2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Morning Sitting
Volume 30, Number 1
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | 9383 |
M. Sather | |
Hon. M. Polak | |
M. Mungall | |
Hon. D. McRae | |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2012
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Polak: I call continued debate on the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
M. Sather: It's my pleasure to rise in response to the budget for the upcoming fiscal year and projections into the future. We've heard a great deal from the Finance Minister and from the government about taking a cautious approach, a financial approach, etc.
[D. Black in the chair.]
Let's take a look at what their record has actually been and see if the evidence supports the rhetoric. This government presided over six deficit budgets, including the biggest deficits in the history of this province. Their first budget was a whopping $3.4 billion in the red, followed by $2.5 billion and then $1.2 billion. That was the first round of their huge deficits that they have run.
Yet the Finance Minister says that they got the province on the road to balanced budgets. I don't think so. They were left with a balanced budget and quickly racked up huge deficits year after year. This year we see, for the current fiscal year, another big deficit — this time $2.5 billion. This particular deficit, though, has a bit of a twist in it.
Residents of British Columbia, of course, will remember very clearly the implementation of the HST — the intention to do that — and the problems with the $1.6 billion in upfront money that the government got to try to sell British Columbians on the HST.
They may also know that the government, though, made an arrangement with the federal government to pay back that $1.6 billion over five years. For this year we actually owe $320 million on that HST debt.
However, the government has chosen to put all of the $1.6 billion on this year's books. Why would they be doing that, I wonder. It's simply to avoid having to count that debt on next year's books and therefore to pretend — and we've seen the pretence that this government has around their so-called balanced budgets — that they will have a balanced budget next year, trying to delay some of the worst of the bad news until after the next election.
Of course, British Columbians have seen this gong show before, in the 2009 election, when this government said it would have a deficit of $495 million maximum, not a penny more. Then they brought in a deficit of $1.8 billion, 3.8 times larger than they said they would do. That is the reason why British Columbians have so little faith in this government and their talk about balanced budgets.
Then there's the B.C. Hydro deferral accounts flimflam that British Columbians have been subjected to — the $2.2 billion the government has run up with their ill-advised private power purchases, scheduled to hit $5 billion in expenses that British Columbians are paying for in higher hydro rates. Instead of counting these every year, as the Auditor General told them they should do, they've put them off into deferral accounts — again trying to put off the bad news.
In the coming fiscal year the Liberals will run up a deficit to the tune of $968 million, this while having legislation that supposedly outlaws deficit budgets. But there've been a bunch of them, and they keep on coming.
Now the government says they're going to have a balanced budget for 2013-14, just in time for the next election. The Finance Minister has a very peculiar notion of financial accountability. With the debt rolling up massively, he thinks they should be lauded for, as he put it, "outperforming our budget targets in nine out of ten years" — those ever-changing targets.
This is a government that a number of years ago railed about the so-called fudge-it budget of Glen Clark. What was that NDP deficit? It was about $300 million. The Liberals' deficit after the 2009 election was six times bigger — six times. The decade of deceit is what we've seen from this government.
This government is now resorting to selling assets to pay the piper — like land belonging to school districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions — to try to convince British Columbians they won't have a deficit next year. So $7 million in sell-offs there.
Not only are they selling off assets, but they're milking ICBC once again. It's $497 million this time, in addition to the $778 million they've already milked from ICBC just since 2009. That's $1.3 billion taken from ICBC. Who's going to pay for that? Drivers in British Columbia are going to pay.
That's, of course, if they can get a driver's licence — you know, if they're able to get through the DriveABLE program that this government has set up.
Interjection.
M. Sather: The member says: "Oh, please." I'll tell you that if you're a senior and you're faced with a computer program or a touch screen and you aren't used to having a computer at all, what kind of measurement is that of whether you can drive or not? It's intimidating, and it's unfair to seniors.
[ Page 9384 ]
If they want to test the seniors, if they think they can't drive — fair enough. Give them a road test. Give them a proper test. But no. It's a totally unfair program that has been foisted on seniors. Then if you fail, you get stuck without your car wherever you may be, which is a real problem in rural areas.
The minister says: "We incurred a temporary deficit." Well, that's not very temporary. It's three years and running. That's this iteration of their run of deficits, and that's not counting the ones that they started off with.
He says: "We made a commitment to balance the budget next year." Well, he's changed his tune about that about five times in the last year. Oh, first it was going to be a balanced budget. No, no. Then: "We can't do it. You know, gas prices are down, etc." He has flip-flopped back on forth on that one. Who could have any confidence in this Finance Minister or this government when it comes to keeping their promises on balanced budgets?
How about the debt? The Liberal debt went from $34 billion in 2001 to $53 billion, an average yearly increase of $1.9 billion. This doesn't include the $82 billion in off-book debt. There are a lot of b's out there when it comes to this government. The b's are buzzing. They just roll off — $82 billion over their term in office.
This government, these folks, are the biggest spenders ever known in this province. They talk about how prudent and cautious they are. Wow. They're not shovelling cash off the back of a truck; they're shovelling it off the back of a supertanker. I mean, these guys know no end.
And now, in this budget, the government is spending another $20 billion, most of that borrowed. Add them up. That comes to 145 b's. That's b's as in billions. They just keep rolling off the tongues of this so-called prudent government over there.
Let's look at spending, because that's how you get these multitudes of b's — through spending. And man, has there been wasteful spending by this government: $780,000 on an HST pamphlet — never used, trashed, and I hope they recycled it at least; $50 million on the Boss Power uranium deal for failing to follow the law; $25 billion in the 30- to 40-year private power purchases B.C. Hydro was forced to make at $120 a megawatt hour, when it's only selling for half that in B.C. and about a quarter of that on the export market. "Buy high. Sell low." That's the motto of these prudent fiscal managers over there.
The minister says we're in a new paradigm. He says that the days of tolerating government overspending are over. Well, this must be a very, very new paradigm. He must have made it up about this week, I would say, because there's no history of it with this government — none whatsoever. The minister said: "Some...say we should...simply spend more, tax more and pass the bill to the next generation." Well, he ought to know, because that's exactly what this government has been doing.
Let's look at some of those taxes that they've inflicted upon British Columbians. MSP premiums — up 4 percent again. That's four increases in just three years, for a total of a 24 percent increase. Those are costs that hit the average British Columbian hard. The Health Minister seems to think that the MSP increases weren't in the budget at all, but what the Finance Minister said, referring to a lift in MSP premiums, is: "They will increase by 4 percent beginning in 2013."
Individuals are paying $366 more per year in MSP premiums since this Liberal government came to power, and families are paying $732 more a year. How about ferry fares? Up, up, up. Tuition fees? Up, up, up. Long-term-care fees? Way up. Home care fees? Way up.
Then, of course, there's the HST. Taxpayers will be saddled with repayment of this fiasco this year and the next four years. Eleven months to bring it in, but mysteriously, it's taking 19 months to get rid of it — another legacy of debt left by this government. This is the Finance Minister's and the Premier's most peculiar definition of "fiscal prudence."
The Finance Minister talks about "our record of fiscal discipline." I guess they figure we could have run up the deficit even more than we did, even more than the $145 billion. Maybe that's just what they will do. "Our always prudent approach," he says. It would be eminently laughable if it wasn't for the hurt it's causing British Columbians.
The Premier talked a lot about the families-first agenda. We didn't see much of that in this budget. It kind of seems like the Finance Minister sort of muscled the Premier aside there a bit.
But I can tell you, if you're a farmer, like in my constituency, and you're hoping to be able to continue on with the family farm and your parent dies, as happened to my constituent, the government then makes you go through a process where your land shoots up to $4.5 million from $600,000 in assessment. Then you're told, "You know what? You're not eligible for the family farm exemption," which is there to help family farms pass on the farm from the parent to children. "You're not eligible." Why? "Because your parent wasn't on the farm when they died." No. She was in hospital, actually. She was in care.
Interjection.
M. Sather: I beg your pardon? "Grow something," the member says. I'm not sure what he's talking about — grow something. We're talking about an operating farm here. We're talking about a farm that's been in continuous production since 1951. I don't know what the member thinks is his idea of….
Interjection.
M. Sather: The member is completely unaware of the facts, but that's not uncommon at all.
[ Page 9385 ]
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please, Member. Order.
M. Sather: It's not uncommon at all.
An Hon. Member: Sorry.
