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)

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Morning Sitting

Volume 20, Number 11

[ Page 6509 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2011

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: I call continued budget debate in this House.

Point of Order

B. Simpson: I rise on a point of order regarding the legislative calendar. According to standing orders of this House, the legislative calendar can't be changed without the unanimous consent of the House. There is the Victoria Day in the standing orders. The Victoria Day week the House is adjourned, and yet, the legislative website shows that the House is sitting that week. I would ask the Speaker for clarification as to the sitting of the House during the Victoria Day week.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I'll take it under advisement and get back to you.

Carrying on — budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

V. Huntington: I am happy to respond to the fiscal priorities we think the government is setting out for us this year. I must admit that it's a little difficult to speak to a budget that, although characterized as status quo, is all of a sudden supposed to reflect changes so recently made to ministries that we don't yet have their service plans or budgets. Hardly what I would call respect for one of the most important functions of the Legislative Assembly — that of holding the government accountable for its fiscal priorities.

Before I begin my specific budget comments, I would like to join other members in the House to congratulate both the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier on their recent victories. I also want to commend the Premier's interest in inclusive governance, and I sincerely hope this budget fiasco doesn't reflect on her attention to the democratic reform so badly needed in this place.

[1005]

The talented members of this House must be given the opportunity to properly represent their electors, and changing the way we do business in the assembly must start with committed leadership. The people of B.C. are eagerly awaiting proof that our new Premier truly intends to engage in meaningful change.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

How does one comment on a budget that is being treated like a minor annoyance by the government? A $40 billion budget which is tabled with severely limited hours of debate, is extended by interim financing, which doesn't even pretend to represent the true state of the ministries and which will be only given 90 hours of detailed debate.

Compare that 90 hours to the weeks spent scrutinizing the budgets of ten years ago. We now spend half the time our predecessors did examining the provincial purse. The decline of democratic oversight makes a mockery of accountability and opens the door for abuse to take a systemic foothold in the system.

Just as disturbing is the fact that we haven't been able to track service plans because ministries no longer exist. We can't track program expenditures because we no longer know where the programs sit. We can't determine whether the budget reflects a government vision because we have no idea what that vision might be, other than the vague new phrase "families first," and even then we can't forget that this budget was drawn up long before families first was the new government priority.

So how do we hold government accountable? Does this budget prepare us for a difficult future, or is it still cloaking the truth with rhetoric? The government that introduced this budget is, in some minds at least, ostensibly representing a different direction than the one we had yesterday, but when we listen to the debate from the government side of the House, we hear gratitude for the privilege of serving constituents. Is there an election in the offing, Madam Speaker?

We hear the same boasts that more money than ever before is being put into health and education. We wonder whether anyone over there has heard that everything else, and even health and education, is suffering — the Forest Service, environmental protection, agricultural lands in the Agricultural Land Commission, aquifers, public oversight, protection of children, access to justice.

I have said previously that widespread economic change is before us and that government needs to open a critical discussion with the people of this province. The government mantra to do more with less is becoming nonsensical. The reality is that right now we are faced with less, and we have to do less with less. The important issue before this government should be how we cause the least disruption to our social order during this transition to less. It is an issue with which this government refuses to grapple.

The government tells us their new priority is families first. We assume, therefore, that most government decisions now have to pass through this filter. But how is family first defined? We don't know. What is defined as important to family? We don't know. Certainly, some things are obvious: health care, education, safe communities, access to justice, the social safety net.
[ Page 6510 ]

But while we hear ad nauseam that more money is being put into health care and education than ever before, we still have large school budget deficits, crowded classrooms, overworked teachers, high illiteracy rates. We have overcrowded hospitals, long waiting times, insufficient medical staff. So we know that increasing budgets are still not able to do the job we presently expect.

The fact is that we will likely never have the money to fix these problems adequately. Our ability to treat disease, our expectations of the education system, our need to protect the environment and to ensure justice is available for all have outstripped our ability to pay, and it is time government admitted it and started that dialogue about our future.

As a society, we are just beginning to realize that we are going to have to lower our expectations. But as we suffer the reality, how do we go about preserving what people, what families deem most important? That is the issue for leadership, and that is the leadership that is lacking.

We need a public dialogue about the size and the kind of government we can afford. We need to debate the size and the kind of social safety net we can afford. We need to see a deficit reduction plan, one that is attached to the debt and which allows us to make our social adjustments over a long term.

[1010]

We need to know how to deal with the coming crisis, and we need leadership desperately. Where there is a vacuum in leadership, it will be filled.

One of the most disturbing things I have read in some time is an article in the April 27 Globe and Mail entitled "As Health Care Costs Soar, Business World Seeks a Future." Canada's major financial institutions, joined by other large businesses, are funding the Canadian Alliance for Sustainable Health Care, a group organized by the Conference Board of Canada.

This group wasn't called together as a government task force. It wasn't called together as a royal commission. It wasn't contracted by elected officials or ministry staff. It is big business that decided it will no longer support the system as it is and that has set about plans to consider radical change. So where government should be leading and in control, it is losing control of the policy issue. We will end up being forced to react to an industrial design for health care delivery.

Now, I'm the last person to fault a new and businesslike examination of health care delivery, but what I fear is the leadership and policy vacuum that is being filled by corporate power. These policy initiatives should be in the hands of government and answering to the terms of reference set by government, but government has dropped the ball on health and in almost every other sector of our economy and society.

The failure to provide strategic leadership and the need to do with less is leading us down a very difficult and dangerous path, and the increasing pressure of corporate influence is being felt in more sectors of our society.

But aside from the strategic failure of leadership that so concerns me, there are, of course, particulars in the budget that specifically concern me and my constituency and, indeed, particulars that in themselves make it difficult to understand what priorities the families-first platform really has in mind.

Without the strategic debate, for instance, what is best for families can be somewhat arbitrary. For instance, is it better for families to keep business costs as low as possible, thereby encouraging employment, or is it better for families to have a higher minimum wage? I personally applaud the higher minimum wage, but does this government understand its impact on the employment statistics? And if so, has it a plan to ensure families don't suffer the economic consequences of a higher minimum wage?

Similarly, government has indicated that active outdoor lifestyles and healthy living are among the tools that break skyrocketing health care costs.

Further, the public consultation for this budget found improving funding to B.C. Parks was a priority for many British Columbians, who hate to see our park system deteriorate and who value the benefit parks bring to provide — and here I quote from the government — "healthy living, jobs, tourism and community-building."

Why, then, in B.C. Parks' centennial year does this budget include a $660,000 cut to Parks, still struggling from a similar cut in last year's budget and a $2.5 million reduction in the 2009 budget? Does this help families stay healthy in a well-managed environment? Or is that not part of the families-first plan?

The Finance and Government Services Committee also recommended an increase in the Ministry of Agriculture operating budget. Specifically, it recommended that the government "include…adequate resources to maximize the benefits of federal-provincial programs, such as AgriStability and AgriRecovery, and to finance a branding program for B.C…as was recommended in the B.C. agricultural plan."

Instead, the ministry budget was slashed yet again, and I am dismayed to see funding for the Agricultural Land Commission fall for another year, especially after the Auditor General found that lack of resources was already challenging the commission's ability to deliver on its mandate.

The ALC desperately needs more funding to properly conduct its monitoring and enforcement activities. In Delta South, for example, there is a serious problem with the dumping of fill in the ALR. The ALC cannot keep pace with the problem due to its lack of enforcement officers. This government fails to understand that viable agricultural land is essential to both our food security and our options for locally grown food, both of which are vitally important to B.C.'s families.
[ Page 6511 ]

This budget fails to engage the people in a debate on how best to survive the inevitable economic realities we are facing. The budget once again reflects a government that has ignored the necessity to lead the people of B.C. in a debate that will shape our future.

[1015]

We can face that future as strong and as united as we can possibly be, or we can enter that future with confusion and distress. It can be a disruptive and difficult time, or it can be an era guided by an organized and supportive transition to less.

It is up to government and the members of this place to choose the future that will protect not only the basics of our safety net but also the values of our democratic life. This budget tells us that the time has come for the government to lead.

G. Hogg: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to Budget 2011-2012. I have some musings to provide with respect to my perceptions of the budget and what is contained therein.

Like others, I'd like to add my congratulations to the new Leader of the Opposition and to all of those who stood for that position — for putting their name forward; for putting their ideas forward; for giving us a chance to look at, understand and better comprehend the relationship that exists between the policy and people.

Also, my congratulations to the new Premier of our province — for her interest and intrigue, for her interest in putting forward the notions of families first and what that might mean and how that may well be reflected in some parts of the budget that we have before us.

It's interesting to me the different perspectives that we have with respect to budgets within our own parties, within the Legislature, as we look at things from different perspectives and different senses of understanding. Budgets provide unique abilities for us to see the same issue from different perspectives.

There's something known as the Rashomon effect. The Rashomon effect was developed with a number of people who were sitting and watching a movie of a car accident. Those people were asked after to look at and to tabulate what had taken place. With 300 people looking and observing, there were almost 300 different perspectives on what had taken place.

