keep going from this government, and that's what we've heard for the last ten years: deception, myths and misleading the public.

What isn't a myth is that British Columbia still has had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for the last seven or eight years, a dubious distinction it has held since 2002. This government is number one in something — a gold medal in child poverty — and that's shameful.

Now we can also look at the debt. One of the headlines: "Fast-Mounting Debt Leaves B.C. Open to Risk." When we look at when this Liberal government came into power, the debt was $34 billion after the NDP brought in three balanced budgets. Today the debt is $47 billion and growing — growing 50 percent faster than it did ten years ago. By the end of this year it's going to be $53 billion, and by 2013 the debt will be $60 billion under this government. Very interesting.

[1120]

Vaughn Palmer, in one of his articles, says: "From debt loathers to debt loaders in a space of six years." He mentions that the Premier's take on this years ago was that a "mounting debt was simply an irresponsible tax on our kids." That's what's been happening over the last ten years under this government.

If we look at deficits — in 2009 a record deficit by this government of $2.8 billion. In 2010 the quote was not to exceed $245 million, and it was another $1.8 billion deficit. Projected 2011 is $925 million, and projected 2012, $440 million as deficits. By 2013 this government will have had seven deficit budgets and six surplus ones, and by 2013 a $60 billion debt. This from a government and their cohorts who cry from the mountaintops about prudent fiscal management. It seems to be more of a pudent fiscal management scheme that this B.C. Liberal government has undertaken for the last ten years — record deficits and skyrocketing debt.

Again, we talk about the status quo budget and a headline. It means no help for those in need, no poverty reduction strategy, no raising of the minimum wage, no supports for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, no new ideas, no help for families, nothing to stimulate the economy. What we will see is an increase of those on income assistance, 3,000 more over two years, while cutting programs that help by $16 million in this whitewash of a budget.

Student aid being cut by $34 million. Trades training cut by $3 million. Regional economic development — $21 million slashed. The trade and investment program area was cut $22 million in 2010 to $13.5 million this year, so there was an $8.5 million cut — a 39 percent slashing of the trade and investment program area.

Forestry. Massive cuts in forest stewardship — $21 million, an 18 percent cut, an outrageous cut in the Forest Service. In the last ten years under this government we lost a quarter of our Forest Service.

Now, in education we know that we have a funding formula that does not work. It does not work, and it penalizes those in rural British Columbia. This budget accelerates the abandonment of education, no accounting for the many unfunded pressures: the MSP costs, increased hydro costs, the cost to meet carbon neutrality or costs related to HST. More cuts, less share of the provincial budget and no commitment to supporting public education.

The environment. The Environment Ministry was cut by $6.1 million, with cuts to environmental sustainability, the climate action secretariat, parks, conservation officers and the environmental assessment office. So much for Mr. Green Jeans as a Premier. Good news for the fossil fuel sector — more tax breaks and big subsidies.

Madam Speaker, ferries — nothing for three years except up to 100 percent fare increases, declines in ridership and the decimation of coastal communities. What we need is a moratorium on fares until a full, comprehensive review is done, taking into account the impact of ferry fares on ferry-dependent communities. Nothing in this budget relating to that.

Now the clincher is that the Attorney General Ministry was cut by $15 million. Prosecution services cut by $6 million; court services by $8 million, despite out-
[ Page 6367 ]
rageous ongoing court delays and criminals being set free.

And speaking of criminals being set free and convicted of corruption, we have that within this very House. We have Basi and Virk, the B.C. Rail sell-off, a raid on this Legislature — a raid on the people's House, RCMP streaming through here carting out boxes from ministers' offices. Just outrageous, arrests and convictions. And what we saw was a $6 million payoff for their legal fees, the same amount that was cut from prosecution services. Just outrageous.

[1125]

When we look at what we should be doing in this House, we should be representing the people of the province in a fair and reasonable manner and ensuring that the most disadvantaged and those that need help get it. We got none of that from this budget. This budget is empty. It has no vision, and it cannot be supported.