M. Sather: Well, the member should be sorry. But nevertheless, let's carry on.
So that's one of the sad facts: that families first is certainly not for everybody. I'm not sure that it's for anybody. Look at the Community Living B.C. fiasco, for example. And nowhere more, I think, was the mishandling of that…. I didn't call it mishandling, because it was intentional what was done to the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society in Maple Ridge, where those special needs workers were told: "You know what? You don't have a real job, so we're going to get you out there to have a real job." They threatened — this government did — to cancel that program.
Then the Premier made a visit over to our facility, and she said: "Well, actually, they are doing real jobs, and everything is cool. These workers are safe. They won't lose their jobs." Well, that's not quite the case, because what CLBC is saying, what this government is saying, is that: "Yeah, if you happen to be a worker there now, you're not going to lose your job. But if you want to get a job there, well, you know what? You're going to be on a short leash. You're going to be on a short leash, because we're going to take you from there, and we're going to put you into competitive employment."
Well, the fact is that not all of those workers will be able to manage in competitive employment situations. They need the kind of supports they get there. But that's not what's happening behind the scenes. Families in my constituency and in the constituency next door, Maple Ridge–Mission, are asking to meet with CLBC. They want to know what's going on. They asked the last time this came around. They're still waiting, and I don't have a great deal of confidence in where the government is going.
I think that this government simply doesn't like non-profit organizations. They want to see that facility privatized, never mind what happens to the special needs workers there.
We look at education in this budget. The only money for education was $60 million for special education, and this is all, I think, related to what the government is trying to do in a ham-fisted way and in an unfair way with the Supreme Court ruling.
It said that they were wrong in telling the government they couldn't bargain class size and composition, but overall, we're looking at a 0.06 percent increase for education. Inflation in this province is 1.7 percent. So if you're getting a 0.06 percent increase in a 1.7 percent inflation environment, that's obviously a decrease. On top of that, school districts will have to pay for the aforementioned MSP increase, and that comes to a fairly large bill for them.
Post-secondary education. Our universities, colleges and trades-training programs were hit with a $20 million cut this year and a $50 million cut next year.
How about jobs? The Premier says that she's all about jobs. They're certainly advertising, spending another $15 million in advertising jobs, but advertising jobs and actually supporting jobs are a different matter. We need an educated workforce to deal with technological change and a looming skills shortage. Nothing in this budget on skills training and a 1 percent reduction in advanced education.
The Premier said the other day that she's in favour of private sector jobs, the inference being that she's not in favour of public sector jobs. This is totally evident in her disdain for public sector workers. Why is the Premier against people working in the public sector? They clean our streets, take out our garbage, care for us in hospital, teach our kids and care for our aging parents. So when she claims that she's all about jobs, apparently it's only about jobs in the private sector. Everybody else, beware.
Who is it that pays the biggest price for the Premier's uncaring attitude towards jobs in British Columbia? Young workers. They're the ones that are hit the hardest.
Let's look at seniors. Very little for seniors in the budget, despite all the talk before the budget which was spurred by the Ombudsperson's scathing review of the treatment and mistreatment of seniors in this province. We have a home-renovation tax credit, but that's not going to help low-income seniors. They would have been better served by improved home support services to allow them to remain in their homes longer.
The government will think about a seniors advocate, they said. We have been saying for a long time that we need a seniors advocate, and they said in December they're going to get around to maybe thinking about that, addressing that.
In health care we're looking at more and more hallway medicine. We've seen the doctors up in arms at Royal Columbian Hospital about that state of affairs, and in other hospitals. Seniors are going to wait a year or more to get into long-term care from hospital, which is not only bad care, but it's exceedingly expensive and wasteful.
How about the forest industry? Nothing in this budget to help forestry, which could really use some assistance from this government. We have seen a huge increase in raw log exports, logging trucks driving by the few remaining mills crying out for logs.
Exporting B.C. jobs is what this government has become proficient at — 37 percent fewer workers in forestry in B.C. than there were in 2001. The Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations tried to say in
[ Page 9386 ]
this House yesterday that they're doing a lot for forestry. Not so. Funding for forestry research has dropped from $38.8 million in 1997 to $2.5 million in 2010. The government has been charging as little as 25 cents per cubic metre on Interior beetle-killed pine, bringing on a softwood lumber dispute from the U.S. totalling $500 million. Workers are moving to the oil patch in droves to find work, as forestry flounders under this government.
As Fred Bunnell, professor emeritus of forest sciences at UBC, put it, "The government has given up on forest stewardship" — given up. The government makes goals for protecting soils, fish and wildlife, riparian areas, water and visual quality but then consciously does nothing to enforce these goals. Protecting our forests is red tape to them.
Harvesting in beetle-killed areas has reached cuts 10,000 hectares in size or larger. There's no concern expressed for other forest values in allowing operations like this, and there's little or no coordination of logging in beetle-killed areas. Companies just go out and start logging where they see fit. It's very difficult for tourism operators to develop a business on the land base when no one is obliged to see to their concerns. You put in time and effort to develop trails, and then they're clearcut without any kind of even a visual protection strip. Your business is pretty much toast.
Ranchers are also having problems with increased flooding due to clearcut logging of beetle-killed forests. Large clearcuts encourage cattle to wander further afield, making them more difficult to manage.
The Forest Practices Board said: "There's a fundamental weakness in the system that allows one tenure holder to hold the power of decision over another tenure holder." Even dead trees slow runoff by intercepting snowfall and providing shade. In beetle-killed forests you will also find some pines still alive and other species like spruce, fir and aspen. These living trees are removed along with the dead pine during the salvage operations, and their ecological values go with them.
A Forest Practices Board report found that the beetle kill increased flood risk by 60 percent, increasing to 92 percent after salvage logging. This flooding is bringing more sediment even down to the Lower Fraser River, causing buildup along dikes, increasing flooding risk in those areas. All these problems in forestry get short shrift in this budget.
What about other natural resources? Our forests generate $10 billion in economic activity a year. Tourism generates $13 billion per year and 129,000 jobs. Those would be jobs that you'd think the Premier was interested in. Tourism is barely mentioned in this budget. Their marketing budget is frozen. The government is putting little into these economic and jobs generators.
The Premier has put all her eggs in the liquefied natural gas basket. But China has more reserves of shale gas than anybody else in the world, and pretty soon they will be pulling their own reserves out. So I don't know if the project is going to be as successful as hoped.
Recreational trout-fishing generates $240 million per year in this province, but 58 percent of the resource road stream crossings pose a moderate to high risk of blocking fish. Madam Speaker, 77,000 streams need remediation in this province. How many is this government doing? Twenty-five a year. Total mismanagement.
Since this government came to power and up to 2009, funding for renewable resource management is down by over a half. There have been further large cuts since then, but the government doesn't report these.
British Columbians and others are rightfully concerned about the lack of equality in our province. The income share of the top 1 percent of British Columbian earners has almost doubled in the last few decades. Such an uneven distribution in incomes has not been seen since the dark days of the Great Depression. Young workers now face lower wage earnings than did their parents.
Information communications technology has hastened the contracting out of jobs to low-wage jurisdictions. And 15 percent of our increase inequality is the result of declining unionization. I know the members opposite aren't fond of unions, but unions are what help to keep the wages up for the middle class, the heart and soul of this province.
The Finance Minister is not concerned about the imbalance between the most wealthy and the rest of British Columbians. He says that if British Columbians think our corporate tax structure is heavily skewed against them, then they must be advocates of life in Cuba. That's how seriously our Finance Minister takes the concerns that British Columbians have about making ends meet. An uncaring Finance Minister combined with a reckless Premier is what we have in British Columbia today.
I want to take a short look at the Golden Ears Bridge in my constituency with regard to so-called fiscal prudence. This was one of the Finance Minister's favourite projects back when he was Transportation Minister. Bilfinger Berger built the bridge, said by the government to be a $600 million deal, and the bridge came in at over a billion dollars, according to the lawyers that put the deal together. The bridge is already over $60 million in the red.
On February 8 it was announced that Bilfinger Berger Project had sold a 50 percent stake in the bridge for $45 million. Who did Bilfinger Berger Project sell to? Well, none other than Bilfinger Berger Global Infrastructure. What is Bilfinger Berger Global Infrastructure doing with their contrived profits? Well, tucking them away in Luxembourg, of course — a well-known tax haven.