Certainly, I think that that different understanding reflects the different perspectives we tend to see in this House and around this province as we try and find, as politicians, where the common ground exists, where we find the commonality of understanding which gives the opportunity for political will, for change and for things to take place.

One of my favourite anecdotes comes from Albert Einstein and Werner Heisenberg, who were two of the world's greatest physicists with the greatest understanding of what took place. They were sitting, back in probably 1929 or 1930, and Heisenberg said to Einstein, "You know, whether it's particles or people, we just have to observe them, and the principles will evolve. Out of those principles will develop the theory," to which Einstein said: "Heisenberg, you don't know what you're talking about." He said: "Your assumptions and your theories dictate what you see and how you interpret them. Things only become visible when our thinking makes that possible."

What thinking makes our budgets possible? What thinking makes our understanding possible and plausible? Clearly, the myriad perceptions and perspectives with respect to it really do tell us a whole lot about who we are and what we want to bring in terms of values and beliefs and structures to this Legislature and in terms of this budget.

Certainly, we're at the first time, probably, in recorded history where we have the metrics. We have the ability to understand what has taken place. We have enough data now stored that we can learn from that, and things are changing so incredibly quickly that our ability to respond to it becomes much more challenging.

In fact, I remember that Einstein — I think in 1929, when he was teaching at the academy of science in Berlin — went in to see his secretary to give the exam for the second semester and asked her to type the exam up. As she was walking out of her office, she said: "Wait a minute, Dr. Einstein. Wait a minute. This is the same exam you gave for the first semester." He said: "Oh, that's true. However, all the answers have changed." What he was saying was that even back then we were moving so quickly that things became so different in terms of their understanding.

[1020]

I read recently that technology, in terms of information technology, is doubling every two years in our world today. That means if you're taking a four-year degree in technology, if you take the first year, by the time you're in the third year, that first year's worth of information will be obsolete. So we are changing quickly, and it's very difficult to be able to develop budgets that are able to respond and lead that type of change that happens so incredibly quickly.

I had the privilege of being in Israel last November and meeting with Professor Hazan from Hebrew University. He was saying that it's interesting that in North America or in western democracies GDP has become the focal point, the principle by which we evaluate what we're doing — our debt-to-GDP ratio. That becomes the significant issue. He said that in Israel GDP is not an issue. He said: "We can have momentous growth in GDP, but we throw the governments out." He said that what's important in Israel is security.

If you're a right-wing government in Israel, your issue is security, and you want to build the army and get more tanks and get more planes and drones and things to
[ Page 6512 ]
manage things. However, if you're a left wing in Israel, your issue is about ensuring that you negotiate security, but security becomes the underpinning, whereas in most of our western democracies, it's GDP.

So it's very interesting to look at what happens in terms of the different perspectives that different countries, different cultures, different societies have in terms of how they look at the budgeting process and what grows out of it. The notion of traditional economics has been changed dramatically. The notion of traditional economics was that everybody was rational. If you paid more money, you got better responses.

Certainly, the evolution of behavioural economics, which came into being in the last eight or ten years, has changed all of that dramatically. In fact, the first psychologist to win a Nobel Prize in Economics, Daniel Kahneman, talked about the differences. He basically said that we don't make rational decisions economically, we don't make them personally, we make them for all kinds of irrational reasons and assumptions, and that that is a far better way and a more appropriate way of understanding what happens with respect to economics and what happens in terms of budgets — that we tend to be irrational and impulsive.

None of those things are considered in the rational notion of traditional economics, but they're starting to be understood now. In fact, subjectivity was never even looked at nor studied in the context of budgets or the context of understanding until recently, because subjectivity…. The academic community said: "It's subjective. We can't measure it. Therefore, it's not worth looking at or studying."

With the advent of new technologies, it's now being studied. They'll put a BlackBerry on somebody and buzz them three times a day and say, "Where are you? What are you doing? How are you feeling on a ten-point scale? Are you feeling good, bad...?" They're starting to compare how one person is feeling over the course of a day, over the course of a week, and the changes that happen with that. Through that, they'll be able to analyze and look at, from a subjective sense, how people are responding and looking at it. So the growth, in terms of technology, information and understanding of where we are, reflects what's happening in terms of quality of life and how that impacts us.

Certainly, if we look back at the evolution and development of quality of life and, particularly, of social capital and the evolution of social capital, we know historically that the development in Canada, in North America — particularly as written about and studied by Robert Putnam from Harvard University…. He talked about the dramatic changes that occurred with industrialization, immigration and urbanization — that we had that sense of quality of life that existed in small communities, the notion of everybody getting together at the grain elevator or the general store and talking about things and that that's where decisions were made.

If somebody's barn burnt down, there was the barn raising. Everybody got together and did that. But with the changes that took place dramatically between about 1885 and 1910 in terms of industrialization, urbanization and immigration, all of that changed. There was a creation of a new place. There was a new place to have that social capital. The new place was the evolution of service clubs. Virtually every service club — Rotary, Kiwanis, Lions, Little League, 4-H, all of those things — started between 1885 and 1910 in a response to developing a place for us to get together, to have a quality of life to exchange.

Certainly, we're now seeing another change. That crisis was through those elements — through industrialization, urbanization, immigration. Now we have a new crisis, and it's sub-urbanization and the changes that are happening as we see things happening in a very urban setting and that interaction. How do we create that? Because we now have people living in urban areas, but they're isolated in urban areas, where they push a button and open the garage door and are locked in there on their Internet. How do we get that connectedness?

How is it that budgets foresee that? How is it that budgets create? What can public policy do? What can budgets do to ensure that we have the quality of life that becomes important in terms of that?

[1025]

Joseph Stiglitz was a Nobel Prize–winning economist, was head of the International Monetary Fund and headed the Sarkozy commission. He predicted the economic meltdown. He said things like: "Information clearly affects behaviour. Our accounting frameworks affect behaviour. What we gather information about and how we describe it affects what we do and what we strive for." He said: "And if GDP and debt-to-GDP is the measure — and, indeed, is the measure of virtually all the western democracies — then that is what we strive for." So we focus our policies and our budgets on things that increase GDP.

But GDP is not a good measure of economic performance, nor of subjective well-being, nor of quality of life. Stiglitz reminds us that GDP does not measure what happens to our citizenries, our citizens. GDP can increase while median income decreases. Our GDP can be going way up, yet the median can be going down. Therefore, 50 percent of our population can be getting less income while GDP is increasing.

GDP says nothing about sustainability. There are wonderful studies out of Argentina in the early 1990s, where they were exploding in terms of their GDP and all the measurements with respect to that, but they were clearcutting their forests, and a look at GDP did not anticipate and look at the notion that it was not sustainable.
[ Page 6513 ]

GDP looks at output within our province. Prior to 1990 it was GNP; it was gross national product. Gross national product looked at the increase in people's well-being or income within the province, within a jurisdiction. GDP has dramatically changed that.

When we look at notions that look at privatizing the economic activity within jurisdictions, but much of the income from that activity goes outside the province, GDP goes up, but income within tends to go down. A wonderful example, I think, is in the United States, where about ten times the number of people per capita are in jail as in other industrialized countries, and some states spend more money on jails than they do on universities. The jail expenditures contribute to GDP. That becomes part of the measurement. So jails are good for GDP, but locking more people up may not necessarily be good for society.

The U.S.A. spends more dollars on health care as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world, and their health outcomes are much lower than other industrialized countries and, in fact, lower than many developing countries. The extra dollars, all the dollars spent on health care, show up as a contribution to GDP. If they become more efficient, more effective and more positive in their delivery of health care, their GDP would go down. Yet I think most of us would argue and postulate that that would be better for their people, the people of the United States.

Greenspan, who headed the U.S. Federal Reserve for 18 years and served five presidents, came with a famous mea culpa after the economic meltdown. He said that he was wrong. Until the meltdown he was known as the maestro who had masterminded and masterfully handled their economy. He had been an unbridled proponent of deregulation and of free markets. Greenspan admitted he'd made a mistake in believing that markets could and would regulate themselves. His ideology had worked for 40 years.

Congress, when they brought him before them, said he got a number of things wrong. He opposed legislation to control complex transactions. He kept interest rates too low for too long, and he failed to take action at the signs of trouble. He admitted that more comprehensive regulation is justified, but he warned that there must be a balance between regulation and the freedom of the economy to function.

That's the delicate balance that I think we need to search for as we look at budgets, we look at regulation and we look at the models that we want to build on. Governments tend to use incentives to move things in one way and penalties in terms of things that go wrong, so we use regulation as part of that, legislation as part of that.

[1030]

In some ways, doing that, I think, takes away from the practical wisdom that needs to exist within our public service, within our political environments and, indeed, within our communities.