It does nothing to alleviate the real issues, the real concerns of British Columbians who are looking for a government with vision, a government with solutions to address our social, our economic, our environmental challenges. It isn't this B.C. Liberal government — which has over the last ten years deceived, stonewalled and held back the progress of this province — that British Columbians are looking forward to, to lead the province.

On that, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the budget that I do not support.

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to be here today to respond to the 14th throne speech, I believe, in my career of ten years in this House. I'd like to start by thanking my staff in my constituency office, who do one great job keeping me going and handling everything that goes through the office. That's Mike Lee and Barbara Spitz, and we have an international intern student there from China, Grace Guo, at the present time. We've had a number of great intern students from Simon Fraser University — actually, some from Vancouver Island here — in my office working at different times.

I'd like to start my remarks by thanking the Premier for his years of service to this province, whether as an individual, city councillor, mayor, Leader of the Opposition — and now Premier of the province. He's left legacies that I believe all sides of the House can be proud of. We may not have agreed on everything, but I believe that many great opportunities and many great projects were completed to benefit all British Columbians.

I would also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition. Even though I may not have agreed with many of her things, I do commend her commitment to public service. For that, she has been involved for many years, from the school board in Victoria to the provincial school board and her work as Leader of the Opposition.

But what I want to comment on is a part of politics that's sad. Both leaders, in their closing remarks, talked about the personal attacks on them from the media and from outside of their realm. So whenever they tried to do something, it was not the leader's policy that was being discussed; it was the leaders themselves being discussed. I think they each said that they wanted to see the new leaders of each of their respective parties be able to take the next step so that when they put policy forward, it's for debate on the policy and not on the individual. I look forward to that from both sides of the House.

You know, the hon. Minister of Finance stated that this wasn't a very exciting budget. I guess I'm going to have to disagree with him, because as an optimist, I thought it was pretty exciting. While this budget may be status quo, we can be thankful for that. We've had ten good years, and now we're in a position to move forward with new leadership.

Here are some of the facts. Since 2001 B.C. has seen seven consecutive credit rating upgrades. At a time when other jurisdictions face bankruptcy and other serious financial crises, we in British Columbia enjoy a triple-A credit rating. I think British Columbians just have to travel across Canada or anywhere in the United States to see what great shape we are in, what a bubble we live in as building permits continue to rise every year and are up in every area of British Columbia except for Kelowna.

You look at the bankruptcies in the United States and where people are forced out of their homes, the loss of jobs. We still have more people employed today in British Columbia than we've ever had before. British Columbia continues to grow. This is not luck. This was done by sound financial management.

[1130]

You know, Moody's credit ratings do not indulge or pay attention to the petty part of partisan politics. They consider what British Columbia has accomplished — the lowest provincial income taxes in Canada. How low? Well, 325,000 British Columbians with low income pay no income tax. As of December 2010 the average hourly wage was $22.80. This is the third-highest average hourly rate in Canada. This figure has risen nearly 30 percent in the last decade.

The government continues to invest in health care, including $1.4 billion more to health authorities for front-line services and $438 million more to the Medical Services Plan for physicians and lab services. These investments pay off every day. The province enjoys the highest life expectancy and lowest death rates for both heart and cancer in the nation. In this respect, as in so many others, we are the envy of the nation.

On health care and on cancer, you know, it has involved every one of us, whether it's personally or with our families. We have incredible cure rates in British
[ Page 6368 ]
Columbia, and we have the lowest death rate from cancer. I am proud of the work we have done in that area.

I want to talk a little bit about my riding and the Burnaby schools there. This budget reflects our commitment to education. Take full-day kindergarten. We have committed $144 million in new capital funding for full-day kindergarten. There is $446 million for school replacement projects, which includes $64 million towards a brand-new high school replacing Burnaby Central in my riding.

This is part of $1.2 billion invested in K-to-12 facilities over the next three years, or $8,357 per student. Burnaby was included in this as well. The province contributed $3.3 million to Taylor Park Elementary School for eight additional classrooms. I had the pleasure of being there to announce the start of construction for these new classrooms that will be added to Taylor Park Elementary School.

It is combined with additional funding from the Burnaby board of education for a total of 11 new classrooms that will be added. It shows the province and the local school board working together for students. Taylor Park will need the room. They have 225 additional elementary students and 100 full-time kindergarten students that will be starting there in September.

I'd also like to talk about a new school in my riding, University Highlands Elementary School. You know, this probably took about seven years to get approved when I first started working on it with different ministers, but it's up there now. It opened this past September, and it has been a great success. The students are coming. Students at University Highlands are lucky indeed. They still learn the three Rs of reading, writing and arithmetic. But they also learn about clean energy and the sustainable community they live in.

Their school has demonstrated a green roof where they learn about how vegetation lowers air temperature. They have an outdoor classroom in the woods. This kind of education is crucial. The economy of the future is increasingly green, and tomorrow's scientists and LEED-certified architects need new and different skills than the ones they learned in school. This government knows a good investment when it sees it.

On a personal note, when you visit University Highlands Elementary School and go through the front lobby, I hope you'll notice the original oil painting of the B.C. flag that I did myself. It was donated to the school. I'm sure you'll want to rush up there and see it now — okay?

Interjections.

H. Bloy: Members are commenting on my artistic abilities. Madam Speaker, I'll let you judge for yourself. My wife thought I might be embarrassing myself, but at the end of the day she said: "That's not bad."

Interjections.

H. Bloy: No, my tie is all I got on a trip.

On January 10 this government invested $180,000 in SFU's multi-scale thermal fluid lab for sustainable energy. This funding was delivered through the B.C. knowledge development fund, or BCKDF, and will support the lab's objective of developing new solutions for sustainable energy conversion.

[1135]

The research the lab is conducting is invaluable. Not only are they helping to build a greener and more environmentally responsible society; they are bolstering B.C.'s position as a leader in the green economy sector.

The lab's main objective is to develop innovative solutions for sustainable energy conversion, heat recovery, energy storage devices through utilization of emerging micro- and nanostructured materials. All of this $180,000 will be used for the purchase of equipment to establish a unique lab.

SFU is an outstanding post-secondary institution recognized for excellence and also the number one rated Maclean's university for comprehension in all of Canada. I'm delighted to see this support going to my university, and I see a number of my colleagues, and how proud they are of having graduated from Simon Fraser University in the riding of Burnaby-Lougheed, as it's called today, represented by a Liberal member — if I can say that.

I'm also proud that this BCKDF funding is supporting 21 projects at seven universities throughout the province, a total of $2.9 million in total. The fund is an outstanding program that provides to our public post-secondary institutions, teaching hospitals and certain non-profit research agencies. To invest in research infrastructure is going to pay off handsomely.

Through this program, we are promoting research excellence, maximizing the economy and the social benefits of that investment, and encouraging increased collaboration between our post-secondary institutions and business. I believe this is really important — that business and our post-secondary institutions work together in the research that they do so they're creating the sort of student employee that they will want to hire one day.

This also helps us to retain high-quality researchers that want to come here because we've invested in the universities and we give them an opportunity to work on their projects. The fund is an important part of this effort and has invested more than $423 million in research projects to date.

In mentioning projects at Simon Fraser University, I would be remiss if I failed to mention Dr. Michael Stevenson, who just retired last year. Under his leadership, SFU grew beyond Burnaby to an international
[ Page 6369 ]
level with courses and partnerships offered all over the world.

I also want to congratulate our new president, Dr. Andrew Petter, who many of us in the House know as a former colleague. He is gaining respect remarkably fast at SFU. The students are with him, and the staff. He was able to put together a project…. I'm sure every new president has help from the former president. SFU was just given $22 million by the Beedie family, the largest donation of its kind ever to the university — but just moving it up. Dr. Andrew Petter was there to help close the deal, along with all the staff — Cathy Daminato, Jennifer Peng and other ones.

I'd like to now talk about BCIT. Last year we announced over $440,000 in funding for BCIT. In addition to renovating their laboratories and buying new equipment, this allowed them to expand their diagnostic medical stenography diploma program, doubling the student spaces and creating a two-year diploma program, the only such program in the province.

Also, I have to mention that BCIT has had a large renovation done to their building, a new opening, new entranceway. Many of their students working in the technical trades and building trades were hired by the companies that were doing the work, so it was a real hands-on experience.

Then we have Burnaby Hospital. There are just so many great things going on in Burnaby. It's hard to know where to stop and end. I was pleased to announce $1.2 million in patient-focused funding for the emergency department at Burnaby Hospital to help ease congestion and reduce patient wait times. Additional funding was part of $22 million in patient-focused funds distributed among 15 B.C. emergency departments that account for almost half of the ER visits through the province.

[1140]

Burnaby, because of this government, has continued to benefit, as have many communities around the province, from the financial prudence and growth this province has seen. Burnaby athletic organizations received a $1.1 million funding boost this past December to six different groups. Healthy communities and athletics are certainly a part of it. Athletics are important for the development of physical fitness, leadership skills and teamwork, which we all use today in our business or in our life here in the Legislature.

The funding these Burnaby PSOs received was part of a grand total of $92 million provided to 61 PSOs throughout the province. This funding allows the sports groups to grow their memberships, to train their coaches or to train their people to be certified, to give the best to our communities.

But one of the legacies that was left here…. There were many legacies to be proud of from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Premier. He left his mark on British Columbia. I know there's some debate in the House about how these marks are achieved, but I think every government that's ever served British Columbia has done well, and their intent has always been for the benefit of every person, every citizen of this great province.

But the one area — the Olympics — wasn't just British Columbia. It was Canada's Olympics. We were lucky enough to be the host to the Olympics, and I think that the patriotism, the heart feeling which you saw last year was just amazing, and it didn't happen just in Vancouver. If you were lucky enough to walk around the streets through the duration of the Olympics…. I still wear my hockey jersey on occasion, and I haven't worn one for many years, but I'm proud to wear it. People were proud all over this country to wear it.

Friends that I know across this country told me that when Canada scored the winning goal in the men's hockey game, they were out celebrating in the street. When the women's team won their medal, they were out celebrating. But it brought pride to every Canadian, and I think we have to be proud as British Columbians that we were part of that. We were hosting. I know every member of this House celebrated the Olympics. Once we got them, they were here to accept the Olympics.

I'm proud to have been part of that legacy. I'm proud that I continue to have the honour to stand in this House to be able to express my views and to support all the positive things that government is doing and will continue to do.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

L. Popham: I'm rising at this point. I'd like to reserve my right to raise a point of personal privilege.

Deputy Speaker: So noted.

Debate Continued

S. Hammell: It gives me great pleasure to rise in response to the budget. I know that time is short in the House this session, so I will try to keep my remarks fairly terse, hoping that someone else may be also able to say a few words.

B.C. families were hoping for an end to the B.C. Liberals' stand-pat budgets. They're tired of new taxes that hit them hard, like the HST and medicare premiums. Medicare premiums rose on January 1 and are due to rise again next January. Now, that's a rise of 6 percent each year for not only this year but again next year. I don't know of anybody that is getting a 6 percent increase in their pay raise. A family of four earning $60,000 would pay almost $1,500 a year this year, and then it would rise again next year.
[ Page 6370 ]

If you review the comments from the Finance critic, he states — and I agree with him — that this government appears to prefer user fees over a graduated income tax rise to pay for the groceries that this government needs to serve the people of the community.

[1145]

These taxes that continually rise, these user fees and regressive taxes like the HST, hit families and small businesses very hard. For the B.C. Liberals, again that's standing pat. There's nothing new. It's been their raison d'être for ten years, and they continue in this budget.

What about the services that those families count on? Education funding gets such a small increase that school districts are already bracing for another round of cutbacks this year. I come from the Surrey school district, the area where the Surrey school district works, and they are still reeling from the cuts they had to take last year.

Everyone knows that Surrey is one of the few districts that are growing, and the government has not managed yet to hold two pieces in their hand — one for districts that are reducing and another for districts that are growing.

We are seeing more and more portables on our school playgrounds, and those portables, to a large extent, come out of operating costs. We had this discussion in question period just the other day, where the minister acknowledged there were 250 portables on the grounds in the Surrey school district. If we just round that off to saying those portables cost $100,000 each, then that is a cost of $250,000 that comes out of operating costs — not out of capital, out of operating costs that the Surrey school district has to find and take away from students' daily needs.

Hon. Speaker, the minister did acknowledge that she gave $2 million back. But at most, if we're assuming that portables cost $100,000, that's paid for 20 portables. We need the government to focus on the needs of Surrey school district, the other school districts in the province, and look at how we can improve the services to the people here in British Columbia.

There are also no increases in universities, in colleges, at a time when jobs are scarce and working people need training opportunities more than ever. SFU, which the speaker before me mentioned, is a university growing in the heart of our city. It needs to expand as there are more people trying to attend, which drives the point count up to get into the university and deprives people who are very qualified to attend the university of their choice.

Funding for the Ministry of Children and Families is frozen at a time when new funds for this ministry are desperately, desperately needed. Cutting and freezing — that's stand pat for B.C. Liberals.

The list goes on. When the agricultural commission is having trouble doing its job, this government cuts funding. When our forest industry continues to suffer, this budget cuts support for forest stewardship — standing pat, B.C. style.

This Legislature has been called back to receive a budget that's empty of ideas and devoid of new initiatives. The only exception to this rule is new service cuts and new tax increases for British Columbians who can least afford them. The new tax cuts and other goodies for corporations and wealthy people who have done very, very well in the past decade….

But the bad news is just beginning. The Finance Minister says this budget has little new in it, allowing the new Premier to set new directions for this government. Like other British Columbians, we've been watching the Liberal leadership race to see what new ideas might emerge from the candidates. Sadly, we have seen very little new thinking from the members and former members of this government who are seeking to lead the B.C. Liberals — just gimmicks. No ideas that would mean real change for B.C. families who need help from this government, not another fee increase or tax hike.

I don't think the government really understands the financial strain that ordinary people and ordinary families are under at this time.

[1150]

Again, nothing for British Columbians who know that it's time to deal with climate change. It's clear from watching the B.C. Liberals' leadership race that this is a party that's run out of ideas, and it's a government that's run adrift — a government that knows only how to stand pat with 18th century trickle-down economics.

There's nothing in this budget that suggests that this government has heard what British Columbians think about the HST. Instead, this Finance Minister and this government intend to play chicken with our province's finances over the fate of the HST. The B.C. Liberals have already mortally wounded their government with the HST, and it's clear that the bleeding will go on and on and on because they want to stand pat with the HST.

But there is good news on the horizon — what we've heard every day, in every corner of this province. British Columbians are tired of standing pat. They are tired of regressive taxes, and they want an end to paying more and more and getting less from their government. They want a government with new ideas that will give them hope for the future.

I reject this stand-pat government, and so do my constituents, and when the people of B.C. get their chance, they will reject it too.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I just want to close on the notion that…. Just reflecting what the member opposite said to this House and said in many different ways — that we need to be very careful about what we say. So it does lead me to reiterate something that the Finance critic said and I think
[ Page 6371 ]
was repeated by a member from this side of the House earlier today.

I would agree with the minister opposite that we won't say anything about $34 million in student aid being cut if the government on that side would stop suggesting that they never received any handouts from the federal government, that they never received any equalization payments, or acknowledge that they received the equalization payments over the period of their ten years.

I'd just like to reiterate for the record that the NDP government between 1999 and 2000 received $125 million in equalization payments, and the B.C. Liberals also received equalization payments for a total of $2.4 billion during their time in office. In 2001 and '02, $158 million. That's more than the $125 million received once by the New Democratic Party government. In 2002-2003 they received $543 million. In 2004-2005 they received $979 million. In 2005-2006, $590 million in equalization payments, and in 2006-2007, $459 million.

So that's a grand total of $2.4 billion as opposed to $125 million. It just feels good to know that that myth will never be repeated, because I'm sure the minister would just be astonished if that kind of myth kept coming from the government side.

Hon. Speaker, on that note, I'd like to close and say I appreciate being here and being able to respond to the budget.

S. Hammell moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[1155]

Hon. P. Bell: Just before I adjourn the House, I would like to recognize and acknowledge all of the students from Millstream Elementary on behalf of my colleague from Juan de Fuca. Welcome to the House.

Hon. P. Bell moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.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