This is one of the legacies of this government's P3 public-private partnership misadventure. This is not by any means prudent fiscal management. This is clever fleecing of the taxpayers of this province over and over again.
[ Page 9387 ]
You know, the Enbridge pipeline is a big topic of debate….
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.
Hon. I. Chong: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. I. Chong: Today I'm pleased to welcome a group of students visiting from my riding. Frank Hobbs Elementary School is here today. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Megan Schuring, and a number of parents, who generally do accompany the students. I believe there are 28 grade 4 students and nine adults here, and I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. M. Polak: I'm very pleased to rise in this House and offer my support for Budget 2012. We've been talking a lot about the debate in terms of a budget, and I was reflecting yesterday when I was listening to members speak that how we discuss a budget and how we discuss spending really reflects a lot of our own personal experiences and ideas with respect to how we perceive money and how we perceive spending.
Of course, many of those experiences are developed from our childhood. I know in our family we didn't have an awful lot of money. My mother was disabled and collected her pension that was for her not to have to work. My father was a veteran who ended up having to leave work when they were surprised with having two young children.
The running gag in our household…. My brother and I, when we talk about growing up, now say: "Well, we knew it was really bad when we had to dilute the water." I remember going to a friend's house and finding out that milk could actually be purchased at the store in a carton instead of my dad shaking it onto the Red River cereal in powdered form and adding the boiling water.
Nevertheless, although those things shape some of my perceptions about money and spending and wealth, I had a very, very happy childhood. I had parents that cared very much about how we were raised and about what our lives were like and generally took a positive outlook as to what it was that we could potentially achieve. Later on in life things improved somewhat. I wasn't drinking the powdered milk anymore. But as you begin a young family, you still have struggles.
I recall the comparison that I would make between myself and one of my relatives who shall remain nameless. She happened to marry into a family that had significant resources. We would get together on occasion at family gatherings, and she would complain: "Ah, you know, I'm just so broke. I'm so broke." I remember saying to my husband: "You know, the interesting thing is that her definition of broke is, 'I'm not going to the spa twice this week.'" My definition of broke was: "I've already been through the couch cushions, and I've spent that money."
People's perceptions of money and spending and what wealth means and what security means can be very different. They can be positive, they can be negative, and a lot of it, a lot of the decisions you make are determined by those perceptions. When you have very little money, the idea that you might be able to afford to take the kids to McDonald's for a cheeseburger can sometimes seem out of reach. If you're in a position where you're doing fairly well, you might look at the McDonald's and say: "My goodness, I would never frequent that establishment."
All of us bring these thoughts and these ideas with us. For families in British Columbia, they live these realities each and every day. We know that as a result of the economic downturn — the circumstances, financially, in the world, not just in British Columbia but around the world — families are struggling. There are some bright lights on the horizon for jurisdictions like British Columbia and others that have managed to keep their fiscal house in order. We can see that light at the end of the tunnel, that maybe we're going to manage to get our way out of this and through this.
Nevertheless, for families right now who are wondering how they're going to pay the hydro bill, sometimes deciding: "Do I pay this bill or that one. Which one do I need to pay sooner…?" For them in particular, it's critically important that we get this budget right. It's for them that we make those decisions. We can talk about a budget from a political standpoint, but even that brings us back to what the decisions of government mean to a family every day — not just today but what it'll mean looking out 2012, 2013, 2014.
What position are we putting families in, going forward? Are we going to create a situation in the province where they can see their way to a better future? Well, I do think that we have to consider the things that families find important to them. Not surprisingly, they are the kinds of things that governments, whether they are opposition or government, advocate for spending on in different ways, different amounts.
They're the things that are important to all of us. We want to make sure that those who are vulnerable in our society are looked after. We want to make sure that if one of our loved ones becomes ill, we can take them to the emergency room or to the doctor and they're going to be looked after. We want to make sure that our children have the best opportunity to be educated, and so on and so forth.
Everyone brings their values to the table as we have that debate, but at the end of the day, there's general consensus around the types of things that government ought
[ Page 9388 ]
to do in support of its citizens. Different ways we might go about it, but there's general consensus around what those things might be.
Where the rubber meets the road in terms of people's differing philosophies really comes down to the question of who pays. Who pays for it? How much should they pay? What role should government play in making the decisions about where an individual family can spend its money?
Now, you might say: "Well, government doesn't interfere with families and tell them where to spend their money. I get my paycheque, and I go spend it where I want." Well, that gap between your gross earnings and your net earnings is the place where government decides how to spend your money. That's where the nexus of our debate develops in this House, because of course we bring to this some very different philosophies.
When we were debating in the House yesterday, there was an exchange taking place between a couple of members. The challenge was thrown out: "Do you know what a socialist is? Do you know what socialism is?" I was in the House, and I thought: "Well, fair enough." Fair enough. If we're going to talk about the philosophy of the opposition — and it's stated in their party constitution — and you're going to accuse someone of being a socialist, then I think one ought to explain.
Let me say this. Socialism is a valid political point of view, like many others in our world. But it is important, I think, that we examine just what that means, because as I was saying, we all bring a philosophy to the table when we're making spending decisions, budget decisions, and this is one of them.
A definition of socialism. This was taken from dictionary.com, so if anyone disagrees with it, they know where to….
Interjections.
Hon. M. Polak: Well, no. Dictionary.com, I thought, was far more reliable in terms of sourcing.
A short definition, just to give us a flavour of this. Socialism is a "system of social organization based on government or community ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Now, it's true that we could probably spend days, months, maybe a lifetime trying to understand an overall political philosophy, but for our purposes today, I simply want to get at the different viewpoints that we bring to the table and recognize how they affect the choices that we make in a budget.
One of the things that becomes apparent when you think about the collective making decisions is that the government's role becomes far more important in deciding that gap between your gross and your net income. How much money are you going to pay, and how much of it is government going to take and decide what to do with it? It's based on the premise that the collective is going to make a better decision about redistributing that wealth than you will as an individual.
The flipside of that would be that government then decides that it would be far better to provide more programs, more spending on behalf of you as a family, you as an individual, because government, the collective, is going to make a better decision than you are.
I'm proud to say that I come from a different perspective than that. It's not one that I agree with.
I believe that families, individuals, are the ones who make the best decisions. I think there are times when we choose to come together and support things as a government, but we have to recognize that the decision-makers, the ones who should be calling the shots about where their money goes, are the families, are the individuals. They are going to make the best decision for their kids, their grandkids, for themselves.
So there's where there is the philosophical divide. I can say I could find few better examples than the current budget that the Finance Minister has tabled for us here.
Of course, if the collective is going to make all of those decisions for people and if the collective is going to decide that we're going to take more money from your taxes and distribute it out in more and growing and increasing programs, then of course it's going to be represented in the amount of taxes that we are raising. That's where we have a particularly positive story in British Columbia.
Part of it is reflected in this budget. Part of it is a record that is now longstanding, since 2001, when this government took office and decided that it was time we gave some tax relief to people in British Columbia.
Where does this budget put us now? Well, B.C. families are now enjoying one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada.
I've had some people, when I speak to them about that, say: "Well, you're just talking about income tax. What about all the other fees? What about all of the other taxes?"
Well, that comparison actually includes income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, health care premiums, payroll taxes.
The fact of the matter….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, please. I need to hear the speaker.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members. Order.
Hon. M. Polak: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The fact of the matter is that it is demonstrably untrue
[ Page 9389 ]
to say that we are living in a high-tax environment in British Columbia. It just is demonstrably untrue. We currently have the lowest personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $120,000 a year, and we've reduced provincial personal income taxes for most taxpayers by 37 percent or more since 2001.
But here's one of the key differences in how we act on our philosophical approach to budgeting. There's another group of people, an additional 325,000 people who no longer pay any — any — provincial income tax in B.C. Now, why do I emphasize that? Because we've heard the opposition rail about the fact that we clearly don't care about those who have low incomes, that we clearly don't want to help them.
Yet this from an opposition who, when they were in government, made these people pay income tax. They cared about them so much that they took what little income they had and said: "You've got to pay some income tax too." The two just don't add up.
When we look at what's happened for families, the story becomes even more clear. If you compare back to 2001 and what was occurring for a family then and compare it to now…. Take an individual earning $20,000 a year. They are now paying $723 less in provincial income taxes than they were in 2001.