Practical wisdom, I think, is the ability to understand what needs to be done, the wisdom to know that and the ability to determine how to do it, and I think that becomes a significant challenge. But when things go wrong, we tend to, whether it's in the budget or whatever it might be, introduce a new piece of legislation that's going to prevent it from ever happening again. So in 1929 when the stock market crashed the United States introduced policies and legislation that would prevent it from ever happening again, and they have now introduced two pieces of legislation which will prevent it from ever happening again. Of course, it will continue to happen again, because we don't have the ability to allow for practical wisdom to exist within that.

Practical wisdom…. We tend to take away the value of people in different roles, whether it's teaching or whether it's a doctor. When things go wrong in those areas, we tend to limit, again, the ability of them to be able to apply things. One example is it would make things more difficult for them to be able to act and react.

I read about an example of a fellow who took his nine-year-old son to a baseball game. He said: "I'm going to get a Coke, son. Would you like something?" The son said: "Well, I'd like a lemonade." So the father went off to the stand, and he brought his son back what happened to be a Mike's Hard Lemonade. The guy was probably a university prof and didn't know that Mike's Hard Lemonade actually had alcohol in it and gave it to his nine-year-old son.

Well, one of the security people noticed this, so he called the police. The police came and took the son away. They put him in an ambulance, took him to the hospital and had him checked out. There wasn't any alcohol in his blood. Everything was fine. But they called a social worker in just to make sure that there wasn't any type of misuse on behalf of the parent, and they wouldn't allow the boy to go back home. They took the boy. The social worker, because of whatever regulations, made a determination that the child should not go home until they'd done a home assessment to make sure that it was okay for him to return home.

Two days later the father appeared in court, and they allowed the boy to go home, but the father had to go and could not stay in the home while the rest of the investigation took place. So the father was placed in a hotel. He stayed in a hotel, and after about five days, everything was cleared up and they went home.

But the irony of it…. From the police officer to the doctors at the hospital to the social workers to the judge — every one of them said that this was totally stupid; there's nothing wrong with this. But policies were put in place, structures were put in place to dictate that that was the outcome.
[ Page 6514 ]

As we make decisions as governments to make sure that things don't go wrong, we create those types of environments where a common and practical decision-making process seems to get lost. Unfortunately, it was lost in that instance.

Sometimes we create environments with respect to our budgets and the culture and the society where things continue to grow in that fashion. We don't look at what makes common sense, what practical wisdom is, and we take away the authority of decision-makers to be able to do that within the application of a budget, within the carrying out of a budget, which becomes so important in terms of what we need to do.

The treasury of England, Her Majesty's Treasury, had a working paper released last year in which they say: "Government needs to achieve an appropriate balance between policies that promote our well-being and policies that maintain economic incentives to support innovation and growth." Now, there's been lots of talk about what value GDP has, what value budgets have in terms of reflecting what's important to people.

President Sarkozy appointed a commission to look at the measurement of economic performance and social progress. They released their report at the end of 2009, and that report had, I believe, three Nobel Prize–winners on it. It had Robert Putnam, who is the world's authority on social capital. They actually looked at it and came up with a number of recommendations in terms of what we should be looking at. How do we start balancing that? How does a budget give flexibility to look at some of the things that become so important in terms of addressing the issues that reflect quality of life?

[1035]

I think the research is pretty clear that those notions around the budget and particularly the way we tend to measure it, the way that the media tends to carry it and portray it, the way that our populace, the citizens of our province, tend to look at it, tend not to feel engaged in, tend not to feel that it's an important part of what they see and understand….

The behavioural economists talk about something called the identifiable victim effect. Basically, they say that we can't grasp things in a broad sense. I think it was Mother Teresa who talked about the notion: one person's death is a tragedy, and a thousand people's death is a statistic. There's not a visceral connectedness that happens with a thousand people, but there is a visceral connectedness that happens with one person.

So how do we start looking at our budget? How do we start looking at budgets more generally, that allows us to have that connectedness that is not just a cognitive understanding of what takes place but is actually meaningful and reflective of those things that connect with us?

Certainly, looking at behavioural economists, who started to look at the notions of climate change, they have said that from a psychological perspective, if you had to design a problem, if you're putting a problem together that very few people would care about, it would be global warming. They say it's because it's way off in the future, it tends to happen to other people first, its largest impact is not seen to be close to us, and anything we do as individuals is merely a drop in the bucket.

It's that application of the psychological understanding to policy and the visceral connectedness that becomes important. Certainly, the interpretation of our budget gives, I think, some flexibility for us to look at and to manage those things in ways that are important. Behavioural change occurs when we become emotionally and viscerally connected to it, and that's the type of thing that flexibility refers to. That's the type of thing that the Sarkozy commission looked at — ways that we can understand and look at things that make a difference for us.

One of the ways that we can address and start to look at some of the more intractable problems that we face as a society — given the increasing cost of health care, the demands on budgets and the demand that we've had on our budget here, with all of the challenge we have — is to look at the notion of social entrepreneurship, social innovation, and what that presents for us. Certainly, other jurisdictions around the world are starting to say that there have to be other ways that we can look at some of the most intractable social problems that exist.

Historically and traditionally, social problems, social issues, have been dealt with by philanthropists giving money to it, by faith-based organizations — churches, our temples providing money — or by the state. Those are the three sources of funding that we look at for dealing with those people who need support.

The development of physical capital has been through the business sector, and they've tended to work in separate aisles, separate ways. They don't have a lot of interaction and connectedness. Certainly, the models of social entrepreneurship being developed in Denmark and in England and to some degree, as well, in Australia and New Zealand…. And certainly President Obama has put a lot of money into it, as well, and our federal government is looking at it, as well as our provincial government.

We are showing some leadership in terms of that, and we're showing leadership because there are so many creative social entrepreneurs that live in British Columbia who are looking at ways of being able to manage and do things and create sustainability and different ways of dealing with these intractable problems.

It's as simple as the Salvation Army putting together a used clothing store or a bookstore that feeds into it so that their money, all of the money that they generate from the fiscal capital system, goes to social purpose, goes to social good. How do we more broadly look at that? How do we look at that to deal with some of
[ Page 6515 ]
the most challenging problems that exist in the world? We have the ability now, because of the technology we have, because of the metrics we have, because of the information we have, to look at that, to effect those types of changes.

Certainly, in British Columbia there was recently a meeting of social innovators from across Canada, and the Ottawa Citizen, the newspaper, said that the Silicon Valley of social innovation is here in British Columbia. It's here in British Columbia because of the great initiatives being taken by so many social innovators who are out there looking at, challenging, new ways of doing things, new ways of creating social innovation, ways of addressing some of, again, our most intractable of problems.

As a government, we are looking at and doing that and hopefully being able to manage and find some funding through our budget to address some of those problems and the social innovation that comes out of them.

In terms of legislation and being able to look at different forms of government, we have non-profits as one form of government and then the business model, and there's nothing in between. To create a non-profit…. We say to the non-profits in many instances: "You can't pay your boards of directors. You can't make money. You can't do three-year business plans. You can't buy a franchise."

[1040]

No business can function with the limitations that our legislation places on non-profits. We have to free them up to be able to actually do the things that they want to do — the challenges that they face and being able to manage that.

We need to look at incentives that will provide them with the opportunities. We provide tax incentives and tax write-offs if you're going to invest in a mine, but we don't if you want to invest in social good and social well-being. We need to look at images and options that will do that, and we need to be able to recognize that the challenges of our budget, the challenges of budgets in all the western democracies — indeed worldwide — are overwhelming.

How do we in fact look at new ways of addressing these things, new ways of looking at the challenges that face us? How can we start to maximize the potential that starts to exist?

In England they've started the first social impact bond. They provide it with young offenders. They found that young offenders — I think it's between the ages of 18 and 25 — with a particular profile who are sentenced to less than two years…. When they're released, about 60 percent of them reoffend within the first year — a tragic comment in terms of our, supposedly, or their ability to rehabilitate, to give options and opportunities.

So what they've done is they've said they've been able to quantify — because we have the technology now — what the costs are for that. So the Treasury Board, the treasury of England, has issued a contract, and the contract went out. The contract said that for every offender who is released that you can keep from reoffending for a year, we'll give you a 7½ percent return on the money that's invested. If you can keep it for two years, it'll be 14 percent. So there's a return.

The Treasury Board issues the contract. The contract in some instances is taken by the public service; in some places it's taken by a non-profit; in some places it's taken by what's called a community interest corporation — social purpose organizations. They provide the service. They go to the money markets, and the money is raised in the money markets. They provide the service, and they go back at the end of the year and say: "Here are the metrics. Here's what we've been able to do. Here are the numbers that we've been able to keep from reoffending."

Based on that, the government — the state — then provides the funding for it. So it's shifting the risk from the state, which doesn't seem to want to take risks with things, to outcome measures. So those types of things provide a dramatic difference.

Another example that might be working is type 2 diabetics. We've got metrics on type 2 diabetics. We know that they tend to go back to hospital on average three times a year. We know that with creativity and utilization of the budget, we can look at that differently. We know that if our numbers are large enough, we'll be correct in terms of being able to address that.

We never know who's going to go back to hospital three times a year, but we know that if we take 500 of them, we're going to be pretty darn accurate in terms of those numbers. We know what they will have cost us historically. We know that we can project that into the future.

