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, April 27, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 8

[ Page 6409 ]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2011

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

L. Krog: I have two introductions today. Firstly, I'd like the House to make welcome, from Parksville, Gail Murray and Frank Rowe. They're in the gallery today.

Secondly, exercising that privilege that's awarded to grandparents: grandchild No. 3, Alasdair Hadrian Douglas Irving, on March 11 — 8 pounds 1½ ounces. The whole family is doing very well.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I have the honour today to introduce someone I've known for many years since the sidelines of the football field in high school. Dale Saip is here in the Legislature this afternoon with his daughter Victoria. I am pleased to say that Victoria will have her tenth birthday on Friday and that this is her first visit to the Legislature. Will everybody please make her welcome.

J. Yap: I have two introductions.

First of all, about 3½ years ago, I rose in this House to announce the arrival of the world's most beautiful baby girl, Alyssa Joyce Robertson, a granddaughter of my constituency assistant Paige Robertson. Well, the Robertson clan has grown. Two more grandchildren have recently arrived for Paige and her husband, Jamie. Their grandson, Mason Charles Terrence Robertson, was born five weeks early on October 12, 2010, weighing 7 pounds 8 ounces, born to Geoffrey and Kat.

A granddaughter and sister for Alyssa, Sophie Ann Robertson was born a week ago on the morning of April 20, weighing seven pounds, born to Ben and Brianna. I ask the House to please help me welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I also have an introduction of some students from my favourite high school in Richmond-Steveston, McMath Secondary School, which my daughter and son attended a few years ago. We have 175 grade 11 students who are in the precincts, and about 40 of them will be joining us sometime soon for question period, led by a number of teachers and chaperones, including teacher Angela Sommerfeld. I'd like the House to welcome them, and I know we will all provide them with a very vibrant display of democracy in action here in the House.

L. Popham: I have four visitors in the House today visiting from the Independent Learning Centre, school district 63, in Saanich. I have three grade 11 students — Amellia Pearson, Evan Reimer and Evan Wingerter — and their teacher, Will Moore. Please make them welcome.

[1340]

Hon. B. Penner: With all this talk about babies, I can't let the occasion pass without informing all hon. members that since we last met, my wife and I have become the very proud and delighted parents of Fintry Katherine Penner. Fintry was born on February 20 at 11:21 in the morning — I won't soon forget that experience — weighing in at 7 pounds 6 ounces. And for those that are wondering, Fintry is also the name of a small provincial park in the Okanagan which has been referred to as B.C.'s Garden of Eden.

For those that are also further wondering, Ranger the cat is getting along quite well with the new addition to the Penner household.

D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome my 15-year-old daughter, Madeline, and after this I'll ask the security how they separated her from her cell phone coming into the gallery, because I haven't been able to do it. It gives me great pleasure to have my daughter visit us, along with her boyfriend, Zach Cannon. Please make them welcome.

M. Coell: I have a good friend visiting the Legislature today for meetings with the Premier. I first met Mel Couvelier 30 years ago, when he was the mayor of Saanich. He served for many years on Saanich council before coming to this chamber and was the Finance Minister a number of years ago. He's served his whole life in community service. I would like the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: It appears we're on the cusp of a solution to the demographic challenge of society, based on the introductions here today. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I've always been deeply envious of you and other members of the grandparents' club here in the Legislature. So it is with some pleasure that Lesley and I would like to advise you — along with the other new proud grandparents, Ted and Karen Fuller of Victoria — of the birth of Raiden Andrew Fuller, who is our first grandchild on both sides. He was born April 20 to my daughter Megan and her husband, Brent. I'd like the House to please make welcome our newest British Columbian.

J. Les: With all of the introductions of recent births this afternoon, I felt I should get up and do my little bit. I'm very pleased and proud to announce to the House that my latest grandson, Branson James Les, arrived on February 20 — another son for my son Alan and his wife, Elena. February 20 has already been mentioned earlier today. As a matter of fact, he was born, I think, about
[ Page 6410 ]
two hours after the aforementioned Fintry Penner just down the hall at the Chilliwack General Hospital. In any event, Branson is doing just fine. His little sister Emily is proud as punch.

I know that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has been keeping very careful track of exactly how many grandkids that is. It's 15, Mr. Speaker.

L. Reid: I am delighted to welcome back to this place our former MLA for the North Coast. Mr. Bill Belsey has joined us on the floor. He is joined by his wife, Lonie Belsey. I'd ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General report Follow-up Report: Updates on the Implementation of Recommendations from Recent Reports, the Representative for Children and Youth issue report Phallometric Testing and B.C.'s Youth Justice System, Conflict of Interest Commissioner Annual Report 2010.

[1345]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — harmonized sales tax (HST)
initiative vote and referendum act

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act.

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm pleased to introduce the Harmonized Sales Tax Initiative Vote and Referendum Act. The purpose of this bill is to cancel the initiative vote on the HST that is currently required by the Recall and Initiative Act to be held on September 24 of this year. That vote will not be necessary, as it is being replaced by a mail-in referendum under the Referendum Act commencing this June, which should save taxpayers at least $18 million compared to a traditional "walk up to the polling booth" vote. This bill also makes clear, for certainty, that the Recall and Initiative Act does not apply to that referendum.

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

Bill 4, Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) Initiative Vote and Referendum Act, 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)

CANCER SOCIETY DAFFODIL DAY

D. Barnett: It is my pleasure to be here today in honour of Daffodil Day. The Canadian Cancer Society, British Columbia and Yukon Division, continues to be a leader in cancer research funding, prevention, advocacy and patient support. Daffodil Day is a positive move to raise awareness of the ways that people can reduce their risk of developing cancer.

Cancer affects every one of us in one way or another. With an alarming one in three British Columbians developing some form of cancer in their lifetime, our government shares the society's commitment to improve cancer and treatment options. In fact, B.C. has some of the most favourable outcomes in North America, with the lowest mortality rates for all cancers combined. This is thanks to a strong and dedicated network of cancer care across this province.

However, an estimated 50 percent of all cancers are preventable. By living a healthy lifestyle — not smoking, getting enough exercise, eating healthy and controlling weight — your chances of getting a chronic disease are reduced by up to 80 percent.

Thank you to all the volunteers, donors and people that have made this campaign a success, and thank you to each of you for being here today. Each one of us here has the power to make a difference in the fight against cancer.

M. Farnworth: April 27 is Daffodil Day in British Columbia and across the country. All of us in this chamber are wearing a daffodil. It's a symbol of the Canadian Cancer Society. It's a symbol of the fight against cancer.

It's something that's touched every single one of us in this House. There's no doubt about that. Former members and current members have been cancer survivors. I myself lost my mother, when she was 38, to breast cancer. Today the survival rates for breast cancer are a lot better than they were back in 1976.

As the member from Cariboo has just stated, we have significant outcomes in this province that are better than just about anywhere in the country. The trouble is that good outcomes aren't good enough, and that's why we wear this yellow daffodil: to send a message that we will not rest in the fight against cancer until we have got a cure for cancer.

Today we can treat skin cancers in a way that was never done before, but there are other cancers that strike fear into people because their survival rate is still very abysmal, pancreatic cancer being one of them. Five percent
[ Page 6411 ]
of people have a chance of living five years later. That's not good enough.

That's why we wear this yellow daffodil: to stand in support with those who are fighting cancer and to send a strong message that we will not rest until the battle against cancer is won.

I come from Port Coquitlam, the hometown of Terry Fox. He did probably more than anybody else alive to bring awareness about cancer not just to Canadians but around the world. I think that's a legacy that all of us want to ensure continues until the day arrives when we've defeated cancer once and for all.

[1350]

CANADIAN SPORT TOURISM ALLIANCE
CONFERENCE IN RICHMOND

R. Howard: I am pleased to rise today to talk about the latest success for Richmond's tourism and sport industries. Richmond has won the right to host the annual conference of the Canadian Sport Tourism Alliance, CSTA for short. Richmond beat out nine other cities in Canada for the right to host this prestigious conference, which will run from April 18 through 20 in 2012. This conference, called the Sports Events Congress, is the CSTA's flagship event. Next year marks the first time ever that it will be held in western Canada.

It is Canada's largest annual gathering of sport tourism professionals and event management firms, with more than 300 delegates expected to attend. This honour is a direct result of the shining role Richmond played in the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games and the outstanding facilities infrastructure that are their legacy. The iconic Richmond Olympic Oval now offers over 47,000 square metres of meeting rooms, sports courts, ice rinks, reception areas and running tracks, and it will now host selected congress events.

The award-winning Vancouver International Airport and the Canada Line are two major reasons that Richmond was able to win the right to host the CSTA's annual gathering.

Mr. Speaker, the 2010 Winter Games gave Richmond the chance to shine on the world stage, and we made the most of that opportunity. With our partners we are harvesting the afterglow of the 2010 Winter Games. Through strong partnerships with our government, the city, Tourism Richmond, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, the Richmond Sports Council and others, we are firmly on the map as a premier destination for tourism, convention and sport.

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

K. Corrigan: This month marks two important weeks, the National Victims of Crime Awareness Week and the Prevention of Violence Against Women Week. This year about 20,000 women and children in B.C. will be exposed to physical, psychological or sexual abuse, and 12 percent of all homicides in British Columbia are related to family violence. Family violence cases constitute the second-largest case type for Crown counsel after impaired driving. You only have to open the newspaper to see horrific stories of women, children and families victimized in our province today.

Lack of support for vulnerable families, relative poverty, lack of social housing, lack of access to the justice system and education, lack of access to support services for women and children have left thousands of women and children in B.C. vulnerable to violence.

The provincial government has a major responsibility to play in legislation and targeted programs and policies that will both prevent and protect women and girls from violence. Unfortunately, over the past decade many supports, including legal aid, have been deeply cut. We must invest in social supports such as safe houses, legal assistance, child care and skills training to help women and children escape violent family relationships and rebuild their lives.

While it's vital that we invest in protection for survivors of violence, it's equally important that we focus on prevention. We must confront gender stereotypes and challenge attitudes, customs and practices that perpetuate violence. We must cultivate a healthier attitude towards women and girls and advocate relationships based on equality if we hope to build safer environments in the family home, workplace and community.

Violence occurs across all ethnic, religious, age, social and economic lines. Every one of us has a responsibility in confronting and ending violence against women and children.

RURAL B.C. ROLE
in political process

B. Bennett: It's good to be back in this place. I'm as honoured to be an MLA today as I was ten years ago when I first got elected — perhaps a tad more seasoned than then.

Over the past six months I was given the gift of time to reconnect with my constituents, to travel the Kootenay region and, for that matter, to travel all over rural B.C. I believe that with our new leader — and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Premier — rural British Columbians are seeing that the door to meaningful dialogue with the provincial government is now wide open, and the welcome mat is there for all to see.

I'm particularly proud of the important role that rural British Columbians played in choosing our new leader. Cranbrook, Williams Lake, Terrace, Mackenzie, Dawson Creek, Lillooet, Grand Forks, Comox, Campbell River —
[ Page 6412 ]
sounds like a country-western song. British Columbians from every rural niche and cranny had as much to say over the choice of our new leader as voters in Vancouver, Surrey and Victoria, and that's something to be proud of. It's something that rural British Columbians noticed and are grateful for.

[1355]

As elected people, we have choices. We can stay with the status quo and be left behind by the people we're trying to represent, or we can change how we do things. Discarding the old one-member, one-vote system that favoured the big cities was the right thing to do. Encouraging rural British Columbians to participate in the democratic process, in the knowledge that their vote will count, was also the right thing to do. Again, congratulations to the new Premier. Now let's get some work done.

COMMUNITY OF SOUTH WELLINGTON

D. Routley: I rise today to speak of a beautiful area south of Nanaimo — the community of South Wellington, originally named Alexandra camp. South Wellington formed around its first coalmine in the late 1800s, grew to include several stores, a hotel, a sawmill, a shoe repair, a Chinese laundry, a dance hall, three schools, three churches, a bank and eventually a total of five coalmines. In 1950 the last coalmine closed.

South Wellington, the beautiful community that it is, survived the Depression, mine disasters, strikes, wars, fires. It produced outstanding football teams and mine rescue teams, as well as first aid teams. Its May Day parade was supposed to be a sight to behold with the South Wellington brass band leading the community. A fire in 1914 left most of the community in tents.

From the past to the present it's people who have been the key to keeping that community and all communities alive and thriving. South Wellington and Area Community Association is now the heartbeat of that community. The South Wellington and Area Community Association — with Krista Seggie; Barb Ehmig; Doug Catley; Eve Reinarz; Gillian Butler; Andrea Bonkowski, also a Nanaimo school trustee; Susan Toth; Debbie Gregson — works to keep the community alive through events like their Christmas breakfast with Santa.

Formal stakeholder to the Nanaimo regional district area A official community plan, SWACA is a participant, defending South Wellington Elementary School from closure year after year. Currently South Wellington is represented by a beautiful exhibit at the Nanaimo Museum entitled Treasures of South Wellington. The work of artist Clare Singleton, a story artist, along with artifacts, is educating the people of Nanaimo about its heritage around coalmining and the beautiful community of South Wellington. I invite all members to attend that exhibition, which shows until May 14, and I'd like to personally thank Clare Singleton, the artist, for letting her pictures adorn the walls of my office.

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
ON HARMONIZED SALES TAX

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition. [Applause.]

A. Dix: Well, thank you very….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, just to be clear to the Minister of Education, I had him down for the first heckle.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh yeah, the Deputy Premier is a distinguished statesman now.

A very simple question for the Minister of Finance today: how much public money did the government spend on advertising and promoting the HST last year, and how much public money does the Minister of Finance — and surely he knows the answer to this question — plan to spend in advance of the referendum date?

Hon. K. Falcon: First of all, let me congratulate the member for his new position as Leader of the Opposition. That will be the first and last time the member hears nice things coming out of my mouth with respect to him.

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: My colleagues are highly skeptical, of course.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: One of the criticisms we have quite rightly been accused of is not at all communicating facts and information with respect to HST to the public of British Columbia.

[1400]

We are, in fact, going to ensure that there is a fulsome, informed debate about HST, which is one of the most important public policy decisions the public will probably have in perhaps many decades in British Columbia.

So we have provided $1.7 million to ensure that there's $250,000 each for the pro- and the anti-HST side, that
[ Page 6413 ]
there's $500,000 under the aegis of the universities and colleges to sponsor debates in every region of the province and that there's $700,000 made available for a voter guide to ensure there will be free, full and totally competitive debate about a very important public tax policy.

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

A. Dix: Let me say this for the Minister of Finance. He sure is unrepentant. He sure can't help himself. I mean, he campaigned — all the B.C. Liberals campaigned — against the HST. Then they brought it in. Then they printed $800,000 in leaflets to promote the HST. They threw those in the garbage can. They did radio ads last year. They won't tell the public how much they spent, and the minister didn't tell the public how much they spent just now.

Now the minister has appointed himself — not since the refereeing in game 6 have we seen anything like that — the arbiter of fair debate in this campaign. Why doesn't he put away his slush fund and let the public decide, let the public make their decision, in their referendum about the HST?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, that's exactly what we are going to do. That is exactly….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Falcon: In fact, we have committed…. Not only will they get that decision and that choice; we have made sure it will be a simple majority and not a two-thirds requirement, as was under the old Recall and Initiative Act. Our new Premier has moved that date forward to ensure that British Columbians, by the end of June, will have the opportunity to have their voice heard.

But I want to be clear about something. We are absolutely unapologetic about the fact that we are going to make sure it is an informed debate. This is an important choice for British Columbians, and I will happily engage in the debate with the Leader of the Opposition about whether the harmonized sales tax is the right way to go or the Leader of the Opposition's preferred choice to go back to a sales tax, the provincial sales tax of British Columbia.

Bring on the debate, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

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

IMPACT OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX
ON HOME CARE FOR SENIORS

A. Dix: It's fair and balanced. What is it? — $250,000 for opponents of the HST, $200,000 for Tom Syer to organize the government's campaign, unknown amounts in radio ads. Yeah, it's a fair campaign, but there's one thing that's going to even it out. The people of British Columbia know that they were misled in the last election campaign. The people of British Columbia know this is a $2 billion tax shift onto them, and they're going to defeat the HST.

Matt Foley and his sister Kerry are caring for their elderly mother. She desperately wants to stay at home, but the doctors say she needs 24-hour medical care. They contracted a home care provider for that service. They are, in fact, draining their bank accounts because they love their family. That's what they're doing. They are going to pay $10,000 in additional costs this year because of the HST. Does the Minister of Finance think that's fair? Does the Minister of Finance think that soaking a Burnaby family for an extra $10,000 reflects families first in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: Under the HST, as the member should well know, 1.1 million lower-income British Columbians receive a rebate four times a year from the government to reflect the fact that there may be additional costs associated with HST.

[1405]

Now, to put that in perspective, this member, the Leader of the Opposition, wants to go back to the PST. He said, in fact, he will campaign on it. So I ask that member a similar question. For the single mother with three children that today is receiving $920 a year in HST rebates, why does the Leader of the Opposition want to go back to a provincial sales tax where that single mother with three children gets absolutely zero? That's what I'd like to know from the Leader of the Opposition.

K. Corrigan: There's no rebate for the Foley family. Matt Foley told me that for nine months he and his siblings took turns sleeping on the couch in their mother's home to look after her. They are now draining their family resources with 24-hour nursing care in order that they can respect their mother's wish that she not be moved out of the family home and from her neighbourhood, where she feels safe and comfortable.

The B.C. Liberal HST is hitting this family for an additional $10,000 a year. The question Matt Foley asked me and I ask the minister: does this make any sense at all? And is it fair?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm happy, if the member opposite will get the information to my office, to look into a specific situation for her.

But again, I want to be very clear what the choice is, particularly for low-income British Columbians. The Leader of the Opposition and the NDP want to go back to the provincial sales tax. The provincial sales tax provided a $75 rebate for adults only if you earn up to
[ Page 6414 ]
$15,000 in income or if your family income is $18,000. That's it. Nothing for children — nothing at all.

Under the HST, as you know, there's $230 for every qualifying individual, including adults and children. That is a very significant amount of money. I can tell you, as the Minister of Finance, that single parent in Kamloops or that single parent in Burnaby that has several children that is currently receiving almost $1,000 a year in HST rebates deserves to know that the NDP's preference is to go back to a provincial sales tax where they get zero.

The reality is this. All over the world, in 140 countries, the reason why they have moved to value-added taxes or harmonized sales taxes is because they are more efficient, they grow the economy, they're less duplicative, and they require less administrative overhead and cost. Those members want to go back to a system of sales tax that not a single country around the world has looked at in 35 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Corrigan: For trying to respect their mother's wishes to stay in her home and for keeping her out of the health care system, the Foleys are having to pay an additional $10,000 a year. It's clear that the B.C. Liberals broke their word on the HST. It's clear that families like the Foleys are paying more because of it.

When will the minister come clean and admit that the HST is a massive tax shift hammering B.C. families and benefiting their corporate friends?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've mentioned to the member, I'm happy to look into the Foleys' situation. If the member would provide that information, my staff and I would be happy to look into it.

But I think there is a larger debate that is taking place here. The larger debate is whether we move from a sales tax system that requires an administrative cost to government of $30 million a year and 300 civil servants to operate, or we move to a harmonized system that gets rid of 300 civil servants and $30 million a year, that eliminates $150 million a year of cost imposed on small business to comply with two different sales taxes, and move to a unified tax. That is a very legitimate debate to have.

As I say, under the HST, not only does it grow the economy and grow revenues, but it provides 1.1 million British Columbians, low-income British Columbians, with a significant financial rebate four times a year. That helps families.

[1410]

HARMONIZED SALES TAX
LOW-INCOME CREDIT

B. Ralston: The Minister of Finance — and he's repeating it again today — has tried to scare low-income British Columbians by inaccurately saying that when the HST is defeated in the referendum, they will get no tax credits at all. His example, which he's given again here today, is a single parent with three children and an annual income of only $24,000 a year — a tribute, I suppose, to the Liberals' low-wage policy of the last ten years.

He said that currently she receives $920 a year in HST credits, but nothing if the HST is defeated. But in fact, in the absence of the HST credit, the family would still receive $893 in federal GST credits and other credits — not nothing, as the minister just claimed.

Will the minister admit that he was wrong and make a commitment to end this distortion in future public statements?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member is wrong that the provincial rebate going back to those individuals, the HST rebate, is $230 per individual. It is separate from the GST rebate. That is $920 for any individual earning up to $20,000, or any family, a family income up to $48,000, which reduces over time after $25,000.

Those are uncomfortable facts, maybe, for the member opposite, but they are facts. It is important that as low-income British Columbians — 1.1 million who receive almost a quarter billion dollars worth of rebates under HST — they understand what the choice is really all about. That is information that is making sure they have accurate information, which we will ensure they do.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The minister promised factual and unbiased information in this debate. Clearly, he's not prepared to live up to that commitment. You can't receive an HST rebate and a GST rebate at the same time. When the HST is defeated, those families will receive the GST rebate. Will the minister not tell the public the truth about what will happen when the HST is defeated?

Hon. K. Falcon: What is really unfortunate is that the Finance critic apparently doesn't understand his own role. The Finance critic does not understand the basic elements of the HST rebate. That's what is of concern to me as the Finance Minister. He should look into it. I'm happy to arrange a briefing for the Finance critic opposite.

The fact of the matter is clear. Under the PST, if you are a single individual earning up to $15,000 a year, as an adult you get a $75 credit — period. If you are a family or two adults with a family income up to $20,000, you get $150 — period. Nothing for children. It's a $75 credit for each adult. That is it.

Under the HST, we provide, the province provides, a rebate of $230 for each adult, for each child, to reflect the fact that we know that there are some additional costs imposed as a result of harmonizing the provincial sales tax and the GST.
[ Page 6415 ]

I suggest that the Finance critic get his facts straight before he asks questions in this House.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ON SERVICES
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS

N. Simons: Families in this province have suffered under this government, but none more than families caring for a family member with a developmental disability. A $22 million cut has resulted in cancellation of day programs, the elimination of programs that provide supports to employment and has actually forced the closure of 33 group homes in this province.

I'm asking the minister responsible: what's he going to do to ensure that the supports are there for families with members with developmental disabilities in this province?

[1415]

Hon. H. Bloy: Our first priority as a ministry and as a government is to look after individuals with developmental disabilities. CLBC's budget has been increased every year for the last five years. We are committed to helping families. We are committed to helping families with disabilities. We have gone through a review with CLBC. It's been positively received by many of the members.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Simons: Today a report was released by the Community Living Action Group warning that the $22 million cuts and the other cuts violate the rights of people with developmental disabilities. The response that was just provided does not adequately meet the needs or the concerns of people with developmental disabilities, their families, their advocates, their caregivers — anyone in this province.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that this violation doesn't continue and that adequate supports are in place for people with developmental disabilities?

Hon. H. Bloy: To the member across from me, I'll repeat: the budget has been increased, and we're serving more members every year. CLBC supports over 13,500 individuals with developmental disabilities, and we do this with some great staff and 3,200 contract employees.

S. Simpson: The report that was released today by the coalition…. Thirty-three group homes closed — that's the reality.

The previous minister who had this file assured us in April of last year in estimates that no one would be forced out of their homes. That's simply not the reality. The executive director of the B.C. coalition of disabilities in today's report said: "Many group home residents have lived together as families for years. Tragically, however, over the last year some group home residents have been forced to move, and their families have been torn apart."

Will the minister tell those families just what this is about with families first? Who came first with this decision to make these cuts?

Hon. H. Bloy: I can assure you that there have been no cuts to CLBC and that in fact, it's increased every year since 2005. CLBC impacts thousands of lives of B.C. citizens every year with funding services and support for adults with developmental disabilities.

I can tell you that advocates express high levels of satisfaction with the work that CLBC is doing. You know, CLBC has started personalized support initiatives introduced in February 2010 to help individuals.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: The reality is this. The minister might call it a system redesign to not call it a cut, but it's a cut.

What are those community groups saying? Well, what did the executive director of the B.C. Association for Community Living say about this government's action? "We know that service redesign is not an answer to addressing the funds needed for those who are waiting for service. It is a shortsighted, poor and harmful excuse for fiscal planning, and it is completely unsustainable." That's what the community thinks about this position.

Hon. Speaker, 600 more people coming every year into this service. Wait-lists are growing, and the government is cutting back and not funding. Will this minister tell the House why it is okay to fix your fiscal mess on the backs of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia?

[1420]

Hon. H. Bloy: I have to remind the member again and again that the budget is up for CLBC. CLBC impacts the lives of thousands of B.C. citizens by funding services and supports for their staff. Self-advocates continue to express their support of the redesign and changes that we've done within this ministry. CLBC supports over 13,500 individuals with developmental disabilities, and 93 percent of CLBC's budget of over $700 million goes towards programs for services for individuals with developmental disabilities.

M. Karagianis: Thirty-three group homes closed and more to be closed this year, vital and critical services for vulnerable individuals gone, no consultation with families, and this minister has the audacity to stand here and try and defend that position? That is unconscionable.

If the minister would avail himself of this report, it very specifically says they are calling for an independent provincial advocate to provide oversight for the Community
[ Page 6416 ]
Living B.C. program. Will the minister agree today to adhere to this report's recommendations?

Hon. H. Bloy: Let me reassure the members and the members across from me again that the budget has not been cut. Our first priority as a ministry has been to look after the individuals. CLBC remains committed to innovative approaches. We're committed to being able to help more individuals within this province, and we're committed to being able to do it within budget. In fact, we have increased our budget every year, and CLBC has a budget of well over $700 million a year.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: The continued claims here that there are no cuts are absolute nonsense. We know that group homes are closed. We know that there are great waiting lists. The question to the minister is regarding this report that's come out today. Will the minister support the report's recommendations?

Hon. H. Bloy: Again I'll remind them each time. There have been no cuts. There's been a redesign process that we've gone through, and we're doing it with individuals for better services to individuals. Every individual has had a choice of where they want to live. No one has ever been moved….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. H. Bloy: If I can remind the member, our budget's been increased every year.

J. Horgan: Can the minister confirm that he supports the closure of 33 group homes in British Columbia? Yes or no — do you support that?

Hon. H. Bloy: There've been redesigns around this province. There's been a large consultation process of well over 18 months. No one has ever been removed from a group home in the province of British Columbia without their explicit choice.

GRANT'S LAW AND
PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

R. Chouhan: In 2005 Grant De Patie was dragged to his death while trying to stop a thief. As a result, a law was proclaimed, Grant's law. Grant's law offers protection for workers by requiring either two workers on site at night or an installation of a protection barrier for a lone worker.

The law is there to protect workers, but the provincial government has failed to follow through on enforcement. On top of that, the Labour Minister is now calling for a review of Grant's law. Will the minister commit today to protecting vulnerable workers by scrapping the review and ensuring stronger enforcement of the law in order to avoid tragedies like this in the future?

[1425]

Hon. S. Cadieux: Indeed, the death of Grant De Patie was a tragic, tragic loss of life, and that's why government did work with WorkSafe B.C. to bring in Grant's law. This was the first prepay gas regulation in Canada.

The member, in fact, is incorrect, though. He is confusing two separate regulations. Grant's law has been in place since 2007, and there is in fact very high compliance. Since the regulation was implemented, the number of gas-and-dashes in Vancouver went from over 200 in 2007 to just one in 2010.

KELOWNA WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTRE

M. Mungall: After 25 years of service the Kelowna Women's Resource Centre is closing its doors today, all because of the failure of the B.C. Liberal government to provide stable, predictable funding as well as their topsy-turvy approach to B.C. gaming grants. The centre has helped women in Kelowna access services for themselves and their families, including helping hundreds of single mothers to file their tax returns so they could access supports like the child tax credit.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development. How is this uncaring government's disregard for services like the Kelowna Women's Resource Centre putting families first?

Hon. I. Chong: First of all, let me say that the gaming review process, which the Premier announced, will be underway shortly. We're going to have an independent judge, or someone of that stature, take a look at our gaming grants, the charities, the non-profits and the interaction we have, because we believe there's an important role that our non-profit organizations provide throughout all of our communities.

What's really important was that when the Premier made an announcement that $15 million would be restored and returned, we followed through on that. On March 31, $15 million was added to $120 million — $135 million to non-profits throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Well, the truth is that $15 million was too little and too late for the Kelowna Women's Resource Centre. So my question again to the Minister of Social Development is: does he support women's centres in
[ Page 6417 ]
this province and the good work that they do for families of B.C.?

Hon. I. Chong: Since 2001 our government has provided the largest amount of dollars for our non-profit organizations, through our gaming grant process, ever in the history of British Columbia.

As a result, when the review is undertaken and when we have the options provided by that panel, we are going to be able to ensure that we have the ability to work with our non-profit sectors, who provide vital services throughout every community in the province of British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

Appointment of Deputy Chair,
Committee of the Whole

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move, seconded by the member for Juan de Fuca, the Opposition House Leader, that Douglas Horne, member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain electoral district, be appointed Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole for this session of the Legislative Assembly.

Motion approved.

MEMBERSHIP OF
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Hon. R. Coleman: By leave, I move that Bruce Ralston, MLA, be substituted by John Horgan, MLA, as a member of the Special Committee of Selection.

Motion approved.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: In this House this afternoon I call continuation of budget debate.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. MacDiarmid: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Budget 2011. Before I do that, I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to two people: firstly, to our new Premier and also to the newly chosen Leader of the Opposition. Both of these leaders engaged with British Columbians as they campaigned for the leadership, and both campaigned with energy and enthusiasm. Both have spoken of offering British Columbians a clear choice with respect to how our province will be governed.

The Leader of the Opposition is known as a tireless worker. We will not always agree, but I know that he is dedicated to his constituents and to public service, and I look forward to what will no doubt be spirited debates in this House.

Our Premier is committed to a new families-first agenda. Her fresh, positive, open and energetic approach is resonating with British Columbians. We're focused on working with and for all people who live and work in every part of this great province. We'll build on the successes of the past decade as we move forward with her leadership. It's an exciting, positive time for our province.

I'd like to take a moment to thank the people of Vancouver-Fairview who put their trust in me by electing me as their MLA in 2009. It's a great honour to represent them and to serve as the MLA for this diverse, vibrant part of B.C.

All of us who are Members of the Legislative Assembly recognize the honour and privilege that it is to serve as MLAs. We all choose this work because we want to make a positive contribution. We want to make a difference, and that is what we have in common. Even though our approaches may be very different, each of us here wants to serve the public and do our very best for our constituents and for British Columbia.

[1435]

I'd also like to take some time to thank the many people who support me in many different and valuable ways.

In my office in Vancouver-Fairview I have three superb constituency assistants. Adrian, Chantal and Joanne take their work very seriously, but they do their work with a smile on their face. They're always eager to help not only our constituents but really anyone who calls. They deal with issues that are often under municipal, federal or other jurisdiction, and they make great efforts to help, problem-solve, troubleshoot and really support both individuals and organizations that ask us for assistance. They are fantastic, and I'm extremely grateful to them for their diligence, their creativity, their compassion and their total can-do attitudes. They rock.

I also want to thank the many volunteers who helped with my election process and who continue to support and assist me in many ways — far too numerous to name, but I'm deeply thankful to each and every one of them.

Since being elected, I've had the opportunity to work with many civil servants, and I've been amazed and inspired by the dedication and tremendous skill and effort that these public servants bring to their work every day. We have many unsung heroes working here for the people of British Columbia and actually all around the
[ Page 6418 ]
province, and we're very fortunate to have them. My thanks to all of them.

I also want to thank my friends and my family. Being an MLA does have its challenges, and without the love and support of these people, I would not be here. I'm especially thankful for all of the help, the hours of listening, and the acts of generosity and kindness from my friends and family. I want to particularly thank my mom, Betty; my brothers — John, Don and Andy — and their families; and my husband, Robert. My husband is a true gem. A more supportive and loving partner does not exist anywhere.

I mentioned Vancouver-Fairview earlier as a vibrant, diverse part of B.C. This riding is a wonderful place to work, live, shop and play, to attend school — really, to do almost anything. It's a great part of the province. It's home to an astonishing array of organizations, from the Heart and Stroke Foundation to the Canucks Autism Network and various others — many other organizations.

There are literally hundreds of non-governmental organizations that are enriching the lives of British Columbia in many ways. I've had the opportunity to meet representatives from many of these groups, and it's actually impossible for me to do justice to the work they do and the difference they make to people every day. I'm proud that we are able to provide support for many of the groups with government funding and that we have such good working relationships with so many of these groups.

Let me give just a few examples of work that is going on in Vancouver-Fairview today, work that benefits British Columbians in many parts of the province, not only just in our neighbourhood.

The Canucks Autism Network is making a difference for families and individuals affected by autism spectrum disorder. In 1996 the lives of Paolo and Clara Aquilini changed forever when medical professionals told them that their son had autism. Since then they've experienced triumphs and trials with their son, who's now a teenager.

One of the things they found very difficult was the fact that their much-loved son could not participate in some activities that children without autism simply take for granted. They searched for ways to support families with autism, and it's their profound desire to enhance the quality of life for families living with autism in B.C. With this vision, they founded the network.

The Canucks Autism Network is supported by the Vancouver Canucks. And how about those Canucks? The Canucks For Kids Fund provides support for the Autism Network, and there are many other donors organizations as well as a lot of volunteers. The network works to provide high-quality recreational sports and vocational development programs for individuals and families living with autism. As well, through their work, the network is helping to raise public awareness and promote understanding of what autism is and how it affects those with the diagnosis and their loved ones. It's really an inspiring organization.

Another great organization is the Stroke Recovery Association. Since 1979 this association has been providing information and programs for stroke survivors after they leave hospital. There are now 37 branches all around this province, with a provincial office which is in Vancouver-Fairview.

Now, this organization has a simple, profound message: never give up hope, and never stop trying. They provide support, education, information and programs for stroke survivors and their families as well as caregivers. They focus on quality of life, and much of their work is done by dedicated volunteers. They're making a difference to the lives of people all around B.C., and it's another organization to inspire us.

[1440]

There are so many organizations like this which all have some common features. They have hard-working volunteers who are truly dedicated and making a difference through their contributions, and these organizations are also working hard to provide support for the people they serve, really focusing on helping with the quality of people's lives.

Education and outreach are also common features, including public education. In the case of organizations that deal with some health issues and conditions, there's often a huge effort to educate the public so that these conditions can be prevented or the difficulties associated with the condition can be made less.

Now, these organizations come in all sizes, and one of the largest in Vancouver-Fairview is the B.C. and Yukon chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society. Today, of course, is Daffodil Day, and we've heard about this earlier from a number of members. It's a great time to talk about the work of the Cancer Society.

We know that two out of every five of us will be diagnosed with cancer sometime in our lives, and one out of every four will die of cancer. These are sobering statistics, and they're very real for all of us. It's unlikely there's a single person present here today whose life has not been touched by cancer in some way.

There are a number of MLAs who have firsthand knowledge of cancer and the challenges that come with it, myself included, and we've lost colleagues and friends. We think of former MLA Sindi Hawkins today and remember her great contributions, her depth, her strength and the legacy she's left, and we remember what fun she was.

There's a great deal of work to be done without question, but we should not forget that we have much to be optimistic about and many reasons to be hopeful. B.C. has a tremendous group of health care providers, researchers and volunteers who together are a powerful team. We have the best cancer outcomes in Canada and,
[ Page 6419 ]
indeed, some of the best in the world. More and more people are living longer with better quality of life, and many people are being cured of cancers that would have taken their lives not long ago.

The message of the daffodil is simple: to demonstrate support to those affected by cancer and to say to them: "You are not alone." This is another example of an organization that is making a difference each and every day, and I would like to thank the Canadian Cancer Society and especially to thank the many volunteers who make such a great contribution here in B.C.

The organizations I've described so far would be called health not-for-profits. Another organization based in Vancouver-Fairview would not be called a health organization, and yet it's making a contribution to the health and welfare of those it serves. This is the Jewish Seniors Alliance of Greater Vancouver. Our government provides financial support to the JSA, and I met with their president Serge Haber earlier this month.

The JSA has as its core values information, education, advocacy and research. Its purpose: to respond to the needs of all Jewish seniors in the Lower Mainland and the organizations that serve them. They provide information, and they disseminate it on seniors issues and provide valuable linkages with other organizations. They have workshops, and they have a spring and fall forum every year.

This year the spring forum was called Sex in the City, and it was a huge success and open to all members of the public. It included an education session with Dr. Larry Goldenberg about men's health and another session with Meg Hickling on the birds and the bees — how to talk to your grandchildren about sex. People came, they learned a lot, and they had fun while they were learning. The JSA is a wonderful organization that reminds us of the respect that we should have for our older citizens as well as demonstrating the great power of volunteerism.

In addition to my role as MLA for Vancouver-Fairview, I'm also the parliamentary secretary for seniors to the Minister of Health. Since this recent appointment I've been able to meet with a number of seniors groups as well as having informal meetings with seniors in Vancouver-Fairview and elsewhere in the province.

Our older citizens are a diverse and fascinating group. Some define seniors starting at age 55, which means this group goes from age 55 to well over a hundred, so it's no wonder they're so diverse and they really defy any kind of definition.

Seniors in B.C. have contributed to building this province into the great place that it is. In fact, some have called it the greatest place on earth. Many of them continued to work well beyond the age of 65, and as well, they do many hours of volunteer each and every week in this province.

[1445]

Now, some of our seniors are described as frail, and some are less able to get around and become isolated. As a family doctor I learned long ago from my older patients that they wanted to be as independent as possible and wanted to grow old in the home of their choice. Some people call this aging in place. The conversations I've had as parliamentary secretary have certainly reinforced that knowledge, and our government has made and continues to make efforts to assist our seniors to do just that — grow older in the place of their choice.

British Columbia is a fabulous place to live, and many Canadians have figured this out. Many of them choose B.C. as a place to retire. We have a rapidly growing population of people over the age of 65, and we need to thoughtfully prepare for the reality of the demographic changes ahead. We will do best if we talk with and listen to our seniors and those who support them — family members and other informal caregivers — and we're certainly paying careful attention to this now.

Our Premier clearly values seniors. She chose to have a parliamentary secretary for seniors because she wanted to make it clear that seniors are part of the families-first agenda. Families include seniors as grandparents, aunts and uncles. Families are not exclusively young parents with children. In a province as diverse as British Columbia is today, families are many different things, but seniors are an important part of our families.

I'm proud of our government's record with seniors. One of our most significant accomplishments is dramatically increasing affordable housing for seniors both in my hometown of Vancouver and right across the province.

Here are just a few examples of our investments in housing. In September the province provided a $2.2 million grant for the renovation of Three Links Manor, providing 39 apartments with integrated support services for low-income seniors in Vancouver, and a similar project, another $2.8 million grant for the renovations of Grandview Towers, and this provides 55 apartments.

A new assisted-living development for elders and seniors in Duncan brought 50 new affordable apartments to that community. Cowichan Elders is a $15.4 million development that will bring together affordable housing with services like light housekeeping and meals, creating a place where seniors who need some assistance can live independently.

Seniors in Burnaby have more supportive housing options with the opening of the Poppy Residences, a new $18 million building providing 70 one-bedroom apartments, again with support services for seniors.

In 2010-11 our government will invest over $562 million to address a range of housing needs from homelessness to affordable housing and home ownership, and we've done work in other important areas that benefit seniors. In 2008 we legislated new protection for seniors to ensure that RRSPs are protected from creditors
[ Page 6420 ]
during bankruptcy proceedings. We continue to lobby the federal government to advance or eliminate the current rules requiring seniors to convert their RRSPs when they turn 71.

In conjunction with the federal government and provinces, B.C. is working to find innovative solutions for pension reform to ensure that middle- and low-income British Columbians have suitable retirement income. We expect to spend over $2.44 billion on home and community care this year for seniors, which is an increase of 56 percent since 2001 and up $873 million.

We've increased spending on residential care and assisted living by more than 47 percent since 2001, increasing from $1.1 billion to more than $1.7 billion. Our investment in home care and home support has increased by more than 79 percent since 2001 from $402 million then to almost $725 million today.

Under our government, the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues was brought together, and we followed through on their key recommendation to eliminate mandatory retirement, providing choice for those who want to continue working. For the first time since 1993, we increased the homeowner grant to $845 and raised the property value threshold to $1.05 million, and now there is no threshold for low-income seniors.

We've expanded the shelter aid for elderly renters, the SAFER program. We now have more than 15,760 seniors households who receive a monthly rental assistance payment. That's 3,600 more seniors than back in 2001.

Here are some other areas where government spending is making a bigger difference. We've reduced median wait times to access residential care to less than 90 days today, compared to up to a year in 2001, and the number of publicly subsidized hospice beds in B.C. has quintupled from 57 in 2001 to almost 300 today. That's an increase of 419 percent.

[1450]

In the 1990s the government of the day limited seniors care options to home support and residential care. Our government has added supportive housing and assisted-living units to the continuum of care to provide seniors with more options. This is what they've told us they want: more choices, including being able to grow older in the place of their choice.

It's important for us to realize that many of B.C.'s seniors are healthy, active individuals. Some of them need just a little support to remain independent, and some do need more help and require specialized assistance and even assisted living. But we recognize that people want to remain living in their communities for as long as possible. Understandably, they want to remain out of hospital where possible. They want access to primary care providers.

In 2009 our government released Seniors in British Columbia: A Healthy Living Framework, which outlines our action plan to support seniors in living healthy, active, independent lives.

There are some who speak very negatively about the demographic changes ahead for us in this province. By 2031 the number of British Columbians over 65 will double. By then, one in four of us will be over 65. That'll be about 1.3 million people. The reality is that this is an exciting time for us. We are all living longer, healthier lives. The seniors healthy living framework focuses on the great contributions and the important roles of older people in our society. We can and do benefit from the experience and wisdom of our diverse older population.

Now, preparing for this demographic shift requires the involvement of many provincial ministries as well as provincial agencies, along with the federal and municipal governments, the business sector, community organizations and individuals. To do our best for and with our older citizens, we all need to work together, and we need to include them as well. Again, we are doing this. This work is well underway.

The seniors healthy living framework is a framework for action to support our older citizens over the coming years, and it has four cornerstones: to create age-friendly communities, mobilize and support volunteerism, promote healthy living and support older workers. This framework is supported by the Seniors Healthy Living Secretariat, which is part of the Ministry of Health.

I'd like to briefly elaborate on just one of the cornerstones, and that is volunteerism. Here are some interesting facts. B.C. seniors spend more time volunteering than any other age group in the province — over 44 million hours in 2004. Volunteering among seniors has been linked to improved quality of life, stronger social networks, increased levels of physical activity and lower mortality rates. Almost everyone who has ever volunteered says very clearly that they received much more than they gave. Volunteering is a powerfully positive thing.

One important role of the seniors secretariat is to engage with stakeholders. To that end, it has established a Seniors Healthy Living Network to engage citizens and stakeholders. The network includes 13 members from a whole host of sectors and communities. There is representation from aboriginal and multicultural communities, researchers from organizations that deliver services to seniors and from volunteer and business organizations. Also, the secretariat is exploring some innovative models to provide non-medical home support services.

How can we work to develop models that are sustainable partnerships? Community Action for Seniors Independence, or CASI, is the name given to the pilot projects which are underway today in five B.C. communities. This is a partnership between the government of B.C. and the United Way of the Lower Mainland. Each of the pilots is unique, reflecting the unique communities that they are happening in. Focused on the service priorities identified by the seniors, activities and services
[ Page 6421 ]
vary greatly and include such things as a walking club, provision of yardwork, housekeeping and transportation services.

We know that just a little help with simple tasks like housekeeping and yardwork can make all the difference in helping older people to remain in their own homes and communities.

Many of these initiatives are possible because of our increased investments in health care. Budget 2011 focuses new funding on health care and social services. Specifically, it provides the Ministry of Health with $605 million of increased funding in 2013-14.

[1455]

The new funding provided in Budget 2011 builds on the funding increases in past years so that the Ministry of Health budget will be increasing by almost $2 billion over three years. These are substantial increases and continue our investment in our public health care system that we all so greatly value.

The Ministry of Health is changing and adapting in a number of ways to meet the needs of all British Columbians. An important initiative is working toward making sure that all British Columbians who want a regular family physician will have one by 2015. Investments in primary care over the last few years are really making a difference, especially for people who have complex health needs.

Another Ministry of Health provincial initiative that's making a difference is called Patients as Partners. I had the privilege of attending an event celebrating Patients as Partners earlier this month, where their first annual report was released. This group includes patients and caregivers, along with providers and non-governmental organization partners. They've been exchanging ideas and sharing their experiences, and I can tell you that after attending that conference, their experiences are powerful.

A key goal for the ministry is to support quality health care through patient-centred care. This means that the patient and their family are at the centre of all that we do. Patients as Partners is an initiative that works to engage patients and their families in their own health care, increasing and developing their knowledge and their skill to self-manage their health care and become partners in their own health, working along with their health care provider.

This is a shift in thinking and a shift in the way of providing care for many providers. Rather than the provider seemingly being in charge and directing care, they become something of a coach and a mentor.

We're working toward providing patients with a meaningful voice across the entire primary health care system, and patients around this province are becoming active participants in their own health and seeing improved health as an outcome. They're also becoming involved in their communities and in the health system.

We are fortunate here in British Columbia to have one of the best health care systems in the country. Certainly, our outcomes for cancer care and in other areas are the very best in Canada. With the work we're doing, we're continuing in our quest to make sure that we are continuously improving our system and that we're providing the best possible care for British Columbians.

Budget 2011 demonstrates our government's commitment to prudent fiscal management at a time when our economy and the global economy are recovering from one of the worst economic downturns in decades. It is a fiscally prudent budget while at the same time clearly providing increased funding for the vital public services that we all depend on.

The funding promised for the implementation of full-day kindergarten is there, and this program will be available for all kindergarten students in British Columbia as of September 2011. Full-day kindergarten provides a strong foundation for our youngest students in a creative, play-based environment. If you ever go into a full-day kindergarten classroom, you'll see what fun they're having as they learn.

We have funding in our budget for increased education, social services and health care. At the same time, we're continuing to keep taxes low for our citizens, small businesses and corporations.

Our businesses large and small are the places where British Columbians work. In fact, some people refer to them not as businesses but as small and large employers, because that's what they really are. Our favourable personal and business tax rates mean that B.C. is an attractive place for new investment, and that means more jobs for British Columbians.

This budget supports vital services and moves us closer to eliminating our deficit. We are working hard with British Columbians to keep our province strong, to support economic growth and to encourage job creation. I'm pleased to have had this opportunity to speak in favour of Budget 2011.

J. Kwan: I have to say it is great to be back in the House — after a long hiatus, I might argue. In fact, back in February…. It seems like a century ago that we were back in this House, and we only sat for four days in this year of 2011. We're heading into the fiscal year-end — right? — as we're days away from actually having the fiscal year-end coming to its closure.

[1500]

So what's happening now? We sat for four days in the month of February, and essentially, after those four days the House pretty well stopped functioning after the government tabled a do-nothing budget. In fact, members of the House would remember that the former Minister of Finance said that he was happy to deliver what he called a status quo budget. That is code for a do-nothing budget.
[ Page 6422 ]

Today with a new Premier…. With much fanfare from the government side, there is a new Premier, and what are we doing? We're back in the Legislature since February debating exactly the same budget that the former Premier, Gordon Campbell, had tabled on his way out the door. There's where we're at.

So it's kind of like the earth stood still. I think there was a book called that. For this government, the budget stood still. Even though the Premier left…. Gordon Campbell walked out the door and didn't come back to this chamber. We now have a new Premier installed in the province of British Columbia, and guess what. We're exactly at where we were back in February debating the very same budget that Gordon Campbell had tabled.

This is notwithstanding the fact, according to the former Minister of Finance, that the budget gives the new Premier "flexibility" to bring in initiatives that she wants to support. But on budget day it was reported that the budget gives the new Premier $2.55 billion in flexibility. This includes contingency funds over the next three years — $600 million, $450 million and $450 million — and a forecast allowance of $350 million in each year for a total of $2.55 billion in flexibility.

Yet on this first day back of the Legislature since the four-day sitting of the House in February, you would have thought that the new Premier would take this opportunity to bring in a throne speech to outline to British Columbians her vision. Not so. You would have thought that the Premier would take this opportunity to table a budget to show British Columbians where her spending priorities are. Not so. Instead we're back here at this very place debating the same old do-nothing budget that was tabled by Gordon Campbell — the same budget that the former Premier, Gordon Campbell, had tabled back in February. Now, why would that be? I just wonder: why would that be?

Is it (a), that the B.C. Liberals are out of gas — that there are no new ideas, no new direction, no matter who is at the helm? Could that be the reason? Or is it (b), that the new Premier is really just a carbon copy of the old Premier with the same old bag of tricks, only she presents it with a smile that makes you feel very nice and warm and fuzzy on the inside? Or heck, maybe it's just the combination of both. I don't know.

I have to say that the new Premier wants you to believe that she's new. She wants you to believe that she's different from Gordon Campbell, that she really cares about you and your family, and she says that for her the priority is — yeah, you've all heard it a thousand times now — family first. We've all heard that slogan over and over and over and over again.

Well then, Madam Speaker, let's just review her record for a moment, shall we. Let's just take a look at what this new Premier has done, both her record when she was the Deputy Premier right here in this chamber with Gordon Campbell at her side. Can it be that this is the same Premier that, when she was the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Education, saw 120 schools close across British Columbia? And as if that's not enough to put a notch on her belt, to be proudly saying, "Hey, I closed 120 schools across British Columbia…."

[1505]

As if that's not enough, Vancouver had faced an education funding crisis not very long ago, and this Premier in fact wanted to see the schools in the east side of Vancouver close as well — that more schools needed to be added to that list of 120 that she saw closed when she was Deputy Premier.

The school board was struggling with these potential closures in the east side of Vancouver. The Premier was a talk show host at the time on the airwaves, and she was on the public record as saying that these schools should close. These schools could close, of which there are three designated inner-city schools. Two of them are in my riding, Seymour and Queen Alexandra. One other inner-city school is in my colleague's riding of Vancouver-Hastings, Macdonald School.

These schools — in fact, all the schools slated for closure in the east side of Vancouver — provide a base, an anchor for some of the most vulnerable kids in our communities. The closure of these schools would have been devastating for the families and the children in those communities. Many of them are low-income; many of them live in poverty; many of them are immigrants from a different community, from a different country. Many of them are struggling on a day-by-day basis. Many of them are aboriginal children.

But for Premier Clark, I guess those kids and those families don't fit into her families-first agenda, because the closure, for her, of those schools would have been just fine — just like how she closed 120 schools when she was the Minister of Education, when she was sitting here in this chamber. I guess for her it really depends on whose families you are talking about.

For the NDP, we on this side of the House, those kids and families are very much part of our agenda. That is why we fought tooth and nail to keep those East Van schools open. I went to rallies; I held community forums. I spoke at the school board meetings not once but several nights, over and over and over again, and brought the message to the school board.

Thank goodness the Vancouver school board listened and listened well to the citizens of British Columbia. In spite of the fact that they were faced with a funding crisis, they managed to keep those schools open. Now, it is only temporary. It is only a temporary measure. I expect that the agenda potentially could come back for these school closures.

You know what? With this Premier sitting at the helm who wants to see the schools close, I actually don't get any comfort at all that our education system would be protected. I have no sense of comfort that those families
[ Page 6423 ]
that rely on these schools would be deemed and would fall into this Premier's families-first agenda, because I think that those children, those families, would simply be forgotten by this Premier. Conveniently, they'll be forgotten.

Let me turn for a minute to talk about another issue. I wonder where these families are at with respect to Premier Clark's families-first agenda. As we speak today, in Vancouver housing advocates — the Carnegie Action Project, the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood Council, VAN.ACT! and the Council of Senior Citizens — are coming together to fight for shelter spaces for the homeless.

They're trying to save these shelters, of which there are five: on Cardero Street, the Cardero shelter; the Fraser Street shelter on East Broadway; the Howe Street shelter on Howe Street; the Fir and 7th Street shelter run by the mental patient advocates that already closed; and the Stanley New Fountain, also slated for closure.

[1510]

These five shelters are slated for closure, and they're providing some supports to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. They are people without a home.

They are fighting this fight, raising the awareness, calling the government to action, putting a shout out to the broader community to ask for help. This is what some of the people at the shelters have to say. "I can't go to an SRO," said Chase from the Cardero Street shelter. "I'll go crazy and just end up back on the street. If this shelter closes, I guess I'll head to the Super Valu parking lot. That's where we came from before they opened this place."

Another homeless person says: "If I lose this place, these regular meals and my guaranteed slot here, then I'll go back to selling drugs to survive."

Another homeless person from the Fraser Street shelter said: "Two women near IGA on Broadway got me to come here about a month ago. I've been outside a long time. I guess if they close this I'll be in the doorways, back lanes and behind restaurants."

From the Howe Street shelter: "If this closes, I'll find an abandoned house. I'll have my Coleman stove. I hope nobody will notice me. If this shuts down, the government will spend more money on Corrections. People here will be panhandling, living in the alleys. You would think they would rather we stay in the shelter."

These are the direct words of the people who are homeless, staying at these shelters. And yet these closures are going to happen. Why, Madam Speaker? Because we're in this House debating a do-nothing budget, a budget that will not support these shelters.

Others have written to my office about the closure of these shelters. Let me just put some of their words on the public record here.

Someone speaking directly about the Stanley New Fountain shelter that is in my riding…. On April 6 the person wrote to me. "I do some janitorial jobs in the Downtown Eastside. I can tell you for a fact that many doorways no longer have one to two people sleeping in them, trying to get warm and dry. People should not be treated like dogs. Keep the shelters open. Even the least of our brothers and sisters need respect and warmth."

Another person wrote, March 29: "Politicians closing shelters puts our must vulnerable citizens at risk — our girls and women. Please consider your negative actions. It could be your mother or sister. Would you allow closure then?"

Another note that was sent to my office. Let me quote this and put it on the public record.

"I've not been in this shelter long, only for about a week now. When I arrived here in Vancouver, I was very worried about where to go. I've never collected government assistance, and I was very hesitant to go on welfare. All I required was an opportunity to get back on my feet, to feel secure and to get my life back on track again without worrying about where I was going to stay each night. This facility provided just that.

"I'm able to rest in the evening, and during the day I can look for job opportunities. Without this facility I would be forced to go on welfare or sleep on the streets. I'm certain that neither is the goal of this government. This facility is an absolute necessity, for it provides the intrinsic dignity that each and every one of us requires to sustain ourselves in this complex society.

"Here we are given the absolute necessities: a small, basic meal — nothing extravagant; a mattress with proper bedding; and a bathroom where we can keep clean. Remember, this is a transitional stage for all of us here, a necessary part of our community, enabling us to move on and be productive to the Canadian economy."

Those are the direct words of these folks who are staying at these shelters, who are homeless at the moment.

There is a cry out for community advocates, housing advocates, calling for help. Somehow these families and their needs are not being heard.

[1515]

These individuals, to put a face on it, are somebody's son or daughter. They are somebody's brother or sister. They are someone's mother or father. They may be nameless or faceless, but they are part of our communities, and they are someone's family members somewhere.

So I ask this question of the new Premier: do they factor in with the Premier's family-first agenda? I guess not, because this is the same Premier that presided as the Deputy Premier that cancelled over 1,700 units of affordable housing in the Liberal government's first term as government. As a result, I dare say, we saw homelessness skyrocket in the province of British Columbia, particularly in Metro Vancouver.

In my own riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in the Downtown Eastside I literally had to step over people to make my way across the street. There are days where I see people littered all over the sidewalks in the streets of the Downtown Eastside. I talked to people who told me about how the homeless fought to get a space under an awning to stay dry, and in that fight to vie for that little space, the police had to be called to break up the fight.
[ Page 6424 ]
That's how desperate people were, and that happened at a time when the current Premier was the Deputy Premier in the province of British Columbia.

The Liberal government knew darn well the impact of the gutting of the social safety net, the cancellation of affordable housing programs in our communities throughout, yet they went ahead and did it. The Deputy Premier then didn't speak up one whit to say, "Wait a minute. We cannot do this. This is not acceptable in our democratic society," and they barrelled on ahead and made these cuts.

Now here we are today, many years later, because that was back in 2001. We're now in 2011. Ten years later, a decade later, the Premier has an opportunity to do something about the closure of these shelters. The Premier could stand up and act today and say: "No, we're not going to repeat the mistakes of the past. We're not going to allow for these closures to happen. We're not going to throw these homeless people out onto the streets again, albeit that all they're accessing at the moment are temporary shelters, but we will not let that happen."

The Premier has the opportunity to do that. She could act today and say that she will fund these shelters with the flexibility in the budget that the former Minister of Finance had identified. She could do that. She could say that in her family-first agenda these families actually matter — it matters to her and to her government — and that no one would be left behind. She has that choice. The opportunity is here, and I call on her to do exactly that today.

In fact, I challenge any member from the government side to stand up in the budget speech today and to say that these shelters should be saved, that the homeless people living in these temporary shelters should not be thrown out into the alleyways and parking lots and that they should be allowed this temporary haven, I guess — if you would call it that — and to save these shelters now.

I look forward to listening to the speeches from the government side, for someone to get up, to have enough courage to say to the new Premier that those individuals who are homeless today matter in the eyes of the Liberal government and they are part of this family-first agenda. I open that up for any members on the other side to take up this challenge.

[1520]

Now, I read in the papers today…. There was an article, actually, by Seth Klein, who talked about the issue of poverty, and he states that poverty reduction is missing in this federal election. Poverty is nothing new. The issue of poverty is something that all levels of government should address.

Where does that fit in with this new Premier? Did you know that for seven years in a row B.C. had the highest child poverty rate in all of Canada? I'm not making this up. This is actually a fact. Did you know that seven provinces and two territories have poverty reduction plans in place or in development? And did you know that B.C. is not amongst them? Let me repeat that. B.C. is not amongst them. We do not have a poverty reduction strategy or plan in place, nor do we have one in development. Yet we are the province with the highest child poverty rate in all of the country not for one year, not for two years, not for three years but for seven years in a row.

Did you know that the 2010 child poverty report card released by First Call found that in the year 2008, 14.5 percent, or 121,000 children in B.C., lived in poverty? It's not a made-up figure. Just imagine.

We had today, when we opened the House, many announcements of wonderful births.

Deputy Speaker: Member, may I ask you to take your seat.

Is the member rising on a point of order?

R. Sultan: Point of privilege, Madam Speaker. I would like to reserve an opportunity to respond to the assertions about childhood poverty in British Columbia at a later date.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Members. The member will have the opportunity to engage in debate.

Please proceed.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Indeed, it's not a point of privilege at all, and you would think that the member would know the rules by now. But hey, then, what do I know?

Okay, so let me just continue on with my budget speech. The 121,000 children living in poverty — that was what was reported out from First Call. They used the statistics from Canada's low-income before-tax cutoff. The after-tax child poverty rate in B.C. was the highest in Canada — the highest in Canada.

So I ask this question: how about those children and those families? Do they count for this Premier in her families-first agenda — the 121,000 children living in poverty?

Yes, I was saying that there were many announcements, wonderful news of children and grandchildren being born, and all of those children and grandchildren, I assume, would have opportunities in their future. I want that for my children. Hopefully, one day I'll be like the member for Chilliwack and have 15 grandchildren. You know, maybe that will happen. I doubt it. But hey, you know…. I've got to say that the point here is this — that for all the children we know in our lives, we want them to have opportunities.

I was a child that grew up in poverty, so I know what it's like to not have some basic necessities. We enter
[ Page 6425 ]
into public life to do better not just for ourselves but for others. That certainly is one key reason why I'm standing here today, speaking to this budget.

[1525]

So I ask this question of our current Premier, Premier Clark: what is she going to do about these children living in poverty today in our communities? Do they count for her families-first agenda? Will she finally, after a decade, put in a poverty reduction strategy with specific targets and goals that would be met in a tangible, practical, realistic way?

I don't want to hear words about how the priority is families first, and yet we have a do-nothing budget and a do-nothing poverty strategy in place. I don't want to hear from the Minister of Children and Family Development saying that closing some 33 group homes for children with disabilities is somehow a good thing and that somehow it's being re-engineered as part of the government's plan to meet the needs of children. That, to me, is not meeting the needs of children. That, to me, is not placing families first.

The risk of poverty is over three times greater for female lone-parent families, and on average, poor female lone families live $12,600 below the poverty line. Poor two-parent families were $8,200 below the poverty line. Over half of the children who were poor — that's 55 percent — have been poor for at least four out of six years.

Over half of poor children — that's 55.7 percent — lived in families where at least one member of their family had a full-time job. So that means these families are working families trying to make ends meet, and they cannot make ends meet. That's the reality.

Six provinces, six governments across the country — Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba — have committed to poverty reduction plans for their own jurisdictions. So are these children — the 121,000 living in poverty here in British Columbia — in Premier Clark's families-first agenda?

Premier Clark. I ask her if she will commit to a poverty reduction strategy that is more than just words. I challenge the members on that side of the House to get up and to say to their Premier that it is time, long overdue in the province of British Columbia, for us to have a poverty reduction strategy and plan with solid targets and timelines in place. I ask the Premier to commit to that today.

I ask the Premier to amend this do-nothing budget to improve the living conditions of the children and families today that are living in poverty in our very province. Or if the government doesn't do that, is it the government's message, then, to say that those families don't count in her families-first agenda?

Premier Clark saw the gutting of our social safety net for the most vulnerable families in B.C. back in 2001 when she was the Deputy Premier to Gordon Campbell. She was part of a government that took away children's maintenance support for single moms on income assistance.

I was right here in this chamber debating that legislative change, and I could hardly believe it. It took my breath away. What are maintenance support dollars for single moms? We're only talking about a measly $200 of support for children, literally for children who are of single parents on income assistance. This Liberal government and this Premier, when she was the Deputy Premier, said, "No, you do not deserve that $200, new baby in British Columbia with a single parent living on income assistance" — literally took that money away from those families and clawed back every single cent of those family maintenance support dollars.

She was part of a government that eliminated funding for women's centres. Yeah, 47 women's centres across the province of British Columbia had their funding reduced and eliminated because of that, and today we heard, as well, of the resource centres losing their funding.

[1530]

So I ask this Premier to do something, if families first is in fact her priority.

J. Rustad: It's a pleasure and an honour to have the opportunity to respond to the budget and to be back in the House. I know that may sound strange to some people, but I'm one of those people that are very passionate about the job that we do down here.

Just before I get into my comments, I do want to talk just briefly about the previous member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and her comments. There's no question that we have done more as a government and the Minister of Energy and Housing has done more for homelessness than any other government has done in B.C.'s history. If the member from Mount Pleasant isn't interested in taking my word for it, maybe she can listen to a former colleague of hers, the current mayor of Vancouver, in his praise for the work that we are doing for the homeless.

Furthermore, on child poverty I find it interesting that the member speaks so passionately about that, and she doesn't recognize that we have had the steepest decline in child poverty in B.C. of any jurisdiction in Canada. As a matter of fact, our current child poverty rates are below the 1980 levels. There has been more done for child poverty in this province than by any previous government, and that is without having a child poverty reduction plan.

That's because we have tried very hard in this province to set the right economic conditions to be able to create jobs and employment and opportunities to raise living standards. To that end, the average hourly wage in this province is now $23.12. That's up 27½ percent since 2001, when we first took power.

Back to the budget. The people in my riding have been very optimistic about our future. When we laid out the budget, we laid out a stand-pat budget that went
[ Page 6426 ]
ahead, that raised money for health care spending by over $600 million, that raised money for education to now having over $8,357 per student, that raised money for social services by over $65 million — all of that at a time when we're fighting our deficit and trying to reduce our spending. That's a tough challenge to be able to balance those things.

Of course, one of the reasons why we had a stand-pat budget is because we've had leadership races. We have a new leader now for the B.C. Liberal Party, a new Premier. I want to congratulate Christy Clark on her win and her vision in bringing forward. I look forward to working with her on a family-first agenda and moving this province forward in a positive and energetic way.

I also want to congratulate the member for Vancouver-Kingsway on his recent victory for the NDP. It's no small feat to be in public service, but certainly, to lead a party, whether it's in opposition or government, is a real challenge. I want to thank him for stepping up to the plate and doing the work that he's doing.

Having said that, though — as the Minister of Finance said earlier — there won't be too many other words of praise coming forward in the near future. The one thing I did notice about the Leader of the Opposition and his policy and his strategy coming forward…. The NDP used to be known for the N and the P standing for "no policy," but he has clearly decided to focus on the D, which is going to be "divisiveness and destruction."

I very much look forward to how this debate will be going over the future and listening to the various policies coming forward. In particular, it reminds me of a quote that he had from a little ways back — this was in particular reference to corporations, but it won't end there — and that is that people need to pay their fair share. In other words, he wants to tax; he wants to spend; he wants to redistribute; he wants to interfere in people's lives. He wants to divide people from various categories. That will be the strategy coming forward. It should be quite entertaining to see how it goes.

One of the things that I'm very proud about is what we've been able to do to set the right economic conditions for this province and in particular for my riding, Nechako Lakes. The people in Nechako Lakes are very optimistic about the future, and I just want to touch on a few things, a few reasons why.

[1535]

The economic situation in B.C. has changed quite dramatically. We have seen over 45,000 jobs created in 2010. We have the highest confidence rate from anywhere across the country — for consumers, that is. Corporate taxes have been reduced. We're going from 16½ percent down to 10 percent. Small business taxes are scheduled to be eliminated.

What I mean by divisiveness is that their side would like to reverse those. They want to increase those taxes.

Why is that important? Because of job creation. Study after study has shown that job creation comes from small companies. Job creation comes from people willing to invest and create those opportunities for families and for communities throughout the province. You have to have the right environment to do that, and you don't do that by raising their taxes and trying to drive them away from the province.

In my riding — I'll just give you some examples — we are seeing an almost unprecedented amount of capital investment. Thompson Creek's Endako Mines in Fraser Lake, in Endako, is going through a $500 million expansion that's going to almost double their production capacity of molybdenum.

We're seeing the Mount Milligan project go ahead just slightly outside of my riding, but Fort St. James is the main point of access for that. This is now creating…. They've had 350 people working. Over the course of this winter they're going to expand that to over 600 people working this summer. There are going to be phenomenal opportunities. I know Mackenzie will even have an opportunity to benefit, which is good to hear for that area. Like I say, this is a great opportunity for people in my community.

We've got right now a problem in Fort St. James, which has gone from an area that had two-thirds of its milling capacity shut down. That has now come back. Its milling capacity has come back, and they have a challenge. They can't find enough people to work. There are huge economic opportunities.

We're also seeing the Huckleberry project south of Houston. There's another mine that has extended its life. HST has helped to benefit them. They're looking at extended life. They also have an additional ore body. I'm optimistic that that mine will be open for another 12 to 20 years, which is great news for the community.

We just saw a recent announcement from New Gold, which has bought out the Blackwater project, which is just south of Vanderhoof. This is a project now where New Gold — once it has finished its current project in B.C., which would be in 2012 — wants to move its workforce up to the Vanderhoof area to get this mine under production. It'll be a new mine. It's a goldmine. It'll create literally hundreds of direct jobs and many hundreds more of indirect jobs in the area. It's exciting times.

They're making these investments because they have confidence in the economy in B.C., because we have set the right environment and because our budget carries forward with the work that we have been building on. That is really the focal point of what we want to talk about here. It's creating jobs. It's building strengths for families. It's creating our revenue stream, which we so desperately need in the government to be able to fund the services that we want to provide.

There is one point, though, that…. Sorry, before getting to that, I do want to make one other point, and that
[ Page 6427 ]
is our focus on exports. We've seen significant growth in exports in the province of British Columbia, in particular to China. China is an incredible opportunity for us in B.C. I've recently had the opportunity to travel to China and had an opportunity to see some of that firsthand. I was travelling with school district 91.

They want to set up an international school in China that will help to bring back, literally, the potential for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to come back and flow to the school district to be able to provide additional educational opportunities within our school district — not to mention that it has the opportunity to be able to have exchange for students from China to come over here, for our students to go over there for an enrichment of culture and exchange, which is so important for students in the future.

This is an opportunity that school district 91 is driving, and I'm very pleased to have had the opportunity to go over with them and support that project. But over there it was absolutely amazing to see the other opportunities. China's a country that's hungry. They want to see growth. They want to see partnership. They want to see those kinds of opportunities that can really make a difference for them and their society, and they would like to partner with us.

It's a great opportunity, and our new Minister of Jobs is doing a great amount of work over there and effort, trying to create those relationships and build those opportunities. It's one of those things that are important, once again, for us as we focus on jobs — not just families but jobs — because of what they can support.

[1540]

One of the things that trouble me somewhat is when I think about what Jack Layton and the NDP federally are doing and what the NDP locally would like to do, which is the idea of spending more, ramping up spending, ramping up taxes and creating something that is unsustainable.

Currently our deficit, which last year came in $450 million under our target…. This year we have about a $925 million deficit that's in. We have a deficit that we need to get rid of. Why do we have to get rid of that? Because at some point interest rates are going to start rising. At some point we're going to run into some economic challenges around debt and deficits. People around the world really need to get their heads around the change that could be coming.

I recently read a very interesting book called Endgame: The End of the Debt Supercycle and How It Changes Everything by John Mauldin and Jonathan Tepper — a fascinating read. I would make that mandatory reading for every Member of the Legislative Assembly. What it talks about is how society has become so dependent on debt and deficits that it is running the risk of creating some real economic challenges.

A quote from the book. No disrespect to Japan and the current challenges. This was written before the tsunami and earthquake and problems that they have, but it called the debt situation in Japan a bug in search of a windshield. Its debt level right now is over 200 percent of GDP. Its deficit is running around somewhere between 10 and 14 percent of GDP. That is totally and completely unsustainable.

When you look at the United States, their debt level is now around 100 percent of GDP, and their deficit spending is around 42 percent of their total spending. It is unsustainable. But there are no easy choices. There are no quick fixes. There's no "we just raise taxes" or "we just reduce spending." There are no easy fixes.

That's the challenge we face as a society in general, which is why I'm focusing a lot of my talk on the budget on this issue. If we're going to be able to go forward….

I just want to use the United States as an example. If they want to raise taxes to try to reduce their deficit…. Raising taxes puts a brake on the economy, which then actually has a negative impact on revenues. Yes, you get a short-term bump, but long term it actually slows economic growth.

They could try to inflate their way out, which seems to be what they're doing now. They're printing money and buying their own bonds, but that can only go on for so long before that has enormous consequences for economic activity.

What are the solutions? How do we get out of that? It's a solution that people need to think about, because we have to be able to be fiscally responsible. In British Columbia we have been very good in our fiscal responsibility, but we have to do more. We're going to have to start thinking about our debt increases. We're going to have to make sure that we start considering surpluses, because if we don't, there's a wall coming. Even though we might be on a slower curve approaching that wall than some other places, like Greece or Japan or Ireland or Spain or Portugal or even the U.S., it's still coming.

The challenge is that nobody can say just how much debt is acceptable. As long as investors are willing to buy debt, it's fine to keep issuing it. But if investors get nervous, as they did in Greece or as they've done in Ireland or as they're doing in Portugal or Spain, interest rates start going up. You start seeing an increase in interest rates, and suddenly your debt payments become a real issue. Now your deficit is even harder to manage.

That is why it is so important to keep the eye on the fiscal responsibility and why, when I see Jack Layton and the NDP saying they want to increase spending by $30 billion, it creates a real challenge in my mind in terms of what we're going to do in the future, how we're going to meet our challenges. It's why we need to stay focused on fiscal responsibility.

I'm using that just as an example because it's the choice that people are going to have to make soon here in the province of British Columbia. You've got a Leader of the Opposition that wants to raise taxes, that has said
[ Page 6428 ]
they want to increase spending on virtually everything. Where is that money going to come from?

[1545]

We are going to see an environment where interest rates are going to be rising. We're going to see an environment where our debt-servicing in this province is going to create some challenges. Unless we are fiscally responsible in making sure that we have room, it is going to be a challenge.

One of the things that we all have a responsibility for here is to be able to provide services for people, to be able to try to improve lives, but also to make sure that our children and our children's children have opportunities in the future and that we don't leave them unnecessary burdens. Fiscal policy around the world has left our children with enormous burdens.

Take Greece, just for an example — protests in the street, etc., because people don't want to see changes to entitlements and to programs and services that they've gotten used to. The sad reality is that they're not going to be able to carry on with that. If they don't make changes, they're going bankrupt. As a country, they will go bankrupt. People won't lend them money. That has enormous consequences, and not just for Greece but for every other jurisdiction.

We don't want to go down that road. We don't want to go down the road that…. They're sitting down in the United States right now trying to debate as to whether they should increase their debt ceiling or not. That's a rather moot point. If they don't increase their debt ceiling, their spending cuts by 42 percent, what do you think that'll do to their economy and to their society?

People need to get their heads around just what this means in terms of how our debt gain and how the end of this is really going to change everything. I don't suggest that this needs to be an immediate reaction here in British Columbia, but it is something that people need to be aware of. It's something that, as politicians, we need to be thinking about and debating, and it's why I suggest that people read this book and put some serious thought to this.

It's really easy to pound the desk and say that we need to spend more money. We hear it every day in the Legislature. But without taking into consideration this issue and the future and how we should structure our spending, we are going to leave something very nasty for our children. That is something that as a politician, as a representative for Nechako Lakes, I am not interested in doing.

Along that line…. This is one of the reasons why I'm also focused on that. We're talking about taxes and how taxes should be structured. We have a big decision coming up called the HST. Unfortunately, we didn't explain what the problem was, and instead, we just brought in the solution.

We didn't explain that our deficit level was going to increase dramatically. We didn't explain the choices and options we had to try to deal with that — whether we're going to run massive deficits and carry on that deficit problem, funding problem, to our children. We didn't explain that we could have reduced services or we could have increased taxes in the middle of a recession. We didn't explain what those options were. Instead we came forward, and we said, "We want to bring forward something that we believe will help us bridge over this problem," without even saying what the problem was.

To go back now and to start considering the PST and go back to a taxation system which most jurisdictions around the world are getting rid of, if they haven't already gotten rid of it, is very shortsighted in terms of our tax revenues and how we're going to be able to support programs coming forward, not to mention the financial impact it'll have on the province — not just the $1.6 billion that we will likely have to pay back or the $30 million in transition costs but also the forgone additional revenue that HST will create in future years.

Yes, it's revenue-neutral to PST today, but in future years, as our economy grows, the revenue coming from HST will be larger, and we'll have to find a way to be able to make up that revenue as well, which creates big challenges when you take the bigger picture into consideration.

The opposition has been very fond of saying that we need to spend more money on agriculture. Well, spending more money on agriculture means we need to take money from taxpayers and redistribute it to the agriculture sector. HST provides that. It provides over $16 million for the agriculture industry.

[1550]

I've talked with many of the farmers, many of the ranchers in my riding about this. They say that they're worried that they're going to lose HST. This is something they have wanted to see for many, many years. They've been asking for it for many, many years. Finally, we have the opportunity to provide this for them, and that opposition that says they care about agriculture would just take it away. "No, sorry. Gone. You don't get that opportunity. You don't get that restructuring."

That's what they're campaigning on — a $16 million hit to the agriculture industry. The same can be said for the forest industry, for the mining industry, for those workers that are trying to provide for their children, that have a contract, that are out working on a landing and have the benefit that HST will provide.

Talking about families first, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked about wanting to be able to help and support families first — $230 per person in benefits under HST to low-income people. They'd like to just throw that away, completely throw that away and say to low-income people that they don't matter, that we're not going to help.

Low-income families spend way less on HST than the benefits they're going to get on this, and they have
[ Page 6429 ]
lots of choices around that. I've talked to some of the low-income people. They enjoy that extra money that's coming. They would just say to low-income people: "Sorry, no. You don't get it. We want to go back."

Those are the wrong answers. They're the wrong answers because of the structural changes that we need to our taxation system in terms of supporting, but they're also wrong answers because they actually take away the benefits and the attempt that we've had in terms of trying to make some adjustments on the taxation level.

When I also think about divisiveness, which is what the NDP are now going to be standing for over the upcoming months and years, I also think about things like the carbon tax. Carbon tax is not popular in my riding, but people pay it, and I understand why, because of those additional costs. But the people in my riding are going to see a $200-per-household increase to the homeowner grant. People in my riding have also seen a decrease in personal income taxes. People in my riding have seen those benefits that have flown through on a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

They would like take away those benefits and take that carbon tax and spend it on transit in the Lower Mainland. They stand up and say they want to speak for rural B.C. My riding doesn't even have a bus anywhere, yet they would like to take those dollars that are in tax breaks for the people in my riding and redistribute them to other areas of the province.

They say they stand for rural B.C. Clearly, they are a party that is going to try to create divisions — divisions amongst people in urban areas, divisions amongst rural B.C., divisions amongst the perceived have-nots and the perceived haves. The very interesting side of that, of course, is that in the eyes of government, everybody who's earning something is basically fair game to be able to raise taxes on and to have that — whatever they said — equal and fair share of revenue that needs to be paid.

I want to say a few more things about some of the things that are happening in the riding, because as we all know, over the last four years or so we've gone through some very tough times in the forest industry. Since 2006, when the housing bubble started to burst in the United States, it's been a very challenging time, and my riding is very dependent upon forestry.

But today, because we have set the foundations and we have the right policies in place, all nine mills, with the exception of one of the smaller family-owned mills, are running. They're not just running; they're running two shifts. They're back to the point where they're making profits. Virtually all of them I've talked to are talking about capital investments, investing additional money in their mills, in expanding their production capability, in improving their profitability and the way they can handle the mountain pine beetle.

Those are the right things we need to see happening. But if we had the opposition's way with increased taxes on those companies, you would end up in a situation where they wouldn't have as much money and ability to be able to do those investments, and they would start wondering whether or not they should be investing in B.C. or whether they should be investing elsewhere.

[1555]

The same goes with HST. HST has brought about a $7-per-thousand-board-feet competitive edge for the forest industry through the reduced costs in all the contractors and suppliers all the way up through the chain. That's a huge change for the industry and allows them to start thinking about making those capital investments and building those futures.

My communities are very dependent upon forestry. They're also very dependent upon agriculture. They say they support it, yet every action they stand up in this House to do says that they would oppose and hurt those industries and those sectors. I don't know how you stand up and say you support rural B.C. when you do that type of action in your policies.

In addition, when I think about opportunities in the riding, we've seen enormous opportunities by First Nations. I have 13 First Nations in my riding, and they are starting to form partnerships. They've started to form partnerships with Conifex and mills. They've started to form partnerships in terms of the opportunities with mining. They're forming partnerships in terms of the opportunities for independent power. Two new projects that they're hoping to get off the ground in my riding have made the cut on the next call from B.C. Hydro. Those opportunities and the embracement of those partnerships will start to make a change.

I had a chat with one of the chiefs in my riding recently over the last year. We talked about the band and unemployment. They're facing a situation that's absolutely horrendous — 85 percent unemployment. It's a situation that we wouldn't want to wish upon anybody. It's a situation that is more daunting and challenging than you could possibly imagine.

But they're starting to look at those opportunities. They've partnered in a community forest. They're looking at a partnership in terms of pellet production, a partnership in power production. They're talking with a mining company about opportunities there. These things will make enormous differences for that First Nation.

It's a difference because what it means is that people will have jobs. They'll be able to support families. They'll be able to contribute back into their community. They will be able to do things that they haven't been able to do in a very, very long time.

I sat down and talked with him, and I congratulated him for the work that he was doing. I said very clearly and very bluntly: "Government doesn't have the money to solve that issue, to solve the issue of 85 percent unemployment." We can't do that. It has to be private sector that creates the jobs. It has to be partnerships.
[ Page 6430 ]

It has to be a change, because doing the same thing and expecting different results is a definition of insanity. We have to be able to do things differently, which means you have to have the right environment. You have to encourage that investment. Once again, the divisiveness of the opposition is to oppose that, is to say: "No, no, we don't want to try to create those opportunities. Government should step in and do that."

I want to close with a few comments about the people in my riding. I've had the honour now to serve my area, Nechako Lakes, for two years and Prince George–Omineca before that for four years. It has been an enormous honour to be able to try to help people in my riding.

Whether it's a family that needs a wheelchair and helping them get through the system for that or a grandparent that wants to try to adopt a grandchild and helping them get through a system like that, or whether it's being able to provide the millions of dollars of roadway improvements that we've been able to do across the riding or the additional capital projects for schools and other things, it is truly an honour to be able to do this.

I want to thank my constituents for putting their trust in me, for sending me down here to try to do things that will help them and to benefit our area, our families and our children.

I also want to take a moment to thank my wife. We all put in a lot of work and a lot of effort down here. I know all of our spouses pay a price for that, because it's time away from home. So I want to say to Kim, thank you, and to use a quote I got from China, wo ai ni, which means "I love you."

L. Krog: I'm always delighted to have an opportunity to rise in the House and say a few words about another Liberal budget.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

However, I would be remiss if I didn't respond at least in some small part before I get into the substance of my remarks without saying a few words about the remarks of the member opposite for Nechako Lakes, a person for whom I have enormous personal respect.

[1600]

Obviously, we disagree on many issues. It is a bit difficult for us in the opposition to take a lecture about divisiveness when another sterling example of Liberal policy, which was extremely divisive — their treatment of the teachers of this province — was just struck down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It's a little hard to take a lecture on divisiveness. It's particularly even harder when you consider that this is the same government that's been likewise lectured not by simply the Supreme Court of British Columbia or the B.C. Court of Appeal but by the Supreme Court of Canada when it comes to the issue of divisiveness.

We can never forget what happened to the Hospital Employees Union. In this government's scramble to put in place a group of workers in this province, mainly female, as a way of demonstrating how strong and in control they were…. Now, how was that some happy aspect of anything but divisiveness? How was that bringing people together? I wonder if the women who lost their jobs felt that their families were being put first, so to speak, when that horrendous bit of legislation was passed.

I can tell you, hon. Speaker, in my community there are many who believe quite fundamentally that the significant outbreaks of C. difficile in Nanaimo Regional General Hospital are all directly traceable back to that legislation, that the health care system in my hospital has never recovered.

Again, when I hear this lecture about divisiveness, I just can't quite pass up the opportunity to respond and simply say to the member for Nechako Lakes and to this House that I think he's just plain wrong. But that's just one aspect of what I've heard around budget and handling finances today that I most respectfully have to disagree with.

We have just heard a lecture about fiscal responsibility and debt and deficit. Now, isn't that just too much to take? Correct me if I'm wrong, hon. Speaker. I know that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, who might want to try and rise on a point of privilege, may wish to respond to what I have to say, but two of the three biggest deficits in the whole history of the province of British Columbia have occurred under what government? Was it a New Democratic government?

Some Hon. Members: No.

L. Krog: Was it a Social Credit government?

Some Hon. Members: No.

L. Krog: It was the Liberal government — two of the three biggest deficits. And where was the third-biggest deficit? What source was that? It was the political parents of the B.C. Liberal Party, the Social Credit Party — the third-biggest deficit in the history of the province of British Columbia.

You know, hearing a lecture from these folks about fiscal responsibility is like listening to a rabbit talk about family planning.

The estimate is that the total provincial debt from the end of the 2010-2011 fiscal year is going to rise from $47.3 billion to, by the end of 2013-2014, $60.4 billion. That, for those math whizzes in the House who haven't been able to quite get to the percentage — and I know the former Minister of Health is watching anxiously, as I'm going to announce it for him — is a 28 percent increase, and we on this side of the House are to take a lesson in fiscal responsibility from this government.
[ Page 6431 ]

What do we have to show for this fiscal responsibility? After ten years of Liberal government still the highest rate of child poverty, more homeless than we've ever seen in the history of province of British Columbia, a topic about which the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant spoke so elegantly and eloquently earlier today. What have we achieved?

[1605]

Now, I appreciate that there is still a significant number of the Liberals in this chamber — and it's clear from what they have to say — who believe in what's called that Laffer curve. That's that economist who proselytized the belief that if you cut taxes, in fact over time it will increase your revenue. Some economists actually still agree with that, and indeed, once in a while it works for a little bit. But the Laffer curve really is pretty much a big joke, because eventually what really happens is you don't have the sources of revenue to deliver the very basic services which we all come to expect from a stable and decent government, which we come to expect from a civilized society.

In the United States now — after how many years of good, solid Republican rule? — the U.S. national debt is something, I believe, in the range of $14 trillion, give or take a few hundred billion here and there. That's $45,000, roughly, for every man, woman and child living in the United States of America.

Even in dear old Canada we haven't been able to match that record, notwithstanding a Tory government in Ottawa, notwithstanding a Liberal government in Ottawa. We're only about $15,000 a head in debt.

So when I have to listen, as I say, to lectures from the government that's brought us to this state, that's going to bump up the provincial debt by 28 percent in three years with really nothing to show for it, with significant problems in our health care system, it is not a lesson I am prepared to listen to. But more importantly, it's a lesson I don't think the people of British Columbia are prepared to listen to. Certainly, the citizens and the good voters of Vancouver–Point Grey will have an opportunity in a few weeks to pass judgment on that Liberal record.

I'm conscious of the fact that even though not all of the members in this chamber are listening to me, I know that buried somewhere in the public service of British Columbia, as I speak today, there are several members of the public affairs bureau listening to every word I have to say, hoping to scratch out some tiny quotation for use in a future election campaign. There indeed may be some of my fellow members who are worried I might say something untoward that will defeat us when we come to the next election.

The state of politics in this country is such now that if anyone cares to speak the unvarnished truth about anything, the press derides you as being foolish and naive. Your opponents will use it on every opportunity to attack you. We have all been victimized in politics by what I'll call the big lie technique.

Now, I don't go back to Joseph Goebbels, and I'm not suggesting anyone in this chamber is lying when I say this, but it is readily apparent to anyone who has a brain to think with that you cannot continue to cut revenue for government and deliver the very basic services that historically we as Canadians and British Columbians have prided ourselves on.

We now have a federal campaign underway in which it is fairly clear, subject to what the voters may do on May 2, that the two old national governing parties, the Conservatives and the Liberals, are in deep trouble. The Bloc Québécois….

An Hon. Member: What polls have you been reading?

L. Krog: If the member will listen, I'll explain — if he'll give me a moment. The Bloc Québécois, which has almost become the establishment party in Quebec, if you will, is now quite possibly in second place to the New Democratic Party. Now, the member says, "What polls are you reading?" because he's making reference, I'm sure, to the fact that the Conservatives are indeed ahead.

Interjections.

L. Krog: That's right. Somewhere in the low 30s across this great country. Something in the range of a third of the population want to support the most right-wing party we've seen in government in this country certainly in my lifetime if, indeed, not in the history of the whole country.

What's the message here? People are tired of old-style politics. They're tired of flimflam budgets. They're tired of do-nothing governments. They're tired of officeholders who want to be there simply to maintain office. They're tired of the old politics in every way, shape and form.

[1610]

What is absolutely clear is that the citizens get it. If you talk to people one-on-one, they understand. They know that when you continue to give tax breaks to people who don't need it — and that includes every one of us in this chamber, by the way, based on our incomes, and I've said this before — to meet anything remotely resembling the basics of life, you completely disable government from the ability to deliver the services to those amongst us who are the most vulnerable and those in the greatest need, those who need a hand up from time to time for whatever reason, whether it's ill health or job loss or insecurity or mental illness or addiction or family breakdown or a catastrophe of weather such as the people of Japan have suffered through.

When you disable government from doing that, what you have essentially done is created a society which has nothing to do with equality or equity or fairness.
[ Page 6432 ]

So what we have from this government after ten years…. You could say, from their perspective, the fruits of their labour. I would prefer to use the phrase "the chickens coming home to roost." We are now seeing cuts in every ministry of any substance that is designed to deliver services to people who need it.

Let's just start with one of the basics. Let's take us back to the '70s. We won't talk about what the government loves to refer to as the dismal decade. Let's talk about the '70s. Let's talk about the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve, something that this government has never been courageous enough to formally tinker with, really. But the Ministry of Agriculture has decreased the budget for that by $3 million. It's a 4.4 percent cut from last year, and this is at the very time when, if you talk to people on the streets, they're talking about food security.

This is a government that can't bring itself to restore the Buy B.C. program, can't bear to use that language because it comes from, as far as they're concerned, a tainted source — namely, a New Democratic Party government.

The Attorney General's ministry — I have the privilege of being the critic for the Attorney General's ministry — cut $15 million this year, from $458 million in 2010-2011 to $443 million. Prosecution services cut by another $6 million, court services by $8 million. And this is the government that's going to be tough on crime.

This is the government that says to the people in Surrey who are worried about gangs: "We're going to look after you. We're going to protect you. By the way, we won't have the prosecutors to actually prosecute the cases if the police do their job and catch the criminals. Oh, and by the way, if the police, notwithstanding the pressure they're under and the problems and danger they face every day, notwithstanding if they catch them…. We won't necessarily have a prosecutor to prosecute them. Oh, and by the way, if we've got a prosecutor to prosecute them and do their job effectively, we may not have a courtroom to do it in." Because we're down about 15 Provincial Court judges.

We're down about 15 judges from where we were a decade ago, and it may come as a great surprise to the members opposite, but I believe there's been a slight increase in the British Columbia population in the last decade. So how are we to talk about protecting families when our justice system has been so degraded by this government?

Let's talk for a moment about the most vulnerable amongst us who have to have access to the justice system in a family breakdown situation. They're going to go to legal aid, and what are they going to discover? Legal aid the way it existed ten and 20 years ago in this province doesn't exist anymore. It's gone. You're going to have to demonstrate that you're a victim of violence. If you can't demonstrate that, essentially legal aid…. If your family relationship is broken down, whatever it may be, you're pretty much on your own.

Now, if you have to hire a lawyer, hon. Speaker, that will prove a real difficulty, because even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the chief justice of British Columbia and the presidents of the bar associations have all told us that there is a crisis in our justice system because legal services have become unaffordable for the vast majority of our population.

[1615]

If you're really, really poor in this province, and you need advice just how to battle a predatory landlord, or you've got a problem with the ministry and need to appeal a decision that affects whether you get social assistance or not, there are no community law offices anymore. Those were cut some time ago. I don't see anything in this budget that's going to restore the funding for that, that is going to restore some dignity to a justice system and restore some ability to that justice system to actually serve the people it was designed to serve.

Education. What do we know? The government is going to say they've increased it. "It's the highest in B.C. history — 33 percent higher than a decade ago," the Minister of Finance stated in the budget speech. Yet somehow, as a percentage of GDP, B.C. spent a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on public education up to 2002-2003 when we fell behind the rest of Canada.

What does that tell you? In a world where we get it, where we understand that it is about education, that it is about highly skilled workforces, that that is how you compete in the modern world unless you have access to incredible natural resources and some other country wants to buy them out, how is it that we have fallen to where we have, and how is it that this government continues to underfund education?

The next one — and I'm going alphabetically — is one that touches me personally in a way. Where I grew up in Coombs, there were two wonderful provincial parks: Englishman River and Little Qualicum Falls. There was a day in this province when people could take their families there. There were programs for children. There was firewood. There was an opportunity for people with modest means, if you will, to enjoy some vacation time.

It's the 100th anniversary of the B.C. park system, and the Ministry of Environment budget was cut by $6.1 million. That includes cuts to the environmental sustainability program, climate action secretariat, parks and protected areas, conservation officer services, environmental assessment, etc.

So I guess my question is, as I'm going through this list of cuts: what exactly is it that this government has done for British Columbians in its decade in power? What has it actually achieved? I want to ask the great question that Ronald Reagan asked — are you better off today than you were four years ago? — except I'm going to ask: are you better off today than you were ten years ago?
[ Page 6433 ]

Let's talk about public safety and the Solicitor General. I had the opportunity to meet with our Solicitor General critic. We met with the sheriffs a couple weeks ago.

The North Fraser facility, a pretrial centre, was built a decade ago — that would be back in the bad old days, of course, when the NDP was in power — for 300 prisoners. It now holds more than 600 prisoners. The ratio of prisoners to guards is now 60 to 1, double what it was a decade ago.

For those of the members who aren't listening, that's not good news. That is not good news. When you have one guard for 60 inmates, that's not good news. B.C.'s jails, according to Mr. Purdy…. Dean Purdy, who is the chair of corrections and sheriffs services for the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, says that B.C. jails are operating at over 200 percent capacity.

I had an opportunity to listen to a young sheriff who was the victim of an assault, a vicious assault. What do we discover? Despite the pressure on Corrections, there's no additional money.

[1620]

The budget cuts $2.4 million from Corrections despite the fact, as I've said, that our jails are already well over capacity.

Now, I don't know if any of us really recall the budget speech. It seems like such a long time ago.

Let's talk about tourism, arts and culture. Again, we know that's an economic driver. I would have thought this government that is so attuned to the economy, supposedly, that so understands how business works, how economies operate…. You would have thought that they would have understood that tourism and the arts and culture are strong economic drivers, that it is the kind of area where, if you put money in, you actually get a significant return. But again, a decline in that budget as well.

Let's talk about the economic outlook, and let's be quite specific. I want to talk about my community for a moment. Unemployment in Nanaimo has recently increased from 9 percent to 16 percent, so I'm just wondering where all these jobs are. These are old numbers now.

I'll just bring up that dismal decade that my friends so love to remind us about in their speeches. The average growth in jobs between 2001 and 2010 was 1.8 percent. This government tells us they've done such a wonderful job with the economy. Of course, we know they can control the economy. Most interestingly, that compares to an average growth in jobs of 2.2 percent from 1992 to 2001.

Some of the members may wonder where I'm going with this. It's a point I want to bring home, and it's a point I hope British Columbians understand. Let us take out of the political discourse once and forever, for all time, the ridiculous notion that governments can somehow make economies run perfectly and governments get to take all responsibility for good times.

It's fairly obvious. Governments can do what they can do within limited means. But to continue to pretend, as this government did, that once they got into office, the economy turned around and things got better and better and things were just great and grand just isn't borne out by some of the statistics I've read out today. It isn't borne out by this do-nothing budget, and it certainly isn't borne out by the experiences of the people in my community, who are enjoying a 16 percent unemployment rate at the present time.

It isn't borne out by the experience of the thousands of our fellow British Columbians who hope, if they're lucky, to find a shelter bed at night, if this government isn't closing those shelter beds.

It isn't borne out by the people on social assistance who…. Even the most rabid right-wingers in this province will acknowledge honestly to your face that they cannot understand how anyone can survive on social assistance. We have the highest housing costs in the country, and we have social assistance rates that are abysmal.

We have just only increased the minimum wage modestly to bring us into line with other provinces. It isn't sufficient. It wasn't sufficient. It will never be sufficient.

When I heard the member for Nechako Lakes criticize the concept that people should pay their fair share — pay their fair share — I thought to myself: "What is wrong with that concept?"

Some of us, through sheer luck, are born into families where attaining post-secondary education, going to school, is just an easy part of our life. But some of us are born into families where actually going to school with food in your stomach is not a daily occurrence.

[1625]

Some of us are born into families where there are health issues, where some of our family members may suffer from a mental illness or be addicted to some substance. Surely in a society that is based on some basic values, values common to all religious faiths — surely in a society like that — we could do a better job.

When you look through this budget, when you look at what's being cut — whether it is just ensuring public safety or providing assistance or education or legal services to needy folks who can't possibly access justice or speak for themselves or advocate for themselves — what conclusion is one drawn to? The conclusion, I think, is quite obvious. Ten years of this government has been, in many respects, a dismal failure.

Now, not everything they've done is awful. That's the rhetoric of the kind of politics that, as I said earlier in my speech, turns people off. But until this government is prepared to acknowledge publicly that many of the things that they did, particularly early on, were wrong — acknowledge it and accept responsibility — we are not going to move forward as a province, and voters will continue to be turned off by politicians who are afraid to acknowledge some truths.

It distresses me that at a time when people are still dying in the streets of Libya, hopeful to gain the right to demo-
[ Page 6434 ]
cracy; when people in North Korea are starving under a vicious dictator; when the people of Zimbabwe have no access to food and no access to anything that you would remotely call a functioning democracy.... Surely we here in the wealthiest part of the world, with abundant natural resources, with public education available, could do a better job. I would like to think that that's possible. I'd like to think that we're grateful for democracy.

With reference to democracy, I want to say very sincerely to Christy Clark today and to my new leader: congratulations. They both achieved the leadership of their respective parties after difficult races. They have made that ultimate sacrifice. Their families understand that. The people who love them understand it — and all of us in this chamber, as the member for Nechako Lakes pointed out in his closing remarks. You have to give up a great deal to do this job properly, but you have to acknowledge some truths.

The truth is that when you stack this budget up against what it could be and what it could do for people, it doesn't meet the mark. It won't meet the mark, and it cannot meet the mark. The fact is that this is a tired government. It needs to call a general election. It needs to get on with it. It needs to give an opportunity to British Columbians to vote not just on the HST but on the fundamental direction of this province, on the fundamental values that are held in common, I think, by all right-thinking, decent people.

To close my remarks about this budget, I challenge the government. Don't delay it. Call a provincial general election. Let's get on with it. Let the people of British Columbia decide what kind of future they want.

D. Horne: I'd like to start by congratulating the new Leader of the Opposition, as the last member just pointed out. You know, I thought, with the leader that's been chosen for the opposition, that we would be looking back to the '90s — obviously looking back. But from the last speaker, I note that we're actually going to be looking back to the 1970s, apparently, so perhaps I should have been wearing a wider tie and dressing more appropriately. But in all seriousness, I have to say that we welcome and congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition.

[1630]

As well, our own party. We have a new Premier. Obviously, in moving forward with a new Leader of the Opposition and a new Premier, we have a new vision. We have change and major change coming to our province, to British Columbia.

One of the things that I think is important as we move forward is to articulate the vision that we have in moving forward. One of the things that I think is very, very important, and British Columbians have seen since the Premier took office, is a series of decisions, a series of movement forward, a vision for the future of British Columbia that includes families, includes jobs, includes the things that most find important and most need to make sure that their family and those that they care for are successful and live a wonderful life. That's really what's most important.

The member alluded to the fact that the minimum wage was increased recently, and there are many other announcements that have been made since the Premier was sworn in. These are all part of the vision as we move forward, a vision that's important to all British Columbians and something that does represent the change that British Columbians are all looking for. I think that that's the most important aspect.

One of the things that our new leader represents is a generational change, as well, a move to a new way of looking at things with a new generation and a new group of leaders in our province that, I think, will take us forward and really be of great benefit to the residents as we move through the next decades.

One of the things that always perplexes and worries me is the fact that we hear speaker after speaker talk about how much we spend on things. One of the difficulties that I have in government is that we measure how much we care for something by how much we spend. No one says: "This is what we accomplished. This is the goal that we're trying to reach. This is what we're actually trying to deliver, and did we actually achieve that?" What we do instead is say: "Last year we spent X number of dollars, and this year we're spending Y number of dollars." Whether that's more or less is dependent on how much we care for that.

As time goes on, the important thing that we all have to do is measure our successes by what we actually accomplish, whether we actually deliver the services, whether we actually deliver the things that British Columbians need in order to be successful. It's one of the things that we seem to continually lose sight of, because in health care and in education and in many of the areas that all of us find so important in our daily lives, the budget continues to go up.

Whether the service is commensurate with the amount that we put into it is a question and something that we debate. But the fact of the matter is that the number of dollars going into education, going into health care, has gone up year after year after year. What we have to do and the most important thing that we have to do is make sure that those dollars are spent wisely and that the programs and what we all wish for and the outcomes that we want to achieve are actually delivered.

It's my pleasure today to talk about this budget and our financial record because obviously I'm very, very proud of that. We talk about taxes, and the new Leader of the Opposition has talked about corporate taxes and how he feels it's important that those be increased in order to pay for more of the services that he feels are important. But you look at corporate taxes. You look at whether or not that's really accomplishing things.
[ Page 6435 ]

A sad reality, unfortunately, is that most people look at things as to how it affects them. They don't say, "This is great" or "This is bad," based upon sort of the overall macroeconomics. They look at how it's going to affect them, and for the average person who doesn't step back and think about it, taxing corporations sounds like a great idea because that might not affect me.

You know, if I work for the government of British Columbia or I work for a company, well, taxing the Bank of Montreal more or taxing Imperial Oil or Petro-Canada sounds like a great idea because obviously that doesn't affect me.

[1635]

The difficulty — and something that the opposition and the NDP have to understand more and perhaps British Columbians need to understand more — is that by taxing corporations, we not only go to the underpinning jobs that they represent — because, you know, people that are already employed, "That doesn't affect me" — but what we have to talk about is that these corporations are predominantly owned by people's pension funds, by public sector pension funds, by private RRSPs, by private investment.

These companies are owned by people, and by attacking these companies, you are attacking people's pensions. You are attacking people's future. That's how it affects them, and that's how it affects them directly. People have to understand that. It does affect them. So by saying, "Oh, we're simply going to go out and attack corporations and make them pay more because they're not paying their fair share," you're attacking people's pension income. You're attacking people's ability to get money in the future, and the fact that that isn't understood by many is beyond me.

Low tax rates obviously also create business and jobs, as I've said. After ten years of sensible government, we've returned tens of thousands of British Columbians to work, and even in these very, very difficult economic times, our economy, our triple-A credit rating and many of the things that we hold dear, and some of the things that prove that British Columbia and our government are managing our finances in a prudent and effective manner are on display.

I have to say that since 2001 most British Columbians have had their personal income taxes reduced by 37 percent. Our health care system is the envy of the nation. As I say, obviously we continue to spend more money, and obviously there's room for improvement. There's always room.

The reason why we seek election, the reason why we seek to represent the people of British Columbia and our ridings is because we ourselves recognize that things aren't perfect, that there's always room for improvement. But in saying that, obviously, we are doing a very, very good job. We have a very, very strong record, and in comparison to the rest of the country, we're in fantastic shape.

The opposition would often say that this was just simply a matter of good fortune. The rest of the country is in the position they're in, but we're in our position simply because of good fortune. This has nothing to do with good fortune. It happened because of good management, of strong and frugal and prudent management, and that's the most important thing as we move forward.

The other thing that I heard as I was sitting here listening to the previous speaker talking about debt and one of the things that also astounds me is the fact that there is a big difference between taking your Visa card and going and buying a trip to Hawaii and going to a bank and getting a mortgage on a new home or getting a car loan.

This government…. Yes, our debt is higher, but I also have to point out that we've spent, in the last ten years, $7 billion on health care facilities, equipment and other things to build our health care system. We spent another $7 billion on post-secondary education facilities. We spent almost $4 billion on schools for K-to-12.

We spent nearly $8 billion on transportation infrastructure, including the major infrastructure for public transit and over $14 billion for commercial Crown corporations for electrical generation, transmission, distribution projects. In that, I include the Port Mann Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge — things that have a direct impact on the community that I represent.

I'll also note in this budget, this year…. In the current updated forecast we spent $30 million last year on the Evergreen project, on making sure that we completed the environmental assessment, on making sure that the project continued forward, because this government is committed to the Evergreen line. This government continues to lead that project. That's very, very important for my community and very, very important for the overall community of the Lower Mainland.

[1640]

I have to say that, with the Evergreen line, also in the budget is a total of $304 million over the entire period for continuing to fund that project, continuing to show the leadership and continuing to ensure that it gets built — unlike past projects during the 1990s, I must say.

I oftentimes will drive to the Lougheed station, and I'll park my car in the dirt lot there, because that's where the parking for the Lougheed station is. It's in a dirt lot. I'll get on at the Lougheed station, and I'll go, and I'll head downtown. I'll go by station after station after station in the middle of nowhere, and surprisingly enough — and I won't think that anyone will be that surprised by this — no one gets on or off at those stations. You want to know why no one gets on or off at those stations? Because there's no one near them. No one lives near them. No one's by them. It's the SkyTrain line to nowhere.

Oh, and then I remember who built the SkyTrain line to nowhere. Who was the government when we built the SkyTrain line to nowhere? Oh, I think it was the NDP.
[ Page 6436 ]
The NDP built this wonderful, you know…. The city of Burnaby now has wonderful, wonderful infrastructure when it comes to SkyTrain. They've got the one line that goes along the top and one line that goes along the bottom. Now, basically, I understand the mayor of Burnaby actually says we don't need any more rapid transit. Well, of course you wouldn't need any more rapid transit if you were the mayor of Burnaby. I have to say I'm quite amused by that.

You know, it's always great to take a look at how we do things and how we accomplish things and how we move them forward. What I have to say is that the Evergreen line is a good example of our government making a commitment, following through on that commitment and ensuring that it gets done.

I would talk about the Evergreen line more, but I think I'll talk about other issues that affect our community and our province.

In 2010 it was a very good year in British Columbia for exports and trade. Compared to 2009, exports increased by nearly 15 percent or $3.6 billion, and that represents an increase of a staggering $10 million or more to the province every single day.

How was this accomplished? In some respects, it was a record-breaking year. B.C.'s 11.7 worth of exports to Asia were unprecedented. That's not because this government and the ministers in this government basically wished that Asia would do more business with British Columbia. The additional $4 billion in trade that came from China, which, I must add, was a 63 percent increase….

While that's impressive — because, obviously, the Chinese economy was growing — it was because, as I say, this government made a commitment to build bridges, to build relationships, to ensure that people in the Chinese government and people in China understood that British Columbia was open for business.

That included not only making certain that they understood about the wood products and other products that we have to offer to China but also to make sure that they understand the infrastructure that we have in place and the many, many port facilities and other transportation network facilities that we continued to put in place and continued to show as a priority to ensure that when we do trade with Asia and we do put these deals in place, those goods can be moved and that we can have a very, very solid and good working relationship with China.

But it's not just China; it's also Japan, increasing by 20 percent; Korea, increasing by 14 percent. As well, not just Asia. In 2010 exports to the European Union increased by 19 percent, India by an astounding 74 percent, and South America up by 22 percent. So this is an across-the-board, incredible….

[1645]

In a time of global economic downturn for British Columbia's exports to be increasing says a lot for this government, says a lot for our ability to market British Columbia to the world. Well, some industries posted modest exports, such as consumer goods, machinery, equipment. Those modest gains, as I say, are still increases at a time of global economic downturn, and that's something we should all appreciate and understand.

In 2010 exports of forest products increased by 21 percent, energy products by 17 percent, industrial goods by 22 percent, agriculture and fishing products up by 4 percent. But still, as I say, all of these items — increases in exports.

This is something that's extremely important to our economy, extremely important to maintain the lifestyle that we all enjoy, because a strong economy is what creates jobs. A strong economy is what ensures that we all have the health care and education funding that we all so desire and all so want to make certain is in place.

I'll also say that since 2008 our trade investment representatives and the ministry staff have helped B.C. companies attract more than $1.6 billion in foreign investment. How have they helped? I have to say that before I was elected…. In dealing with our own people abroad it really does help our local businesses, because in countries like China, like Korea, like Japan, a connection to government, a connection to saying, you know, this company is a good company and is something and someone that you should look at to do business with is very, very important.

Obviously, in building relationships, in building trust, in building the type of relationship that you need to be successful in many, many of these countries, our government representatives can play a key role in that, so that's very, very important. There's no shortage of examples, but I'll come to three quickly as highlights.

Mitsubishi invested $450 million in an oil and gas producer, Penn West Energy Trust, to cooperate in the shale gas project in the Cordova embayment. Second, Vancouver Island's Shelter Point Distillery, which produces Canadian single-malt whisky, a wonderful whisky that I have on occasion tasted and I can say is wonderful. Shelter Point secured $600,000 in a distribution deal with Korea's leading manufacturer and producer of food and beverages. China's Kingland Industry Corp. announced a $15 million investment into its Vancouver facility, a subsidiary, Long Fortune Resource Investment.

Then again, these are three among many, many, examples of the successes that British Columbia businesses have had. There's the importance of building those relationships, the importance of reaching out, and our trade representatives and our staff have assisted in organizing these businesses.

In missions they've had more than 150 overseas locations in which they've had seminars or group discussions or scheduled meetings in order to assist our corporations, and really, that's what is so important in order to build these trade relationships and to build our economy for the long run.
[ Page 6437 ]

I have to say as well that despite the global economic downturn, B.C. continues to attract people from around the world, and that's because we are a great place to live. You take a look today. I'm wearing my daffodil. Many in this House are wearing their daffodils because we're supportive of people with cancer. One of the things in British Columbia that I think we can be most proud of is, if you take a look at cancer outcomes on a global basis, here in British Columbia we have some of the best outcomes in the world.

Is that perfect? No, it's not. Obviously, we still have a long way to go in the fight against cancer, but here in British Columbia, we're a leader in treatment. We're a leader in research. The Cuccione foundation. The Cucciones, who live in Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and whom I've spent a long time with, support so greatly the childhood cancers and some of the most difficult. When a child has cancer, it's such a young life, and the struggle that many have to go through is just so difficult for that family and for that child.

[1650]

You know, it's spending the money on this research, spending the money so that these families, hopefully, eventually won't have to go through this and that families in the future won't have to have the ordeal that many today do. That's the importance of spending money on cancer research, and something that we all have to do as we go forward.

That's why people like to come here. It's because of our lifestyle. It's because we have these great health outcomes. It's because we have such a wonderful climate. It's because it's such a great place to live. There are good points, and there are bad points to that. One of the points that the previous member made was the fact that our housing costs are high. That is a reality of living in the Lower Mainland and many parts of the province. The cost of housing is high.

I think that one of the things our new leader and the Premier has pointed out is the importance in government that we really take a strong look at families and the burden that we place on them at all levels of government. One of the difficulties is that while this provincial government has drastically reduced personal income taxes and the burden in the last ten years, there are other levels of government. There are the civic governments, ourselves, the federal government, but there are many Crown agencies as well.

Each one of these groups basically requires funds to operate, requires funds to build infrastructure, requires funds to ensure that the services that they provide to British Columbians are there. The difficulty is there is only one taxpayer. So while we all go and make sure that the money that's needed to provide those services is there, we oftentimes forget that we keep compounding on the family. The importance of making certain that when we're making decisions, we take a look at the family and how that's going to affect them not only on a fiscal level but also on many other levels of their life — education, health care, many of the things that impact them — making certain that…. The family and the way that we're dealing with each individual and each family are so important.

One of the things that we've talked about and one of the things that we've signalled as we've moved forward is taking a look at middle-income families. Right now one of the things we've talked about…. For low-income families, there are many measures in place to ensure that there are HST credits, substantial credits in place so that that's offset, and low-income housing allowances, rental assistance, many other things that help these families out. The difficulty is that as families come to a certain income level, those subsidies, those support systems drift away very, very quickly.

What happens is that there's almost a penalty now as it comes for being in the middle. I think that's one of the things that as a government we are committed to taking a look at. One of the things that's important in dealing with families and important in ensuring that families are protected and that basically as you move forward, as you become more successful, as you work hard…. Hard work — really working and achieving your best — should be something that is rewarded, not something that people shy away from because it's not of the economic benefit that they think it should be.

I also want to talk about tourism. As I've talked about China earlier, before I was elected…. I've talked many times in this House before about the fact that tourism is something that is near and dear to me. You know, I spent many years building themed attractions and resorts and designing those themed attractions and resorts, many of them in Asia. I had the opportunity last fall, actually, to travel to Shanghai and to visit Expo 2010.

[1655]

Prior to my being elected, I worked very closely with the Chinese and with several companies in Shanghai to do the preliminary design work and the concept work for one of the central theme pavilions for Shanghai 2010, as well as one of the major corporate pavilions for Shanghai 2010. So it was very, very exciting for me to go to Shanghai to see those pavilions and to really see the fruition of one's work.

That being said, as you go to China and you realize the potential there, you recognize the desire there for moving forward and the wealth that's being created in China. From a tourism standpoint, it's the type of people; it's the dollars within the tourism sector. These are the types of people that we want to be attracting to British Columbia, to see the wonderful splendour that we have here, to be able to not only come to Vancouver and to Victoria, but….

I met with the guide-outfitters several weeks back. To be able to spend the time to go into the many areas
[ Page 6438 ]
of the province, to be able to explore them and spend the time and really appreciate them…. One of the things that I think is so wonderful about the guide-outfitters is to be able to go and spend time with someone that truly has a passion for their area, that truly has a passion for our province, that has a passion for the wonderful supernatural outdoors that British Columbia represents. That is something that we can sell to the world, something that we must cherish and something that really makes us different from any part of the world.

In my many years of business I travelled many places in the world. I've spent considerable time in Europe, considerable time in Asia. I have to say that the one thing that I always enjoyed was when I landed back here in British Columbia, because there really is no other place in the world like British Columbia. It truly is "The best place on earth."

As I conclude, I must say, as others have, that it's a wonderful opportunity to be in this place and to have the opportunity to express our ideas, to express our thoughts. You know, each of us does give up a considerable amount to have the privilege of representing people in this place, in particular our families. In closing, I would like to say that I thank my family — Victoria, my daughter; Liza, my daughter; and Larissa, my wife — for the opportunity to be here and serve in this place.

N. Macdonald: First, I just wanted to welcome the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain to our side of the House. I have to say he wasn't completely on script with what we want to say. Nevertheless….

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: He's only on loan.

Anyway, this is an opportunity, again, to come…. It's an opportunity that we haven't had very often this past year. I think everybody here understands that over the past year government has not functioned as well as it needs to. Really, government has functioned poorly. There have been broad policy pieces that have gone waiting. In fact, even in the budget speech there's a recognition that the government is waiting for new direction. That direction is now likely in place and getting worked on. I have to say that it has made constituency issues, as well, more challenging — trying to get issues solved.

Having said that, I want to say that in the recent past, very clearly, ministers are in place and starting to get sort of a clear idea of what they want to do with their particular ministries.

[1700]

I just want to say, having met with the new Minister of Environment — just a new minister and, I think, very excited about the opportunity — and also meeting with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, that they have been very helpful and that they are working to try to get a handle on pretty complex files.

If you just look at Natural Resource Operations, the change that took place I think is generally…. It's accepted that the decision to split policy and operations was a mistake. I think there's an attempt to pull it back together, but it is an extremely complex ministry, and I know that it takes a tremendous effort to try to get your head around many of these issues.

I want to say one other thing about two other ministers that have been very helpful on one issue. That's the Solicitor General, who is an old hand in terms of dealing with ministries but is new to the Solicitor General's portfolio, and also the Ministry of Community Services. Experienced hand, I should say. The Minister of Community Services.

Just to give you an example…. I think many people in the House would obviously know this, but I think people that watch often see the drama, if you could call it, of question period and certainly the debates here, but we all come here with an interest in solving problems.

The Golden and District Search and Rescue provides a valuable volunteer service to people not only on the Trans-Canada, one of the most dangerous sections of highway in Canada…. I think there was a four-week period where 17 people were killed on that section of highway between Sicamous and the Alberta border, and this is with improvements that have been made.

It is a volunteer group that looks after coming and dealing with those accidents and also deals with going out and looking for people that have been out snowmobiling and have been hurt or lost, deals with people who have come to hang-glide or to hike.

There was an issue that needed to be dealt with. In the past year I think there have been five Solicitors General. Things slipped through the cracks, but when the time came to actually deal with the issue, both ministers stepped forward and very quickly found a solution that we think will work.

One of the stories that I think we need to tell is that regardless of the views we bring here — and they are very different in terms of how we think the province should be governed — at the core we're all here to try to serve British Columbians, not only the ones that we represent but the province as a whole.

I just wanted to start off with that. I also wanted to say congratulations to Ms. Clark for success in winning the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party. There are many challenges ahead for her. I have to say that one of our goals is to increase those challenges. That's part of our job, but nevertheless, she deserves congratulations.

I want to congratulate our new leader. I think all members here would agree that he brings a tremendous energy and intellect to the role of Leader of the Opposition. In our view, he will bring that to his role as Premier as well in what we hope is the not too distant future.
[ Page 6439 ]

In response to the budget speech which was made in February, when it was presented, we were told it was a placeholder budget. Now we are told that it will stay as the budget for the time being. There are problems with that. The service plans do not match the existing ministries. We can pull some of that information together.

But I have to be honest. The Natural Resource Operations ministry's service plan, as it stood, was not very fulsome in terms of information anyway. There's also approximately a billion dollars that's largely unallocated. In effect, it was left as a slush fund for the incoming Premier to spend as they wish.

All of this makes it difficult to deal with the budget in a meaningful way, and it doesn't give you a tremendous sense that the government is fully organized the way that it needs to be.

[1705]

At its base the confusion around the budget is likely tied to confusion around the harmonized sales tax.

I think there is no question that there is a lesson for politicians that if you cross a line with the public, there are repercussions. Really, since 2009 and the 2009 election there has been a tremendous reaction by the public — through the initiative act but also just in interactions with individual MLAs — where they've said that on the mischaracterization of what the deficit would be during the election but also primarily on the HST…. People are simply not going to accept that a government can come in and introduce a tax without a mandate. So we are going to go through a process where the government is going to try to get a mandate for the introduction of the HST.

Now, it will be in hindsight, since they've already introduced it, but they are forced now to go and try to seek in some way that mandate.

When Ms. Clark was running for the leadership of the B.C. Liberals, she had a couple of positions. Eventually she ended up with the idea that she would move forward the referendum on the HST. Now it looks like that result is going to extend well into August, a mere month or so ahead of the original date of September 24.

There's no question that the confusion around the HST continues to be a problem for the government as a whole and adds to the confusion of the government. It also continues to provide difficulty and hardship for businesses.

The area that I represent is a border community. It was always going to be impacted in certain sectors pretty dramatically by its proximity to the Alberta border. The confusion around whether the HST will stay or go adds to problems for businesses that are real. So we still have that to deal with.

I think a sign of a government that is tired and stale is when it starts to believe its own propaganda. There's certainly a tremendous amount of government resources that have gone over the past ten years into propaganda. I think we're still, even with the renamed public affairs bureau, and I don't know…. I can't think now of the new name for the public affairs bureau. It's almost 200 members. It is a massive operation that spends a tremendous amount of money. But the mantra that it puts out about the B.C. Liberals being good managers is one that is often defied by the facts.

The fact is that there is plenty of opportunity to point out areas where they simply have not been good managers. There are things that you need to do to make sure that a project is going to go ahead. If you make basic mistakes, you're going to run into problems. It doesn't matter if you're the B.C. Liberals or the B.C. NDP. If you do not follow proper process in terms of planning and exercise, you run into problems.

If you look at the convention centre overruns, if you go back and you look at the planning that was done, it simply was not done properly. Everyone would accept that that's the case. There was no business plan.

Similarly, when you look at B.C. Place, there's confusion there around how that is going to turn out. The core problems…. You go back to a lack of planning that really should have taken place.

Smart meters. We have questions. Public lands. Private power. There's a whole host of issues where the management skills of the B.C. Liberals have just not been there. The facts are that we've gone through a period where the government has been sloppy and wasteful in a way that the public doesn't accept and shouldn't accept.

We're left now with the rhetoric of families first. Unfortunately, that's undermined by the spending and revenue generation decisions that you see in this budget.

What we need is.... We do need a new budget. We do need proper processes to make sure that we do not continue to mismanage in these areas.

There are three broad themes that I'll just talk about. The first one is just around due process and democracy and how this place should work.

[1710]

The rhetoric and the stated goals of a government need to be tested against the policy and spending priorities. That needs to happen, and to do that properly this institution needs to work better.

In the leadership contests of both parties there were substantive and detailed legislative reform initiatives. Both parties talked about the need, and I think that if MLAs were honest, they'd know that there needs to be improvements in how this place works. Some of those legislative reforms were to do with how members were chosen, such as election finance reforms, so the election process, or proportional representation.

Other ideas were specifically about how we operate in here, the use of private members' bills, but also active committees where MLAs can get together and actually do work that's different than the type of debates that we have in this setting, where there is a sharing of information and
[ Page 6440 ]
a discussion that is different in nature than what we have here. It's not to say that we don't need the question period, that we don't need these sorts of debates, but we also need the committee work where we work and have an opportunity to share — to share knowledge, to share experience, to share what we have heard from the people that have sent us here.

One of the ideas was around using the committee stage in a different way, where witnesses could be called and members would sit and have a committee stage that was different than what we currently have now in the Legislature.

I think all of those are things that make complete sense. My hope is, as the new Premier finds her feet and the Leader of the Opposition gets settled, that these ideas are not lost, that we look at improving this institution so that it can work better. Because we cannot fool ourselves into simply saying that we are good managers. Projects, policy initiatives will only go forward properly if they're thought through and if they have a process that makes sure that they're properly thought through. This institution needs to be an important part of that process.

Quite frankly, what I've seen over the past number of years is a steady degradation of this institution. For us not to sit for ten months is problematic not only because we're not doing the work we're supposed to, but because also what it says to the public about the relevance of this institution. If we can not sit for ten months, then it quite properly raises the question in people's minds: what is it that we do here? This has to be relevant. This has to be an important institution. So we need to improve.

We also need to remember that in the past two years almost every important piece of legislation that was passed here — whether it was the carbon tax, the HST, changes to the Election Act, the so-called Clean Energy Act…. All of those were passed using closure. We truncated the system, and it did lead to sloppy legislation. It led to situations that had to be corrected in the future.

There's no question that if you do not have a good process that this Legislature is part of, you are going to create problems for yourself — sloppy legislation. We have had the Supreme Court even tell the government that some of their actions here are actually unconstitutional. There's a sloppiness to that that needs to be corrected, but it will only be corrected if this institution works better.

You could do something immediately. We have a budget that spends a tremendous amount of money. There is detail to be looked at if we're going to do the job properly of understanding how that money is going to be spent. It is as simple as extending the time that we sit.

[1715]

For some reason it has now become normal for an end date to be set for when the session is supposed to finish. In times past the session would continue basically until the opposition ran out of steam. But there was a decision back in 2002-2003 to change that so that it would break at a certain time and continue in the fall. Well, it has become practice not to continue in the fall. Therefore, you get these extremely truncated sessions.

A simple thing to do would be to simply decide to extend the session beyond June 2 so that we could do the work that we're supposed to do, to continue until we feel that we, as an opposition, have done the job that's important, to check to see how the money's being spent, how the programs are unfolding. For us to not sit for ten months and then only sit for four weeks…. I don't think the public sees that as us doing the job properly. It would be a simple thing to do.

The other thing I would say is that as MLAs, each one of us has the ability to have some say on that. By simply going along with it, you enable it to happen. We each have ability within our caucuses. You no doubt have a leader that is always open to meeting with you. Simply go and have that discussion. Let's take the time to do a proper job with spending the public money.

The second point I want to make around the budget is around social equity and around making sure that we have a society that is as fair and as equal as possible — something that Canada has done very well over the years compared to almost any country in the world. Compared to most societies, we are a fairly equal society.

Now, many people have lived in other parts of the world. Those of you that have lived in countries where there is tremendous social inequity will know that it creates an unstable society. Certainly the disadvantaged feel that inequity far more than the privileged, but even the privileged live within a society where there are challenges. So we all share a need for a stable society that is based in social equity.

What we have seen in British Columbia, not only with this budget but with others, is a growth in that divide between those that are privileged and those that languish in poverty. There will always be some divide — there's no question — but we should strive to narrow it rather than to broaden it, and this budget does make our society less fair, again.

We can point to specifics. We can talk about the HST. The HST is a shift in taxation, an additional almost $2 billion a year onto the backs of individuals taken off corporations, but it's not just that. It's MSP increases, which is essentially a flat tax. You have residential care rates going up. You have social assistance set at an unreasonably low level.

All of these inevitably lead to outcomes such as the child poverty rate. While it's debatable, perhaps, what the child poverty rate is, there's no question that we have children and families in poverty at an unreasonable level and that if we had policy that was different than this, we could do something to better their situation. While we all talk about putting families first, the
[ Page 6441 ]
talk means nothing if the budget and the policy pieces do not create an opportunity for families and children and seniors to do better.

[1720]

The budget also doesn't really address in a meaningful way the need for jobs, which is another way that you address the equity issue.

In rural British Columbia we have lost thousands of forestry jobs, and we have lost a host of public sector jobs as well, and that has been devastating for many communities. There are examples of where a government, if committed, can assist rural communities. If you have a plan, if a provincial government is committed to rural development, there's no shortage of examples where provincial spending could really make a difference for a region.

You go back to W.A.C. Bennett. You go to the NDP. You go to examples even with this government where public spending created jobs and opportunity. I'll just use some in my area, and I'll just give credit to the Premier who stepped away, Premier Campbell. The highway spending in my area stabilized Golden in a significant way.

We have gone through a downturn in forestry, and we've been lucky, in some ways, that our mill has kept going. We went from about ten to 12 contractors to two or three. But the highway infrastructure spending kept families together.

People didn't have to go to Alberta. They were able to work on some very important projects that not only benefited the community and families in Golden but also supported an infrastructure that will need to continue to be improved. The Trans-Canada Highway, the Kicking Horse, the work that's been done now on the Donald Bridge, the work that will start on Clanwilliam — all of these are important investments that need to be continued. It just shows that governments, when they commit to doing something positive in an area, can have a very real impact.

Like I say, you can find examples from the Social Credit days, from the NDP, where those investments in rural British Columbia made a lasting difference to the communities.

Equity also comes through access to health and education. Overall, I think there's no clearer way of improving somebody's opportunity than to provide good, solid education — K-to-12, preschool opportunities as well as with university; that is something that creates equity that is real — and then opportunities to be treated when you're sick. So if you try to put in place policies that create a more equal society, you're not only benefiting those that are disadvantaged, but those that are more privileged will also live in a society that's fairer.

The final thing that the budget does not address that it really needs to is looking after the commons, the assets that we own. We are incredibly lucky with the public lands that we have, the Crown corporations that we have and the public services that we have. This budget allows the degradation of health and education, and it fails to look properly after our land.

There have been consistent cuts to what are called the dirt ministries. That's something that you hear not only from our side; you hear it from rural B.C. Liberal MLAs too. You cannot continuously make these cuts and expect to get the wealth that we need from the public lands.

It is expensive to look after some of these assets — there's no question — especially with climate change and some of the challenges that have come, but it needs to be framed in a certain way. Our public lands are worth an incredible amount of money. In the Vancouver Sun it talked about our public lands being worth a trillion dollars. That is far and away the most valuable asset that we have. There are almost no jurisdictions that have an asset like that, but you need to invest in it.

[1725]

With this budget, you see again a cut to the dirt ministries. You cannot do that year after year and fool yourself into thinking that you're properly stewarding the land or looking after that asset. If you were a good manager, then you would manage the land properly and understand that there are times when you simply have to invest, and there are investments that are needed.

We need research. We need to know what's happening on the land. We need inventory. We need to know what we actually have. We need to invest in silviculture, and we need proper oversight, proper oversight of what's going on, on the land.

Those are three areas that I used when I was looking at the budget. I tried to look at it through a lens of things that people tell me, in my area, are important. They feel that democracy is something that is always important to them. There's a strong sense that local decision-making is being taken away and there's a centralization of power, and therefore, people are really tuned in to the need for a more democratic say on things.

People recognize, in our communities, the need for social equity. Sometimes it's expressed as a rural-urban divide. Other times it's within our communities. We see that there's poverty that people don't accept as being something they can't fix.

Then the final thing is, of course, if you live in rural B.C., you love the land. We're surrounded by, as my predecessor here spoke about, the beauty of British Columbia.

So we look forward to the estimates process. Like I say, in my view, we need to have a more fulsome process than I think the government is prepared for. I think that that's something that we need.

I also will say that inevitably we're going to get to an election. This is a government that came in without a mandate, and they need to get one. The sooner there is an election, I think the better it will be for British Columbians. With that, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[ Page 6442 ]

J. Yap: It's my honour and a privilege, as always, to rise in this House to take my place to speak on this budget, a budget which reaffirms our government's continued focus on growing our economy, on staying the course, on keeping our British Columbia economy strong because it's through a strong economy that we're able to invest — to continue to invest — in the vital services that British Columbians expect of us.

I am proud to endorse and support this budget, which continues to allow for the economic recovery that we're starting to see in our province and to allow us to continue to grow and to continue to take our place as one of the stronger, well-performing economies not just in Canada but when compared to many jurisdictions around the world.

As the world continues to recover, we are well placed here in British Columbia, in spite of a number of the comments that we've heard from members from the other side — perhaps not the last speaker, the member who just spoke. But before I launch into the substance of my comments, I do want to address a couple of points by previous speakers from the opposition.

The member for Nanaimo, who was two speakers back, spoke about flimflam budgets, and we can't let that one slide, because we all remember the fudge-it budget of the 1990s. It's important to be clear that that was the one budget in the 1990s. We all remember it like it was just yesterday when the opposition, when they were in government….

Interjections.

[1730]

J. Yap: Obviously, we've touched a nerve here .

Well, to the new House Leader for the opposition, congratulations. He was around in the '90s, so he'd remember well. But it's important to remind British Columbians at every opportunity. Just as the member for Nanaimo talked about going back to the 1970s…. You know, I'm only going back to the '90s.

It's important to remember that that was…. Talk about flimflam budget. That was a flimflam budget — the fudge-it budget in 1996.

The last speaker, from Columbia River–Revelstoke, I have to say, held my attention. He had a reasonably balanced dissertation, but he did make a comment about confusion about the HST, which I believe bears some comment on our part.

It's precisely because of the confusion about HST that we need to ensure that the right information is available to British Columbians, not try to oversell British Columbians but to provide the information and to allow both sides of that important debate, probably the most important economic debate that we will have in this generation, about whether we are going to keep a progressive value-added tax system, which jurisdictions around the world — mature, growing economies; western economies — use, value-added tax or HST, versus going back to an outdated system that is arbitrary, not cost-effective: the old PST system.

So it's important to get the right information out there, and we will be getting that information out there. I know the member for Fraser-Nicola is anxious to hear my comments, and we will get to them in very short order.

As we mentioned, we're going through economic recovery. B.C. is well placed. This is a time of change, as we've all noted, including new leadership on both sides of the House. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Premier, our new Premier Christy Clark who, very shortly, we look forward to welcoming to this chamber. She, our new Premier, and our government will continue to offer a positive vision for British Columbia.

I congratulate the new Leader of the Opposition, the new NDP leader, who was recently elected. I congratulate him on his victory in now being the Leader of the Opposition, because now we have a very clear choice that now we can offer, contrasting visions: one that Premier Christy Clark offers, a positive vision for the future, focused on families, investing in our economy so we can see continued job growth and investment, and the other vision, which is quite frankly a throwback, going back to the bad old days of the 1990s.

We look forward to that coming campaign, which…. I've noticed a number of members of the opposition seem to be very anxious to hit the hustings and — who knows? — they may get their wish sooner rather than later.

B.C.'s economy continues to show resilience and growth, and 2010 was clearly the turnaround year. The effects of the economic downturn, of course, are not fully worked through, and we still need to continue to focus on areas where the downturn in the economy has affected British Columbians, but generally, we have good reason to be optimistic, new Madam Speaker.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Exports, housing starts, retail sales, tourism, mining — all these numbers are on the rise, and they're not just numbers. Members, these are numbers that mean something. These are numbers that mean that there's economic activity going on. There's investment going on. There are jobs that are being created.

[1735]

In fact, as we all know, but we haven't heard it from a single member of the opposition, over 400,000 net new jobs have been created in the province of British Columbia since 2001. So this budget will put us in a good position to continue with prudent fiscal management, with a continued competitive tax system to ensure that our economy is well placed, that we will not return to our have-not status of the 1990s and that we will continue to grow into the future.
[ Page 6443 ]

So we have our new Premier, and in just the first month or so in office Premier Clark has already demonstrated our government's pledge to deliver on new investments in schools, in education. In my community, in Richmond, we recently were able to participate in the grand opening — Madam Speaker, you were there as well — for the new $16.4 million Samuel Brighouse Elementary School, which replaces the old school on the same site. Members, if you haven't had a chance to visit a LEED school, this is the one to go visit. This is built to LEED school standard. It is probably the most sustainable elementary school building in the province of British Columbia.

Students at Brighouse Elementary were involved in the planning process. You know, what a great educational experience for them to be involved early in planning and figuring out: how would the school look? What should be the look of the school and the layout and so on? They were asked to draw and design, these students, their dream school. Several of their ideas were actually incorporated in the new school. Part of the new school is a neighbourhood learning centre and community literacy centre that will include family literacy programs targeted to provide services to families new to Canada — great programs.

In fact, since 2001 capital and seismic projects worth almost $72 million have been completed in Richmond school district, including, in my riding, Richmond-Steveston, the replacement of Steveston-London Secondary; and in the centre of Richmond, Richmond Secondary; and further east, the new A.R. MacNeill Secondary; and seismic upgrades to Garden City Elementary — investments in our education system in my community.

With this budget, funding for our education system continues to be a key priority. In fact, school district funding will reach $8,357 per student full-time-equivalent by the year 2011-12, an increase of over 33 percent since 2001. We don't hear the opposition talk about that, but that is a substantive increase.

Our new Premier has made it the prime objective of our government to put B.C. families first. Yes, I know that some members of the opposition have chosen to not feel that this should be a priority, families first. This budget demonstrates the focus on families which our Premier has made as one of our key priorities. We make provisions for supporting B.C. families.

For example, we've raised the minimum wage and eliminated the training wage. After consulting with stakeholders, we have rolled out over the next period of time, over the next year, an increase in our minimum wage, which will continue to place British Columbia well when compared to other jurisdictions and to allow our economy to continue to grow.

We also have another way in which we're demonstrating that B.C. families are a priority — by allocating additional funds to child care providers across the province. We don't hear the opposition talking about that.

Last month in our community of Richmond, community organizations received over $800,000 in gaming grants. In all, throughout the province, $120 million in community gaming grants would go to about 6,000 B.C. community groups during the current fiscal year — important investments in our communities.

[1740]

One of the key areas that all British Columbians care about, health care, continues to be the major focus of our budget. Taking care of our health care system is part of putting families first, making sure that families have good access to the services they need in our health care system. This budget confirms our government's commitment to supporting health care and to achieving high-quality health outcomes for British Columbians.

The Ministry of Health services budget has been raised by almost $2 billion compared to 2010. Again, we don't hear the opposition talking about that, but it is a real and a meaningful increase. You know, as the previous speaker, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, mentioned in his comments, it isn't just about increasing the dollar amount. It's also about ensuring that we're making sure the delivery is improved. It's about getting the right outcomes. We have a really good health care system here in British Columbia, one of the best in the country.

Speaking of investments in health care, as a tangible example, one close to home for the people of Richmond, we saw just a week ago the grand opening of the newly renovated and expanded emergency department at Richmond Hospital — which, Madam Speaker, I know you recall very fondly — where the additions to this great ED, or emergency department, include things like more overflow beds, nine flexible care spaces added, a dedicated pediatric resuscitation room, a larger waiting room to handle the demand and a new urgent care centre.

The new Richmond Hospital emergency department will provide state-of-the-art care for Richmond and the region — for residents, for families and for visitors. Richmond Hospital's emergency department is the first emergency department in B.C. to use the Vocera system, which uses simple voice commands to allow hands-free communication between staff at the emergency department — a great innovation, a great investment, tools for our great health care workers to continue to provide great service. That's another example of the continued investments in health care.

Now, I mentioned earlier that this budget maintains our competitive tax structure. Again, that is a point of contrast between the opposition and this side of the House. We believe that it's important to have a competitive tax structure so that we can continue to grow our economy and we can continue to attract investment and thereby the jobs that will come with it — and with
[ Page 6444 ]
more jobs, more investment, a growing economy and more revenue that we can draw on to fund the services that British Columbians expect.

It's been mentioned already, but it's worth repeating again. Since 2001 British Columbians have had their provincial personal income taxes reduced by 37 percent or more. An additional 325,000 people in the province of British Columbia no longer pay any provincial income tax. As a result, we have Canada's lowest personal income tax rates for individuals earning up to $119,000. That is an important cornerstone of ensuring that our tax system is competitive, which thereby allows people to make the choices and allows our economy to continue to be tax-competitive.

On corporate income taxes. We've been able to keep our corporate income taxes among the lowest in the country. In fact, our small business corporate tax rate will be going down to zero in 2012. This is very important and is another point of difference between this side of the House and the opposition.

[1745]

Their new leader has talked very candidly about increasing taxes, and it's important that all of us on this side of the House at every opportunity ensure that British Columbians know that they have the choice between competitive taxes and a return to the days of higher taxes, which we can expect should the new leader and his colleagues ever be given the opportunity to be in government again.

This budget will allow British Columbia to continue to be a magnet for investment. B.C. is blessed to be Canada's Pacific Gateway, and certainly in our community of Richmond we are the gateway within the gateway of British Columbia.

As we all know, the opportunities for British Columbia are boundless. As we look westward, especially towards the Asia-Pacific to economies like China's and India's, that's where the future economic potential for our province lies. We are well positioned to continue to benefit from trade, from investment from that region.

China now is B.C.'s second-largest foreign market for wood products, after the United States. In the first two months of this year, 2011, China accounted for more than 28 percent of all wood exports, continuing the pattern of sales which have been doubling every year in the last few years.

That really highlights our position as an open trading economy. B.C. is a trading province. That is how…. Most of our wealth and the revenues that we come to depend on ultimately come from trading. We always have been, and we always will be, a trading economy.

Richmond, my community, will continue to be well positioned to contribute to this growth in Asia-Pacific trade. We know that Richmond has a sizeable immigrant population. Many people in Richmond continue to have close relations — whether they're family, business, familial — with their countries of origin in the Asia-Pacific region.

Expanding our trade opportunities to their fullest potential is there for us and, as I mentioned, involves ensuring that we keep our competitive tax structure and that we continue to attract investment and the creation of jobs in British Columbia. This budget will help us do that.

Now, we are also blessed with a very special physical environment. We live, as all members will agree, in the best place on earth. This is a beautiful part of the world. It's our responsibility to address the challenges of climate change and support the continued development of more sustainability, clean energy and green technology initiatives.

In that regard, as has been said, B.C. has a leading role in clean technology. For example, in renewable energy, in green energy, we really are leading the way in British Columbia, and it's a powerful economic driver which we look forward to continuing to support the creation of green jobs around the province, especially in parts of the province where jobs are needed.

The clean-tech sector, the low-carbon economy, is a very important sector here in British Columbia and one which all British Columbians should be proud of. One of the largest clusters in the world, after California and Germany, is right here in British Columbia.

This budget shows our government remains committed to nurturing the clean tech sector. Whether it's LiveSmart, whether it's the innovative clean energy fund, the climate action clean energy fund announcement made in this budget…. In fact, for example, just last week our new Premier celebrated Earth Day by announcing provincial funding for a new biomass energy project, a clean energy project at Simon Fraser University that will eliminate 11,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases every year when it's fully developed, an 80 percent reduction in the carbon footprint of Simon Fraser University and the residents who now live at UniverCity.

[1750]

This plant promises to be one of the great emission reductions in the public sector. This is important because we all know that this is the year — well, 2010 was the year — that the public sector of our province will be carbon-neutral. And speaking of carbon neutrality, the carbon tax — an important, innovative tax, a revenue-neutral carbon tax — which our government brought in and the opposition opposed…. In fact, I recall they were very opposed and made it a major part of their election campaign in 2009 to try to defeat the tax. British Columbians chose to keep the tax by re-electing our government.

The carbon tax helps to put a price signal that has been slowly growing over time on carbon emissions and, as I mentioned, this is a revenue-neutral carbon tax. Every dollar of carbon tax collected, about $740 million annually presently, is returned to taxpayers through tax reductions. This is an approach to taxation that has received positive comments — in fact, great feedback —
[ Page 6445 ]
from jurisdictions around the world. This is a great way to structure a change in how we approach taxation.

The tax reductions that I mentioned ensure that we balance the need to deal with climate change with a priority to ensure that our economy remains strong, again tying back to what we talked about in terms of a competitive tax structure. But ultimately, British Columbians care deeply about our environment, and with this budget our government takes specific targeted action to lead the change that people expect and want.

It allows for initiatives to invest in green technologies and encourages energy conservation such as the climate action revenue incentive program, which is a program put in place to reimburse local governments for the carbon taxes that they pay. For 2010 this amounted to $3.8 million returned to municipalities that signed on to the climate action charter. My community, Richmond, alone received over $225,000 in climate action revenue incentive funding.

Before I leave the discussion on competitive tax structure, I want to go back to the HST. British Columbians will soon be given the choice. This is a historic choice. This will be the choice, as I said earlier, that will allow us to keep a competitive tax structure with the HST — a value-added tax that will ensure that our economy can continue to be productive and grow — or to go back to an outdated system, a costly system, an ineffective system, an arbitrary system, the PST.

We've heard all of the negatives about going back to the old system. I won't go back to that. But the key here is we need to ensure that there's a good level of public consultation to preparing British Columbians for the day when they will receive their ballots in the mail and make their choice and mark their ballots and mail them in.

Our government has announced $1.7 million in funding to ensure that well-informed public engagement on the HST occurs around the province. As I mentioned earlier in my opening comments, it's important that we do that so that the people of British Columbia can receive the information and come to a decision as individuals all around the province and make a decision that will have real consequences for our economy today and in the years ahead.

[1755]

Of this $1.7 million, $500,000 will go to creating a public dialogues fund to be independently managed by the province's public universities, colleges and institutes to hold informative public dialogues. This is a great way to allow for non-partisan discussion, dialogue, debate, and a great way to do it through our universities and colleges.

In the lead-up to the referendum campaign the province has launched Talking Tax, a public engagement process to consider options to improve the HST, and it is important that we have that discussion. Talking Tax will include over a dozen tele–town hall meetings where British Columbians all across the province can give their input, and I invite all British Columbians to make the time to participate in this important process.

In closing, I'd like to reiterate that I'm proud to support this budget. It's a budget that will help British Columbia continue to stay the course on economic growth. It's a prudent budget that invests in key areas, that continues to ensure that British Columbians can have confidence in the direction that our government is taking, direction that has been affirmed time and again by international capital markets that have continued to bestow a triple-A credit rating to our province's debt issues.

This is a budget that will help British Columbia deal with the challenge of our times and that will improve the lives of British Columbians. I really believe it.

To wrap up, I would like to take this opportunity to express thanks to the many people in my riding, Richmond-Steveston, who have given me the honour of representing them as their MLA since 2005. I want to especially thank the people close to me who help me do my job as MLA, my constituency assistants Paige Robertson and PoWah Ng.

I also want to express thanks to the core people who are most important to me: my family. That's something I am sure I share with all members of the House. We can't do what we want to do on behalf of British Columbians if we don't have the support of our families, and I want to take this opportunity to thank my wife and my two children, wonderful people, for allowing me to do this job on behalf of the people of Richmond-Steveston and all British Columbians.

S. Simpson: It's great to be back. It's great to have an opportunity to be in this place. It's been a long time, as some of my colleagues have said. It's about four days in the last ten months we've been here. It's kind of nice to be back, even if it is only for a handful of days. I think, depending how it plays out, it may be 17, 18 days that we're going to be back for this entire session. It is a bit beyond me as to why we're going to exit here on the second of June and why we're not going to continue.

There's lots of business to be done for people here. As has been pointed out, should Premier Clark be successful on the 11th of May, when she's in her by-election, she'll be back here, I think the speculation is, maybe for the last week or so, in time to do Premier's estimates — should she be successful.

I'm sure we'd all like the opportunity — and I would think that she'd like the opportunity, too — to come back and maybe spend a few weeks here and talk to British Columbians using their House, their place, about her vision for British Columbia and to have that exchange from the two sides of the House about that vision and about the values and about the differences that I've heard members on the other side talk about between our vision and the B.C. Liberal vision. I think it would be great. It would be a great opportunity to come and do that. But
[ Page 6446 ]
I don't expect that's going to happen, so I'm pleased to get a chance to at least come back for a few days.

We all know that while we haven't been here and we haven't been sitting in this place, it's been a pretty eventful time. As has been noted, we have a new leader on the government side, a new Premier, our Premier Clark. My congratulations to her on her success.

[1800]

Of course, on our side the member for Vancouver-Kingsway has now become the Leader of the Official Opposition, and we're very pleased to have the member for Vancouver-Kingsway in the job as our leader, being able to provide a very strong, precise, insightful and thoughtful view of British Columbia that does distinguish us very much from what is offered on the government side.

Now, part of the challenge here — and this being the budget debate, I'll want to connect this to the budget — of course, is that when Premier Clark got elected, she ran and she campaigned on change. I think that probably was the message we heard more than anything else. I appreciate that message because I think that she's a smart enough politician to know that if she didn't try to distance herself as far from the B.C. Liberal record and the B.C. government as she could, at least in her rhetoric, she would be positioning herself for a guaranteed failure in the next general election, which will come sometime in September or October.

She was in a position where she had to make this argument that she was about change. Now, of course, change…. For those people who understand the legislative process, probably the biggest thing we do every year when we come here is to adopt the budget for the year.

The budget — more than anything else, more than any piece of legislation, more than any initiative that comes through this House — really defines the direction of the province, defines the values of the government of the day and tells British Columbians what it is that we are choosing to do as a province, the direction that we are heading and what the priorities are. That always is, first and foremost, a message that is delivered through the budget process.

So it is remarkable that this Premier, who talked about being the Premier of change, would not see any reason to set aside the budget that was brought forward in February and to bring forward a budget that actually talked about some kind of change. As the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the previous Finance Minister, said when he introduced this budget back in February…. He was very clear that it's a status quo budget. It's a stand-pat budget.

It was a budget that had two purposes. One was to create quite a large cushion for the new Premier — in this case about $950 million this year, about $2.5 billion dollars over three years of cushion — that allows the new Premier some room to move on initiatives. It's an understandable thing to do, but it was done as a stand-pat, which essentially said that nothing else was changing.

In fact, what we know is that when the new Premier came in and advanced her cabinet, she advanced a cabinet that has a number of portfolios that don't correspond at all with what was in the budget in February. At some point over the next number of days, I suspect, we're going to have to see some kind of legislation or some kind of regulatory action on the part of the government to restructure this budget in some fashion, to have it mirror the portfolios that the government now has.

We're debating a budget here that does not reflect the portfolios as they exist today. It was a budget that was adopted when there were quite a few different portfolios and a different composition to the executive council. So now we're doing something quite different, but that's not reflected in the change that's been made here because this wasn't a progressive budget. It wasn't a thoughtful budget. It was a budget that had the purpose of creating some room.

The only other real reason we came back in February…. Let's be clear. There's a statutory requirement, and the government had to get a spending bill, an interim supply bill, through so that it could spend some money through to the end of July or so, so that we wouldn't end up turning out the lights on government. That's what we were here to do for our four days that we sat in February, when this budget was brought forward, never intended to be passed at all.

[1805]

So what do we see today? We see a Premier who is supposed to be all about change who does not bring forward a new budget, who does not bring forward a new throne speech, who — as it appears, if we're going to exit this place on the second of June — is not prepared to come and spend any amount of time in her place here, presuming that she wins the by-election, defending her view of British Columbia or even advancing her view of British Columbia, because we certainly haven't heard very much so far.

It's troubling, to say the least, that we have this situation. We have the Premier embracing a stand-pat status quo budget that's not intended to do anything, on one hand, while on the other hand she attempts to tell us that she is the agent of change. Pretty remarkable. Pretty remarkable.

What can we expect from the Premier, and what can we expect when we actually do see something from her, something from this Finance Minister, from this government in terms of where we're going? Well, there are some serious questions about this, and there are serious questions about the capacity to deal with this and what kind of reckless behaviour we are likely to see out of this Premier in regard to this budget — what kind of reckless behaviour and irresponsible action we're likely to see.

It's not me who would say that. I would remind members here that back during the campaign, back when Ms.
[ Page 6447 ]
Clark was running for the leadership, there was the debate about her policies around spending and tax cuts and deficits and tying the health care to the GDP and that whole variety of things. There were some serious concerns raised.

Those serious concerns were not raised by this side of the House. Those serious concerns were raised by other members of this House. I think it was the now Minister of Education who on the second of February was quoted as saying: "More and more, it's abundantly clear that Ms. Clark's positions are simply not credible, and it shows that she has no real plan for our province, our economy or our families."

That wasn't the only comment of the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education then on Radio NL, a radio out of Kamloops, on the eighth of February…. This was in discussion of one of the new Premier's more creative ideas of tying health care spending to GDP. So the Minister of Education said at that time: "This is a recipe for no end of problems in the health care system. To try to find, as an example, over the next year or two $750 million in reductions to meet this unrealistic plan, I have no idea where she would begin to find $750 million, but I'd love to hear from her where she would propose to do that."

Well, we would all love to hear from her where she would propose to do that, and we'd like to hear from her in here. Now, to be fair, I wouldn't want anybody thinking the Minister of Education was just singularly being particularly hard, because of course the Minister of Finance on the 12th of February in the Vancouver Sun on that very same issue, around tying health care to GDP…. Well, today's Minister of Finance said: "I respectfully disagree with the position that you could tie it artificially. That would involve finding hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of cuts that would be very, very difficult to do."

He's right. He's right, but we don't know because, unfortunately, the Premier at this point is not here. Fair enough. She needs to run in an election, and I'm glad that she's doing that. But at some point, to get here, it would be nice if we spent a little time here after she arrived so we could talk to her about her creative economic plans.

Now, what are we talking about here when we talk about change? Let's talk about some of the issues that are in front of us — the economic challenges. We heard the previous member talk about the economy. What we do know about the economy today…. We have not heard one word, not one word, from the new Premier on this matter, and we certainly have a budget here that, as the person who introduced the budget, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the previous Finance Minister said, is a stand-pat budget, a status quo budget, a budget that is simply there to get us through our leadership race and allow the new Premier to really put their stamp on things.

[1810]

Well, we've had the new Premier for two months and, so far no stamp. So far no stamp, but what we do know is that over this period of time in British Columbia we have the highest levels of unemployment west of Atlantic Canada. We have economic growth that essentially is stalled out, and the best economic policy that this government is advancing and about to spend an untold amount, unknown amounts, of money to promote is the HST.

What do we know about the HST? Well, what we know is the HST, other than the way it was bungled and the government…. We heard the Finance Minister earlier today in question period acknowledge how badly they bungled the introduction of this legislation, of this new tax.

The thing that doesn't get talked about is this. This is a tax that we are told, by the government side and others, is revenue-neutral. It's a tax that will not put one more dollar into services for British Columbians, but it is a tax that will take almost $2 billion of corporate taxes and put that on the backs of working families and of small businesses.

This is a dramatic tax increase for working families and for small businesses, and for this government that says it's not about tax increases…. What they should clarify is that they're not about tax increases for their friends. That's what they're not about. But they're more than happy to increase taxes on others in British Columbia, whether it be almost $2 billion of HST dropped on working families and on small business or whether it be dramatic increases in MSP premiums, mostly hitting people in the middle class and in the lower levels.

Those of us, like everybody in this room, our employer, essentially…. The people are paying our MSP bills. That's true for lots of people, but there's a group of people there that pay that bill for themselves, and they are, in large part, small business people who are in fact working for themselves or are self-employed. They are people who are working in modest jobs where their employer doesn't pick that bill up for them — the people who least can afford it, often.

They're the ones who will pay those additional premiums, and that's a tax no matter how you cut it. But this government is prepared to dramatically increase that tax year after year after year. They don't have a problem with that.

This is a government that has continued to drive up the tax cost for working families, for working people, and to drive down the taxes for corporations. They have done that, trying to make an argument that says that somehow that results in jobs and investment. Now, we saw research recently reported out in the Globe and Mail that challenges that — not just for British Columbia. It challenges the whole thinking of that argument in this country.

What we have seen and what we have heard from people who certainly would hardly be called left-wingers is the argument or the analysis continually being made now that says: "Look, when you don't tie those cuts to performance in some way with a requirement of performance, then you in fact get a situation where you end up increasing dividends to shareholders, or you
[ Page 6448 ]
often end up creating revenue pools for offshore investment." But there is little evidence here….

I took the time back a month or so ago, since we weren't here — I happened to be over here — and asked the Legislative Library. I said: "Could you do something for me? Could you give me a list or show me any research that's been done by government independently — empirical, reviewed research that has been done — that makes the argument and clearly makes the case for linking tax cuts to job growth and investment and job creation investment?" The library, essentially, came back and said: "We can't. We don't have it."

[1815]

There's one thing…. The Legislative Library is a pretty remarkable place, and they do pretty remarkable work there, and they weren't able to come up and produce those independent studies by independent sources who weren't paid for by somebody who wanted a result that made the case that, in fact, you could draw that correlation in a way that was provable.

So we have a government that's just driven by ideology, by an ideology that says: "We don't like government very much. We like the corporate sector a whole lot better, and the more we can support them, we believe that it will be in the best interests of us all." Except there is little evidence to support that argument, and I'd encourage the government to produce some evidence that would support that argument.

Now, we're going to have this debate. The HST is going to engage a large part of our debate over the next period of time. But it's pretty concerning. Not only do we have the concern over how the $1.7 million that the government has announced will get expended. We know there's the $250,000 for a yes side, $250,000 for a no side and a half a million dollars for academic institutions to hold discussions and allow for forums for discussion. The rest of the money is for some kind of information process, but I haven't got an assurance.

The Minister of Finance today in question period did not provide conclusive assurances to tell us there would be no other spending by the government. Now, if he and the Minister of Transportation — who's going to be his buddy in this, I understand — want to travel the province and talk to people, that's all good, but he provided no assurances that we're not going to see more advertising and more spending to try to convince people that this tax shift of $2 billion on to their backs is good for them. So we haven't seen that, and it would be good to know what the situation there is.

The other thing that, of course, we've seen is the cabinet, the B.C. Liberal cabinet, basically say: "We're not going to spend a lot of money over here; $1.7 million is not a lot of money in the big scheme of things. But we're going to say to the corporate community, who are about to get, if they are successful with the HST, a $2 billion tax break every year…." You can be assured that they will, since there are no limits on third-party advertising, no limits on third-party spending.

I understand that Phil Hochstein, a good friend of the government's, is helping to lead the charge on this. That business community is going to spend millions of dollars advertising to convince British Columbians that it's good for consumers to give corporations a $2 billion tax break. That's what we're going to hear.

If the government was serious about making this about a discussion of the facts and of the evidence — the $700,000 or whatever they're going to spend on the brochure they're going to send out, and the academic work that's going to be done with the other half a million dollars, and a half a million spread between the yes and the no side — they would be saying to third parties, whether they be the corporate community or the labour community: "You're not part of this. We're limiting severely your ability to participate. You deserve to have a voice, but you don't get to blitz the airwaves with advertising and promotion to sell your position."

That's not what democracy is about. That's not really what democracy is about. But the government is prepared to let the corporate community do their dirty work to try to sell this tax.

Now, what we know is that there are a range of pretty critical issues that are facing British Columbians, and they are issues that simply are not addressed in this budget. They are issues that a Premier who wants us to believe she's about families first would be addressing, and she is silent. She is about to advance and adopt a budget that is silent. We have nothing in this budget that deals with questions of poverty. There is no poverty reduction plan. There is no poverty reduction strategy. There is nothing that talks about poverty with children, poverty with families, seniors.

[1820]

Other provinces, six other provinces across this country, have dealt with this issue — provinces of every political stripe. This is not an ideological thing, but it is about equality, and it is about the cost of poverty. Increasingly what we're learning is that poverty, even in just bottom-line economic terms, is extremely expensive for us.

It's time to deal with that. It's time to break that cycle of poverty. That requires a thoughtful strategy and a strategy that has targets, it has timelines, it's legislated, it has accountability, and people can see and measure how much success we're having.

There is nothing here. It is silent. The Premier has been silent on this issue. I know this is a question in Vancouver, it's a question in the valley, it's a question in the Okanagan, in Kelowna, in other areas — young families looking for ways that they get into the housing market. Young families say: "We have pretty good incomes. We're comfortable with our couple of incomes in our house, but there's no way we can even get into a starter home because we can't even get a sniff at getting
[ Page 6449 ]
close to a down payment because it just isn't working." But there's nothing here.

There are innovative ideas. We see them in the U.S. We see them in other places where governments and the private sector, the building sector, are doing innovative things to create opportunities for people to get into those markets. They still need to have the incomes. They need to pay the mortgages. They need to be accountable for the debt. None of that changes, but there's a way to open the door to allow them into the markets when, in fact, you have these very prohibitive down payment requirements and obligations that just make it impossible.

I think about people in my constituency. I have a young woman, a young lawyer, who said to me about a year or so ago — and things haven't gotten any better — that she at that time and her husband, who is also a young lawyer…. They're just beginning their careers.

She said: "You know, we have pretty good incomes. We can afford to pay a mortgage, but there just is no way we can put together the down payment. Yet we should be exactly the people that you want to have buying houses. We've got two incomes, start of our careers, they're going to grow, but we can't get in. So we either go some place else or we wait and we pay rent. We don't want to be paying rent because we want to be building equity. We want to buy an asset. We want to build equity. We want to start to have that dream." But there's nothing here. There is no help for those people.

Sustainability. The previous speaker talked about climate change. Well, we are looking at some of the biggest challenges being in our urban areas and issues around urban sustainability, but we're not seeing the conversation that needs to happen around how we deal with the two biggest pieces of that question.

There are lots of issues around green buildings and how we support that and how we deal with some better, more sustainable and efficient infrastructure, but it's transit and land use planning that are the keys to urban sustainability. We're not seeing anything here in this budget that begins to take us down that discussion at all.

Certainly, as my colleague from PoCo over here will know, the never-ending discussion of the Evergreen line…. You know what? We're still $400 million short on that. Whatever the government is doing…. I mean, we hear it's going to be built, but we don't hear a word about where the $400 million is coming from.

I saw the mayor of Port Moody on television the other night. I've seen him on TV probably for years now. He's looking a little older every year, just that increased frustration that there's a government here, a B.C. Liberal government, that talks this line. I mean, the only thing they've promised more often than the Evergreen line is Surrey Memorial Hospital. The only thing they promised more often is Surrey Memorial Hospital, but we've got a new record now. The new record is the Evergreen line.

The ex–Transportation Minister is over there. Maybe he can tell us. He's now the Finance Minister. Maybe he can tell us how this gets built. We're not hearing. What we're hearing here is that it's going to be built. So I'm looking forward to hearing how it's going to be built.

[1825]

Interjection.

S. Simpson: He's getting a little edgy over there. The Finance Minister is getting a little edgy because it's another broken promise. This is the minister of broken promises, one after the other — one after the other, the minister of broken promises. The government of broken promises.

So we have this situation where these key issues aren't being dealt with.

Deputy Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.

Is the member rising on a point of order?

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a point of order, Madam Speaker. What the member opposite is saying, and is saying this knowingly, is absolutely not true. It is factually incorrect. In fact, the provincial government has made a financial commitment that is in the budget, and the federal government has also made a financial commitment.

To say that is a broken promise is actually false and incorrect. I'd like the member to have the opportunity to correct the record.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

S. Simpson: This Finance Minister hasn't debated the budget yet, I don't think. Maybe he did in those four days, but it's not his budget. Maybe he doesn't want to debate the budget because it's not his budget. You never know. We'll get to see sometime over the next couple of days, I guess, whether this Finance Minister wants to speak about this budget.

The other problem we have here, of course, is we have this government that tries to tell us how we move forward with R and D and with innovation. Yet when you do look at the small bits of this budget that actually have things — my time is running out, so I'll just name one — what do we see? This government cuts student funding in the budget from what was $84 million, as it was estimated in 2010. This budget has $50 million in here — $50 million. So the government cuts funding in arguably one of the most important areas.

As my time is running out, what I would say is that we know that this budget is a stand-pat budget. It's a budget
[ Page 6450 ]
that wasn't ever meant to be adopted. It's a budget that was put there to get interim supply. Yet this government is so vacant of ideas, has no plans, is in such disarray that they can't put together a credible budget. So they brought this shamble forward, and they're advancing it.

I guess the reason this Finance Minister is not on his feet defending the budget is that he's probably as embarrassed by it as most British Columbians.

We'll get through this, and then we'll get on to an election, and we'll get on to getting a real government in place in British Columbia that respects British Columbians.

Interjections.

N. Letnick: A sane voice. I heard that.

It's indeed a pleasure to be back in the House and a privilege to be representing all the people back in Kelowna–Lake Country and the Okanagan, to be back amongst my colleagues on both sides of the House.

I wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his election and all the members on the opposite side who received their critic postings and, of course, to congratulate our leader on her victory and to predict that, just like the Vancouver Canucks beat Chicago, she will win the election and be here in the House soon enough. Hopefully, her win is a lot easier than theirs was.

The 2011 budget is a transitional budget, reaffirming government's commitment to funding the vital public services that British Columbians depend on while continuing to demonstrate prudent fiscal management during a time of transition and ongoing economic recovery. This budget reflects our responsibility to hold the line on government spending as B.C.'s economic recovery continues, with new spending focused on health care and social services.

The province will continue to deliver new schools, health facilities, road improvements and hydroelectric facilities throughout its three-year, $19 billion capital plan, including federal contributions and municipal contributions. Taxpayer-supported capital spending will return to historic levels as investments, accelerated in response to the economic downturn, are completed.

[1830]

If I have time at the end, I will talk about some of those capital investments right in my riding, but to start with, I want to go to the higher level, the broader level.

Exports, housing starts, retail sales and tourism numbers are all on the rise. Mining is back, with mineral exploration spending now more than ten times higher than it was at the end of the 1990s.

Some of the highlights from the budget are personal income tax reductions. We've seen tax reductions from 2001 to 2011 for seniors. A senior couple in 2001 was paying $889 in tax. Today a senior couple making $40,000 is paying zero in provincial tax. Individuals making $20,000 have received a 90 percent reduction in their taxes, from $785 down to $82 if they're making $20,000 in that time period.

We also have the lowest provincial income taxes up to $119,000 in the country. We are just about the same as Alberta. Alberta is a few dollars more in taxes than us, and the rest of the country is much higher. Ours is at $9,887, and after Alberta the closest province is Saskatchewan at $12,874, with the province of Quebec being $17,733 a year in provincial taxes.

We've seen a competitive corporate income tax rate over the last ten years, corporate tax reductions since 2001. The general rate has gone from 16.5 percent down to 10 percent, effective January 1, 2011. The small business rate is projected to go down on April 1, 2012, to zero percent. So those are some of the tax highlights from the budget, showing the private sector it is a good place to invest.

What we've seen over the ten years from 1990 to 2000 was an annual growth of 1 percent over that time period, and from 2000 to 2009 we've had a growth of 4.4 percent annually. That's 30 percent over those ten years, showing the good, positive outcomes of those competitive tax structures that were created during the 2000s and continue to be supported in this budget.

That also translates into jobs. The jobs over the last ten years have increased to where we're almost at 400,000 new jobs since 2001. That's what creates the wealth where families can afford to get those mortgages that the previous speaker was talking about — good solid jobs, and with those jobs, an increase in disposable income.

From 1990 to 1999 we saw disposable income in B.C. decline by 0.8 percent, but from 2000 up to 2009 we've seen an average increase of 2.1 percent. That's from $21,000 a year in people's pockets to over $25,000 a year in people's pockets. That, of course, is spent on our goods and services, which drives the economy and provides some tax revenue to government, which then goes into, of course, our big social programs like health care and education and others.

The balanced budget that we project for this budget shows that by 2013-2014 we'll be back to balance. We are looking every year at decreasing the deficit. It's important that we continue to move our way back to a balanced budget so that we can start paying off the debt that we've accumulated over the last few years since 2008 due to the sub-prime crisis started in the United States and then wrapped around the world in the economic recession that we've seen.

However, even with going back to balance by 2013-2014, we are still maintaining a debt burden that remains relatively affordable against other countries and other provinces. Right now we are looking at, by 2013-14, 17.5 percent of taxpayer-supported debt against GDP. This is compared to a historic low of 13.4 percent in 2008-2009.

We had the room to actually accumulate debt over the last two years because of the paydown in debt from 2001. The paydown in debt was from 21 percent of taxpayer-
[ Page 6451 ]
supported debt when the government took over from the previous NDP government, down to the low of 13.4 percent in 2008. With that fiscal room, we were able to maintain most of our social programs like reinvesting into health care and education and welfare payments. That way, we stabilized government spending even through a very difficult position that many other governments around the world did not have the luxury to do.

[1835]

Compared to other parts of the country, we see B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is low. We have in British Columbia a 15 percent debt-to-GDP ratio, only surpassed by Saskatchewan and Alberta, and when you compare ourselves to provinces like Ontario at 35 percent, more than double ours, or again, the province of Quebec at 47 percent, over three times ours, you see that Budget 2011 definitely shows that the previous policies of this government over the last ten years worked really well, and we continue to sustain positive growth in many of our areas so that we can have that responsible approach to managing our economy.

Now, over the last two years since I was elected, I've had the privilege of talking with many people at home — seniors, students and people of all incomes and backgrounds, The one thing that I feel most strongly about when I talk to them is that we have to live within our means. I get that message back to them as well, whether it's a senior who says they have paid their fair share of taxes over the years and want to continue to have health care services, or whether it's a student who says: "You know, I'm in post-secondary education, but I also understand that we have to live within our means."

What that means for me when I'm talking with them is yes, we can afford to spend a lot more money on health care, we can afford to spend a lot more money on social assistance, we can afford to spend a lot more money on agriculture, and we can afford to spend a lot more money on K-to-12, on post-secondary. But if we spend all that money in all these different areas, the only way we can do that is by incurring debt.

If we use that philosophy to incur debt today for the decisions that we're afraid to make, then that means those students that we were talking about, those students that I've been talking with would have had to pay off greater and greater debts over the years to come.

It's not an easy thing. It's not easy to look at the whole budget and decide where those choices are going to be made, and I would like to congratulate the government on making some hard choices, some good choices. We're still increasing health care by 5 percent a year. We're still looking at increases in education. We're still looking at increases in social assistance and increases in many other areas, but we still plan on balancing the budget by 2013-2014 so that we can give our children more choices as they move forward. That's going to be the theme of the rest of my speech.

The one thing that about the NDP way in the 90s that is definitely different from the way of this government is that after his win, the new Leader of the Opposition celebrated that now there's a clear choice of the party on the left and the free enterprise B.C. Liberal Party, an opposition party that has taken the art of searching for votes to a new level, promising everyone everything to gain electoral popularity, and a government party who has had to make some tough choices since the sub-prime mortgage triggered a worldwide economic meltdown in 2008.

The choice between the philosophies has always been there, and it's not new, but the consequences are clear, and that's long-term failure. The opposition only needs to visit our Legislative Library and read any number of financial journals to see the results of similar failed policies around the world in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Ukraine, Iraq, Pakistan, Argentina, Venezuela and others — all countries today in serious financial trouble. It's not the people of these countries, the good, hard-working people. It's the policies that the leaders choose to enact.

Take Germany, for example. Before World War II Germany was a united country. Families were united. Businesses were united. People were moving forward together — marriages, couples, people living on both sides of what was going to be the line. You couldn't find a difference between the two sides of Germany.

Fast-forward to a few decades after the Berlin Wall was put up and prior to unification, the income per capita was 3 to 1 between West and East Germany, between the rich and those that weren't rich — 3 to 1. In U.S. dollars it's $25,000 for the west and about $8,500 per year for the east. That's the difference that the socialist part of Germany had to face with the free market part of Germany — $25,000 versus $8,500, 3 to 1.

[1840]

Now, after reunification in Germany, after just a few years the average income per capita is greater than $35,000 for all Germans. It's a clear example of how economic policies, taking a people who have similar cultures and similar backgrounds and separating with economic policies, provide different results.

You don't have to go much further. Korea — families, again, living together for decades, probably millennia, separated by a line. The difference between North Korea and South Korea — the difference between socialist economic policies and free enterprise economic policies…. The difference here is a lot worse. In East and West Germany we had a 3-to-1 ratio. In North Korea and in South Korea it's a 17-to-1 difference. That's $29,791 U.S. per-year average income for the South Koreans versus $1,800 for the North Koreans.

Even closer to home, one needs to compare the policies of the NDP government of the '90s with those of former Premier Campbell during the last decade and this government. In the 1990s B.C. went, and we all
[ Page 6452 ]
know this, from a have to a have-not province to return to a have province under the leadership of the former Premier. During the ten years of NDP government, B.C.'s real disposable income per capita grew slower than every other province in Canada, with the average growth in Canada being almost eight times faster than it was in B.C.

Those same policies forced people out of the province. In the last four years of the previous administration, over 50,000 people left B.C. to find prosperity elsewhere in Canada. Under the NDP in the '90s, the unemployment rate averaged 8.9 percent, over 2 percentage points higher than the average under the current government.

In my 30 years in business…. That's 20 years of doing it and ten years of teaching it. In that time, 11 years in elected office, I've learned many things. I have a lot more things to learn, granted, but one of the fundamental rules that I've learned through that is that governments don't create wealth. Innovators, entrepreneurs, workers and businesses create wealth and jobs from which government takes a share to serve the needs of the people.

So unless the opposition have discovered that elusive money tree, then I would restate that the Leader of the Opposition is right. There is a clear difference between our approaches to sustainable economic growth. It's only through sustainable economic growth that, I believe, we can provide the majority of British Columbians with the services that they cry out so loudly for. That's health care, education and jobs, amongst many others.

We see business as our partners in delivering that wealth to British Columbians, and they see business as a target — a target for higher taxes and whipping up divisions in the population to help serve their personal political aspirations. It is clear. Here's what the Leader of the Opposition said during the recent leadership run: "We have to bring back some fairness to the economy…"

Interjections.

N. Letnick: Let me finish.

"…and under my leadership, B.C. will maintain competitive taxes by reinstating corporate capital tax on financial institutions to 2008." So that's what he means by fairness — raising taxes on business.

Experts agree that in a competitive tax system it's required to attract and encourage business investment, not scare them away. They're the ones that create jobs. B.C. has been able to find the reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 12 to 10 percent with revenue from the carbon tax.

Two-thirds of the revenue from the carbon tax is paid by business. We see the reduction in business taxes as a way to encourage businesses to continue to invest in British Columbia. The opposition leader sees that as an opportunity to grab some money and provide it to the people of British Columbia and say, "Vote for us, and therefore we'll be able to provide you more health care, lower tuition fees" and do all the other promises that they have come up with.

But then there's the question of how much the Leader of the Opposition hopes to get from this money tree, from this tax on business. He has suggested that rolling corporate tax cuts would bring in $268 million a year and reinstituting the corporate tax cut on banks would draw in $120 million a year. That's $378 million a year — $378 million to fund their health care promises, education promises, lower tuition fees, etc.

[1845]

Here are some more. He's promised to increase the number of midwives; recruit and provide support to physicians in rural communities; expand therapeutics; invest in home care, home support; rural health care; eliminate the $29.40 convalescent fee for recovering patients; eliminate senior care home rate hikes; set up cancer screening programs; expand medical coverage for adult insulin pumps; improve health cleaning audits to prevent infection outbreaks; increase funding to the Michael Smith Foundation and UBC's Centre for Health Services and Policy Research; invest $40 million into a rural health care initiative; and so on and so on.

I don't know how you can add all those up to equal $378 million, and that's not even including all the other promises that I said he made. So all of this — and I think it's coming to a tweet near you very soon — is fudge-it budget 2.0.

Corporate tax rates are one of the things that businesses take into consideration when they look at where they're going to invest. I know that we had TELUS come in front of the Finance Committee in the first year that I was a member of that committee, and they said that they were looking at investing billions of dollars in the province of B.C.

I posed a question to them. I said: "I heard that Bell Canada just invested $1.5 billion in the province of Ontario, and one of the reasons they cited as to why they chose Ontario to invest $1.5 billion was because of the tax certainty in Ontario, especially with the harmonized sales tax." I asked TELUS. I said: "What if we decide to go back to the old PST system?"

The answer I got was: "Well, we'll have to re-crunch our numbers." That's an honest answer. It's an honest answer because businesses make decisions based on marginal tax rates, and that change from a PST-GST combination to HST had a bottom-line impact to them of 3 percent, and that meant they were going to invest in British Columbia instead of investing in Ontario.

This move by the Leader of the Opposition to look at reducing or eliminating the taxes that we're looking at reducing on the businesses would also have an uncertainty, a risk factor, with corporations in the province of B.C.
[ Page 6453 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I believe that if the NDP were able to continue with that proposal that not only would we see people leave the province of British Columbia, but we would also see businesses leave the province of British Columbia. Not only would we see the businesses leave, we would also see businesses not move here in the first place.

You know what? When businesses don't move here, they don't take big ads in the paper saying: "We decided not to go to British Columbia because they've raised taxes." They just go somewhere else quietly and form their businesses somewhere else and create their wealth and jobs somewhere else.

I don't believe that it's in the best interests of this government or the people of B.C. to see the kind of rhetoric that we're getting out of the Leader of the Opposition, the kind of rhetoric that says, "We're going to fund all these promises that we made over the last ten years on the backs of businesses," because that means it's going to be on the backs of hard-working taxpayers in this province.

Noting the time, hon. Speaker, I'd like to reserve my spot and….

Mr. Speaker: You've still got some more time, if you wish.

N. Letnick: Do I still have some more minutes?

An Hon. Member: Intermission in the hockey game.

N. Letnick: Intermission in the hockey game. All right.

I won't have time to cover all this today, so I'll reserve my spot for tomorrow on this, but I'll start it.

Take post-secondary education, for example, in Budget 2011. The budget highlights the government's commitment to funding higher education. Funding for post-secondary institutions is $1.9 billion in 2011-2012. Post-secondary funding has increased by 36 percent since 2001-2002.

The provincial government is always striving to improve post-secondary education. Students pay less than one-third of the actual cost of post-secondary education. We have limited tuition increases at post-secondary education to 2 percent per year since 2005 to ensure post-secondary education in B.C. is affordable for both students and taxpayers. Further, this is the fifth straight year that B.C.'s tuition increase has remained below national average increases.

We know that students can continue to struggle financially after school, and this is why B.C. has developed programs that provide the most benefits to students who finish their studies, by either reducing or forgiving their loans, making it easier for graduates to get out of debt faster. In 2009-2010 the province forgave or reduced the loans for more than 22,000 students and provided more than $250 million in loans, grants and loan reductions to students accessing financial aid.

[1850]

Universities need to grow, and since 2001 B.C. has expanded the post-secondary system by more than 33,000 seats; increased the number of universities by seven, like TRU in Kamloops and UBC Okanagan right in my riding; and invested more than $2 billion in capital and infrastructure, making the system more accessible and more affordable than ever before.

This means a lot to the students all across the province. The fact that they can stay at home and study at home saves them thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars over the course of their degree programs in costs that they would have to incur by living away from home — those residential costs that they no longer have to pay because they're living at home — and in costs also by not having to complete their degree in maybe five years, where they did before 2001, because those seats were not available to them. It took them longer to fit all the course work in.

This investment in infrastructure is a major, major benefit to all the students throughout the province. So $17.8 billion, the amount of money invested in post-secondary education since 2001; 53 percent, the increase in annual operating funding for post-secondary institutions since 2001; $1.9 billion, the amount invested in support of post-secondary education this year alone; and almost $10,000 in per-student funding from the provincial government, up from $8,400 in 2001-2002.

That's seven new universities, campuses, across 2001. I'm just going to name them, besides the two that I've already named: Capilano University, University of the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island University, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Emily Carr University of Art and Design and, of course — I'll say it again — UBC Okanagan right in my riding. Over 250, the number of new degree programs approved by the Minister of Advanced Education since 2001, giving students more choices.

That's 430,000 spaces, the approximate number of students enrolled in public post-secondary institutions in B.C. This is the highest number ever. Of course, that means that people can stay at home, where it's cheaper for them to get their post-secondary education.

The budget also talks about health care. Budget 2011 provides the Ministry of Health Services with a $605 million increase in the 2013-2014 budget, up to 2013-2014, to sustain front-line service delivery. The new funding provided in the budget builds on the funding increases in past years to raise the Ministry of Health Services budget by almost $2 billion compared to 2010. By 2013-2014 health care expenditures will reach $18.5 billion and make up more than 42 percent of the total government spending.
[ Page 6454 ]

Budget 2011 provides $65 million over the three years to the Ministry of Social Development for income assistance and for individuals and families in need. But no budget can ever satisfy the health needs of a population. The discussion on health care in Canada goes to the very core of who we are as individuals and as a community. It is wrapped up with our values, emotional responses and experiences. At its core it's about finding the balance between the healthy supporting the sick, the rich supporting the poor and the young supporting the old, and to what level society is prepared to accept these supports.

On a patient-by-patient basis, we can afford the sky, but governments are provided limited budgets by taxpayers and must temper compassion for the individual with the reality of limited dollars. There will never be a silver-bullet solution to the fundamental questions and challenges around health care. It is part of our human condition, and through the process of adjusting our health system, we redefine our values and who we are as a people. Everyone dies, even the rich and powerful, and no amount of money can change that.

Just last week, this past weekend, Rev. Albert Baldeo passed away back in my riding. No stronger supporter of our government, of our people, will you find than Albert Baldeo. Everyone passes away.

Yes, we are living longer, but with long life comes more people with multiple chronic conditions and illnesses that require greater resources to cure and manage. The Canada Health Act has effectively transferred the risk of bankruptcy due to illness or injury from people to the state. In the long term, government can provide all manner of medical services required by the population through its capacity to borrow. However, in the long term, unlimited access to health care services is unsustainable to the economy, and difficult trade-offs must be made.

[1855]

This budget has given us more money for health care, and that's a good thing. The future is uncertain, and we must work together to live within our means so that those following behind us can enjoy more choices to address the challenges that will confront them.

Choices for tomorrow mean hard choices for today in all our budgets — health care, education, social services and other programs. But this government is ready to engage British Columbians in a productive dialogue on those choices and, with their support, make some tough decisions today for the betterment of future generations.

N. Letnick moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank everyone for their comments.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:56 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