A senior couple — and we know that it can be very challenging for seniors on a fixed income, as inflation rises, as the costs of goods rises — earning $40,000 a year pays $828 less in provincial income taxes today, compared to 2001.
What about an individual earning $50,000 a year? Well, they pay $1,435 less in provincial income taxes.
But here's the kicker. A family of four earning $70,000 a year — an amount, by the way, that when the NDP was in government would have been considered high income and subject to additional taxes, because they set that rate at $60,000 — pays $2,158 less in provincial income taxes. That is not just less tax that those families are paying. That's another $2,158 a year that they can spend on things for their children, that they can spend on choices they want to make because they reflect their priorities.
It's not government deciding where that $2,000 goes. It's that family. It's those individuals. It's government recognizing that when we are in this building, we are spending other people's money. Government doesn't have any money of its own. We are spending other people's money.
For the general public, for families, they really, really don't care if it's the municipal level, the federal level, the provincial level. They have one pocket, and believe you me, Madam Speaker, they care about how much money we're taking out of that pocket. We have to fight to continue to keep taxes low and make sure that those families are able to make the decisions with their own money.
But it isn't just an end in and of itself. Of course, the reason that you are looking to provide services as government is to meet those values that families hold dear, that communities hold dear. In this budget we've been very, very clear that we are going to be maintaining the important services, the critical services, that British Columbians want to see us supporting and what they want their tax money going for.
Madam Speaker, $237 million over three years is going to go into the Ministry of Justice. That includes $66 million a year to pay for 168 police officers who were hired as part of the guns and gangs strategy. I come from the Fraser Valley. I know all too well the negative impact that gang activity can have in a community, and the public wants to see us address that.
Income assistance, helping those people who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Income assistance will receive $294 million over three years. That's there because we have growing demand in terms of disability benefits, and we also have higher numbers of single employable people receiving assistance. It's to be expected. We're in an economic downturn. People are becoming more challenged, and government is responding by making sure that those supports are there in spite of challenges in our own budget.
Then, of course, Community Living B.C. I just want to give my compliments to the minister responsible for Community Living B.C. because there was a whole bunch of pressure — and much of it came from the opposition benches — to simply take money, put it into CLBC and not get serious about looking at the structure of services and supports that were provided. Instead, the minister took the action of conducting very thorough reviews of what was going on and now is going forward not just with more dollars but also with a very careful plan to utilize those dollars in the best way possible, and that is an important factor in the way in which we make decisions.
When families are deciding how they are going to spend their budgets, you can bet that when money is tight, they don't just throw money at a problem. They decide where it is they should put that money. They decide how best to try and solve the problems that they face. We need to be responsible as government to do the same thing. We're spending their money. We can't just be writing out the cheques without expecting that there's going to be performance on the other end, that the services are going to be delivered the way they ought to be. That's exactly what we did in adding the $40 million to Community Living B.C. and seeking to strengthen the supports for those individuals with developmental disabilities.
We also, though, recognize that at this time when families are being squeezed, when they feel as though there is no light on the horizon for them, we needed to give some assistance to them in some very real ways. Many people thought that in this budget we wouldn't be able to find any way to soften the hardship for families, for those in modest income ranges, but we've found some ways to do that.
[ Page 9390 ]
The B.C. first-time new-home buyers bonus. I talk to young families all the time who really struggle with the question of how they are going to afford their first home. This doesn't solve all of those issues, but certainly for those folks to receive a cheque of up to $10,000 when they purchase a newly built home, that is going to do a tremendous amount to help those folks get a house. You know, I understand that the members opposite don't think $10,000 is very much money. But I'll tell you that for folks who have modest incomes, $10,000 is a whole lot of money.
When it comes to children and families who are seeking to live an active lifestyle, who are struggling with the cost of organized sport and arts activities, here's another place where we've recognized that we need to help families out. When they're trying to afford to put food on the table, often the things that are sacrificed are those extras for their child — that really, for all of us as parents, we would say: "Well, they're really not extras. My child really needs to be involved in sports activities or involved in arts activities, things in the community."
That's why this budget institutes the children's fitness credit and the children's arts credit. This is going to allow families to claim up to $500 for those expenses per child, per credit, per year. What that means for a family with three children is that they can claim up to $1,500 a year. That, of course, is assuming that each of those children is involved in a sports or arts program. I think this is another way in which we can take a bit of the burden away from families, recognizing that there's more we can do for them, but this will be very important.
Then, of course, there is the B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit. Now, you might ask yourself: "What does that have to do with families on a broad scale?" Well, when you can manage to renovate a home in such a way that a senior can stay in that home longer, not only does that help the senior, but it certainly helps their broader family who are often caregivers. Being able to have the hand grabs in the bathroom, being able to have a ramp built up some stairs or have a stairlift — those types of renovations are things that help families, young and old. We are all trying our best to make sure that the families can make those decisions for themselves.
There are also changes that we've made to the homeowner grant. We're creating a new supplement for low-income veterans under the age of 65. There are many who are returning from theatres of war, who need that type of assistance, and of course we owe to them our deepest debt of gratitude. This is only a small way of helping them, but an important one.
Then we've extended the eligibility for homeowners who've moved into a residential facility but haven't managed to sell their home yet. I see this as just one of those commonsense measures that shows we're trying to listen and understand the challenges that families are bringing to us. This was one of them — to say that if a senior or someone who's ill moves into a care facility and they have not been able to sell their home yet, they shouldn't be burdened with not receiving the homeowner grant.
Those are some of the ways in which Budget 2012 seeks to take the money that we collect from taxpayers and help them out by reducing the burden on them while we still support the critical services that are so very important to us as British Columbians.
Of course, as we look to the future and try to chart a course to get us back onto a healthy footing, one of the main ways we are going to do that is by creating jobs in British Columbia. There are not very many people I speak to in my constituency who want to have handouts. They want to have a job. They want to work. They want to provide for their families, and they want to make their choices themselves.
I won't speak to the role of government overall in terms of creating jobs, but I will speak a little bit to the work of our ministry in aboriginal relations and reconciliation. There was a time in British Columbia when the development of resource extraction and other economic activity on the land base was done without any attention to First Nations whatsoever.
That blew up into conflict. It stopped activity on the land base, and that had a very direct impact on the economy. Instead, where we are today is working toward ten new non-treaty agreements by 2015. That's going to facilitate things like new mines, major mine expansions. We're working with First Nations on projects like liquefied natural gas. In short, what we're doing is finally working together with First Nations to ensure that the economic benefits of creating jobs and economic activity don't just accrue to non–First Nations communities.
We know that in our history, when our non–First Nations communities have benefited from economic growth, the same has not been true for their surrounding First Nations communities. However, we also know that in areas where First Nations communities have benefited, where they have experienced economic growth, that has had a positive impact on all the non–First Nations communities around them.
In terms of our action as a ministry, we are working hard on behalf of government to ensure that First Nations are full partners in the economic activity that's taking place. We're going forward to a place where, side by side, we are going to create another successful economic recovery in British Columbia through our work on creating jobs through the B.C. jobs plan. I'm proud that our ministry can play such a significant role in that.
We've also, up until now, had some pretty significant successes. I want to point these out because, of course, when you look at where you invest in our government, we have chosen to put some investment toward the work we're doing with First Nations. I'm pleased to say that we're beginning to see the results.
[ Page 9391 ]
We're seeing momentum created in the discussions and negotiations we're having, such that now we have ratified treaties with seven First Nations, including the first urban treaty with Tsawwassen. We've initialled a final agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. We now have 84 First Nations in stage 4, negotiating an agreement-in-principle. We have two negotiating tables at stage 5, negotiating a final agreement. As well, we have signed incremental treaty agreements with the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation and the Klahoose.
There is progress being made. We are seeing the momentum grow, and we're also seeing it in terms of non-treaty agreements. We signed recently a land and resource management and shared decision-making agreement with the Taku River Tlingit, for example.
This particular agreement is going to be potentially a model going forward for the way in which we can work with First Nations. It results in a balance between protection of the environment and aboriginal rights, while at the same time offering opportunity for investment certainty on more than three million hectares in the Atlin-Taku region. At the same time, we've created 13 new protected areas.
All of this to say that First Nations, non–First Nations, whoever you are in British Columbia, you depend on the government making decisions that will result in economic growth, that will result in a job for you, for your family, and that will not result in government taking more of the money you earn from that job out of your pocket.