We can take that and…. Say they cost $20 million for the past five years. We can go to Treasury Board and say: "Here, we'll provide those services for the next five years. Provide us with a contract that we'll pay out at the end." You take that contract; you go to someone like Vancity Savings. I've talked with Tamara Vrooman and said: "If we did these types of things, what type of impact is that going to have?" She said: "We can raise $100 million tomorrow if we have those types of contracts." So we can leverage a lot of money into intractable social programs and pay them out at the end without taking the risk.

There's recently been a study across Canada on social finance, which has had people from all across Canada participating in that. They're saying that if we can leverage 1 percent of the money which is now in foundations and pension funds…. If we can leverage that into social programs, that represents $33 billion in Canada, and there will still be a return on the money.

Some of the areas in India where they've tried doing this, when they've gone out to the contract, they say: "You
[ Page 6516 ]
can get up to 4 percent return on your money in this economy" — which isn't bad — "if you want to invest in this social program." They give them the option of checking 4 percent, 3 percent, 2 percent, 1 percent or no return.

Over half of the people are saying: "I want zero. I get the tax write-off, and this is my contribution to social well-being. This is my contribution to society." This is part of citizenship.

Certainly, as we look at the impact and the importance of citizenship in British Columbia and under the British parliamentary system, that is so incredibly important — that we have that. It starts to build community. It builds volunteers. It builds social innovation.

I see my time is almost up. I just want to finish by reading a statement that Bobby Kennedy made just a few months before his death in 1968. We still continue to gauge our progress and our lives through organizations and our communities based on really narrow and, I think, shallow measures.

[1045]

Kennedy said:

"We seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross domestic product…if we should judge…America by that…counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of nuclear warheads and armoured cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifles and Speck's knives and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

"Yet the gross domestic product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of our education or the joy of our children's play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither wit…nor…courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

I trust that our budget gives us an opportunity to look at that in a more creative and positive fashion.

J. Brar: Madam Speaker, it's good to be back after a long time. We have been out of this House for almost a year now, and it just feels good to be back. It's a real honour all the time to stand up in this House and speak for the people of Surrey-Fleetwood as it relates to the budget.

But before I do that, I would like to say thanks to my staff at Surrey-Fleetwood community office, Ruby Bhandal and Peter Leblanc. Thanks for your passion, commitment and extraordinary service you offer to the people of Surrey-Fleetwood.

I would also like to say thanks to my Victoria staff, Gurbrinder Kang. Thanks for your able support and meaningful assistance to me almost every day when I'm here in Victoria.

Coming back to the budget. This budget was introduced by the previous Finance Minister to just keep the government going until a new leader and new Premier was elected by the B.C. Liberal Party. Therefore, this budget was a status quo budget, just to pass the time. What it means is that it does not introduce any new programs or significant spending initiatives. In fact, the budget continued to cut spending or failed to invest in key areas such as protecting vulnerable children, improving access to education and training, and protecting the environment. So this budget was just to pass the time and was just a status quo budget.

The first thing that Premier Clark did was to embrace this status quo budget without making any change. That offers nothing to B.C. families, because it was just a status quo budget designed to run the government ship through the B.C. Liberal leadership convention.

Therefore, the expectation was that the new Premier will introduce a new throne speech and a new budget based on her own priorities. This budget was prepared by the Premier Gordon Campbell Liberal government, and this budget is embraced now by the new Premier Clark without making or changing any penny or adding any new pennies into this budget. Therefore, there's no change in this budget. The question I would like to ask is: what is new for B.C. families in this budget?

Similarly, Premier Campbell's Liberal government decided to pay $6 million to B.C. Liberal staffers to end the B.C. Rail corruption case, and Premier Clark is also in favour of making that payment to the B.C. Liberal staffers. Therefore, nothing had changed.

The third thing I want to say is that this budget includes the much-hated tax known as the HST. Premier Campbell was in favour of the HST, although he had to quit because of that. The new Premier Clark is also in favour of HST. Therefore, nothing had changed for B.C. families.

There are a number of issues the people of Surrey bring so my office when it comes to the budget, so I would like to speak about those issues briefly. First of all, Surrey is the fastest-growing community in the province and probably in the country. We welcome about 1,000 new residents almost every month into the city of Surrey, and we are way behind when it comes to building new infrastructure, new programs and services to meet the needs of a growing population.

[1050]

People of Surrey were hoping that this budget would provide some new funding to build new schools and new programs for the growing population.

In 2001 when this government came to power, when Premier Clark was the Deputy Premier and part of this government, this government made the promise to the families of British Columbia and to the families of Surrey to provide the best health care system when you need it and where you need it, but in fact, they did the opposite. They closed hospitals and they closed emergency rooms in the province. That was certainly not good for B.C. families.
[ Page 6517 ]

The story of repeated announcements on delays at Surrey Memorial Hospital is a prime example of those. They did not care about the people in Surrey. In 2005 they made the promise to build the new emergency room for the growing population in the city of Surrey, and Premier Clark, who was then the Deputy Premier, was right here in this House.

The promise was made to build the new ER and to start the construction in 2008 and complete the construction by 2010. That was the promise given to the people of Surrey at that time. But after they won the election, they went back and changed the announcement, and they made another announcement to delay the start of the construction of the new ER from 2008 to 2009.

That was not the first time that they changed their mind. They have made those announcements after announcements more than ten times, and the people of Surrey have been waiting and waiting for the last about ten years for the new ER and for the growing population to be served.

As of the last announcement they made, B.C. Liberals delayed the completion of the emergency room from 2010 to 2014, and the families of Surrey have to suffer for four more years. The interesting thing was that the new Premier, Premier Clark…. The first announcement she made in the city of Surrey was just to confirm the delay of the construction of the new emergency room, which is much needed by the people of Surrey, from 2011 to 2014.

Therefore, for the people of Surrey nothing has changed under this new Premier, and we still have to wait for four more years for the new emergency room, which was promised to be completed by this government by 2010. That shows, Madam Speaker, that this government is completely out of touch when it comes to the health care needs of the people of Surrey.

The other issue which comes to my office is about education. As I said earlier, because of a massive growth in the population of the city of Surrey, we are behind when it comes to building infrastructure in education as well. If we go to back to 2001 when Premier Clark was here, the promise was made by this government in 2001 that they would provide the best education system so that no child is left behind. But in fact they did the opposite.

Premier Clark was the Deputy Premier at that time, and they closed almost 190 schools in the province of British Columbia. They left more than 15,000 classrooms which are overcrowded and over the class-size limit.

In addition, they have downloaded many costs onto the backs of the local school districts, forcing layoffs of teachers and cuts to the very needed programs. School districts across the province are facing severe budget shortfalls.

The Surrey school district has been hit really hard — really hard. The Surrey school district is the fastest-growing school district in the province. The Surrey school district has grown by 2,700 students since 2005.

[1055]

This year alone 1,300 new students have entered the school system, yet Surrey has not received capital funding to build new schools since 2005. I will repeat that Surrey did not get a penny to build new schools since 2005, even after having a significant number of new students in the school system.

At this point in time 7,300 students in the Surrey school district are now receiving education through portables — 7,300 students. All together, we have over 292 portables in the city of Surrey. So if we are to build schools for those students, we need to build 12 new elementary schools to put these kids into the school system. How is that a good thing for families in Surrey, Madam Speaker?

Surrey trustees have done a very good job keeping administrative costs low, and it's widely acknowledged that there is no fat left to cut in the next year's budget. But they are now in the difficult position of having to choose which program for what group of children to cut. It is not an easy job for them. The question we need to ask is: why is the provincial outlook so dismal in the Surrey school district?

There are some reasons for that. The first, Surrey has received no new capital funding, as I said earlier, for building new schools from the B.C. Liberals since 2005, despite experiencing continued growth in new students. Surrey is being forced to deal with its chronic overcrowding by adding more and more portables to the school system, and that costs almost $100,000 per year per portable. These funds come straight out of the school district's operating budget, money that should be earmarked for staffing and education programs.

The rest of the projected deficit is comprised of additional costs to the HST that will cost almost 3 million new dollars — $3 million to the Surrey school district. In addition to that, there's a cost for salary and fees the province has negotiated. Without sufficient funding, all programs in Surrey will suffer. Class size will grow, regulation on class composition will be ignored, and programs for students with special needs may be eliminated entirely. Meal programs at inner-city schools may also be eliminated. So the question we need to ask: how is that good for families in Surrey?

The last thing I want to talk about is the HST. As the people of British Columbia know, the B.C. Liberals imposed the HST on the people of B.C. Before the election the B.C. Liberals made a very clear promise to the people of British Columbia that they had no plans to impose the HST. But as soon as the election was over, they changed their minds. They changed their minds, and in fact they imposed the HST just two months after the election.

Even after they gave a clear commitment inviting the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association,
[ Page 6518 ]
they also gave the commitment inviting the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. But that was before the election. After the election, things were different. They changed their minds and they imposed HST on the people of B.C.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

So clearly, they were not telling the truth to the people of B.C. during the election, because they knew — they knew very clearly — that telling the truth meant losing the election at that time.