We have done our best to keep those numbers down, to make sure that we are careful and thoughtful about the way in which we tax British Columbians and to take every opportunity we can to return that money and return those decisions to British Columbians. As I started in this discussion, it is about the decisions we make for families and recognizing that we should be making as few of them for families as possible.
We need to make sure that British Columbians are the ones who are able to take charge of their own future and not presume that because we are government and we sit in this room full of all of this history that somehow that makes us smarter than them and that we know better how to spend their money than they do. I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that's not what they think.
In closing, this is a time for us where we have a chance to go forward. It's not certain. If you make the wrong choices, you might not. But we've laid out in Budget 2012 what we believe to be a path going forward that we can achieve, and if we take a look at our success in reaching our budget targets since 2001, we have exceeded or met those budget targets each and every year.
In contrast, that didn't happen when the opposition were in government. In fact, I recall being a school board trustee, and in the entire time that they were in government they didn't provide a funding announcement for school boards on time once.
Going forward, this is a budget I support. It supports jobs, it supports families, and it supports the services that they want us to provide for them, and so I am pleased to offer my support for this budget, and I welcome the further debate.
M. Mungall: I rise to take my place in today's debate over the B.C. Liberal government's presentation of their Budget 2012.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
It's been a couple days since they presented that budget. I've had the opportunity to go through it quite extensively, and my conclusion to that is that this Liberal government has clearly no vision and, frankly, no clue, it seems to be, as to what's going on in this province and how to take us forward into the future.
When I say that, that they have no vision, it's pretty clear when we look particularly at advanced education. Now, let's put this into context — where British Columbia is at right now. We are in a transition. There are things that are happening around the world that are changing the economic realities that we face here in British Columbia.
We can speak at length about that. But of course, that's not the topic here, and I don't want to get into trouble with you, Madam Speaker — to get back on topic. The point is that there's a lot that does influence B.C.'s economy. One of the things that results from those changes that are happening all around the world, including a demographic change where we're going to see the baby boomers retire en masse within the next few years, is the change in the labour market demand. That's going to impact British Columbia. We have done studies in this province, and what those studies have showed us is that 80 percent of jobs in the next five years are going to require some level of post-secondary education.
These are studies done by the government that are saying that. Two-thirds of those jobs are opening up. Two-thirds of the million jobs that will be opening up by 2020 are as a result of attrition. Another third are new job creation. But the problem that we're facing in this province is that we have a skilled-labour shortage. We have a skilled-labour shortage. We predict that by 2017, just in five years, there will be 160,000 jobs open but unable to be filled by the current realities of B.C.'s labour force and what we can predict and extrapolate for that time period. So 160,000 jobs being unfilled.
A lot of people think that when we have excess jobs to the labour force, that's actually a good thing; everybody will be employed, and the wealth will flow. But what economists show over and over and over again is that when you have a situation where you have people without jobs and jobs without people, it's one of the most detrimental things that you can do for an economy. Business
[ Page 9392 ]
columnist Don Cayo for the Vancouver Sun was highlighting that very issue in one of his columns. He was saying that, in fact, that situation, where we cannot meet the labour market demands from our economy, is one of the worst woes that exists for B.C.'s future.
That's the reality that we're facing: 80 percent of jobs are going to require some level of post-secondary education, but we don't have the labour force to meet that demand. We don't have enough people trained to meet that demand. Only 67 percent of our labour force today has the qualifications to meet the jobs demand in just five years. We've got five years to go, so we have just the right time frame to start educating our population, to give them the training they need so that they can be a part of our economy.
The member who spoke before me from the Liberal benches was talking about how people in her constituency — and, of course, this is true of British Columbians from all corners of the province — want to work. They want to work. But to get the work that is available, they need to get training. They need to get a post-secondary education. That's the reality. That is where British Columbia is at.
This information about what is happening with our labour market is all produced and researched by the government, by the bureaucracy that the Liberal members are in charge of, so they know this. They have this information. You would think that with that information, empowered by that information, they would set out a strong vision for post-secondary education. They would recognize….
As Don Drummond, who is well known for his prescription for Ontario's budget, which some people have said has eviscerated the public service…. One thing he has said was that there needs to be an increase in funding to post-secondary education. Even he recognizes that. But after looking at the budget coming out of the B.C. Liberal benches on Tuesday, it is clear that they are not taking Don Drummond's advice.
They're not following their own information, the information they have on how to address labour market needs for the future. Rather, they have completely ignored post-secondary education. They have completely ignored it.
So where do they start?
Interjections.
M. Mungall: Clearly, I'm entertaining the members on the further back benches over on the Liberal side. I hope I continue to do that throughout this speech.
One of the ways in which this government….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members, Members. I need to be able to hear the member who has the floor.
M. Mungall: One of the ways in which this government has completely failed post-secondary education is by completely failing to address the top-of-mind issue for students, for faculty and for administration. That issue is student debt, its affordability. That is what they are talking about on every single campus in this province.
I know, because I've been able to visit almost all the public post-secondary schools in this province. I've had the opportunity to speak with students, administration and faculty. Every single one of them is talking about affordability. They are talking about student debt. So you could imagine my surprise when the minister was quoted in the press, saying that that's, in fact, not what students are talking about, because I know that it is.
She also went on, in the press and was quoted there, saying that student debt is not where she's going to be putting her efforts. Well, boy, was that the truth. That was the few true things coming from the opposite side of the House when the budget was delivered, and it was clear that she was not putting her efforts into student debt.
We see no movement on interest rates. In fact, we see some reductions in the grants program. Already British Columbia is dead last in this country in terms of its grants program. We provide zero dollars to financial needs–based grants in this province, and we are dead last. We're far from a leader on that issue. We are dead last in this country.
We are number one in something, though, when it comes to addressing student debt. We are number one in British Columbia for interest rates on student loans. We have the highest interest rate on student loans out of anywhere else in Canada — prime plus 2.5, highest interest rate in the entire country. That's what B.C. has to offer its students — no grants, highest interest rates.
We've seen tuition jump in the last ten years, and not surprisingly, we've seen student debt jump as well. The average student, after a four-year program, is paying $27,000. That's the highest student debt load outside of the Maritimes. These are the realities for students today.
The presidents of the research universities in this province have come together, saying that this government needs to address this issue. They said it about a year ago. They were quoted in the media saying just that. The minister responded by saying that she was going to commence a student aid review, that she would do a review and that changes would be forthcoming in the fall. There has been no review tabled in this House. There's been no mention of the review, despite multiple questions to the minister to table that review in the House.
So we were anticipating, on this side, that maybe some action would be seen in this budget on that supposed review. No action. No action. The minister, on Twitter, claimed that there is more funding going into student aid infrastructure.
I thought it very interesting that the B.C. Liberals tried to spin purchasing computers as a way to address student aid in this province. So typical. So typical that purchasing computers would somehow be addressing interest rates and grants. It was shocking and disappointing, and I'm sure students all across this province are tired of hearing that their interests don't matter, that they need to have skin in the game, that student debt is good debt. But actually, that's not really what they're talking about, and it's not worth this government's efforts.
That type of approach to the top-of-mind issue in post-secondary education, in the very sector that needs to train our labour force so that we can be prepared for the economy of tomorrow, is not good. It shows a complete and utter lack of vision coming out from this government.
This government, during question period, has come to a place where they like, rather than answer questions, to ask questions themselves. I'm sure that in just over a year they'll get that opportunity to be asking questions. As my colleague says, they sound more like an opposition-in-waiting than a government. Because if they were going to govern, they would take the information that they have, they would take the situation that they know about around B.C.'s economy and needing to train for it, and they would act on it, rather than ignore it yet again.
On this side of the House, however, we recognize the need to make post-secondary education more affordable. We recognize the role that that plays in supporting B.C.'s economy, in supporting our prosperity so that we can be a province that offers dignity to everyone, where everybody matters.
So on this side of the House, recognizing that situation, we have already committed that if we were governing — knowing the situation that B.C. is in for its economy, knowing this — we would make a commitment to make a difference in people's lives, to make sure that we have a strong labour force ready to go to meet the demand.
One of the ways that we're going to do that is by supporting students. We've said that we would commit to $100 million in financial needs-based grants. We would go from last in this country to a leader in this country when it comes to affordability for post-secondary education, for getting the training that people need to be a part of our economy. We would want to be leaders. That's the type of governance that we would offer when it comes to B.C.'s economy.
We have already identified how we'd pay for that, as well, despite the fact, again, that several members of the opposite benches — soon to be opposition benches — have repeatedly said that we have not made any commitments on how we would spend for the $100 million into financial needs-based grants. We have. The truth is that we have said that we would reinstate a minimal tax on the large banks that would generate about $150 million, and we would take $100 million of that and put it into needs-based grants.
That tax currently doesn't exist because the B.C. Liberals cut it in 2008 under the guise that the big banks would put this money into job creation, but they haven't. In fact, it's been job cuts that have been the result. It has not been investment into job creation. That's been the reality. The financial institutions, especially, require an educated workforce, and it's their way to invest in post-secondary education so that they can get the workforce that they need.
Of course, when we talk about student debt and the absolute failure of this government to address student debt, I think it's important to note that this is a complete contradiction to what they say when they talk about how they do not want to burden future generations with debt.
In fact, when they fail to address student aid, when they fail to address affordability in post-secondary education, the very thing that they are doing is putting debt onto future generations. That's exactly what they are doing.
The contradiction is outstanding, and it stares at all of us right in the face. They do want to put debt onto future generations, because that's exactly what they are doing with this budget: a failure to address student aid, a failure to address a grants program, and the core funding cuts of about 3 percent over the next three years to public post-secondary education, to the very schools that provide the education to our labour force. They are being faced with core funding cuts.
The government tells them to find $7 million in administrative savings in post-secondary education. But they insist in their speech that that won't impact students. They insist that they just want it out of administration, as though somehow this won't be impacting students. But what's interesting is that the place that this government instructs public post-secondary institutions to make cutbacks is the basket that they've been saying they must make cutbacks on for the last ten years.
The funding going to our schools has been stagnant, and as inflation rises and they have increased costs, what it works out to be is actually a 9 percent funding cut. You add this, and we have at least a 12 percent funding cut to public post-secondary institutions.
Jim Reed from B.C. Colleges, which is the organization that represents all of the colleges here in British Columbia, says: "Obviously, we're going to try and avoid the impact on students. That's the last resort. But at some point, we may not be able to avoid that."
Well, for several colleges right now, they are struggling to avoid impact on students, and they may just not be able to. At Northwest Community College, where they've already handed out pink slips and are looking to cut programs, that's a direct impact on students. It's a response to an ongoing deficit that they have at that college as a result of stagnant funding and neglect by this government.
College of New Caledonia is facing a deficit. Northern Lights College is facing a deficit. Vancouver Island
[ Page 9394 ]
University is facing a deficit. The deficits that our public post-secondary institutions are facing are not a result because they're bloated institutions and they have buckets of money and they just want more. It's because they have been managing austere budgets for a decade, and they just don't know where they can cut anymore without impacting students. That's where things are at. But rather than sit down with colleges and universities, rather than say, "We have a problem here. How do we fix it…?" Rather than tackle this issue that will impact students….
It will impact their debt load eventually, as colleges and universities have no other choice but to go to students and raise their tuition. We know that the government knows that. We know that that's where things are going to go, because if you look on page 42 of the budget book that was presented and you look at revenues, what you find is that the only revenue increase in post-secondary education is coming from students in their tuition fees. That's what has been budgeted here by the B.C. Liberal government.
So we know that this is going to be impacting students right in their pocketbooks and that they're going to be shouldering a larger debt and that this government is absolutely putting debt onto future generations. That's the reality that's being faced today because of this budget — this budget with its complete and utter lack of vision and understanding of what's going on in B.C.'s economy and the type of training that is needed and the support that's needed to do that training. That's what this budget is about.
It's not just the core funding to the public post-secondary institutions, but the funding cut is also felt in the trades. That's the biggest area. The demand for the trades' skilled labour force is growing at a faster pace than the general labour force.
What's happening there with this budget is that we actually see a cutback. We see a cutback to the Industry Training Authority. If we look at the Industry Training Authority service plan, what we see is that there are different types of contributions from the provincial government. The general funding, while it remains stagnant…. I've already talked about how, when you have stagnant funding, it is, in effect, a cut. But there are other sources of funding and grants coming from the provincial government, and that's where the cut is felt. Compared to the 2009-2010 budget, by 2012-2013 we'll have seen about a $10 million cutback in the Industry Training Authority. That's a cutback on trades.
I've already said that, by the government's own analysis, we know that the demand for skilled labour in the trades is growing at a faster pace than the general labour demand. We have a wonderful shipbuilding contract, which was recently announced in the fall. We know that we're going to have a huge demand there for trades. Yet here we have a government knowing this information, and their vision is to cut back. Clueless. And it's a nonsensical approach to addressing the very needs that this province has and what our future is going to demand.
There are a few other issues that I would like to touch on outside of Advanced Education, because actually, they will impact the advanced education budgets. One of them is not going to just impact the advanced education at post-secondary institutions like Selkirk College and College of the Rockies in my area, but it's going to impact the citizens of this province from every corner. That's the projected increases on the Medical Services Plan — a 4 percent increase.
Things are going up on January 1, 2013, for families, for anybody who has to administer a benefits package, like public post-secondary institutions. What I thought was really interesting when I was looking at this budget again, looking at the revenue side of things….
For those at home who are wondering what page I'm going to, if you're looking at the book, it's page 142. If you look at the years 2014 and 2015, and you look at the revenue side from Medical Services Plan premiums, and you look at the revenue expected from corporate income, what you find is that the citizens of British Columbia are going to be paying more in Medical Services Plan premiums than corporations pay in income tax.
The burden on families through the Medical Services Plan, through a flat tax, a regressive tax…. The burden that's being placed on families shows that this is not a families-first budget whatsoever and that the Premier, who promised British Columbia families first, has let everyone down, because there is no families first here.
Another thing that I thought was quite fascinating was the complete lack of mention of forestry and what's happening in forestry. I know that for people in my area, we have several mills — and many people make their living from forestry — for instance, Wynndel Box and Lumber, Porcupine, Huscroft lumber and, one of my favourites, Boards by George. But most importantly in my area, Meadow Creek. The community of Meadow Creek has been dealing with the problems at Meadow Creek Cedar, a local mill, and the operations that have been really hitting their community hard.
There have been some very poor practices, and recently their licence was suspended. If they do not meet their silviculture obligations, that licence will be cancelled. Meadow Creek Cedar is appealing this. But what's been happening in that community is that they've been devastated by the poor practices of their local mill.
I found it interesting that in the Auditor General's report they discussed a lot of the reasons why that's happened, why those poor practices were allowed to go on for as long as they did. It has devastated the local economy at the north end of Kootenay Lake. It's had tremendously negative impacts. People weren't getting paid. WorkSafe shut the mill down, so now the mill is not even in operation.
[ Page 9395 ]
This community doesn't know what to do and doesn't know where their next steps are at. They're trying to work that out right now. I was happy to have held a community forum where we were able to discuss that, where we were able to talk about what the opportunities are for Meadow Creek and for the north end of Kootenay Lake. But there are a lot of challenges ahead, and there wasn't a single thing in this budget that addressed their very real needs now.
Maybe the government is just planning to sell off all the land up there. That's what they're saying they're going to do to generate some revenue. It's a fire sale. They're going to be selling off as many assets and land as they possibly can.
While it's important to always take stock of the public assets and identify what's best to do with them, I think when you open up the floodgates for a fire sale, you put yourself in a negative negotiating position where you won't be able to get the best dollar for the public's assets. This is something that I encourage everyone to keep watching, to make sure that the public is getting the best dollar for their assets.
With that, I'll wrap things up. It's been wonderful to be able to take my place in this debate. It's a very interesting debate.
The Minister for Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, in her speech, pointed out the difference between the different ideologies in this House. In closing, I'd like to say that if there was more funding in public post-secondary education, her definitions of the ideologies that are expressed in this House might have been a bit more accurate because she would have been able to take a poli-sci course and learn exactly what it is that people in this House are espousing and what they are putting forward.
When we invest in public post-secondary education, we invest in our future, we invest in ourselves, and we invest in our province. It is a shame that the Liberal government has failed to do that.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members, with your indulgence, I'd ask you to join with me in welcoming to the public gallery Dr. Joan Hansen, an optometrist in Tsawwassen. I'd ask you all to make her welcome.
Recognizing the Minister of Agriculture.
Hon. D. McRae: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. May I say to your guest that it is good to see her. I'll start off with a bad pun.