Now, we are talking about HST in B.C. The reality is that the HST is hurting the people of British Columbia. The HST is hurting the small businesses and medium-sized businesses in B.C. as well, and there is no clear winner among the people of B.C. There is no clear winner among the people of B.C. The only one group of people who are going to win are the friends of the Liberal Party — big corporations — and no one else is a winner in this game.

[1100]

In fact, Madam Speaker, the HST means it's a tax shift of $2 billion from rich corporations to the people of B.C. and small businesses of B.C. That's a fact — $2 billion which was being paid before by the big corporations, by the wealthy people.

Now the people of B.C. are being forced to pay that. Now the small businesses of B.C. are being forced to pay that money, and it's $2 billion. That's very clear, and that's why it's hurting the small business industry. It's hurting the restaurant industry. We know that. It's hurting the taxi industry and the real estate industry, the veterinarians, the seniors as well the students and the family. The list goes on.

Now we're up to that referendum, and we expect the government will provide the factual information to the people of British Columbia so that they can make an informed decision when they go to cast their ballot for the referendum.

Poverty is another issue. This is one of the richest provinces in the country — the province of British Columbia. We have the poorest child poverty rate in Canada — a shameful title that we have now held in each of the last seven years. For the last seven years, we had the highest child poverty in the country, and that is shameful. For almost every group, B.C. poverty rates are higher than the national average, higher than every other province.

Nearly one in every four kids in B.C. lives under poverty, and that's the effect. Every month over 24,000 children in B.C. use the food bank. What these numbers tell us is that for a quarter of our kids, "family first" means nothing beyond a political slogan. The number of estimated poor kids in B.C. is 121,000 children. That is almost the same as the entire population of Nanaimo, Kelowna and Williams Lake combined. British Columbia had the worst income gap between the rich and the poor among all the provinces because of the policies of the B.C. Liberals for the last ten years.

I would like to remind the new Premier as well as the members sitting on the other side that seven provinces and two territories have poverty reduction plans in place already, and they have made a serious commitment to address the poverty issue, but B.C. Liberals have completely failed to make any commitment dealing with child poverty. B.C. has no poverty reduction plan and absolutely no specific commitment. As a result, we are experiencing the highest child poverty in the country.

There's one thing I would like to ask for from the new Premier: to make a clear commitment to develop and implement a poverty reduction plan, to at least address child poverty in the province of British Columbia.

I would like to conclude my comments on the budget by saying that this budget does not address the needs of B.C. families. This budget does not address the needs of the people of Surrey-Fleetwood, and therefore I oppose the budget when it comes to the vote.

Hon. S. Cadieux: Along with the members on this side of the House, I would like to speak in support of Budget 2011, but firstly, I would like to take a moment to congratulate both our new Premier and the new Leader of the Opposition for their respective elections. I thank them both for rising to the challenge in accepting the positions, and certainly we know that, for both, it takes a great deal of courage, commitment and sacrifice.

Also, before I speak to the budget, I'd like to reiterate what a pleasure it is to be back here and what an honour it is to serve and represent the people of Surrey-Panorama here in the Legislature.

[1105]

We live in such a wonderful country and in the best province in that country, and I think we should all feel fortunate to wake up here every day. It's a place in which we are free to express our views, to vote for our leaders in a truly democratic system and to strive to better our own circumstances and those of others in our communities.

I'd like to thank my husband, Daniel, and my close family for their ongoing support and understanding of the demands of the jobs that we are elected to do and for my wonderful staff in my constituency, Sharon Crowson and Manjit Gill, who keep me informed of what's going on, keep things running smoothly when I can't be there and so compassionately assist with the folks who come to the office for assistance. They do a tremendous job.

As well, we all know as elected members that it takes a team. I'd like to thank my riding association president, Bill Brooks, and members of the executive for their ongoing support as well.

I am remiss if I don't mention that I'm fortunate as well to live in a fantastic community in Surrey, one which
[ Page 6519 ]
is growing faster than almost any other city in the country. It's a community that's committed to supporting one another and exhibits that every day.

I'd like to mention a few groups that are making a difference in my community. The Surrey–White Rock KidSport chapter has just launched because participating in sports, especially for a child, helps cultivate life-long skills and valuable principles. In addition, it teaches working as a team. It teaches leadership, decision-making, critical thinking, hard work, dedication and self-confidence — all things which all of us strive to achieve.

Malik Dillon is the chair of the Surrey–White Rock chapter, and he's joined by directors Cliff Annable and Rob Wesley. They're looking for board members in the north part of Surrey and in the Cloverdale areas, because all of Surrey is going to be included in this initiative. I just think that's fantastic and thank them for their commitment.

Unfortunately, financial barriers do prevent some children from participating in sports, and KidSport does provide grants to help those kids participate in the sports that they wish to, so I think that's fantastic.

Not too long ago I attended the launch of CASI, and that's the Community Action for Seniors Independence. It's a pilot project in Surrey-Newton, and they're providing non-medical services to seniors who want to live independently in their homes and in their communities. They're doing it with a peer-based approach, and I enjoyed meeting the seniors who are taking part and who have helped shape the design of the project.

They are busy recruiting volunteers who speak a variety of languages to reach out to our immigrant seniors and let them know about what's available in the multicultural community in Surrey, and they're planning to introduce a skills bank that will enable seniors to volunteer their services for other seniors in exchange for the services that they need.

Everybody wants to be as active in their communities as they can, and this gives everyone an opportunity to be active and help others at the same time. It's a great asset to our local community, and it's a project that our government has been able to support, and I think these projects are the sort of things that we can all be proud of.

People make our communities. They breathe life into the ideas. They make things happen, they build, and they give. It's important that, once in a while, we take time to recognize outstanding achievement. I always try to attend the local awards events in my riding and in Surrey, and there are always very accomplished, successful people being recognized. The winners often are talented business people. They're recognized for the outstanding contributions they make in our community. Our not-for-profit and voluntary sectors also have outstanding individuals that are recognized.

I am pleased that at this time in the House, I can recognize a few of the winners this year from the Surrey Board of Trade Women in Business Awards, because in this time of tough economic times around the world, I think we're especially fortunate to have so many caring individuals and community leaders who are stepping up to the challenge.

This year, in leadership, Jonquil Hallgate from the Surrey Urban Mission was recognized, as well as Beth Barlow from Surrey libraries, and Karla Pearson, who is an accomplished businessperson in Surrey, also a member of a number of boards including the Centre for Child Development. She's been involved with the Surrey Civic Treasures, the Stand Up for the Arts campaign, the cultural diversity awards, the children's festival, the food bank and the hospital. I think it's important that we recognize people like this who so selflessly give of their time.

Also this year, with the White Rock–South Surrey chamber business awards, they recognized Jackie Smith, the executive director of the Peace Arch Hospital and Community Health Foundation, as the recipient for business person of the year.

[1110]

I think it's really fantastic that so many outstanding leaders in the not-for-profit community have been recognized for their contributions to our communities, because they are indeed invaluable.

Speaking of Peace Arch Hospital Foundation, with Jackie at the helm, it's no wonder that the foundation is able to excite and engage the community in support of health care projects. I recently attended the grand opening of the new maternity ward at Peace Arch. That was just a fantastic example of the community coming together to support the priorities that they have. It's a $5.3 million major renovation and expansion that was funded by the Community Health Foundation.

It's heartwarming to see that kind of support in our communities, because we all care about these projects. I think when we all get involved, it makes them a lot less overwhelming.

We have, as I mentioned, a number of truly exceptional people, but it doesn't stop. They don't all support every cause, but so many support so many. It always takes one champion for each cause, and in Surrey-Panorama we have Debi Rumley, who is co-chair of the Surrey–White Rock Nite of Hope gala benefiting breast cancer research. She's been doing this for a number of years now.

This is just fantastic. It funds fellowship grants awarded to researchers in the field of oncology. With Debi at the helm, they've raised over $900,000 so far in our community. I thank Debi for her contribution.

She's not the only constituent of mine, though, raising funds for fighting disease. Parker was five when he was diagnosed with diabetes, and this year Parker, with the help of his parents, has set a goal to raise $5,000 for the TELUS Walk to Cure event. I'm sure he'll well surpass his goal.
[ Page 6520 ]

It's not surprising there's so much energy around health care projects, but my constituency is blessed with a wealth of folks with other talents and passions. Just last week I was able to attend Earthwise, which is a provincial art competition that was mounted to promote Earth Day values and raise awareness of environmental issues. It was sponsored by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

It was the brainchild of an outstanding teacher, Marc Pelech, who is well known to many. He's a teacher at Sullivan Heights Secondary and was a recent recipient of the B.C. Community Achievement Awards. Marc has dedicated thousands of hours to civic policy and youth-focused arts programs in Surrey.

This was a truly neat program. It offered the opportunity for students from around B.C. to demonstrate their ideas about the environment through art. Thomas Nelles of Sullivan Heights Secondary won first place for his digital piece, Cultural Entropy, and it was amazing.