Interjections.
Hon. D. McRae: Well, at least some people were listening and got that one.
I'm pleased to stand today and speak to the budget. First of all, I don't get many questions in the House so whenever I have an opportunity to stand, I want to take the opportunity to say thank you to many, many people.
First of all, I want to thank my family. My little daughter Chloe, I'd like to say, was born while this Legislature was actually sitting. I was given the opportunity by our very kind Whip to leave and drive quickly to Comox Valley and see her born in 2009.
She's now 2½. She speaks incredibly well, so when I leave on Monday mornings and come back on Thursday evenings, it's neat to see that her language is getting better and better. I would say, in fact…. Well, I won't say any comments about how she's almost as good a speaker as some of my colleagues across the way.
My daughter Gracie, who is in grade 3, is just phenomenal this year, Madam Speaker. You've met her a couple of times. She is so good at musical theatre, and her ability in spelling is really coming along well. I'm very proud of her. And of course, my wife, Deanne, who, sadly, from Monday to Thursdays when we're in session is like a single parent and is allowing me to do this job. Without them, I would not be here, so I want to say thank you very much to them.
I'd also like to say thank you to my constituency staff. Dianne Lineker and Starr Winchester work very hard for the Comox Valley, making sure that my constituents have their issues raised and making sure that I am organized when I am in town. I couldn't do the job without them.
In my office in the Legislature on the third floor, I'd like to say thank you again to my MA, R.J. Senko; Don Smukowich, my executive assistant, who has probably the hardest name to spell in the B.C. Legislature, so when you can't spell his name, just call him Smith; Heidi Scott, my able administrative assistant; and Sarina Costa, who is my administrative coordinator.
Of course, it would be lax of me not to address and say thank you to the over 300 Ministry of Agriculture staff members who work diligently from Fort St. John to the Comox Valley and all places in between, to support agriculture across this great province.
I mentioned the Comox Valley seconds ago. Honestly, I am so proud to represent, since 2009, the 65,000-plus residents of the Comox Valley, which makes it the largest population of any constituency in British Columbia.
The Comox Valley, obviously, is a great place to live. I know that many of my colleagues and individuals across the way have friends and families there as well. But for those who haven't been there, it is a very strong retail hub for the north Island, whether it is the downtown 5th Street core, which has unique individual businesses, or you go up and we have the larger sort of chain stores. Residents from Powell River to Port McNeill to Qualicum come to the Comox Valley, and the Comox Valley residents benefit from this consumer confidence.
We also have, arguably, a recession-proof industry. For my entire life and since World War II we've had a military base. CFB Comox has 1,300 members who work
[ Page 9396 ]
diligently not only to protect Canada but also to protect the world. Some of those individuals are sometimes asked to go overseas to places that I can't imagine, like Afghanistan, and serve the nation and help individuals in those places.
We also have one of the premier destinations on Vancouver Island. We're all proud of all the things we have in our various ridings, but Mount Washington is the major ski hill on Vancouver Island. They are an attraction all winter long, and they've had a good ski season. They've had several years of record snow across not just British Columbia but across Canada. This is a great way to highlight a great industry, one that provides, believe it or not, over 800 jobs seasonally to the Comox Valley. They are our largest private employer.
Our arts community. Whether it is a potter on Hornby Island or an artist in Union Bay or a person who does textiles in the Comox Valley and Courtenay area, the arts community is thriving — the performance community, unbelievable.
The Comox district museum. You know, tourism is obviously very important, and I know this budget is going to make sure that people want to travel the province. But whether it is celebrating the First Nations history of the Comox Valley or going farther back…. The elasmosaur, which is arguably, I would think, the most scary and best-looking fossil in British Columbia, is easily the length of, I'd say, 30 feet. It has great teeth on it, and the children who visit the museum are just so impressed with what that fossil is, and they want to make sure they study more and celebrate that kind of learning.
We also have some other institutions which I'm kind of proud of as well — for example, St. Joe's. It's really important to me because not only were my children were born there, St. Joe's Hospital; I was born there 42 years ago. The medical staff, whether it is a nurse, a care aide, someone who works in the kitchens or a specialist doctor, do great work for the Comox Valley and make sure residents of Comox Valley and north Island are well served.
The member opposite was talking a little bit ago about post-secondary education. I didn't hear her talk much about it, but just in case she forgot, the North Island College in the Comox Valley not only serves Comox Valley; it has campuses in Campbell River in the north Island and Port Alberni and on the coast. It provides a very high level of service, whether it is students who are wanting to go into the academic side, whether it is an arts degree. They can start off in North Island College in nursing training or technical trades.
Just recently we had the opening of the $9 million federal-provincial investment in the trades centre in North Island College in Comox Valley, which means that individuals who want to work in trades, whether it's plumbing or carpentry, will gain the skills in the Comox Valley. They will stay in the Comox Valley, hopefully, or in the north Island area and practise that trade.
Lastly, a member who is a friend of mine, a member from Richmond, is a big fan of airports. I always talk to him about the Comox Valley Airport, YQQ. It is not big, in many people's minds, compared to YVR in Vancouver, but we're incredibly proud of it, with over 300,000 individuals going through that airport every year.
It has been a great opportunity, not only for the residents, whether you want to fly from the Comox Valley to Mexico or you want to make a connection to eastern Canada or Vancouver. It also allows people who want to work, say, in the resource-rich areas, like Fort McMurray and Peace River, an opportunity to stay in the Comox Valley, have their families live in the Comox Valley, go to work and come back and make sure those dollars get invested in my community.
I know that perhaps other individuals like to have their families move up to the Peace River area. But for me, those jobs are amazing and allow young families to stay in the Comox Valley. So I'd like to thank and celebrate those individuals.
The other thing I'd like to do while I'm up is just talk about some of the accomplishments in agriculture. It's almost coming up to my year anniversary of being Minister of Agriculture. I must say this is the best ministry that I've served in, in my time in government, though maybe some of you may want to make the point that it is the only ministry that I've served in as a member of this side of the House. But I can't imagine it getting any better.
While I was in office, we were able to bring in some changes, and I am very proud of them. I'm sure that the members opposite would like to hear about them as well, so I'll take two minutes of my speech and just remind them about last spring. We introduced the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Amendment Act. Amongst other things, the Premier…. After the horrible events in Whistler, which we'd never want to see repeated again, we wanted to make sure that people realize we took those actions seriously and we'd do our best to make sure they never were repeated.
I'm proud to say that this province is the provincial leader in Canada for the highest penalties for those who take part in animal abuse. With penalties of up to two years in jail and fines of up to $75,000, we have raised new awareness about the importance of making sure that animals are treated humanely in our society, especially in an industry that perhaps wasn't as well known prior to the events in Whistler.
The Sled Dog Task Force did a great job. I'd like to take the time, as well, to thank the Canadian veterinarians association, the College of Veterinarians of BC, the BCSPCA, the mushers and the Agriculture staff for taking part in that task force and making sure that the recommendations that we brought forward not only were examined and thought thoroughly through, but I am proud to say that we have acted on all ten recommendations at that
[ Page 9397 ]
stage. We are sure that this is going to be good for animals in the province of British Columbia.
The other thing I'd like to address, because there was some.... I don't want to call it fearmongering by the opposition.
Interjection.
Hon. D. McRae: They'd never do that. They would never stoop to that. You're right, Member.
The other thing is that in the fall we introduced some amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act. There were, I believe, some individuals — perhaps on the other side, perhaps somewhere else in British Columbia — who were trying to send messages that B.C. Liberals were not in favour of the agricultural land reserve. Well, you know what? I'm proud to say that because of those amendments, we sent a strong message to B.C.'ers and farmers in British Columbia that we value the agricultural land reserve and we want to preserve quality farmland and promote farming in British Columbia.
One of the elements of it is that we didn't just do it with talk. We backed it up with some dollars. Through constituencies, we were able to find $1.6 million through the ALC to make sure they could go forward and do their good work. I'm so proud of the hard work that was put forward by Chair Richard Bullock as he travelled the province. He was able to actually look at that report. We brought it out. We addressed those concerns. He is very positive that the ALC will move forward in a proactive manner and do what it can to help farmers and help farming in British Columbia. So I'm glad we got to send that message.