In his own words:

"The piece focuses on the year 2084. The Earth is now a barren wasteland after apocalyptic nuclear war caused by man's further knowledge. Adam and Eve are now the last few living creatures that are alive. Whether this piece is seen as an eco-feminist analogy, a deconstruction of many iconic works or simply an alluring play on the effects of the human species, I invite viewers to think about what is coming from environmental degradation."

He goes on.

But if you could see the piece, you would see a composite image made of 133 different layers of photographs. It's utterly amazing, and to think that such a young mind and such a young talent is able to put this great depth of thought into art gives me great hope for our future in terms of art and in terms of the thoughtfulness of our future leaders.

His use of words reminds me of another passion of mine, and that's literacy. I believe it's one of the most important skills we can acquire as human beings. Of course, it's not always attached just to reading and writing but to things like financial literacy or computer literacy — all things which benefit us in our lives.

I wrote a blog on it not long ago and talked about the fact that words, in fact, are all around us and the importance of the ability of being able to read in accessing information that we need in our lives on a daily basis.

[1115]

Libraries are certainly a tool that we can use to improve literacy. Although their form has changed dramatically over time, certainly the use of our libraries has not. In 2009 there were a whopping 50 million visits to B.C. libraries. I'm a big supporter of our public libraries and was happy to be able to support some of their literacy programs over the last years.

The 2011 provincial budget as laid out supports government's commitment to fund vital public services and allow us to build for the future. It focuses spending on health care and social services — things we all care about in our own lives, things that we'll build on and complement with things we've been able to do despite the world's economic realities.

It's always easy to get caught up in the hype and easy to focus on what we don't have or what needs improvement, but I think it's equally important to focus on what we can be proud of and thankful for. It's a lesson my father taught me at a few choice moments in my life growing up. It's a lesson that was validated for me and cemented in my mind during my trips to Africa and Central America, so I'd like to take a few moments to celebrate a few things.

I'd like to recognize that in Surrey we're recipients of some of the largest capital infrastructure spending in B.C.'s history and of service innovations that are building for the future and for innovation and excellence.

One of the constant challenges facing Surrey is how we're going to continue to provide health care for a rapidly expanding city. But we've accepted that challenge. We're celebrating the new Timber Creek mental health facility; groundbreaking at the Surrey Memorial expansion; the Jim Pattison outpatient and surgery centre, opening this June. Together those things are adding three-quarters of a billion dollars to Surrey's health care system. That's something we can be proud of and happy about.

You've heard about families first and about how new projects will put family health care first. I think that's exciting. I think the fact that we've committed to everyone being able to have a family doctor by 2015 is exciting. These are things that are going to improve families' access to the services that they require.

There's something else we can be excited about. That's about 58 new classrooms in support of all-day kindergarten at six elementary schools in Surrey and in energy-efficient modular buildings, all in time for the 2011 school term. At T.E. Scott Elementary in my riding there's a $3.6 million investment in new classrooms and $2 million to seismically upgrade the school — obviously things that we want to see done but nonetheless things we can be excited about.

We are also seeing opportunities for advanced learning continue to grow around the province. Surrey is benefiting directly with the commitment to Surrey SFU's $10 million Podium 2 expansion, which will see new labs and classrooms, enhancing the capacity for learning, research and health promotion in high-tech programs.

We're hearing a lot in the news about vulnerable people all of the time, about people who need help from the broader community. They may be people with disabilities. They may be seniors or refugees or the homeless. This government has been helping.

Construction is well underway for a new seniors facility called Kinsmen Place Lodge. We've seen the opening of the first phase of the Maxxine Wright centre in Surrey, providing pregnant women and their children
[ Page 6521 ]
a safe and supportive housing opportunity that includes prenatal and post-natal care. It's a great building with great people. If you're ever in the neighbourhood, I would recommend dropping off some donations of baby clothes, toys or diapers — lots and lots of diapers, because they're always in need.

Surrey is also one of five communities that's receiving homes that are being reconfigured into permanent affordable rental homes from the housing from the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic village. Freedom Place is providing new assisted-living units for young adults with physical disabilities. We have Alder Gardens being built, in partnership with the YWCA, to cater to single mothers and their children in a supportive environment to make sure that we can build their economic independence and prevent future homelessness or risk of homelessness.

I think that people around the province do value the investments we're making. I think people do appreciate living in British Columbia. Even through these economic times, which have been tough, I think British Columbians are betting on our future being bright.

I don't prescribe to the glass-half-empty model. I prescribe to the glass-half-full. Each month I am encouraged to see houses being built and purchased in my riding, new families making Surrey-Panorama home.

[1120]

Each month I see entrepreneurs opening their doors — new small businesses like that of Jay and Anne Son, owners of the new Return-It depot in my riding; or Limbers Dancewear, owned by Brianne Bland; or Sandy Johal's Panorama Optometry; or the MVP Salon — Nick and Jodi Short opened up their business March 21. If there's a new office building that's filling up next to mine…. There are many new restaurants that have opened their doors to provide even more dining options for us in Surrey-Panorama.

I'm sure that these business people know a good business climate doesn't happen by accident and that they appreciate this government's ongoing commitments to reducing the small business tax rate to zero by 2012, to doubling the small business tax threshold from $200,000 to $500,000, which we did, and those ongoing reductions to red tape and the streamlining of processes through things like BizPal, which help small business owners get their businesses running faster.

I could go on about Surrey, because it's a fantastic place to live, but I recognize that the budget does matter for a great deal more than my community, so I'll switch gears for a moment to speak about my new responsibilities in the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government.

The 2011 provincial budget, as laid out in February, supports government's commitment to fund vital public services and allows us to build for the future, as I said. It also provides opportunities for some flexibility for new priorities. One of those examples is in my ministry, of course, and that is in volunteers and non-profit partnerships. I'm looking forward to working with the Parliamentary Secretary for Non-profit Partnerships on developing opportunities for non-profit organizations in the province.

As a busy volunteer myself, with a passion for what can and is and will be accomplished in and by the not-for-profit sector, this is an especially exciting opportunity, and I'm tremendously proud to be the Minister of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. The Premier set a clear mandate to communicate with British Columbia in a more meaningful way, and I'm excited that works are already underway that allow us to do that.

It's an exciting time for my ministry, and the budget supports three priorities that we're keenly focused on: families, jobs and open government. In April we announced substantial changes to minimum wage, which did come into effect just two days ago. Minimum wage increased to $8.75 per hour for most workers, and the training wage was repealed. Raising the minimum wage and eliminating the training wage — it's a fair and reasonable step forward in putting families first and in building the economy.

We're committed to ensuring that it remains a fair rate for both businesses and employees. The wage will incrementally increase over the next 12 months to reach $10.25 an hour, and there'll be a review process in place to ensure that we are reviewing that on a regular basis.

Through WorkSafe and industry partners we're going to continue to cultivate a culture of safety that addresses workplace needs and encourages both employers and employees to engage and participate in these efforts. We're going to continue to ensure that there's a balanced labour relations framework in the private and public sectors, providing a foundation for a stable labour relations environment so that businesses and workers prosper in British Columbia.

Budget 2011 reaffirms government's commitment to funding vital public services and taking steps to protect the public services we deliver here in the Ministry of Labour, Citizens' Services and Open Government. We want to make sure that people receiving services from government are doing that, and in the best way possible deliver it as efficiently and effectively as possible.

My ministry acts as a conduit between government and the people of British Columbia. We are responsible for service delivery, technology and access to information. Shared Services B.C. is responsible for providing a wide range of cost-effective services and infrastructure to ministries and government organizations. As a reliable caretaker of provincial real estate, technology and purchasing services, we strive to provide innovative, integrated and sustainable services at the lowest cost.
[ Page 6522 ]

Another commitment that this budget continues to support is our commitment to expand connectivity in rural and remote communities in British Columbia. Internet access helps people access information and services where they live, regardless of the fact that they may live in rural and remote communities, and today 93 percent of British Columbians have access to high-speed Internet. We'll continue to bridge the last mile in British Columbia through the connecting citizens grant program launched in 2008.

Last year we committed $2.35 million to connect rural and remote communities to the Internet, and we're creating new opportunities for families by working with the private sector and other levels of government to expand connectivity in communities and along provincial highways.

[1125]

We're focused on leveraging strategic telecommunication solutions that can help the province realize its families-first vision, to capitalize on opportunities presented by technology and to be a gateway to open government data, delivering quality services to citizens. We look forward to working collaboratively with local community groups, all levels of government and the private sector, including small Internet service providers, to achieve this goal. We recognize that the Internet has changed the way people communicate, and by using new technology, we can better reach out to the public.

This brings me to open government. The Premier has committed that this government will change the style and approach to governing. The open government platform is about a different way of doing government. We want to hear directly from people, and we want British Columbians to know that we're listening. We're taking their concerns and advice and acting on it. We will provide and enable citizens with opportunities to influence and improve policies that impact on them and on their quality of life. In order to do that, we'll be seeking to make government more open, outward-facing and accessible to British Columbians.

I'm proud of this government's record of sound fiscal management and that we're building on that foundation. I look forward to the year ahead, to future opportunities and to the accomplishments we will achieve together. I am proud to invite all members of this House to support the 2011 British Columbia provincial budget.

M. Elmore: I rise today to speak against this budget. But before I focus on the negative impacts of this budget on the constituents of Vancouver-Kensington and the people of British Columbia, I'd like to thank again my family and my partner Angelina for their continued support. I'd also like to acknowledge my hard-working staff in the riding, Maita Santiago, Kelly Read and Thomas Lou, and my legislative assistant here in Victoria, Teresa Scambler.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize some of the highlights in my riding this past year. Last May the neighbourhood where my community office is located, South Hill, celebrated its 100th anniversary. To mark the event, local groups again organized their South Hill Festival, and my office was happy to act as their volunteer centre. Through the South Hill business improvement association's arts committee, this past year also saw the unveiling of new street banners and a colourful new mural for the local South Hill public library just down the street from my office, which I also used for my annual Christmas card.

At the Kensington Community Centre I would also like to recognize the staff and volunteers there for continuing with their excellent programming and for again opening up their space for our mobile community office, our annual summer barbecue and numerous other community events.

The riding that I am proud to represent is very diverse, and this was underlined in the different events held this past year. For example, the Southeast Vancouver Seniors Arts Council launched a new cookbook, The Mixing Bowl: Meals and Memories, a compilation of various recipes by seniors in the riding who come from all over the world. I was delighted to take part in some of the events they had at the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House leading up to the book's publication. The events were celebrations filled with music, dance and, of course, delicious food from the country being highlighted.

In the summer the ever-growing Filipino community made its presence felt with the first-ever Filipino street parade and festival, entitled Unang Hirit sa Tag-init. The street parade featured colourful and dynamic floats by different groups, and they represented the different regions and cultures in the Philippines.

For lunar new year, I was also fortunate to be able to join constituents at events hosted by the local Victoria Drive Business Improvement Association and community centres. I was also happy to have been able to host my second annual lunar new year potluck with local constituents.

[1130]

These celebrations, in addition to Diwali, the Polish Harvest Festival at the Polish Community Centre and the Vaisakhi celebrations in the Sikh community, really contribute to our multicultural fabric.

Just last week I had the opportunity to attend now the seventh annual performance out of John Oliver Secondary hosted by their multicultural club, an evening of performances and celebrations really celebrating the multicultural makeup of the school, John Oliver, and also the community. So it's a great contribution towards Vancouver-Kensington.

But Madam Speaker, while our constituents delight in marking these celebrations, they're also vocal about issues impacting their lives. These are some of the issues
[ Page 6523 ]
that have failed to be addressed and highlighted and prioritized in this budget.

On the issue of child care, access to affordable, quality child care remains an important concern for the families in my riding. There's the story of a young family whose daughter won what the local paper called "a lottery," because she received a spot in both the coveted Mandarin and French immersion programs being offered by the public school system. But because her mother couldn't line up before- and after-school care for either program, they had to give up both spots.

This is in addition to the stories and reports I've heard from stakeholders around the province in my capacity as deputy critic for child care. For families, especially young ones, child care is a critical issue. It's often their single biggest expense after mortgages or housing costs, and yet this budget, again, makes no mention of the need for increased child care supports for families.

There are more than 11,000 children on child care wait-lists in B.C. today. As well, we have a growing number of women with infants and toddlers, nearly two-thirds, who are employed. This is according to Statistics Canada figures from 2009. We've just seen a dramatic rise of women participating in the workforce.

According to the human early learning partnership at UBC, B.C. has enough licensed child care spaces for only 12 percent of the province's children. Today only 71 percent of B.C. children arrive at kindergarten meeting all of the developmental benchmarks they need to achieve success, and 29 percent are developmentally vulnerable.

A study commissioned by the Business Council of B.C. found that children who are not school-ready are less likely to be job-ready at grade 12. This costs our economy close to ten times the provincial debt, 12 times all that B.C. exported in 2008 and nearly 40 times what the high-tech sector contributed to our economy in 2008.

It's a great oversight and, really, a missed opportunity in terms of not having a comprehensive child care system recognized, addressed, promoted and implemented here in B.C. An Angus Reid poll released by the Vancouver Sun in August 2009 shows that only one out of ten British Columbians with kids feels that they're able to afford daycare. In addition, low wages are leading to high staff turnover, and child care providers across B.C. cannot recruit and retain workers with wages running as low as $9 an hour.

Again, the economic benefits of a child care system…. According to the child care advocates of B.C., every dollar invested in child care programs increases our gross domestic product by $2.30. It's one of the strongest levels of short-term economic stimulus of all sectors. Investing in child care also creates jobs. Investing $1 million in the child care sector generates almost 40 jobs, which is 40 percent higher than the next closest industry and four times the jobs generated by investing in construction.

In the short term 90 percent of the cost of hiring child care workers goes back to governments as increased revenue, and the benefits to our economy, our society — supporting parents and children — are just overwhelming, Madam Speaker. It's a missed opportunity for the budget to overlook that. The missed opportunity of implementing a comprehensive child care program here in B.C. hurts both families and children.

[1135]

While we've seen the increase in subsidies, this benefits some parents, but again, it's not a comprehensive child care plan, and it does not address the issue of needing to increase availability of spaces. It also doesn't address the need to ensure that we have enough qualified early childhood educators.

The total funding for child care is lower today. The provincial funding is lower today than it was in 2001. We haven't seen significant increases in this budget for child care. This budget has failed to ensure that quality child care is affordable and also has failed to ensure that quality child care is accessible. The refusal to invest in a comprehensive child care and early learning plan in this budget is, unfortunately, a wasted opportunity.

Also, in this budget we see decreases in funding to the Ministry of Children and Family Development in important areas of early intervention, intervention and support, and support to practice divisions in the ministry.

It's troubling to listen to the Premier talking about putting families first while supporting this status quo budget that actually does little to improve conditions for children in poverty. B.C. continues to have the worst child poverty record of any province in the past consecutive seven years, from 2002 to 2008. This indeed is a very negative mark on B.C., especially considering that with 121,000 poor children in the province, it's more than the total populations of Campbell River, Squamish, Vernon and Mission combined.

The HST also continues to be a big issue in my riding as well as for folks across the province. My staff and I often frequent local businesses and restaurants and cafes, and we used to visit very regularly a coffee shop just a few doors down from my office. They had delicious muffins, and their coffee was always fresh. But since my office opened, that business has gone through two owners, and finally, a few months ago, the latest owner was forced to sell because business had really ground to a halt. Despite the long hours and hard work the family poured into the coffee shop, it wasn't enough for them to make a decent living.

Small businesses throughout Vancouver-Kensington and across the province are just treading water in some cases, trying to keep their heads above water as they compete for the ever-shrinking dollars consumers have to spend. With this $2 billion tax shift from corporations to individuals, the HST is like a hand pushing them deeper under the water.
[ Page 6524 ]

Instead of helping small businesses thrive and survive, this government in this budget continues to try and falsely portray the HST as something positive for the economy. Stories from across communities like mine expose this. Certainly, the HST has not been a benefit, as widely claimed.

With more than half of Vancouver-Kensington composed of immigrants, another critical issue for them is recognition of their foreign credentials. As professionals in their home countries, it is indeed a devastating financial and emotional blow for many when they face daunting barriers to their desire to also practise their professions in this province.

At my community office some of our volunteers are immigrants who were university professors, chartered accountants and nurses in their home countries, but because of their difficulty in having their credentials recognized, they're compelled to either start their education all over again or undertake other jobs, if they're fortunate to get one, unrelated to their education and experience.

B.C. faces a shortage of skills in many sectors. As such, allowing trained professionals to use their skills will only help our economy flourish. The current foreign credentialing system needs to be streamlined so that we can create an environment that encourages these professionals to maximize their skills for B.C.'s benefit.

[1140]

We haven't seen measures put forward in the budget to address this concern. Certainly, whenever I go to community events, it's something that's very striking to me and makes an impact not only in terms of the ability to contribute to our economy but also the personal impact for these individuals and their families, when they've been accustomed to practising in their professions and not having the ability to transfer their skills. So certainly, it's an area, a priority area, that I think needs to be addressed, which hasn't been addressed in the budget. The budget needs to reflect these concerns.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

As well, the issue of temporary foreign workers. This is another issue I'm hearing about more and more. It's regarding the plight of temporary foreign workers, and especially as it relates to employment standards. With Filipinos comprising the greatest number of temporary foreign workers across Canada, after the Americans, many have come to me in my office with their problems.

B.C. is next to Ontario as a top destination province for temporary foreign workers. In 2009 there were almost 70,000 temporary foreign workers in our province. This is more than four times the number that were here in 2000.

This exponential increase in the number of temporary foreign workers, however, has not been accompanied by actions needed to ensure that their human rights are protected. There are no proactive mechanisms in place to ensure that the labour rights and contracts signed by the workers are actually being implemented.

Immediate and concrete steps that can be taken to protect and promote their rights and welfare include creating storefront resource centres for temporary foreign workers, setting up a hotline that they can call to address their concerns and ensuring that legislation allows for them to form unions and organize collectively.

We haven't seen these issues, particularly focused on temporary foreign workers, addressed in the budget. Unless improvements are made to legislation regarding temporary foreign workers, many will continue to be exploited and intimidated by threats of deportation if they dare register complaints. Indeed, this was the situation with scores of workers I've met in the past year alone as I've travelled across British Columbia.

After complaining about not being paid the wages stipulated in their contracts or voicing concerns about substandard housing conditions, many workers were deported back to both the Philippines and Mexico. While there are situations where some might protest when workers are made to live in substandard conditions and paid little wages — for example, Filipino workers at Denny's filed a $10 million class action lawsuit over contract violations — many temporary foreign workers remain silent and are afraid to speak because of the faint hope that their employer might help them gain permanent resident status or because of the strong fear that they'll be deported.

It's shocking that in this province we have a group of second-class workers who are vulnerable to a broad range of abuses. While on paper it may be easy to say that they have the same rights as local workers, reality dictates that this is not the case.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has now the third-highest number of immigrant landings. According to a report card issued by Simon Fraser University, B.C. also received the lowest mark in terms of effectiveness of immigration services. Certainly the area of providing services to new immigrants is a growing area, I think — an area of high concern and also of a shortfall in the budget.

In terms of priorities, on the issues of child care, the HST, foreign credentials and labour rights for temporary foreign workers…. This budget does not address these important issues. The silence on these concerns is deafening. Most certainly, it means that this government is not serving or addressing the needs of families, immigrants, workers and consumers across Vancouver-Kensington and throughout British Columbia.

Over the past decade this government has shown repeatedly that it's out of touch with what matters most to British Columbians. Finding $6 million to bail out former political aides while cutting the court prosecu-
[ Page 6525 ]
tion budget by the same amount and court services by $9 million, including immigration and refugee legal aid services, is a slap in the face to constituents who already can't get the legal services they need.

Cutting student aid by $34 million and failing to invest in colleges and training slams the door against students trying to get an education so that they can contribute more to our society.

[1145]

While the Premier talks about family-first messaging, we haven't heard child care mentioned. Being silent on these calls for child care spaces and programs that support early learning and care certainly can't be excused.

The abolishment of the HST, the streamlining of the recognition of foreign credentials and greater protection for temporary foreign workers simply isolate this government further and further from my constituents and folks across British Columbia. By supporting this budget, the Premier and her government turn their backs again on our province's most marginalized and vulnerable.

For these reasons, I repeat…. I rise today to protest this budget and to state that, along with my colleagues in the opposition, I commit to offering my constituents and British Columbians real change that they can trust will represent their interests and their realities.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank all of my colleagues in the House for their comments on the budget. I'll offer a few comments of my own before I close off debate.

Let me state to start off that there's just no question that we remain in uncertain times in British Columbia. Certainly, internationally the months and years ahead are going to be a challenge economically, and it is important that we have a government and a fiscal plan that reflects the fact that there is a great deal of potential uncertainty that could impact future budgets.

Our Budget 2011 reflects the most prudent course possible. It lays a strong foundation for the decade ahead, and it confirms our government's commitment to increased investment in health care and education and responsible fiscal management. British Columbians deserve credit for the assistance and the leadership they have shown, the innovation they have shown, that has helped to see British Columbia move forward in a way that leaves many other jurisdictions envious, to say the least.

I listened carefully to the speeches from the members of the opposition, tried to sort of gather a common thread there. Not surprisingly, what we heard was some of the usual NDP attacks on Budget 2011, and it really reflected the same old NDP. I was hoping that with a new Leader of the Opposition we might start to see a bit of a new idea, perhaps some new direction, perhaps some new leadership in terms of moving away from some of the failed policies of the past. Instead, what we've seen is a look backwards, directly backwards.

We've got a new Leader of the Opposition. I congratulated him for taking over last week — as you know, Mr. Speaker — but it is worth reflecting that he was the architect of the government that saw British Columbia in the 1990s become a have-not province for the first time in our proud history, where we were forced to embarrassingly receive transfer payments from other provinces, just like many of the Atlantic provinces, because our economy was doing so poorly. To see that the opposition is still stuck on promoting and encouraging discredited economic policies is surely a disappointment.

Interestingly, around the world left-wing and labour governments have embraced change. Almost everywhere around the world they've recognized that a competitive tax and regulatory regime is the underpinning of ensuring that you're going to have an economy that grows. Instead, what we have is a new Leader of the Opposition that has brought forward three key tax themes that take us directly in the wrong direction.

First, a return to a corporate capital tax on financial institutions to hammer our credit unions and financial institutions in British Columbia. That is something that certainly will send a negative signal worldwide in terms of investment in the province.

He wants to return to the provincial sales tax, and that would certainly set B.C. apart from everywhere else in the world. Over 140 countries around the world now have harmonized their taxes in value-added taxes or harmonized sales taxes, and they wish to go back to the provincial sales tax. There's not a government in the world in 35 years that has introduced a sales tax like the provincial sales tax, thankfully, and yet they want to go backwards.

Thirdly, the economic policy of increasing the general corporate tax rate and small business tax rate is a fascinating one in terms of trying to attract investment. I think the suggestion to go back to tax levels that would require a 20 percent increase in the general corporate tax and an 80 percent increase in the small business tax rate is hardly the signal that is going to attract investment and encourage confidence in the economy in British Columbia.

[1150]

The other thread I saw in the speeches was just a common theme of spending more money. On virtually everything, government should be spending more money. I think it's that complete lack of fiscal discipline that got us into the challenges we faced after a decade of that kind of government in the 1990s to where we're in a very different place today.

I think it's worth pointing out that even with a shift to the HST system, which introduces a harmonized sales tax in British Columbia that merges the 7 percent provincial sales tax with a 5 percent GST, if you look at the total tax burden on B.C. families — that means
[ Page 6526 ]
all taxes, including their personal income tax, child benefits, property taxes, MSP premiums, etc. — British Columbians still enjoy the second-lowest overall taxes of any province in the country — just marginally behind Alberta, just on the high-income side. I think that what that means is some real change.

A senior couple earning $30,000 a year, for example, in 2001 — the last year of the NDP government — was paying $3,391 and this year is paying 2,417 total dollars. That is a 29 percent reduction in overall taxes and fees in the province of British Columbia, and those are the kinds of changes that we want to continue seeing in Budget 2011.

We've seen in the last decade that average take-home pay for British Columbians has increased by 18 percent. That represents an average of $3,925. We don't want to go back, of course, to the '90s where we had eight consecutive deficit budgets and two fudge-it budgets. I point that out because I have heard the new Leader of the Opposition talk about fiscal conservatism, that they're going to be fiscally conservative, but the record says something very different. In five debt management plans that were introduced in the 1990s by the NDP government, every single target they missed. They just stopped issuing debt management plans.

We had multiple credit-rating downgrades during what was described as a boom time in North America's economy. Now look at the contrast, where we've just come through a world international economic meltdown, and British Columbia has had its triple-A credit rating and its upgrades that we've received over the last number of years. Our triple-A credit rating has been reaffirmed by credit-rating agencies. B.C. is now one of only two provinces, including Alberta, that enjoy a triple-A credit rating, and this budget will ensure that we maintain that sort of fiscal discipline that has allowed us to enjoy that triple-A credit rating.

There are many more issues that I could talk about. One thing I do want to say, though, is that this budget is really about prudence. It's about responsibility. It is about ensuring, as we continue to come out of very unsettled economic times, that British Columbia does so on a foundation of a triple-A credit rating, on a foundation of responsible debt management and on a foundation of beating our deficit targets by 25 percent as we did in 2010, ensuring that as we go forward, British Columbians can have the confidence of knowing that this is a government that understands that priorities must first be around having a sound fiscal framework; second, by investing significant new dollars into health care, education and important social services that the public relies on.

I am very pleased to know that we have a new Premier focused on a new family-first agenda. At the end of the day, that is about making sure families have a government that respects the dollars that they send to government and invests them as wisely as possible in services that are delivering outcomes they would expect.

With that, I would move to close debate on the budget.

[1155-1200]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the question before the House is that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Motion approved on the following division:

Point of Order

(continued)

Hon. R. Coleman: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the point of order appropriately brought to the House earlier
[ Page 6527 ]
this morning by the member for Cariboo North concerning the assembly's legislative calendar for the present sitting, I'd first like to apologize to the two members who I did not have the opportunity to speak to prior to conveying the calendar to the House. As a result, I have met with both members this morning, and they have consented that the House would, by unanimous consent now, sit the week of May 23.

I sincerely regret any confusion that may have taken place with respect to the timely conveying of this information to all members and will see to it that, hopefully, I won't make the same mistake in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader. I assume that that addresses the point of order by the member for Cariboo North.

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12:03 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