Madam Speaker, you're saying: "Well, when are you going to talk about the budget?" Now I'm going to talk about it. I've sort of worked my speech into some sections. So this section I've sort of entitled…. It's sort of a working title. It might change as I go on. But this title is "Does the Opposition Know What's Going on Outside of British Columbia?" And sometimes, after sitting in these chambers for the last little while, I'm not sure they do. I'm sure they must have travelled, but they don't seem to give evidence of it. As a high school teacher, I always make sure that it's important that my students have a good sense of what's going on in the world.
So let's talk about a country. It's a socialist country. They probably know it a little bit. It's a country that used to be very proud: Greece. You know, in some provinces and some countries, their economic activity.... Some goes up; some goes down. Well, sadly — and we wouldn't wish this upon anybody — the economy of Greece will contract by 4.3 percent in the coming year. This is not a good thing, by any stretch.
Its nation's debt-to-GDP ratio — and you've heard the Finance Minister talk about it as a very accepted measure of economic status — will peak out at approximately 168 percent. But I have good news for the world and for Greece as well. With some of their austerity measures, they should be able to bring down that debt-to-GDP ratio by 2020, eight years from now, to a more manageable 129 percent.
When you have a population that is just a little under 11 million and a land base that is smaller than some of our maritime provinces, they have some challenges which we would not wish upon anybody.
How do their elected leaders deal with this? Well, to be honest, they don't have an elected leader right now. They have an appointed leader. They had to find someone who was a former banker with the European Central Bank who could help them stave off bankruptcy and keep Greece from being thrown out of the eurozone.
Interjection.
Hon. D. McRae: Now, I hear the member to my side talking about Italy, and Italy was next on my list. Now, Italy is the third-largest economy in Europe and, again, an incredibly proud history. You might have heard of the Roman Empire and such, and it is an amazing place. In 2011, the year we just left, their economy outperformed the Greeks' quite well. The Greeks' contracted by 4.3 percent. The Italians' grew by 0.4 percent.
What did their elected leaders do in this case? I might say they don't have an elected leader. They have an appointed leader as well. So who did they find? They found an economist, and they're dealing with — I guess compared to Greece, anyway — a far more enviable debt-to-GDP ratio than what the Greeks are going for in 2020. They're working with that 120 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.
But it's not all gloom and doom. So let's look to our neighbours to the south, the United States of America. One of the things I do, by the way, when I teach social studies…. Lots of times young teenagers want to be very proud of their nation and don't want to realize how important it is. But I often say, you know, whether it is the British Columbia economy or the Canadian economy, we are very tied to the Americans, and in some ways we should be very thankful because part of the wealth that we have in our province and our nation over the last 140 years is because of that positive relationship we have.
The nice thing about the American economy right now…. And I don't want to be too optimistic, but there is a glimmer of life in it. In British Columbia one of the things we look to that is so important is home sales. Well, just recently in January the home sales in the United States jumped by 4.3 percent. Now, they do have an inventory there that's still far too excessive, and we know that the home-building, which we need to help our forest industry in British Columbia, isn't where we want it to be. But the reality is that at least they're moving in the right direction.
[ Page 9398 ]
Traditionally in the American economy, home sales help lead them out of a recession. If they can keep up that good work, it'll be a benefit not just to the Americans, who we want to have good consumer confidence, but it will help our resource sectors as well. Because even though we're doing incredibly well in Asian markets and the like, it never hurts to have one more buyer for the products which bring wealth to the province of British Columbia.
The other thing is that the U.S. unemployment rate is moving in the right direction. It's still a high 8.3 percent — thankfully not close to the British Columbia level. Again, while we talked about the Greeks' debt-to-GDP ratio and we talked about the Italian debt-to-GDP ratio, the American debt ratio is about 85 percent in 2011.
I also heard some of my colleagues on both sides of the House…. In fact, the member for Nelson-Creston was talking about Don Drummond, who's done great work for Ontario. I'm sure Ontario wished they didn't have to actually have Mr. Drummond go work there. But as to Ontario, sometimes people talk about some of the programs they have in Ontario with envy.
Last year their debt-to-GDP ratio was about 35 percent. It is, by some measures, expected to rise, if they don't do some cost-cutting measures, to — a little staggering — 50 percent. But I'm thankful that we have a person like Mr. Drummond, who is the former chief economist of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who came up with his 362 recommendations to help save Ontario from — what did they call it? — economic oblivion. These are not my words; I just took it from a quote.
When he examines the pace Ontario is moving, he talks about: "Well, how can they ever get to balance the budget?" And it's possible they can. Now, I'm 42 today in 2012. Well, in 2024 I will be a respectful, grey-haired 54, and Ontario might be coming out of its economic recession and balance the budget that year. But to do that, they have to do a couple of things: raise taxes and cut expensive services.
Well, what are some of the services they're thinking of having to make cuts to? I wouldn't want to make this decision in British Columbia. Health care is one of those things, which just speaks again to the importance of having a balanced budget, a prudent budget, when you actually live within your means and you make sure you can deal with the challenges that come.
You'll look around. British Columbia — we were so well-positioned when the world economic recession came in 2008 and 2009. In fact, just yesterday I was reading the local paper, about Barbara Yaffe, who wrote in the Vancouver Sun. She said that in the country of Canada — you know, ten provinces, three territories — there are only two other jurisdictions that are outperforming British Columbia: Saskatchewan, Alberta. Then we have British Columbia as No. 3.
Well, I'm okay with that. One of the reasons I'm okay is because I live in the Comox Valley. I made that reference earlier to YQQ, the airport. The number of people who love working in Alberta and who then accumulate all these assets and then move to my community is unbelievable.
In fact, where I live, in a really quaint area of the Comox Valley, if I look around at my neighbours, all who are really excellent people…. I like to say that I have Albertans all around me, and they have made the Comox Valley a better place. The Comox Valley was always phenomenal, obviously, but they are community-minded individuals. They bring in families to the Comox Valley. Heck, some of them even worked on my campaign, so it's not a bad thing as well.
In Barbara Yaffe's article…. Again, my theme of this part of my speech is "Have you ever left the province of British Columbia?" She talked about the unemployment rate in other provinces.
I'm glad we don't live in Quebec — a great culture. In fact, many people jokingly call Quebec the poor man's Europe. It is a neat place, and I'm glad that there's a rich historic tradition and rich culture.
They have many things that I really admire. I don't admire the 8.4 percent unemployment rate they have in Ontario. Mind you, it is better off than the…. Sorry, Quebec's unemployment rate is 8.4 percent. It is a little bit worse than Ontario's. Ontario is 8 percent, and according to Barbara Yaffe, we have a solid 6.9 percent. Obviously, we want to move it lower. But you know what? We're not doing as badly as many other jurisdictions.
Then Barbara also talks about deficits. Deficits are really important. You don't want to have them. You should know that, members opposite. They're not good.
For example…. Let's see. Ontario's deficit today is $16 billion. That's billion. I think the member opposite from Maple Ridge was talking about b's, and yes, a $16 billion deficit in Ontario. But you know what? Projections say that by 2017 their annual deficit could be as high as $30 billion — as in b's, to the member opposite from Maple Ridge.
But where is British Columbia as we compare? Remember — $16 billion deficit; but by 2017 Ontario, $30 billion deficit. In British Columbia by 2013-2014, which isn't that far away — in fact, it could be as soon as next year — we are going to return to a balanced budget in this province.
As some of you will know — as a high school teacher, a Scot and a politician — sometimes we are accused of not wanting to waste money. I'm so pleased to know that…. My children and myself — we pay a tax dollar in British Columbia. Less than five cents of that tax dollar actually goes to paying down debt. We are living and spending money on services. That is what we're doing. We're living within our means.
[ Page 9399 ]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Based on history, what do economies do when they are going into a recession? The commonsense move in history said: "Let's become protectionist. Let's look inward." Well, I'm so pleased. This government is doing the exact opposite. We are not becoming insular. We are looking outward. We are saying: "How can we bring investment?" That's why the Premier and the B.C. jobs plan are exactly the right things at the right time in this province.
Interjection.
Hon. D. McRae: I will not note the time, member opposite. I'm on page 3 of my 15-page speech. I need to use all of my time. I don't want you to miss a single piece of it, member opposite from Powell River. If you want to spend some time, we can do it after as well, but….
Hello, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: But noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. D. McRae: I thought I would for you, Mr. Speaker.
Noting the hour, I sadly adjourn debate.
Hon. D. McRae moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.
Copyright © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada