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)

Monday, February 27, 2012

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 30, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2012

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

C. James: I have a special guest in the gallery with me today. It's a rare visit to Victoria. He's here for meetings in Victoria and Vancouver, and I had the pleasure of having breakfast with him this morning. I'd like to introduce the Chief of the Burns Lake band, the love of my life and my husband, Albert Gerow. Please make him welcome.

Hon. S. Thomson: I've got some very important introductions to make this afternoon. As you may know, today is the 100th anniversary of the B.C. Forest Service, and we have a number of very distinguished guests with us here today to help celebrate that 100th anniversary for the Forest Service. It was in this chamber exactly 100 years ago today that the Forest Act came into force and established the B.C. Forest Service.

[1335]

I'm very pleased to be able to introduce two former Ministers of Forests that are here: the Hon. Claude Richmond — and also, I note, still head of the Kamloops Rube Band — and Dave Zirnhelt, a former Minister of Forests as well. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Also in the gallery we have a number of former deputy ministers — Mike Apsey, who is here with his wife, Sharon. Al MacPherson, Bob Flitton and Bob Plecas have joined us — former Deputy Ministers of Forests. A former chief forester for the province for many years, Larry Pedersen, is with us as well.

Additionally, we have a large number of current Forest Service staff that are joining us as well. I won't introduce them all but just, I think, on behalf of all of us recognize the very important work and contribution that they all make and have made to the Forest Service in British Columbia and thank them.

On behalf of both sides of the House, thank you very much.

M. Farnworth: On this side of the House I, too, would like to welcome a former colleague, the former member for Cariboo South, who, as our colleague the minister said, was a former Forests Minister. As someone who worked with Dave for many, many years, I can tell you that he always could see the forest for the trees. So would the House please make him most welcome.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce 31 interns from the state of Washington, representing both the House and the Senate. They are accompanied by Samantha Barrera, the House civic education coordinator, as well as Korbie Jorgensen Haley, who is the representative of the Senate.

This will be the eighth year that our two legislative internship programs have participated in educational exchanges, and our legislative interns went to Olympia earlier in February. I will say that I spoke to the group earlier today and spoke about some of the issues on how our Legislature operates. One of the things I didn't mention was question period, so I'll leave it up to them to decide the validity of it.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you spoke to them as well. I hope everyone will make them welcome.

M. Mungall: I would like to make a couple of introductions. The first one is to a dear friend to all of us on this side of the House. Susan Zirnhelt is joining us in the Legislature today, and all of the members on this side of the NDP benches would like to offer her a tremendous thank you for putting up with an MLA for so many years but also for caring for that MLA. We greatly appreciate all of the effort and care and love that she put into that.

I'd also like to offer a special welcome to the 31 interns who are here today from Washington State. I enjoyed my time with them this morning very much. They had many inquisitive questions, including: "What do you do when you're not in the House?"

Thank you very much for being here today. Thank you for your wonderful questions, and enjoy question period.

Hon. M. de Jong: Members of the House will know that Genome B.C., a non-profit research organization, has carved quite a reputation for itself as a sponsor of major research projects in areas of human health, forestry, fisheries, agriculture, bioenergy, mining and the environment.

I will have the pleasure to meet with their representatives, and I think all members are invited to meet with them later this evening. In the gallery today we have Ms. Suzanne Gill, who is from Genome B.C.'s staff, and the following researchers: Dr. Jennifer Gardy, Dr. Richard Hamelin and Dr. Helen Gurney-Smith. I hope all members will make these leading-edge researchers and Genome B.C. feel welcome in the precincts today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

B.C. WINTER GAMES IN VERNON

E. Foster: Today I'm particularly proud to be the representative for Vernon-Monashee. On Thursday night I attended as the Premier opened the 2012 games, and last night I had the honour and privilege to be part of the closing ceremonies of the B.C. Winter Games in Vernon.
[ Page 9458 ]

[1340]

The games were comprised of 15 different sports, 160 officials, 292 coaches, 1,145 athletes and some 2,000 volunteers. The games were a massive undertaking for a community the size of Vernon.

Not all winter sports are team sports, but to host the Winter Games you need a team — a very strong team. So a special thank-you to the city of Vernon, the district of Coldstream, the regional district of the North Okanagan and school district 22 for their partnership. I want to thank the games corporate partners, including Jazz air, Global B.C., Black Press and the Vernon Morning Star, as well as the many businesses and companies within the community that took part.

I want to recognize British Columbia's stellar young winter athletes, who are of course the main attraction. I was incredibly proud of our young athletes from the Thompson-Okanagan, who finished second in medal standings with 80. Now, 80 medals is an impressive number, one to take pride in. But I am especially proud of another number. Games president Akbal Mund and his team of over 2,000 volunteers made these games possible and a huge success.

By volunteering and attending as many events as they could, the people of North Okanagan embraced their role as hosts and ambassadors with pride and enthusiasm. I share the enthusiasm. I share their pride. It was a great weekend for Vernon and all the athletes who competed, and I was so incredibly proud to take part, and to take part in the closing ceremonies.

Congratulations to the Winter Games team from greater Vernon. As the chairman of the winter games society mentioned to me just before the closing, it was without a doubt the best Winter Games that have ever been on.

100th ANNIVERSARY OF
B.C. FOREST SERVICE

B. Routley: Today we join with the B.C. Forest Service in celebrating 100 years of amazing service to British Columbians. In 1912 the B.C. government was working from three major precepts governing the B.C. timber industry: public ownership of the forest land; the timber resources shall be used to build up a home industry; the major revenues shall be collected when the timber is cut.

So 100 years ago, in 1912, William R. Ross, Minister of Lands, introduced second reading of the Forest Act with the following: "As we glance down the vista of the years to come — and turning from that vision of the future — we call to the world to witness that we legislate today not only for ourselves and for the needs of this day and this generation but also, and no less, for our children's children and for all posterity, that we may hand down to them their vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

If Minister William R. Ross, who said those words, could be transported through time, forward a hundred years until today, I would have to say to him: "If you go out in the woods today, you're in for a big surprise. In some pine beetle regions of B.C. you can't see much of the forest for lack of trees. Our B.C. Forest Service that you set up has morphed into a new kind of permitting agency.

"We do have hope left for our B.C. Forest Service for the next 100 years, and if we can listen and learn from the wonderful vision that you so eloquently laid before us 100 years ago and recommit ourselves to those values, we will all be better for it."

NOWRUZ CELEBRATIONS

R. Sultan: I am pleased to pay tribute to an upcoming festival celebrated by at least 300 million people around the world: Nowruz, or new day, the Persian New Year. Thought to have been founded in ancient times by Zoroaster himself, it is celebrated by Iranians as the first day of spring, a commemoration of life and the rebirth of the land. In the weeks leading up Nowruz, Iranians all over the world decorate their homes with haft sin, a traditional table setting symbolizing good health and prosperity.

While historians may debate the true age of the festival, what isn't debatable is its importance to the Persian community, about 70,000 of whom call British Columbia their home, many of them in my riding. Helping keep their traditions alive is, for example, the Canadian Iranian Foundation, led by my friend Nassreen Filsoof.

[1345]

The festival has become a yearly highlight on the North Shore, with feasts, dancing and the lighting of bonfires on Ambleside beach, over which the bravest are expected to jump.

Nowruz gives all British Columbians an opportunity to acknowledge the Persian community, its culture marked by pride, sophistication, education, entrepreneurial endeavour and 6,000 years of history. As flowers peep through the soil and winter comes to an end, we say to all our Iranian friends: "Happy New Year. Nowruz Mobarak."

SUPPORT FOR REFUGEES

J. Brar: Imagine a single mother running to escape civil war with a baby in her arms, and two other children, ages three and four, running with her. They are in fear and don't know where they are going. They find their way to Canada, a country where they hope to have a future.

During my welfare challenge I met this woman, a brave Somali single mother who escaped from civil war to Kenya, then to Nairobi and finally reaching Canada. I met other refugees, some sponsored by the government of Canada and some privately sponsored. Those refugees who are sponsored by the government of Canada come
[ Page 9459 ]
from refugee camps with help from the United Nations.

A key problem for them is that their children did not get access to proper schools at the refugee camps. Many children don't know English and have a difficult time fitting into our school system. This is especially true for the older children. Parents worry that their children are more vulnerable to getting involved with criminal activities.

There are many privately sponsored refugees in Surrey coming from war-torn countries. The sponsoring agent is responsible for providing living expenses and support for one year. In many cases this is not happening, as there are no clear accountability rules established for the sponsoring agent.

I met a young refugee who was 25 years old and who was sponsored by someone known to his brother. After arriving here in Canada, he never met his sponsor. He had applied for jobs but couldn't find one, and he has no income.

These refugees cannot apply for welfare for one year. Our compassion to open the door to these refugees fleeing from conflict areas is right, but leaving them in desperate situations once they arrive here is wrong. We need to do a better job.

SOWCHEA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
ROAD SAFETY CAMPAIGN

J. Rustad: We all know that there's no greater gift than a child, but last November a group of compassionate children showed that they can give a great gift also. Students in a grade 6-7 class in Sowchea Elementary School in Fort St. James came together for a cause after their friend Nolan Alexis lost his life in a car accident as he ran across Highway 27 in the dark.

Even though he went to a different school, Nolan's friends at Sowchea Elementary were deeply affected by the tragedy. They decided to respond with a positive message and started the Be Seen Be Safe project. The goal was to hand every single child in Fort St. James, Necoslie, Tl'azt'en and Yekooche a reflective bracelet so that they would always be seen by drivers in the dark.

The grades 6 and 7 students ventured into completely new territory. They had to recruit RCMP officers to support their campaign, convince community service agencies of their cause and organize promotional events. The students raised enough money for 2,000 reflective bracelets. They visited schools in the area to give out the bracelets and delivered important information about how to stay safe on the walk home from school.

Not surprisingly, the efforts of this inspiring grade 6-7 class were rewarded with an incredible response from the community. Not only did their classmates join the traffic safety efforts, but soon people in the entire community, young and old, were wearing the bracelets. With the efforts of just one young, determined group of kids, many communities are able to remember their good friend Nolan Alexis and make sure that a similar tragedy does not repeat itself.

Please join me in congratulating the students and staff of Sowchea Elementary for such a great initiative.

PORT HANEY
NEIGHBOURHOOD CHANGE PROJECT

M. Sather: Like every community, Maple Ridge has its hot spots and troubled areas. One of these locations is Port Haney, an area south of the town core that is frequented by prostitutes, drug dealers and people living on the streets. The area is also known for its historical landmarks, such as the Haney Wharf on the Fraser River, and the old Haney House, where founder Thomas Haney and his family lived. There are many low-income families living in this area, trying to get by in these tough times, hoping to feel safe in their neighbourhood.

[1350]

In 2010 the Port Haney neighbourhood change initiative was born out of a community conversation of concerned citizens. With funding from the district of Maple Ridge, it is growing a number of solutions for the area. Co-chairs Chris Iversen and Yvonne Desabrais are focused on looking for ways that all Port Haney residents can live together positively.

The group serves to unite the work of the RCMP, bylaws, parks and recreation, the business improvement association, the Salvation Army Caring Place, businesses, residents and others in an effort to improve safety and well-being in the area. The Port Haney neighbourhood change initiative's vision is that of a connected, tight-knit neighbourhood with ongoing open communication and everyone living together peacefully and respectfully.

They are an action-oriented, all-hands-on-deck type of group and have special cleanup days where everyone gets involved. One solution they implemented was to provide better lighting to improve the safety of the area. While they do not tolerate negative behaviours, there is no intention to remove anyone.

As Yvonne Desabrais often says, everyone has a place setting at the table of life. With ongoing support from the community at large and financial support from the district of Maple Ridge, this important initiative will help to bring Port Haney to its full, vibrant potential.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Recently we've seen — over the last year, really — a dramatic increase in the number of stays of proceedings in our court system. Over the weekend
[ Page 9460 ]
we learned of yet another case. Charges of aggravated assault were stayed in Duncan due to a 19-month delay. The individual involved was accused of sucker-punching, then beating a defenceless man as he lay on the ground. In her judgment Supreme Court Justice Miriam Gropper said that there's a point in time at which the court will no longer tolerate delay based on the plea of inadequate resources.

My question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is simple. What action is the government taking now? Not a review, but what action are they doing now to address this growing crisis in our justice system of increasing stays of proceedings?

Hon. S. Bond: As we have said numerous times in this Legislature, anytime there is a stay of proceedings is a concern for us, but we've also said that it's important to look at the context in which that decision is made.

In fact, crime has fallen by 26 percent in British Columbia since 2001. We continue to see the number of cases that actually end up in courtrooms across the province drop as well. Despite all of those statistics, this government has added in the last two years 23 new judges to the system. So fewer cases, lower crime rate, more sheriffs, more judges, and we still have backlogs and stays. We're going to ask some questions about that.

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

A. Dix: Well, as the minister will know — and I'm sure this is of concern to her as well — that's cold comfort for the victims of crime who go through this sort of process. I think it's cold comfort. The reality is that the B.C. Crown Counsel Association says that there are 2,500 current cases delayed by 18 months or more. They've also identified 5,000 cases delayed between a year and 18 months, and since we're talking about a review of six months, a lot of the those cases will be put into the red zone as well.

So I guess the question to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General is this. What action is being taken now? The minister talks about statistics. The reality is that her own report says, her own audit shows that the number of sitting hours by Provincial Court justices decreased by 3,500 over the last number of years. The question to the Minister of Justice is: what action is being taken now? Because these stays are happening now, what action is being taken now to address this question in the justice system?

[1355]

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, in British Columbia today we spend over a billion dollars in the justice system. At the same time, we continue to see the crime rate drop.

The members opposite might actually want to look at the context of how we are seeing the challenges in the justice system. There's been no change in the length of cases, for example. They have stayed relatively stable over time. And what has this government done? In fact, what we've done is appoint 23 new judges, and every time you add a judge in British Columbia, the cost to taxpayers can be up to $1.4 million per judge when you build in all of the supports necessary.

I think the taxpayers expect us to ask questions beyond simply: "Let's just put more money in. Let's just throw money at the problem and assume we can fix it." We're actually going to ask some tough questions and try to get to the bottom of the systemic issues in the justice system in British Columbia.

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

A. Dix: Well, in fairness, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General was not in this position during all this time. The reality of the last number of years is that as a matter of course the government wasn't filling vacancies. The result and the consequence is what we see today — average 16-month delays in Surrey and Chilliwack, 14-month delays in Vancouver and Port Coquitlam.

That is the reality of what's happening here in British Columbia. So this management of the system…. The minister says: "Well, we should ask questions." Why didn't they ask questions five years ago and four years ago and three years ago, before we got into these wait times?

My question to the minister is simple. It seems to me that we have a short-term crisis at the very least in our justice system that will lead to stays of proceedings. So we need action — presumably now. I'd like to ask the minister: what action is being taken now to address what is obviously a growing crisis in the justice system that is affecting victims and families and everyone working in the system?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, when we look at judicial stays in British Columbia, they account for1/10 of 1 percent. Now, every single one of those judicial stays is a concern to this government. In fact, that's why we continue to add judicial resources. We continue to add additional sheriffs. We continue to add court administrators. In fact, the recent budget saw over the next three years more than 200 million additional dollars.

The member opposite's answer to every question might be: "Let's just throw more money." As a matter of fact, I think the last time we checked, the rolling total was at about $6 billion of taxpayers' money. Where is the budget of the member opposite? How many millions of dollars does he want to just throw at the problem without really getting to the heart of the issues in the justice system?

L. Krog: We may not know whether the accused was guilty, but we certainly know that the victim was victim-
[ Page 9461 ]
ized in this case. Madam Justice Gropper states: "I also accept that the judicial case manager could not and would not provide earlier dates due to the lack of judicial and court resources. It is generally acknowledged the complement of Provincial Court judges was down by 16 to 17 judges in 2010 and 2011 and that there was a general reduction in court staff." She goes on to say: "I am satisfied that the limits of the institutional resources are the reason for the delay."

To the Minister of Justice, when is she going to stop this flood of serious cases being thrown out because of B.C. Liberal decisions to deliberately under-resource our criminal courts?

Hon. S. Bond: Just a brief reminder to the member opposite. Let me just quote: "A backlog of 20,000 court cases…." The member opposite can groan. The fact of the matter is: "A backlog of 20,000 court cases has some accused criminals walking free and Crown prosecutors planning to revolt." That was in 1998. And I have a list of quotes.

[1400]

It is time that we actually stop thinking that we could spend our way out of changes to the justice system and simply just say, "You know what? Taxpayers in British Columbia, let's just add more and more and more money," when the crime rate is going down and the number of cases is dropping.

In fact — and the member opposite knows well — it's time we talked about reforming a system that is badly in need of reform. That's the work that is underway. And you know what? I would love to have the members opposite stand up and offer some constructive and collaborative opinions about what we could do other than just pour more money into the system. We actually need to reform the system.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: I would like to think that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General would actually like to take some responsibility for the mess that exists today. Another review, another study, many months go by, and more and more serious criminal matters are being thrown out due to delays — all under the watch of the B.C. Liberals in the last 11 years.

The Provincial Court report from September 2011, called Justice Delayed, states that there are more than 2,500 current cases delayed by more than 18 months. Another 5,000 are delayed between a year and 18 months. So the question is simple: what is being done today to stop these potential 7,500 cases from being tossed?

This needs urgent attention. It's not about another study. What is the minister going to do today to stop the immediate crisis that the B.C. Liberals have caused in our justice system so that more defenceless individuals who lie in the streets won't have to turn to a court system that didn't give them any justice?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's remember that judicial stays in British Columbia account for 1/10 of 1 percent. Does every one of those matter? Of course they do. But British Columbia is not alone. In fact, recently many of us heard the report that was provided by economist Don Drummond. In that report about Ontario's challenges…. And, boy, the good thing is that in British Columbia we are in a far better position economically, because of the foundation that's been set by this government, than they are in Ontario.

Here's what Don Drummond said about the justice system in Ontario. The report says: "The justice sector will need to transform its service delivery and find efficiencies, while ensuring public confidence."

For far too long the answer has been: "Let's just call on taxpayers to put more money into the system. Let's not ask the tough questions about crime rates going down and the number of cases dropping. Let's just throw more money at it." We are going to continue to add resources where appropriate and when possible. That's exactly what our budget did, but we're also going to have a dialogue about how to change a system that's in need of change.

SENIORS CARE CASE IN
BURNABY HOSPITAL AND GOVERNMENT
ACTION ON SENIORS CARE

R. Chouhan: Dorothy Asher is an 84-year-old who recently suffered a stroke. She was treated at Burnaby Hospital and then told she must wait to be placed in residential care. On January 2 at midnight Ms. Asher was moved out into the hallway, and that's where she would spend the next 11 nights — hardly a dignified treatment for one of our seniors.

The Ombudsman's report showed that the Liberal government has failed seniors in the province. When will they start treating our seniors with the respect they deserve? And why was a frail senior stuck for 11 days in a hospital hallway?

Hon. M. de Jong: I actually had occasion to visit Burnaby Hospital just several weeks prior to the time that the member is referring to. I had an opportunity to see the work being undertaken by the dedicated professionals there. There is no question that particularly in the winter at hospitals across British Columbia there are pressures. Flu season arrives; more people attend.

[1405]

I won't speak to the specifics of the case the member has referred to, but I will say this: the government has done a tremendous amount in working with health authorities and community partners to provide thousands of additional beds and more options for seniors in need
[ Page 9462 ]
of care.

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago the average wait for someone discharged from a hospital was about a year. It's now down to three months, and we're hoping to drive it even further. So we're working hard. We're working with our partners, and the seniors action plan is our commitment to continue to work hard in that direction.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: The situation at Burnaby Hospital is not only bad during the winter months. This is ongoing. People have to wait for hours and hours there.

Ms. Asher was in hospital for more than three months. The Ombudsperson recommended that assessments be complete within two weeks. Instead of being properly assessed for long-term care, she bounced between two different hospitals, including being stuck in the hallway for 11 nights. Dorothy Asher is just one of the latest victims of this government's failure.

Why are seniors continuing to pay the price for the Liberal government's mismanagement of health care in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I wish the member, in endeavouring to make his point, would at least acknowledge the unprecedented levels of investment that have taken place in health care facilities in his own backyard — in Fraser Health.

I mean, must I go through the list? Whether it's a new hospital and cancer treatment centre that the member's party promised the people of the central and eastern Fraser Valley for ten years and never delivered on and that's now built and operating; whether it's the Jim Pattison outpatient centre in Surrey that is providing a quality and level of services unprecedented — heretofore unknown — in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada…. Or the single largest investment in a health care facility in the history of the province — it's Surrey Memorial Hospital.

The total number of residential care beds has increased by over 1,500. We're doing a good job, and we're going to do more.

CALL FOR SENIORS ADVOCATE

K. Conroy: And in spite of all of that, Dorothy Asher spent 11 days in the hallway and 3½ months in a hospital waiting to get into residential care. That's just wrong. That's totally unacceptable.

The only reason she got out of the hallway and got into residential care is because of her family. Her family were strong advocates for her.

What about the seniors who don't have strong advocates? How long are they going to have to wait in hospital at $1,200 a night as opposed to $200? How long are they going to have to wait in a hallway — 11 days? How many days?

What we need in this province is a seniors advocate. There's a bill on the order paper. We don't have to wait for months, perhaps years, before the minister's plan brings in an advocate. We could have it now. So when will the minister…?

How about some cooperation? Let's get the minister to stand up today and say yes, he'll cooperate with the opposition, and let's get the seniors advocate in now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I get the member's enthusiasm for the legislative mechanism that she has tabled in the chamber. But what I said a couple of weeks ago I will repeat for the member's benefit.

[1410]

There are times when, despite what we do, seniors will find themselves in difficulty, and the government has concluded and agrees that a seniors advocate is an appropriate step to take. Sometimes that difficulty involves the senior's relationship with the state, a health authority or a government body, but sometimes it does not.

We only have to look down the street to the 90-year-old-plus gentleman, the veteran who got into trouble, who had a deposit unfairly withheld. We believe the seniors advocate should have the authority and the jurisdiction to look into those matters as well, so we are going to consult with the very people who have an interest in this matter. We are going to take their views into account, and we are going to craft a seniors advocate who can provide a service to all seniors in British Columbia when they need it.

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS
AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

D. Routley: We know that Liberal forest policies are costing millworkers their jobs; 35,000 jobs have been lost from the industry under this government. Now we're seeing that forest policies are also costing the companies money.

Coastland Wood mill in my constituency invested $600,000 to improve their log-peeling capabilities, to take half a second off per log. They needed to improve that efficiency when dealing with second-tier logs because high-value logs are being shipped offshore. More than 40 percent of all logs cut on the coast were exported last year. Businesses are doing what they can to create jobs, but they're being hamstrung by failed B.C. Liberal forest policies.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that those B.C. logs stay in B.C. to create and sustain B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: In terms of the log export policy, I know we would all like to work towards making sure that as much as possible of domestic logs and as much as
[ Page 9463 ]
possible activity takes place here in our mills in British Columbia.

But let's be clear. The log export policy, the balanced policy that we have — less than 10 percent of the total harvest here in British Columbia — is a policy that is creating jobs here in British Columbia. It's one that's essential to ensure that uneconomic stands are harvested and that we continue to have a full level of economic activity.

It is a policy that is creating jobs here in British Columbia, one that is supporting forest-dependent communities across this province. It's one that we'll continue to work on to ensure that the surplus test that's in place, which is applied to ensure that when the mills need those domestic logs, they go to those mills…. That surplus test is there. We will continue to administer the balanced policy we have here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

D. Routley: Well, that's just not working for B.C. workers or B.C. companies. The minister told the House last May that there was a review underway to see if the quote balance was right around raw log exports. As near as I can figure, that's the third review. After the last two reviews raw log exports actually increased. Hans De Visser from Coastland — he's the manager — said he'd add another shift if he could get the wood. He says if things don't change, he'll be run out of business.

That's the B.C. Liberal no-jobs plan in action. Companies like Coastland can't afford another review if it means more raw logs are going to be exported.

Will the minister finally commit to ensuring that leading B.C. companies like Coastland can get access to B.C. logs?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's be clear. What the policy currently provides for ensures that in this market uneconomic stands are harvested. That is creating logs for both the export market and for the domestic market. That's the balance that's in place. Harvest levels are up. Forest product exports are up $9.95 billion. Lumber exports are up 7.3 million cubic metres — over $1 billion in sales. That's the equivalent of 18 mills. That's the equivalent of 9,000 jobs here in British Columbia. That's what's keeping people employed.

[1415]

It's ensuring that we have the balance to ensure that those uneconomic stands are harvested to ensure that we get the full range of harvesting activity. It's the policy that's creating jobs for loggers, for truckers here in this province. It's one that we will continue to administer. And as I said, less than 10 percent of the total harvest in British Columbia is log exports.

FOREST PRACTICES AND
RANCHING INDUSTRY WATER ISSUES

L. Popham: Last Tuesday I raised the issue of how mismanagement of a resource in Twinflower Creek watershed is impacting ranchers in the Big Creek area. Randy Saugstad, whose ranch I was talking about, was watching question period with other ranchers facing the same issue. They were so happy that their issue had made it into the Legislature, and they were hoping for some answers. Imagine how horrified they were when instead the Premier rose and delivered a cheap political attack, sidestepping a serious issue that is threatening their livelihood.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Lands: will he do what the Premier wouldn't do and cut the showboating and the phony answers and work with the ranchers in the Big Creek area to ensure that their needs are being met?

Hon. S. Thomson: Just to be clear to the member opposite — and thank you for the question — that's exactly what we are doing. We are working with the ranchers in that area, addressing the impact of harvesting practices there. It's had a Forest Practices Board review.

The Forest Practices Board review confirmed that the harvesting activities were not causing the impact. There is a whole range of issues in that area, including overall drought conditions and things. Our staff — the staff in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — are working with the ranchers to ensure they get the water supplies that they need.

I've had the chance to have a conversation with the rancher that the member opposite references, and we will continue to work with them in that area to address the concerns that they are bringing forward.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

L. Popham: Let me read from the letter Randy sent to the Premier following her performance in question period last week: "If our hundred-year-old ranch is worthless to your government, would you please send a letter stating that? We would rather quit now instead of hanging here with no water and suffering a slow death." This case has been subject to two Forest Practices Board reports, with recommendations that were ignored. Nothing has been done.

Again, to the minister. These ranchers are looking for the Liberals to take action and protect their access to water. I have their phone numbers right here. Will he call them today and help them find a way to move forward?

Hon. S. Thomson: As I said to the member opposite in response to the first question, we are working with the ranchers in that area, addressing those concerns. We're
[ Page 9464 ]
working with the beetle action coalition in that area to address those issues.

As I've said, I have had a conversation with the rancher. I'm prepared to have another conversation with him if that would help, and I'm quite prepared to continue the dialogue. We had a very informed discussion when I had the opportunity to talk to him. I will continue to do that.

As I said, our staff in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations are continuing to work with the ranchers in that area. We recognize the importance of the ranching and cattle industry to British Columbia, and we'll continue to work with ranches in that area to make sure they have a viable future in that region.

CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS
ON SALE OF GOVERNMENT LAND

S. Fraser: So 100 properties, $706 million — a massive Liberal sell-off of public land. Clearly, the Liberal government put about as much thought into this scheme as they usually do. This shortsighted fire sale of valuable properties triggers obligations in terms of First Nations negotiations or their right of first refusal.

To the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: what lands are available, and when did you plan to tell First Nations about it?

[1420]

Hon. M. Polak: I'm sure the member well knows the obligations to consult that we have as the Crown when we are disposing of Crown assets. We take those very seriously. As the Finance Minister has outlined, there will be quite a comprehensive process to identify which properties, which lands. I want to assure the member that Crown real estate assets that have been offered for treaty are not a part of this asset sale.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Fraser: The minister might want to read up on case law which says repeatedly that the onus is on the Crown to consult with First Nations, even if there's no specific land claim filed. So this is not good enough. Esquimalt First Nation lawyer Gary Yabsley said: "The proposal is for the province to divest itself of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of land. That's a significant value in land to which First Nations will invariably say they have an interest."

Again, to the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation: what consultation took place with First Nations before this government announced a $706 million budget plan to liquidate public property?

Hon. M. Polak: I'll repeat for the member. He well knows that we as a Crown have a duty to consult with respect to the disposition of Crown assets. We take that responsibility very seriously. Once the properties have been identified, then of course we will engage in the appropriate consultation. But I would suggest to the member that it's quite illogical to suggest that we could consult on specific lands when we don't know what they might be yet.

I can only assume that it's a result of the member being disappointed that they can't take credit….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Polak: What the member is really upset about is that at the end of the day, we have such an improved relationship with First Nations that we now have treaties finalized with seven First Nations. We have more than 70 First Nations in forest consultation and revenue-sharing agreements. We have mining revenue-sharing agreements. We have First Nations finally taking part in the economy of British Columbia, and that's what the member objects to.

[End of question period.]

J. Horgan: I seek unanimous consent to move Bill M203, Representative for Seniors Act, in the name of the member for Kootenay West.

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: We will continue the budget debate this afternoon.

Budget Debate

(continued)

R. Howard: It's my pleasure to continue my response to the budget. I had the pleasure of rising last Thursday late afternoon and let up early because of time, so I'm pleased to continue today.

[1425]

I spoke Thursday. Just to briefly recap where I was, I talked about the world context that we find ourselves in where there are some significant economic problems all around the world. I highlighted B.C.'s very strong financial position as illustrated or demonstrated by our debt-to-GDP, which is about 18 percent, and when we compare that to where Canada is, at roughly double that; where the States are, at roughly double Canada, up at 72 percent; and of course with the worst of all stories — at least those that have surfaced today — Greece up at 150 percent.
[ Page 9465 ]

I spoke briefly about our Finance Committee tour and the listening exercise we went through in the fall of 2011 that served as feedback to the Finance Minister in preparation for his budget.

I talked briefly about the local context where we have a population that is basically feeling taxes are as high as they like them. They don't want to pay more taxes. We have demand for services that is increasing, and we have other challenges, such as infrastructure that is aging, which must be replaced. So we have lots of pressures on budget, and we have a population that is tired of paying high taxes. I spoke just briefly about one of the things that impacts my riding — and, as a result, the whole province — which is the elimination of the fuel tax.

[D. Black in the chair.]

I talked about contrasting actions of government and those actions that the opposition put forward, because I think it's always good for the voters in British Columbia to understand what the differences are between government and the NDP opposition.

I think I left off with a confirmation that the Budget 2012 reconfirms our government's commitment to balance the budget by '13-14, and I spoke to the confidence that that gives investors and job creators in this province. I also drew back to the parallel of why I was rather proud of this budget, because it reminded me of my budget. It reminded me of all of our budgets. It reminded me of budgets of a typical British Columbian family, and that is really that when there are downward pressures on income or incomes are reduced, we must manage our expenses accordingly.

Where I left off, and I'll pick up again, is in offering some contrasts between different things that this government has done to get us where we are — in a rather stable financial position and a safe harbour for investors when compared to other economies in the world.

The first thing that I'll talk about is budget targets. There is lots of discussion, and I hear it on a fairly regular basis in the House, where the opposition makes claims that they are more prudent fiscal managers, more responsible fiscal managers than the government. I find that gets me a little upset when you look at history. We talk about budget targets, and we look at what this government has done. We've met nine out of ten targets.

Nobody is happy that we missed the one, but when we put that in the context of the rest of the world, I don't know if there was a jurisdiction almost anywhere on the planet that actually met their budget targets because of the worldwide financial turmoil caused by what's happening in the States, in Greece, in France and in many other jurisdictions around the world.

What did the NDP opposition do when they were in power for ten years in the '90s? They hit two out of ten. So they missed eight, hit two, and we hit nine. So I want to highlight to British Columbia taxpayers the record of this government as compared to the NDP opposition.

We look at debt management plans. We find that the NDP opposition didn't hit a single debt management plan out of the five that they put forward in the '90s.

Interjections.

R. Howard: Those are the numbers, my friends. Read 'em and weep.

[1430]

I want to come back to…. We do hear lots of noise about who's right on this issue as to which government was or is the best fiscal manager for our economy. I turn to our credit ratings and look at the bond-rating agencies that are independent, arm's-length, non-emotional viewers of the province's record.

I've done some research and looked at the history of the province's credit rating dating back to the '90s. In the '90s we find the language replete with stuff like in May of '93: CBRS, which is the Canadian Bond Rating Service, changes outlook from stable to negative. That was in May of '93.

April of '95, Moody's downgrades British Columbia's foreign currency rating. November of '96, CBRS revises B.C.'s outlook rating to AA negative from AA stable. May 1997, S&P downgrades rating. April '98, CBRS downgrades B.C.'s rating. May 1998, DBRS revises the outlook from stable to negative. September '98, CBRS revises to a negative from stable. January 1999, S&P revises to negative from stable.

The story is pretty clear. So I start looking at what happened in the decade of this government, and I find dramatically different language. November 2004, S&P upgrades British Columbia. March 2005, DBRS upgrades British Columbia. March 2005, Moody's upgrades British Columbia. April 2006, S&P upgrades British Columbia. October 2006, Moody's upgrades British Columbia.

The story goes on, and it is a story that keeps improving for the decade of 2001 to 2011. Why is that important? Well, it's extremely important because the credit rating impacts our province's ability to borrow money. In a typical year the province might spend about $6 billion on capital projects, so borrowing about $6 billion to build roads, bridges, hospitals and schools.

A single downgrade from a triple-A to an AA-plus might cost us five basis points, and on $6 billion, that's about $3 million annually. So over the normal ten-year life of government financing, that single downgrade could cost us about $30 million that would be better spent on programs and services for British Columbians. So it's a pretty stark story, it's a pretty dramatic story, and it's a great success story for our government. I'm very proud of that.

We go to some other issues and try and contrast some differences. The one I have was just recently on the floor
[ Page 9466 ]
of this House, beginning of this week. The member for Chilliwack brought forward a motion to support the net zero initiative the government is asking unions contracted by the province to live under. So especially in consideration of the difficulties and the negotiations that are happening now with government and the BCTF, I thought that that is probably one of the more pressing issues facing government today.

We brought that onto the floor of this House for debate, and the NDP opposition would not touch it. They would not debate that issue, arguably one of the most important issues facing us today. So we have on this side a government that deals with difficult issues, makes the difficult decisions and forges forward.

During the last week of debate we've also heard both, I think, the Premier and the Health Minister challenge the opposition to bring forward their budget, and the Leader of the Official Opposition at one point said that they had a costed budget. Our own government's costing of that indicates that it would add cost pressures to the provincial treasury, somewhere in excess of $6 billion. So again, on this side, a difficult year, difficult times.

[1435]

We brought a budget forward to meet those times, and the opposition once again are silent on the issue, not willing to bring forward their plan for the province of British Columbia.

I tie back in to a story that I remember from the 2009 campaign, and that had to do with the corporate capital tax. The opposition at that time had a budget that had a line item in it — last page of the platform, as I recall — called CCT, which I would take would mean a corporate capital tax. So I will tell, just briefly, my own corporate capital tax story, where I witnessed firsthand 65 jobs walk out of my office, never to exist.

We were going to build a seniors home in my community. We had secured the location. We were working with investors that happened to be offshore. We brought our advisory teams together — the lawyers, the accountants and the tax lawyers — and we all sat in a room and were going through this deal that, as I say, would have created somewhere between 60 and 65 jobs in my community.

When we got to the corporate capital tax explanation that existed at the time courtesy of the opposition when they were in power, we stumbled. We couldn't explain adequately to our potential investor just exactly what the corporate capital tax was. He just didn't get the concept that government was going to take back a little bit of his capital. Whether he made any money or not, the government was going to take back a little bit of his capital every year. So the meeting digressed very quickly, he ended up leaving the room, and 65 jobs left with him. That was a sad day in British Columbia.

The Fraser Institute has a calculator that they call the Tax Freedom Day calculator. Right now it indicates that British Columbians work till, plus or minus, June 6 before they have finished paying all their taxes. So the average British Columbian works almost the first six months of this year, of any year, to pay fees, levies, charges to the government, and at that point they start working for themselves.

It got me wondering: if June 6, 2011, is the current Tax Freedom Day, what did it look like back in 1999? I went back and had a look, and the Tax Freedom Day in 1999, after ten years of government by the opposition, was July 5. So over the course of a decade we've managed to march that back by a month, which is a very remarkable thing.

There are a whole bunch of other contrasts that I would like to make, but I see I'm running out of time. So I would really leave us with this, and that is that a decade of strong fiscal management by this government — represented, again, by Budget 2012; difficult decisions in difficult times — has created a very remarkable opportunity for British Columbia moving forward. We see that in terms of the success we're having in Asia, making connections in Asia, diversifying our economy and selling our exports in Asia.

I'm very, very pleased with this prudent budget. It maintains B.C. as a safe harbour for investment, both local and international. I would think that the future for British Columbia is very bright, and I encourage all British Columbians to show their support for this budget.

L. Popham: It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to take my 30 minutes to discuss the budget that was presented by this government.

I sit on this side of the House, and I listen to the words coming from the other side, and mostly what I hear is, blah, blah, blah. That's because I don't know what these phrases you're using mean on the ground. I don't understand what they mean on the ground, because when I'm talking to people face to face, none of what you're saying is reflected back at me. None of it is….

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please. To remind the member: through the Chair.

L. Popham: Sorry. Thank you.

None of it's reflected back at me. The stories I'm hearing…. None of it reflects that we're moving forward, that we're fiscally responsible. There are people that are suffering daily in British Columbia.

[1440]

There are people that are suffering because of the budget, and there are people that are suffering because of bad policy. When you combine the two of those things, after 11 years there are long-term, serious problems in this province.

I represent Agriculture in my critic role, so I'm going to take my time to talk about some of the things that are actually happening on the ground. Through the last
[ Page 9467 ]
two question periods I have presented a serious, serious case, and what I have gotten back is — first of all — political bantering from the Premier, which was absolutely embarrassing.

Then today I've asked a minister to make contact with these ranchers that have been trying to make contact with this government for two years, and the minister stood up and said that he has made contact. That's not the story that I got on the ground and on the phone five minutes before question period. I don't know what that answer means, either. It's absolutely worthless words coming from that side of the House.

Just so that I've got your attention…. I know I've got your attention….

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair. Please remember to speak through the Chair.

L. Popham: Sorry.

Through the Chair: I've got the attention of the government side of the House. I'm going to take this time to lay out exactly what these ranchers are saying.

I'm going to start with the first rancher who has corresponded with the Premier and with me. Like I said, I talked to him five minutes before the question period started, so I know that there has been no conversation since the Premier stood up last week in such an embarrassing way. To this day I have been the one speaking with this rancher.

"Dear Hon. Christy Clark:

"My name is Randy Saugstad, and I'm a cattle rancher in Big Creek, west of Williams Lake.

"As a result…."

Deputy Speaker: Member.

L. Popham: Yes?

Deputy Speaker: We don't refer to members of the House by their given name.

L. Popham: Even if it's in a…?

Deputy Speaker: Yes, at any time. Thank you.

L. Popham: Okay. All right.

"Dear Premier:

"My name is Randy Saugstad, and I'm a cattle rancher in Big Creek, west of Williams Lake.

"As a result of logging upstream of my ranch, I have had two issues with water for 21 of 22 years I have been here. The last two years, as a result of Tolko logging cutting permit 65x, I've had severe problems. This last summer one-third of my place was under water for 2½ months, and now, for the second winter in a row, we have had no water with which to water our 150 head of cattle.

"Last winter we had enough snow for the cows to lick and survive on, although this was not very satisfactory when it starts to thaw and the meltwater starts getting polluted with manure and urine. The cows can't survive it, and the baby cows do not have enough antibodies, and they get sick, sometimes to the point of death.

"This winter we have no snow, so I'm forced to haul water to my cows. I have had to cut down trees to get water from a lake where I take 1,500 gallons of water a day.

"I have spent countless hours in the last two years trying to get some resolution to this problem that is a result of FRPA and the licences for stewardship plans not addressing other values. The Forest Practices Board has written two reports on my issue, and both times the government has ignored their recommendations.

"I don't know if you can appreciate how disappointed I was on Tuesday when you ignored the member for Saanich South's questions in the Legislature and went on to a completely different issue. That was a culmination of two years of my effort, all to end in nothing.

"My request for you is: if our 100-year-old ranch is worthless to your government, would you please send me a letter stating that? We would rather quit now, instead of hanging here with no water and suffering a slow death from the existing and planned logging that is coming at us.

"Sincerely,

"Randy Saugstad."

That's the story that I've heard. And it's not just Randy. I have been getting letter after letter after letter from ranchers in the Cariboo talking about the same issues. The problem is that the logging that's being done in that area is impacting other areas. It's impacting tourism. It's impacting trapping. It's impacting agriculture.

There are a lot of other values that are represented there in our province that we apparently believe strongly in. Yet for some reason forestry overrides everything else, and then we see some very bad results happening, and these are long-term results.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The member across the way is talking about jobs. He said: "It's about jobs."

Is agriculture not considered a job in this province? Because it seems to me that is the whole problem. That's the bottom line. There is no value on agriculture in this province by the B.C. Liberal government. You can see that because we are the province with the least support of agriculture of any province in Canada, and it continues to drop.

Why is that? We like to have agriculture in the province, but we don't like to support it, and we don't consider it important in our economy.

[1445]

I've had many letters come in to me. I can tell you that there's a list of ranches in that area. I'm going to read the ranchers' names — I have a list of names and the ranch names — because I think it's important that this goes on the record, that these people are trying to contact the government to explain a very serious issue.

We have Scott and Carol McCullough of Sky Ranch; Walt and Elsie Mychaluk from Bell Ranch; Gord and Diana Puhallo of Twilight Ranch; Bob Russell, Anvil Mountain Ranch; Eric and Debbie Davies, Teepee Heart Guest Ranch; Drew and Audrey Burke of Vetan Ranch;
[ Page 9468 ]
and Randy Saugstad of Saugstad Ranch. These are just a few of the people that have contacted me with very serious issues. Their livelihood is at stake and has been at stake ever since this started to happen to them.

Here's an interesting e-mail that I got from Sky Ranch:

"Forest Practices Board says if you log 30 percent of a watershed you have a water problem. So far, 70 percent of the watershed has been logged. We have domestic and irrigation water licences. So far the problems we had are: no water, flooding, erosion, sediment problems, the creek changed channels, an irrigation ditch we can't control the water on because of a logging road channelling water into it.

"The logging that we have objected to here amounts to less than $40,000 revenue to government. If our ranch could have had survived it, it would pay the government over $600,000 in property tax, range fees, water licences by the time new trees are ready to harvest again. We think British Columbia's forests should be managed by the British Columbia Forest Service."

That is from Scott and Carol McCullough of Sky Ranch.

Is anybody listening to Scott and Carol? So $40,000 was retrieved from the pine beetle logging. They could have offered $600,000 in property tax. As far as revenue and looking at the situation through economic eyes, I think this government has actually failed.

I've got another letter, from Teepee Heart Ranch. They contacted me last week.

"We bought the Teepee Heart Ranch two years ago and have everything to lose. We rely on the forest for our guest ranch business. If they keep cutting trees in Big Creek, we will have nowhere to take our guests on rides without riding through clearcuts — not exactly a wilderness tourist attraction. We recently flew over these areas where we would ride around on our ranch, and it was devastating to see. You have permission to use our ranch for your debate, and I can be contacted right now."

So if anybody on the other side is concerned about Teepee Ranch, they are able to be contacted right now.

I've got letter after letter after letter. Now, after Randy sent his letter last week to the Premier, the Premier's office responded with this letter:

"Thank you for your e-mail regarding logging operations and water supply issues that you have been experiencing on your ranch in Big Creek near Williams Lake. We appreciate the time that you have taken to share some details of your current situation with us, and we are sorry to hear of the challenges that you have faced in your ranching operation.

"Your correspondence has been forwarded to the Minister of Lands and Forests. The Minister of Lands and Forests will respond to your e-mail and address your specific concerns directly. You will be hearing from the minister in this regard at the earliest opportunity."

When is the earliest opportunity? At what point does the minister think this is an emergency? There is no water — 1,500 gallons a day trucked in for 150 head of cattle. I thought the government actually valued the cattle industry in this province. I think that the cattle industry feels that they are worthy of being valued, because the amount of money they bring into British Columbia is pretty big.

As far as agriculture being an economic driver, I think the government should have a meeting with the cattle association because they'll tell you how valuable they are. In fact, we need them in this province. They're looking at international markets because that's apparently part of the B.C. Liberal jobs plan, but that's what you have to do when the domestic market has all but been abandoned.

[1450]

That's what the B.C. Liberals have done with agriculture. They have abandoned the domestic market here at home, so our ranchers go out and they have to market their products internationally. Actually, that makes them a lot more vulnerable. I'd say: build your domestic market first. Once we're stable, then you look overseas. But you guys are.... The government is doing it….

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

L. Popham: Thank you.

The government is doing it in the opposite way. It's disappointing, because we are going to lose an industry that has been fighting for the last 11 years to survive. The concerns fall on deaf ears every single time.

It's not just the ranchers that are speaking out on this issue, and I've been trying to bring the attention to the government. It has also been brought to the attention of West Coast Environmental Law. In fact, they know Randy Saugstad's story very well.

West Coast Environmental Law believes there is going to be much more conflict in the province with regards to the pine beetle recovery program. There is going to be much more conflict because, as it stands now, that recovery project takes precedence over any other values in the area. So it's not just going to be in the Cariboo, but it's going to be in other areas.

A quote that I got from someone who works with West Coast Law says: "My hope is that the forestry planning in the province will recognize this conflict with agriculture and ranchers and begin to reflect the importance of acknowledging downstream effects of harvesting of the beetle-kill wood. "

Two Forest Practices Board reports have put forward recommendations. One is for a hydrological study before any other logging were to proceed. I'm not sure why we didn't get a commitment to do just that. Why were we not given the commitment that a hydrological study would go forward when we are depending on all hands on deck as far as jobs go in this province? We know it's tough times.

We should value all jobs in the province, and the agriculture industry has been there for so long. It seems like something that you would fall back on, as something that's guaranteed, because luckily, all the farmers haven't walked away. They're still trying. We've got hundred-year-old ranches that are now grappling with the fact that they don't have water to survive. So one of the things that ranchers have brought forward is that maybe we should look at something like an agricultural water reserve. I think that's actually critically important.

The jobs plan, the budget — everything that is put forward never actually gives much weight to agriculture. It's
[ Page 9469 ]
not really a hot topic with the government. They sort of give it a pat on the head like it's a pet of the province. You know: "We'd like to have it, but we'd like to have it over there." So the budget goes down, down, down. As far as an agricultural water reserve idea goes, I think it's quite important, because….

Interjection.

L. Popham: Now the member across the way is trying to converse with me, and that's fair. The member usually tries to converse with me when I talk about agriculture, and he'll get excited when we talk about gas and oil exploration, which is in his area.

That brings up a pretty good point. When we are talking about the future of gas and oil exploration — and we all know that fracking takes a lot of water — what's going to take precedence? Is it going to be fracking, or is it going to be agriculture?

That is something that we need to have a dispute resolution process mechanism in place, because this is a conversation that we are going to have more and more of. As climate change happens, as our water situations change, it's always going to be agriculture against — what? In the eyes of this government, agriculture is dead last every time, so it's pretty predictable what will happen if this government stays in power.

Now, the Forest Practices Board reports are pretty interesting. There have been two reports done on Randy's ranch. Through the exploration of these reports, you can't say that the logging of the pine beetle wood is specifically and the only cause of the water problems, but it's in the mix. I think they are concluding that there is climate change, there are weather patterns, and there is salvage harvesting. That's the mix of things.

[1455]

But one of the things we can change is the way that we're salvaging the pine beetle wood. If it's going to have a detrimental effect on other industries and other values in that area, that's something that we have to look at. How many reports does the government need? We know they are a fan of reviewing things. How many reviews are there? Are there 40, 50? It's endless. If you have a question, let's review.

We've got studies to back it up. We can probably conclude, looking at the studies that were already done, and follow recommendations, especially from the Forest Practices Board. The Forest Practices Board is there to make recommendations to government. So if you are not actually following recommendations, I'm not really sure what the point of the Forest Practices Board is. You just want them to continue to make reports to ignore, I gather.

I'm going to read you some quotes from the Forest Practices Board.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. I've had to remind you several times. Would you please not talk about "you" or "you guys," and make your remarks through the Chair. Thank you.

L. Popham: Thank you. I apologize.

The Forest Practices Board really does acknowledge that there are different values acting at the same time. The decision-maker or the gatekeeper should not only be concerned with the bigger question of the total footprint of the land but also of the effect one tenure holder may have on another.

As the mountain pine beetle salvage program has unfolded, there are frequently issues where the enormity of the salvage effort is affecting the lives and livelihoods of other users of the public lands. I think those are quite strong words. If we can't take that….

The Minister of Forests and Lands sort of indicated that there has been an ongoing conversation with the ranching community around this issue. It is being addressed, and there are some solutions that are being looked at. As far as I understand, the ranchers weren't even invited to a meeting up in Williams Lake when the minister was there. So they don't feel that they are actually being listened to. In fact, when I spoke with the rancher just minutes before question period, there had been no response. So they feel quite slighted, and they feel that they don't matter.

It would not be surprising if they did walk away from the industry — 150 head of cattle right now, just one ranch. That's pretty good. If we put that into our domestic market, if we put that into government procurement, government purchasing, that's a lot of meat that would go into our B.C. food supply. That's what agriculture is all about, actually. It's about food. When we talk about it….

We hear a lot from the government side of the House. They want to know what our plan is. Well, as far as I'm concerned, if you haven't figured out a lot of our plan, then the government has not been listening. The government has not been listening. So I can tell you what part of our plan is, and that's that we want to grow B.C. We want to grow B.C., which means we actually support agriculture. We support agriculture. We have got plans to do so.

Interjections.

L. Popham: They're getting upset, which is always a good sign. The government is getting upset.

We want to grow B.C., we want to feed B.C., and we want to buy B.C. That's what our plan is — anything to do with farming and agriculture, supporting ranchers, making sure that farming is viable, protecting our agricultural land reserve, protecting our water supply for ranchers and making sure that we have some sort of dispute resolution mechanism in place so that when farmers actually have to fight to farm in this province, there is a place to do it. So that's part of it right there.
[ Page 9470 ]

We also, in our plan, would fund extension service programs properly and not gut them as the government has done. The government has decided that extension services, even though every stakeholder group in the province values them and depended on them…. You can look at agrologists. You could look at everything that has been cut from the Ministry of Agriculture.

[1500]

The government doesn't believe that that is a detriment. The government thinks that they are being fiscally responsible, when actually the government is being absolutely irresponsible in long-term thinking — absolutely irresponsible.

If the government were to go out, as I've been going out, and talk to every stakeholder group…. That's what you have to do. Agriculture is varied. You have to talk to every stakeholder group, and every single one talks about the value of extension services. That's an investment in the future of agriculture.

The government side of the House…. We had an organic extension officer. It was worth about $100,000. The government decided that that wasn't worth investing in, so that program was dropped last year.

Our plan. An NDP government would fund an organic extension officer, which would actually strengthen conventional extension officers as well. Washington State has seven organic extension officers, because Washington seems to value agriculture much more than the government of B.C.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

A $100,000 commitment to a sector of agriculture that is actually growing, is strong and is what consumers want is a very smart investment in the future. I know there's one thing that the government can't do, and that's argue that they believe in agriculture more than we do, because we do. We believe in agriculture more. That's why there's an agricultural land reserve. That's why we had funded a commission to take care of that.

The government underfunded the commission so much that it couldn't even do the job it was given to do. A little bit of funding came back for that last year. That is in the budget, and I'm glad to see that.

But when you have a deficit…. Agriculture is something that you have to tend. If you don't fund it properly, if you don't have the right policies in place, what happens is that it basically starts to lack nutrients, just like a crop. As the years go on, you can't produce as much, because the deficit starts to show in what you're harvesting. That's what we see with agriculture in B.C.

The farmers and the consumers are trying to do their best, but they're working against a government that doesn't believe in agriculture, doesn't fund agriculture, brings in policies that harm agriculture. So when I hear any talk in the budget that was presented about how the B.C. Liberals are making agriculture stronger, it makes me laugh. It really does.

You can see, with the letters that come in…. I think the ranching community has been pretty patient over the last decade — pretty patient. You know, they've tried to be innovative, but every decision that this government makes…. It's like they're falling behind. That's the same in a lot of sectors in agriculture. So it's not very hard to see why the government is losing critical support where they think they may have it — because nobody believes that this government supports agriculture anymore.

The Twinflower Creek watershed is not the only watershed that we're going to be hearing about over the next little while. There's a situation that's happening in the Bridge Lake area. That's another group of ranchers that are very upset with the pace that the government is dealing with them. We'll be hearing more from them. I'm going to be getting a lot of e-mails from them, as I've requested.

It's not very hard to get good information from the people of B.C. You just have to listen and ask them for e-mails on their stories. If you take the time and you actually care about their issues, they will send you e-mails and you can understand a situation pretty fast.

[1505]

I haven't even heard from the Minister of Agriculture on this issue. I believe the minister thinks it's a forestry issue only. But it's hard for me to understand why a Minister of Agriculture wouldn't stand up and fight for the ranchers of British Columbia who are having such problems.

I believe that it's a shared responsibility between the Minister of Forests and Lands and the Minister of Agriculture. But instead of trying to solve the problem with the information that I'm bringing to the government, the Premier stands up and has an incredible display of arrogance in this House, and the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Agriculture remain seated.

Then today the Minister of Forests and Lands gave me an answer that I don't think the ranchers are going to be very happy with. They were again gathered in their living rooms waiting for an answer. They thought that maybe this week would be the week that their issue was taken seriously. So I really hope that the Minister of Forests and Lands went back to his office and is making the calls that need to be made.

As far as the budget goes and my response to the budget, as I said, it has been a lot of empty words. There's been a lot of political rhetoric from the other side of the House. Sometimes I believe that the other side of the House thinks that the chamber, where we should have a lot of respect — respectful debate — is a campaign office. So the announcements that come after a budget speech are empty words. Like I said, on the ground in the Cariboo they're pretty meaningless words, because these are the real-life stories.
[ Page 9471 ]

So that's my response to the budget. I have to go back to my office to make the calls to the ranchers who I've talked about today, because I have a relationship with them. I have a working relationship with them as the Agriculture critic, just as the Minister of Agriculture should have, and the Minister of Forests and Lands.

I would suggest to the Minister of Forests and Lands and to the Minister of Agriculture that they get to know this file, because it's like a canary in a coal mine. This situation that's happening in the Cariboo is only going to be happening more and more over the years.

We are going to see water conflicts with agriculture and every other industry in B.C. As far as I'm concerned, if we don't get this straightened out now — this is where we can start to straighten it out — this conversation's never going to end and we won't have agriculture anymore in this province.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member and recognize the member for Peace River North.

P. Pimm: Well, thank you, hon. Speaker. Good to see you in the chair. You're looking great over there.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and take my place in the 2012 budget response and have a little fun with some of this stuff.

First of all, I'd like to start by saying what an honour it has been serving the people of Peace River North. I say that sincerely. I believe it, and I want them to know that that's the truth as well. It's a privilege to represent everybody in Victoria and bring their wishes from up north and bring them into this Legislature.

I want to acknowledge the people that have given up the most in their life for me. That's my wife, and that's my family. Just to let people know, if anybody is watching this on TV, we leave home on Sunday night, around anywhere between three and four in the afternoon. I get back home at around lunchtime on Friday, have my constit meetings, and I get home Friday night about suppertime, and I'm back on the plane again Sunday afternoon.

So to those people that give up so much for us to be down here doing the job, I want to say thank you and certainly apologize for not giving them the time that they need to have from myself. I also want to thank my constituent assistants, Gayle Clark and Jennifer Wilkinson, because they do a great job.

All the issues that we talked about in here today — whether it be DriveABLE, whether it be the ranching people that have issues…. Certainly, the member opposite knows that I come from the largest area of agriculture in the province, bar none. So when she thinks that I don't know anything about agriculture, she's wrong. I know lots about agriculture, and I certainly work with the folks up there on lots of issues.

[1510]

I want to thank Kellie O'Brien, Lyndsey Easton and Tom Hancock. They do research down here and my communications and keep me organized. I certainly want to recognize those folks. We often forget to recognize these people, and they do such a great job for us.

Interjection.

P. Pimm: But back to the member for Saanich South. She mentions this. She wants to go on the record, so I want to get her on the record as a little heckling, because I like to have a nice, healthy little heckle back and forth.

One of the things that I hear in my region from the cattlemen…. Certainly, everybody has different problems in different areas of the province. I certainly understand the gentleman she's talking about and has talked about in here before. Certainly, he's got an issue, and we care about that. Hopefully, we can get his issues resolved. I'm not saying we can, but hopefully we can.

But I'd like to know where the member stands on the biggest issue I hear about from the cattlemen, and that's predator control. Where do you stand on that one? That's the biggest issue that we have. The wolves out there are taking….

Interjection.

P. Pimm: For the cattlemen, it is, absolutely. The amount of animals that the cattlemen give up every year is costing each one of those folks anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000, $40,000 a year.

L. Popham: What are you doing about it?

P. Pimm: That's what I'd like to ask you. Where do you stand on culling? Where does the member for Saanich South stand on culling some of the wolves so we can get the cattlemen looked after? I'd like to get her response on that.

But anyhow, we'll just leave that one alone for now. I'm going to actually talk about the budget. I'm not going to waste all my time here just talking about some of the other issues.

I believe this is a prudent budget. It controls government spending but still allows us to make necessary investments that are required. The budget is going to be balanced in 2013-2014, just as our legislation says, and I think that's great news. That's what I want to see. That's what most of the chambers around the province have told us they want to see, and I certainly believe that's what we should be doing.

We believe, on this side of the House, that the way to economic growth is through lower taxation. That's something that we've done very consistently over the last ten years — in fact, longer than that. In government, if you don't have the resources to spend a whole bunch of
[ Page 9472 ]
extra money, then it's not the time to spend a whole bunch of extra money. You've got to get your house in order. It's no different than a normal household where you can't keep spending on the Visa card until you have no more room left and then no way to pay it off. So we've got to get that in order.

I refer to this budget as a good, old-fashioned Social Credit budget. That's what I see on this budget. I think we must be pretty close on our budget numbers, actually, because I see that the NDP would like us to raise the budget by about — I don't know — $6 billion to $8 billion more in spending each year probably. And I see that the Conservative member out there wants us to reduce it by about $6 billion a year. So I think we're right in the middle. I think we've hit it right on the mark. So that's something that I think we should be proud of.

It's a good, responsible budget, and it's going to bring us back in line by the time frame that we said we'd be back in line by. We're forecasting $968 million this year, of a deficit in 2012-13, and surpluses of $154 million in 2013-14. Once you get back on track and you start getting everything back under control for yourselves, that's when you can start looking at some more programs. You can start spending a little more money, because you actually have the money. Your Visa card is paid off, and all of a sudden you can go out and buy that new vehicle again. So you've got to think of it the same way as if you are working on your own household.

Each year thereafter, after 2013 and $250 million in 2014, I think we're going to be in pretty good shape. The budget shows modest growth over the next three years. We're going to keep our spending to 2 percent a year, while continuing to protect health care and education. We all know that we have to protect health care and education. There's no question about that, but we also have to make sure that they stay sustainable at the same time.

Our school districts are going to receive $4.7 billion a year for the next three years, and government is going to invest an additional $165 million to establish the fund to deal directly with issues of class composition and size. I think that's critical. We have to be able to look at the whole education picture and keep moving forward in a good direction.

[1515]

The Ministry of Health budget is going to increase $1.5 billion over the next three years, or $500 million a year, and they'll be going up to about $17.3 billion in 2014-2015. The opposition tells us that $500 million a year is nowhere near what we need to have in Health. You know, at some point in time we have to make sure that we do get our curve adjusted slightly, so that we can get things under control.

Let's talk a little bit about some of the tax measures in this budget. We've got a few new tax measures that benefit seniors, families and businesses in B.C. They include the B.C. first-time new homebuyers bonus of $10,000. I wish that was there when I was buying my first new home. That would have been a nice little partial down payment, and I would have been very interested in having it.

B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit, up to $1,000, and a children's fitness credit and children's arts credit, about $500 each child. Those are all things that are going to help the economy and certainly help the home renovators to do some of the retrofits to some of the seniors' homes. Certainly, I'm sure that it's all stuff that can be utilized in a good fashion.

Continuing on with the tax stuff, our corporate income taxes are among the lowest in the country. That's been a substantial decrease over the last few years. We're sitting at 10 percent, something that we should be very proud of.

It's the corporations and the small business owners that provide the jobs that we need to keep our economy moving, and we have to make sure they can be in a competitive market. That's very important.

The small business tax rate is going to be staying at 2.5 percent. Small businesses have acknowledged that, yes, we were going to go down to zero, but they've acknowledged that 2.5 percent in the interim will be fine, something they can live with. The chambers have all told us across the province that that's certainly something that they can live with, within those guidelines, as well. So we're quite comfortable with that.

Personal income taxes. This is a point that I think needs to be brought home to all of the folks out there. When you start talking about families, we generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. The only place that's a little bit lower than us is Alberta, on certain different occasions.

When you include the income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes, British Columbia is right there. We're one of the lowest in Canada, and that's where we want to be for our residents — absolutely right there.

B.C. currently has the lowest provincial income tax, up to individuals earning $120,000 a year. Again, that's a great stat that I'm extremely happy with. I think it's a stat that most folks, if they knew that….

Some of the people that go back and forth in my region, from Alberta to B.C. — do the work in B.C., go back to Alberta…. If it was a better-known fact that they'd actually pay less income tax if they registered in B.C., I think we'd start seeing them do that. It's certainly something that we should be looking a little harder at.

Since 2001 the tax structure has been reduced substantially. An individual earning $50,000 a year is paying $1,435 a year less in income taxes alone. That family of four that makes $70,000 a year — $2,158 a year less in income taxes.

We have done a good job on bringing income taxes in line for the province. We couldn't say that in 2001. We were, like, sixth, seventh, eighth in Canada. Now we're number one. We're the lowest in Canada in those de-
[ Page 9473 ]
partments.

We're going to do some capital spending in this budget. You know, you have to maintain some capital. You have to keep your economy moving. We're not going to do as much as we have over the past couple of years, but we're certainly going to continue it — $19.2 billion; $2.7 billion is newly provided through this budget in 2012.

The main thing we have to remember is that you have to remember your debt-to-GDP. If you keep your debt-to-GDP in a proper ratio, your economy will continue to move, and you'll situate yourself in a good fashion.

Our debt-to-GDP is going to be about 18.2 percent. If you look at Canada as a whole, they're about 35 percent. United States — they're about 66 percent debt-to-GDP. Then you can go look at Greece and some of the countries over there that have mismanaged to the point that they're at 166 percent debt-to-GDP.

[1520]

You know, I think it's a good thing that in 2001 we were actually able to take the government back, or we'd probably be looking like that in B.C.

Let's talk a little bit about supporting the B.C. jobs plan. I have to say that I spent lots of time travelling around the province this summer in different roles. One was my role as Parliamentary Secretary for Natural Gas.

I had the opportunity to do a report to the minister, looking at new gas markets, all the time keeping our greenhouse gas agenda in sight. It was lots of fun, and I learned a lot of stuff. I thought I knew quite a bit about the oil and gas industry, being involved in it for most of my life, but I learned a lot of different things as well.

One of the areas I was to look at was accelerating the use of electrification in the natural gas sector. By doing that you would actually reduce your greenhouse gas emissions — something that makes a lot of sense.

When you look at the electrification of the natural gas sector, there are three areas that come to mind really quickly. One is what you call the Montney gas sector. That's the area from south and east Dawson Creek to north and west of Fort St. John. That area is not too hard to electrify because B.C. Hydro already has a grid in that area. They have a power grid that they can tie onto, and they can add power into that grid.

Right now B.C. Hydro is working with the producers, and they are bringing more power into the grid as we speak. They're making contracts. That will be done over two phases. By 2015 there will be enough power in the Montney area to look after all electrification issues in the Montney.

The other area is the Horn River. I don't know if all of you know where that is, but it is north of Fort Nelson. It is about 200 miles of transmission line that you'd have to build from the Williston dam into the Horn River, at a cost of about $2 billion.

There becomes a point in time when you have to weigh some of your costs and some of the environmental issues against where you are going to end up. When you get to the point of the Horn River, it makes absolutely no sense to run a transmission line to the Horn River — not in my estimation, anyhow. I think it makes great sense to look at the oil and gas industry. Look to what you have a great supply of, and we have a great supply of natural gas.

In the Horn River alone — marketable gas, now, I'm going to talk about — we have 78 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that has been identified. Just to put that in a small perspective so that folks can understand what it means, right now the province of British Columbia produces one TCF a year — three billion a day, one TCF a year. Horn River alone — 78 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in a reserve. We produce one TCF a year now. I think you know where that goes.

We have to get out in front of that curve. We have to electrify that. That will be a way we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in that area. There's even a novel thought that goes with it. What if we take the gas that we electrify that with and then turn around and sequester it? We could actually probably make the argument that we'd have the first-ever natural gas–powered generation that could be produced as a green project. Natural gas is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, and we have some great opportunities in front of us.

The other area of electrification, of course, is in the Kitimat and Prince Rupert area of the province. By the time we get mines and LNG plants on board, we're going to need more power in that area.

Again, we will be able to produce some through the hydro, and I think we're going to have to look to other areas to produce some of the others. That's going to mean more jobs. We're going to have run-of-the-river projects. We can utilize natural gas for electrification. To me, these things are win-wins for the province. When we have an abundance of natural gas, we should be utilizing it. Certainly, I would make a case for that.

The other area we wanted to look at was the acceleration of natural gas in the transportation sector. I think you have to know that the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in British Columbia is the transportation sector.

[1525]

About 35 to 40 percent of all the greenhouse gas emitted in the province comes right out of the transportation sector. If we can convert one 18-wheeler from gasoline or diesel to natural gas, it's equivalent to taking 300 vehicles off the road. That's where we can make a huge dent in our greenhouse gases. That's an area that we need to focus on.

We're looking already at electric vehicles. If we add natural gas vehicles to that, then we start reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that's something we really need to look at and focus on.

The other area was to look at the Northern Rockies regional municipality and the jobs and service centre opportunities. The Northern Rockies has the Horn River gas play, as I talked about earlier — 78 TCF. There's also
[ Page 9474 ]
the Liard basin and the Cordova basin. These are going to be two more world-class natural gas plays that have not even started to be developed yet.

There are some out there that say both of these gas plays could be every bit as large as the Horn River Basin. We have an opportunity in front of us that we have never seen before, ever. These are world-class gas plays. You hear people talk in the States about the Marcellus and some of the gas plays over on the west coast, and the Haynesville. These are the same magnitude. We have something to be very proud of in British Columbia, especially in northeastern British Columbia, where we found this amazing find — certainly, something that I think we have some great opportunities around.

Fort Nelson, if they produce just 30 to 40 percent of the Horn River Basin alone — I'm not talking about the Liard or the Cordova — they could have up to 14,000 jobs created in the Fort Nelson area alone. Now, that's something that you have to pay attention to.

When you talk about the Kitimat LNG projects, for every dollar spent on an LNG project in Kitimat, you have $10 spent on upstream projects in the Fort Nelson, the Fort St. John, the Dawson Creek and Hudson's Hope area of the province. That equates to a huge, huge economic advantage for our province.

Do you know what? This budget certainly puts us in great stead to make that all happen. This budget supports the investment, this budget supports the LNG projects, and you won't have an LNG project if you don't have the gas right out of the North Peace and the Northern Rockies of this province. Certainly, I think we've done a pretty good job of getting ourselves to that point.

The other thing that I'd like to talk a little bit about is the rural caucus. We travelled the province this summer in rural caucus. In rural B.C. we've got lots of problems. There's no question about it. We're not going to fix them all tomorrow. You can't fix them all overnight. It's too big a place, too big a province.

I live in a constituency that takes 15 hours to drive from one end to the other. I've got some members here that it takes 15 minutes to drive across their riding. It's a little different. We have a huge province. We're not going to fix all the problems. We're not going to be able to get a DriveABLE in every community. We're not going to be able to do all the things that…. It would be wonderful if we could, but we're just not going to be able to do it. We have to be realistic and reasonable about it and fix what we can, keep poking away. We understand that in rural B.C. We've done it all our lives, and we understand how you get through it.

There are going to be problems. Rural health care is a huge problem. We'll keep poking away. It's up to people like myself, MLAs from all the different rural areas. Get out there and do your work. Look after your constituents, get their issues in front of the ministers, and keep plugging away at it. That's what you have to do.

We've got other issues, like I said earlier — predator control, invasive plants. These are issues that you just got to keep plugging away at. We're making some headway.

High-speed Internet. We're starting to move high-speed Internet all through the province, and we're going to continue until we get there.

Of course, what happens in my area? I'm the last in the province. I'm way up there. I'm the last guy out on the end of the totem pole, way up in the North Pole almost, so you're always the last to get the stuff up to you. We still have to work in our area on high-speed Internet, and you know what? We will. We keep plugging away. We'll keep moving.

[1530]

Industry issues. We identified, when we were travelling the province, that permits were a huge issue for us in the province. And what did we do, this government? We put $24 million into attacking the backlog of permits that are out there. That's going to be huge. That'll help streamline and get the permits out, help get the jobs moving — very important stuff.

The one thing that I just have to talk a little bit about is the carbon tax — what the minister did in this budget in regards to carbon tax, in reviewing the carbon tax. Again, I had the honour of travelling the province with the Finance Committee this summer.

It gets back to the old adage that I started out with. Certainly, I didn't spend much time at home, and I apologize again to the folks that didn't get a chance to see that much of me this summer. But I think it was all worthwhile in some of the endeavours that we did.

The Finance Committee. One of the things that we really recognized in all of the province…. When people were presenting to us over and over again, one of the common themes was the carbon tax. So our committee came up with five recommendations around the carbon tax. The first one was to cap the carbon tax at a rate of July 2, 2012.

I just want to back up for one second on that note. British Columbia has done a fantastic job on our greenhouse gas agenda, and we've led the world in our carbon pricing and carbon agenda. So I think we are in a great position right now. We can say yes, we're doing a good job. We can sit back. We can watch a little bit and let some of the others catch up to us. And as we move forward in time, as others start catching up, then we can move it forward a little bit more. I think that's a great position for us to be in.

The other messages that we gave from the Finance Committee were:

"Address the inequity of B.C. cement producers arising from imported cement not being subject to carbon tax. Review the impact of carbon tax on…business sectors and develop a strategy to keep B.C. businesses competitive with other jurisdictions. Consider immediate carbon tax exclusions for agriculture, including the greenhouse sector and public institutions. Stop further expenditures on…cap-and-trade until the province has sufficient trading
[ Page 9475 ]
partners to trade with."

Those are pretty big recommendations. But we heard it all around the province, so it was incumbent upon the Finance Committee to come up with some recommendations, to bring forward some of those kinds of recommendations. And our side, this side, is the one that brought these motions forward. Those are recommendations from this side. I have to say that.

What did the Finance Minister do? He took our number one recommendation. We're implementing the last in a series of scheduled rate increases to the revenue-neutral B.C. carbon tax. So there's one right off the top.

Over the next year the government will undertake a comprehensive review of the carbon tax, both positive and negative, examine the tax's impact on British Columbians. The review will cover all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality, and will consider the impact, the competitiveness of B.C. businesses and in particular B.C. food producers.

What a novel thought — that we should keep our industries competitive and keep our competitiveness in this marketplace. It's something that we must do and fits in perfectly with our jobs plan. The more competitive we keep our businesses, the more jobs we're going to have and the quicker we'll get back to our balanced budgets.

What else did we find in this budget? I'll just go back to some of the highlights. Effective April 1 we're going to eliminate the provincial jet fuel tax on international flights. Again, the Finance Committee recommended that as well. And lo and behold, the minister recognized and initiated that as well.

We're also extending some training tax credits, which encourages employers and workers to get involved in the apprenticeship programs. I can tell you that I do own a small electrical instrumentation company. We employ about 20 people, and out of those 20 people, we have, on average, six or seven apprentices all the time.

[1535]

I could talk to you about it in real terms. I don't have to tell you something about how somebody told me this. I can tell you that I know that these programs work. They're beneficial to the kids, they're beneficial to the companies, and they're something that we need to continue on.

We've done a good job in the trades sector. I think we're going to see more and more as time goes on. We're going to have to have more and more specialized people, and in all areas of the province. Certainly, the trades are going to be an area to get us into that area in a substantial way.

The budget also provides adjustments to the homeowner grant, including creating a new supplement for low-income veterans under the age of 65 and extending eligibility to homeowners who've moved into a residential facility but haven't yet sold their home — so some more relief on that front as well.

The budget remains committed to funding critical social services and reallocating contingency funds to the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Social Development, where caseloads continue to rise. So $237 million over the next three years to the Ministry of Justice. That's $66 million a year to pay for 168 police officers hired as part of the government's guns and gang strategy. It's certainly a program that we need to keep in place, and great to see that that's being looked after.

New judges into the system, new sheriffs being hired, as we heard earlier in question period today. Certainly, that whole justice system does have to have a relook. There's no doubt about that in my mind. The one part about the whole thing, when I look into a justice system, is that you can go and have five, six, seven court appearances before you get a trial. It just does not make sense to me. So I'm just happy that we're taking a good look at that whole system, and thank goodness we are.

Income assistance. Another $294 million over three years to address the growing demand for disability benefits and people on EI.

Community Living B.C. We went through that. Again, the government has looked at it and said that we're going to continue to put that $40 million a year into Community Living — certainly, a great spot for it. I went out and had an opportunity to look at all of my community living homes in my area.

What is this? This is the spring. I guess I toured that earlier this year, in January, and had an opportunity to see all of those group houses. They do such great work. There's no doubt about it. To get this funding, to keep them whole, is a fantastic thing, and certainly, I'm glad that we did that.

I'm sure I must be getting close to wrap-up time. I think what I'll do is wrap up with talking a little bit about the surplus assets. Surplus assets — it's great for getting rid of them.

D. Donaldson: I'm very pleased to take my place in response to the budget that was brought down by this government last week. I'd like to take my time to focus on what the budget means to the constituents of Stikine, people in the north, people in rural areas and the province in general.

I'm going to talk in my comments about how the budget shows a lack of credibility on the part of the government. It furthers the lack of trust that has been building in the general public over the last ten years of this government and contains no vision laid out. Those are the themes I will focus on, and as I go through my response, those are the themes that will come out.

This government's credibility is in tatters with budgets generally, and this budget continues along that theme. Let's look at why it is in tatters.

The HST. First of all, it was said by this government that they would not bring in the HST before the last elec-
[ Page 9476 ]
tion. Then, mere weeks afterwards, they brought in the HST, and now what we see in this budget is one more year that the residents of B.C. will be paying the HST, the working people of this province paying the HST. The HST took a mere nine months to bring in, and now we're talking about 16 months, under this budget, to eliminate it.

The $495 million. That was the projected deficit by this government in 2009, and it turned into a $3 billion deficit. Again, we're talking about credibility.

[1540]

B.C. Hydro — the dividend in B.C. Hydro. The Auditor General himself has said that an illusion of profitability was created where none existed from the deferral accounts. That illusion was put into revenue and put into the provincial budget — so again, lack of credibility.

Finally, another example. There's a myriad of examples, but I'll finish with this one of fiscal mismanagement — $400 million over budget on the Vancouver Convention Centre.

So you can see why the credibility of this government was in tatters with previous budgets, and now we'll talk about specifically this budget. This year the Finance Minister used the word "prudence" in describing the government's approach. Prudent and prudence were mentioned numerous times in the budget speech and in the budget document itself.

Prudent is defined as "careful in managing resources so as to provide for the future." Careful in managing resources so as to provide for the future. Well, this budget that was presented was the seventh year of deficits in 12 years of B.C. Liberal rule. In fact, they had to break their own legislation in order to avoid contradicting their own legislation on deficits. So seven deficits in 12 years now, $7 billion added to the provincial debt.

We're talking about a definition of prudence that defies the definition. So $66.4 billion will be the debt by the end of this budget document cycle, 2014-15. That's a 30 percent increase from 2011-12. So again, we're talking about a lack of credibility when it comes to the definition of prudence.

This does not include the off-the-books obligations that this government has racked up — off-the-books, contractual obligations. The office of the comptroller general has said that in this budget cycle that will go from $53 billion to $80 billion. Now, how is that prudence? How is that prudence?

Yet the Minister of Finance knew these numbers. We have to assume he knew these numbers. He's a reasonably smart fellow. He knew these numbers, yet he still kept using the "prudent" messaging numerous times in his speech, numerous times in the budget document.

That, to me and to others, signifies a definite credibility gap — saying one thing and doing another. This "saying one thing and doing another" theme is throughout the budget document, and it leads to a number of contradictions. I'll outline a few of them here.

Skills training. If you're looking at the definition of prudence in providing for the future, skills training is one area you would concentrate on in providing for the future. We have a looming skills shortage, yet this budget does nothing in a significant manner to address skills training.

The college system, for instance. Northwest Community College. I'm Deputy Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance, and Northwest Community College gave a very good presentation in Smithers about how their trades-training budget was cut by 4 percent last year.

Now, in this budget we see that the industry trade association, which is the association that funds trades training in the college system, is getting a $9 million cut. All northern colleges, as a matter of fact, are facing a million-dollar-plus deficit for this year. What we saw in previous years with Northwest Community College specifically was a 74 percent cut in annual capital allowance, and we haven't seen a restoration of that in this budget.

I have to tell you a story about what an annual capital allowance can mean. There's a story about Bill Gates. He was able, when he was a youngster, to go to a high school and then a college in Seattle that actually had one of the first working computers available in the public education system. So you can see where he cut his teeth and became the person he became — a financial leader, an innovator, a leader in many aspects of the information revolution that we've seen in the last 30 years.

[1545]

If those public education facilities had not had the capital means to provide a person like Bill Gates with the newest of the new facilities, then I would seriously doubt that he would have become the person that he is. I relate that to the case of Northwest Community College and other northern colleges that are unable, under this government and under this budget, to provide the capital facilities, the new equipment that will potentially lead to other Bill Gateses in other areas of the industry and in other areas of the economy.

Northwest Community College has an award-winning School of Exploration and Mining. They have not been able to secure core funding for that school. We know that the northwest is going to be the epicentre for the mining boom that potentially can occur in the province. Yet core funding for a fundamental program that has employment at its source for people of the northwest is unable, under this budget, to acquire that funding.

Dease Lake is another small community facing high unemployment and really, really close to many of the major projects that could come to fruition. They haven't been able to get the kind of post-secondary training that's required so that local people can have the best chance for local jobs in the mining sector. That's definitely what should happen.

What we've seen with the Ministry of Advanced
[ Page 9477 ]
Education….

Interjection.

D. Donaldson: I hear some noise coming from the other side, specifically from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson, who used to be involved in a leadership role as the Minister of State for Mining.

It's really unfortunate, because the other day I was questioning the Minister of Energy and Mines about his role. He is the minister of mines, energy, oil and gas, gambling, housing, liquor distribution….

You'd think that if the Premier had enough confidence in a backbencher, she might promote somebody like the member for Kamloops–South Thompson to at least take a little bit of a role in the current minister's big portfolio. But I guess you have to assume that if a minister has that kind of portfolio — Mines, Energy, oil and gas, gambling, Housing, liquor distribution…. I suppose it must mean that the Premier has no confidence in the backbenchers in her caucus to take any role in the kind of province that we have for the future here.

The Ministry of Advanced Education decreased by 1 percent in their budget. That might not seem like a lot, but inflation, according to the budget document, was 2.4 percent in 2011, and what we're seeing, according to the budget document, is an average of 2 percent inflation over the next three years. If you multiply that, we're looking at a 6 percent to 7 percent cut in the Ministry of Advanced Education's budget.

Again, a college like Northwest Community College…. Colleges in general in the north are an efficient and economical way of providing training. Northwest Community College serves 27 First Nations communities. Under this government, there's been an abysmal record of servicing First Nations communities and the First Nations population when it comes to education and advanced education. If we don't do that better, we'll be faced with the situation like my colleague is facing in Peace River North, where we have a fly-in, fly-out labour force.

Even the people in Fort Nelson, where we visited as the Select Standing Committee on Finance, are looking at ways to recover from that fly-in, fly-out and at means to stop the fly-in, fly-out kinds of aspects of the labour force. Three hundred people, twice a week, fly in and out of that community.

If we don't do the kind of skills training that's not addressed in this budget in the northwest, then we'll see the fly-in, fly-out labour force, the looming skill shortage that's not addressed by this budget. Nothing substantive in this budget to address the skills issue. So there's a contradiction regarding prudence when it comes to providing for the future.

Another contradiction in this budget is in forestry — again, providing for the future. The words "forests" and "forestry" were not mentioned once in the budget speech — not mentioned once — yet forestry built many of the communities in the north and in rural areas and across this province in the Interior.

[1550]

I know that the village of Hazelton and the Hazeltons in general at one point were 41 percent dependent on the forest industry. Now there's not one mill left in the Hazelton area. That deserves more than no mentions of forestry or forests in the budget speech. This is a sustainable sector, a sustainable industry, and one that's very important to our rural areas.

The Auditor General's report, released just a couple weeks ago, pointed out that 1.1 million hectares are in need of reforestation in the province. What do we have existing right now in the last five years under this B.C. Liberal government? We have 8,730 hectares being replanted. As the independent Auditor General pointed out, reforestation is not keeping up with the growing inventory of land needing restocking, and he concluded that there's no real plan around forest management. I'll quote from parts of his report.

The Auditor General said that the ministry lacks clearly defined timber objectives, without which it cannot ensure that management practices are effective. Existing management practices are insufficient to offset the trend of timber supply and declining biodiversity in some areas. Monitoring of timber results is insufficient to measure whether existing timber objectives are being met.

The Auditor General concluded in some recommendations…. His recommendations include developing a stewardship plan with clearly defined objectives, creating a reforestation program that is sufficient to meet those objectives and implementing performance measures to demonstrate progress — developing a stewardship plan. In other words, the government, in his opinion — the independent Auditor General — has no real plan around forestry.

What do we see in this budget? A $20 million cut to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations over the next two years in silviculture inventory and reforestation work — exactly the areas that the Auditor General was describing.

This budget document talks about Crown harvest volumes of 65 million cubic metres in order to meet the projections of revenue described in the document. Well, how can one have any confidence in those numbers when the Auditor General points out that the government has little handle on inventory work in the first place? It's no wonder that in Burns Lake this government is unable to describe to the people living there whether there's enough timber supply to attract a mill back into the area after the disaster that happened just last month.

In fact, according to a news release today, the focus is on tourism now for Burns Lake, according to the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. So they've gone from looking at a disaster, a mill burning down….
[ Page 9478 ]
A company is wanting to reinvest, saying: "How much wood is there?" The First Nations there is wanting to reinvest, saying: "How much wood is there?" This government is unable to tell them how much wood is there and is now trying to divert attention to tourism, because it seems like — with that announcement today, this government's own news release — they've given up on trying to attract a mill back to Burns Lake.

When you look at that $20 million cut in the next two years to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, how can that be providing for the future, as the word "prudent" describes?

Another area of contradiction in this budget is when it comes to children. If you're talking about providing for the future, then children should be a top priority. B.C. does have the highest child poverty rate in Canada. That's according to the Representative for Children and Youth, Ms. Turpel-Lafond. She described the budget as grim, callous and a U-turn from the Premier's family-first agenda.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development in this budget document has the same budget for 2012-13, '13-14 and '14-15 — for the next three years a flatline budget. I've described already that with the inflation rate predicted at least 2 percent over those three years, they're losing ground in that ministry — losing ground.

[1555]

Why is that important? Well, one example I can give you is very applicable to my constituents in Stikine. More than 50 percent of children in care in this province are aboriginals, First Nations descent — more than 50 percent — even though the overall population in the province of First Nations people is less than 5 percent.

So when you have those kinds of numbers across many communities in the north and you see the Ministry of Children and Family Development losing ground, then you can understand why the independent Representative for Children and Youth described this budget as grim, callous and a U-turn from the Premier's family-first agenda.

There are some contradictions in the budget that don't typify the definition of prudent — the deficits year after year, seven years out of 12; the racking up of an incredible amount of debt — $7 billion in this coming budget alone; and the lack of focus on skills training, the lack of focus on forestry and on children.

Let's talk now about the revenue-generating ministries. If we want to talk about providing for the future that the definition of prudence has in it, then let's talk about revenue-generating ministries — ministries such as Agriculture, Tourism, Energy and Mines, and Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. All of these budgets have decreased or flatlined, and again, with inflation, they're losing ground.

But as the member for Kootenay East put it recently, these are the revenue-generating ministries, and they don't have the resources to get the work done, to get permits out the door. The Mining Association of B.C.'s former president, Pierre Gratton, said: "In these ministries the cuts have gone too far. They're hurting the ability of the province to generate revenues."

When I look at this budget document specifically from a mining perspective, we see a reference to backlogged permits. There is supposed to be $12 million booked for this coming budget year to help address those backlogged permits. I couldn't find it in the budget document, and I'll be questioning both the ministers who are responsible — the one that holds about six portfolios and the other, the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — around where that $12 million should be appearing in the budget.

This minister and the Minister of Finance talked about targets for backlogs, and the targets are going to be talked about in August. We'll be keeping a close eye on that to make sure these targets are met, because we know this government is not good with numbers, and they haven't been good with the meaning of words. So when they talk about targets for the permits, we're going to be keeping a close eye on that, and specifically notice-of-work permits when it comes to the mining sector.

Now, there can be different types of notice-of-work permits in the mining sector. In the budget speech the Finance Minister talked in one sentence about mineral exploration permits and, in another sentence following, notices of work for mining. So he's mixing up a few of the definitions around notice of work. We have to keep a close eye on that and be careful with words.

There are notice-of-work permits in mineral exploration, which is one part of the sector, and then there is notice of work in mining around sand and gravel permits, around metal-mining permits, around coal permits, around plaster permits. Again, it's hard to know whether the government knows the true definition, the true meaning of the notice-of-work permits.

What we saw was under this government…. An organization had to use freedom of information to access how many permits were actually backlogged, and 6,915 was the answer that came back. So much for transparent and open government when this government is not willing to even divulge how many permits are backlogged under their regime — 6,915.

The Premier, at the recent mineral exploration conference called Roundup, talked about 8,000 backlogged permits. So we're up by a thousand in a matter of a few months. I'm not sure which number is accurate — the 8,000 that the Premier talked about or the 6,915 that freedom-of-information access had to be used to get to.

[1600]

There is no doubt about one thing. It was this government, over their 11-year tenure, that has created this backlog situation in the first place. So one would expect that, in order to deal with the fundamental reasons
[ Page 9479 ]
around how permits became so backlogged, there'd be some resources — as the member for Kootenay East so succinctly put it — so that some of the front-line ministries dealing with these permit applications could actually process them in a thorough manner.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Well, regional operations under the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — in other words, the regional operations offices that deal with permitting — are flatlined again. Their budget is the same this year as it was last year, so they're losing ground when it comes to inflation and when it comes to the fundamental problem of why permit backlogs got so far behind in the first place.

The Ministry of Environment, under the environmental assessment office. Now, this is an office that deals with the major projects that we're talking about that could generate a large amount of revenue for the province, not just from royalties but from personal income taxes and corporate income taxes as well — again, flatlined. So losing ground under the environmental assessment office.

It's flatlined despite the fact that there's an estimated billions of dollars of potential investment into the province in these major projects in mining and in natural gas. Over $30 billion is one estimate, yet the environmental assessment office has not seen any kind of increase in their resources to deal with these projects. You know, one could assume that we're going to see delays, unnecessary delays, because of this.

First Nations consultation is part of that office as well. And as far as the First Nations consultation framework, this is what industry, especially the mining industry, has been calling on this government to provide. Byng Giraud, a vice-president with Imperial Metals, presented to the Finance Committee in Cranbrook, and he talked about the industry willing to do their part in First Nations consultation, but what they really would like to know is what the expectations are of government.

What this B.C. Liberal government has been ignoring is putting together that framework. We know from court decisions that that responsibility has been put squarely in the lap of government, yet it hasn't got the attention that it needs, and it's again not getting the attention it needs under this budget. I'm concerned that this is going to lead to unnecessary delays in projects that could mean a lot for local employment and that could mean a lot for the provincial revenues.

Because of this lack of emphasis, we see in a document produced by the Fraser Institute, just released last week, that B.C. ranked 31st out of 93 jurisdictions when it came to mineral exploration and development. They surveyed 93 jurisdictions around the world. B.C. came out 31st.

One of the major reasons that B.C. was ranked so low — and, in fact, the worst in Canada — was uncertainty concerning disputed land claims — in other words, the question of aboriginal title, the exact question that I just discussed around First Nations consultation.

When the survey was put out and asked the respondents, the respondents came back, and when it came to considering disputed land claims as mild or strong deterrents for investment, B.C. finished just ahead of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia and behind places like Colombia, Peru and Chile in the 93 jurisdictions. That's a major problem for investor confidence.

These projects require a large amount of capital. There are many people out there working hard, many people that I've met with that are out there pounding the pavement globally, working hard to find the investment. Yet because of a lack of focus, as demonstrated in this budget around First Nations consultation, their job is being made very difficult when we see the Fraser Institute ranking B.C. the 31st out of these 93 jurisdictions when it comes to mineral exploration and development, for investor confidence. So there's little response, in this very important regard, in this budget.

[1605]

I'd like to talk a little bit about trust, from the aspect of saying one thing and doing another, as we saw with the Finance Minister using the word "prudent." The Premier, just prior to the budget being released, in a somewhat unprecedented move, tweeted some information about the budget. She maintained that the B.C. Liberals were not going to raise taxes in the budget. That's what she tweeted.

Well, the Premier was wrong. She was wrong. The corporate tax increase for 2014 is prescribed in this budget. The promised tax cut to small businesses was clawed back, so in effect that is a tax increase.

When it comes to the family-first agenda, we see medical service premiums increasing by 4 percent in this budget year alone coming up. If you add those together, the medical service premium increases over the last few years, it's an over 25 percent increase in medical service premiums. For people working in the province, people on fixed incomes, this is an incredible burden.

ICBC in this budget — an 11.2 percent increase in rates over this three-year budget cycle. These are taxes in anything but name.

What are the priorities in this budget? I've heard some rumblings from the other side about budget priorities. Well, $15 million in an advertising campaign to sell their own jobs plan — $15 million. Think about it. The School of Exploration and Mining — $500,000 a year to core funding. Five years of core funding would only be $2.5 million, and yet this government's priority is to spend $15 million on an advertising campaign.

And $2.6 million annually for an auditor general for local government office, to establish it — something that wasn't asked for by the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Coincidentally, B.C. aboriginal friendship centres, 25 of them around the province, could use that money and
[ Page 9480 ]
asked for that money, almost the same amount — $2.6 million annually for family literacy, for health, for child and family services.

These are the opportunity costs of these decisions by this government. The Office of the Premier's budget not touched — $9 million a year, not touched. You could plant a few trees for a million dollars, that's for sure.

These are just some of the priorities. The liquidation sale of government assets — $700 million — yet they haven't even identified the parcels of land. They haven't consulted with First Nations, so we don't know if that $700 million is real or not. That's what the government is depending on for their balanced budget, and that's voodoo economics. They're counting $700 million, they're stripping the cupboards bare, and they haven't even consulted with First Nations, because they haven't even targeted the pieces of real estate and other properties they're looking at.

I want to finish off with the B.C. Progress Board report, their last report in December, that showed that this government's got a worse record on the economy, on personal income and on jobs over the last ten years. Their trust as financial managers is nowhere to be found.

Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for letting me respond to the budget.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, rise in my place today, to represent the constituents of Oak Bay–Gordon Head and to respond to the budget speech. I don't think it should come as any surprise that I certainly will be supporting and voting for Budget 2012.

I think it's important in today's economic times, when the global economy continues to change and shift around us, that we have a budget, presented a week ago, that shows fiscal prudence and does, in fact, show stability and certainty.

When it comes to preparing budgets and speaking to budgets, I think it's fair to say that I have seen my share of them, especially in this province in the last 15, 16 years. Obviously, I have seen the budgets that the NDP administration has presented in its number of years, and certainly I voted against those budgets.

Of course, our budgets that we have presented on the government side — I voted for them. That's to be expected, after all. We obviously fundamentally disagree on both sides of the House as to how and where we should guide where the finances should go.

[1610]

I just want to say that the budget is an instrument. It is an important instrument. It's an important tool that governments have that conduct the affairs and the business of government in the name of the people of British Columbia.

Oftentimes we hear about government dollars here and there. It really isn't, and I've heard the Finance Minister reiterate this a number of times, as the Premier has. They're taxpayers' dollars. We all have to be mindful that they are taxpayers' dollars.

We are given the opportunity, we are given the privilege — indeed, the honour — to distribute those dollars in the most efficient, most economical way to ensure that those dollars reach the people in a way that does improve their quality of life and also to distribute those dollars responsibly, because by not doing so, we jeopardize our future generations and their ability to provide for their families.

I heard members talk about credibility. I heard members question credibility. I find that quite hard to take, because the one area of credibility, the one source that so many of us rely on — not just our jurisdiction but other jurisdictions as well — is the people who would rank us, the people who would determine whether they thought our budgeting process, our fiscal spending, our prudence, our management was in fact credible.

That would be the bond-rating agencies. That would be those credit-rating agencies. As has been said before — but it's worth repeating — this side of the House, our government, is the government that has restored us to the triple-A credit rating.

It certainly was not the NDP era of the '90s. That is where we saw the credit downgrades. That is where we did see debt management plans, debt management objectives or targets that were brought in. I heard one of the members opposite saying that they didn't miss those targets, but I think he would do himself a service, as would other members of the NDP, if he were to go back and take a look at the debt management plan.

The first time it was introduced, it was lauded, because to be quite frank, to their credit, it was the first time a debt management plan had actually been introduced in a long time. Actually, the NDP of the day got some kudos for that. But that was immediately eroded, because right after that was introduced, it was not maintained. The target was missed, so the next year they renamed it, with new targets. They did that again and again and again.

What that said to those bond-rating agencies, to those credit agencies was: "We don't know what that government is up to. We don't have any certainty whether they have any plan whatsoever and how they are spending." It's for that reason the credit ratings fell, and what we then ended up with was more debt-servicing costs. The cost of borrowing increased.

I remember when you said, "If you put all that debt service in one ministry, I think it would be the second- or perhaps the third-largest ministry in all of government" — $2.7 billion. It was $7 million a day in debt-servicing costs, a huge amount being wasted in that way.

I could accept that if those dollars could be attributed to tangible assets and the building of a province in such a way that everybody could applaud. But there was very little to look at. There was very little that we could grasp our hands around, except the fast ferries. That was about the only real, tangible asset that I can see where spending
[ Page 9481 ]
was, where debt was incurred.

In those ten years, where we didn't see an awful lot of assets, what we did see was a doubling of the debt. I've heard members opposite talk about the debt rising. I will acknowledge there has been debt that has risen under our term of office, but you have also seen a huge, huge investment — significant, tangible investments — in communities throughout the province.

[1615]

I might add that one of the first, largest projects that we undertook was in a part of the province that had been neglected, a part of the province where we as government did not even have representation in terms of an MLA. That was the Kicking Horse Canyon.

Did I see the NDP invest any dollars there? A natural gateway from the Alberta border through to British Columbia, where it would be easier for people to travel and have that extra rubber-road traffic for tourism — there was no investment there.

I remember they did talk about seismic upgrading of schools, but they had no plan. The NDP had no plan to do that seismic upgrade. We introduced a 15-year plan and a $1.5 billion investment.

I can say that under our watch, in my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head I have seen high schools upgraded. Mount Doug, my former high school, was seismically upgraded — and Willows Elementary, Monterey, Gordon Head Middle School, just to name a few. And soon to have a brand-new high school in Oak Bay. It's one that has been bursting at the seams, one that throughout the years we thought we would have to just patch up and find ways to make sure the safety concerns were addressed, but we are going to see a new high school.

I'm grateful to the Ministers of Education, not only the current Minister of Education but the previous ones, who have been on top of this, who have listened and made sure that working with the school districts — school district 61, greater Victoria school district — we're going to see a brand-new, well-needed high school in my area, in addition to two high schools that, I might add, will be in the member for Juan de Fuca's area — much needed as well. That is why, when we do see a rise in debt, we actually can attribute it to real, tangible assets.

We've spent money in health care. The Royal Jubilee Hospital — I believe the oldest hospital in all of British Columbia until its recent expansion, the patient tower. The then Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Education, from Shuswap, again was there to herald through that important investment.

It is not just a brand-new, expanded 500-bed patient care tower; it is state of the art. It is one that is focused on the best care possible for seniors, and it is one that has won awards around the world, where people have come to take a very close look, because it is a model for the kind of health care facility that can and should be built going forward.

I say that because I think it's important that it's not just about repairing and maintaining at times. It is about taking that opportunity, when it is presented to you — that when you need to make an expansion or a change or a renovation, you take a look at the new innovation of the day, at the new green technologies that could be incorporated and put those in place.

I can also say that the expansion of the emergency department at the Victoria General Hospital here in the greater Victoria area…. It's not in my area, but this entire region is dependent on that, and that emergency department was expanded — a welcome addition to this area.

I want to, as well, talk a little bit about the industries that are currently facing some difficulty. It has been mentioned that forestry had gone through some very, very difficult times in the '90s, but things are changing because we have a Forests Minister and successive Forests Ministers who have taken the time to understand where the markets are, what the demands will be and how we are going to be able to capitalize on that.

While it may have been, in the past, a relationship that we had with the United States where they acquired the majority of our lumber, that is no longer the case. When their economy slumped, when their economy took a huge, huge drop, they weren't looking north to us. They weren't looking to British Columbia to put any dollars in. Perhaps other governments would have just sat and just waited it out, but that's not what we did.

[1620]

Aggressively, consistently, our Forests Ministers went into a market, the Asian market, to say: "We are here. We have a supply. If you wish and you have a demand, we can find a relationship. We can work on a partnership that will work well for both countries."

We've seen in the past that the mining industry also faltered, but we're hearing that mining exploration has increased. We're seeing mines looking to reopen. That's also good news, because the mining industry has very high-paying jobs.

I've heard talk about the agriculture industry as well. That, too, went through a very difficult period of time — not necessarily as a result of any policies, I would say, that governments had been involved in — in particular when it came to the beef industry, the cattle industry. I think sometimes it's all too easy to forget what BSE did. When something like BSE happens, it doesn't just happen for a year. It is much more long-lasting.

During our reign of office we also saw the avian flu hit this province. That's the poultry industry. So another significant challenge that we had to deal with. Of course, we all remember what SARS did to our tourism industry.

What I'm trying to say, hon. Speaker, is that in the last number of years since we have been government and members refer to, sometimes it's easy to forget all the challenges that this government was faced with. I would credit a lot of this to good leadership but as well to the
[ Page 9482 ]
very dedicated professional staff that ministers and ministries have, who found a way through to a solution that would get us beyond the problem.

While we were faced with those kinds of challenges…. Again, I recall the massive forest fires that hit the Okanagan some years ago, where members on our side of the House were worried whether their homes would be standing. These were all challenges that this government had been dealt, yet this government worked through and still during those times produced balanced budgets, hit our targets each and every time. That's what gave the bond-rating agencies comfort. That's why they allowed us to maintain our triple-A credit rating — as I say, an incredibly important aspect of what a budget should provide for.

Before I talk about some of the areas of responsibility that I have as Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, I do want to talk about some of the highlights of this budget, because I think it's worth repeating. I know other members have, but I still think it's worth repeating that the forecast deficit that we have for this year ending is going to be less than what originally was predicted. While it would be great to get to a balanced budget next year, we have said that that will still not be possible until the year after.

For '12-13 we anticipate a deficit of $968 million but then a surplus of $154 million in 2013-14, and then $250 million in '14-15. It is important that we get to the balanced budget, and it is important that we show this budget is going to provide for that.

We were the first government that introduced three-year budgets to allow taxpayers, business and the investment community to understand and to see where government was headed.

Right now I think businesses and industries are curious where the NDP are headed. They've not tabled their budget, although they said they had a budget that was ready last September. They've not shared with us where the resources for that extra spending will come. At this point I think the tally is around $6.8 billion on a $40 billion plus budget. That's close to a 20 percent increase, and that's a very scary prospect for businesses to not know where those dollars are coming from.

Well, it sounds like the corporate capital tax is coming back. It sounds like a raise to the personal income taxes. It sounds like there's going to be perhaps some services that are cut. So without the NDP opposition and the leader providing us with some of those details, which he said he had available last September, he leaves everybody to speculate on that.

[1625]

I hope that he will table his budget. I hope that he will share with taxpayers where those dollars are going to be, because I know that as he travels around the province, which he has been doing, he will be asked where those dollars are going to be spent.

I think I would have to agree that people are rightfully concerned. I can tell you that the one tax that scared away investment and did it for over a decade was, in fact, the corporate capital tax. The investment community just did not understand it whatsoever, because it wasn't a tax on profit. It was actually a tax on having assets.

The people in the business community understand that if they make money, yes, they should pay taxes. There'll always be differences of opinion on how much they should pay, but they don't necessarily agree that you should be paying tax on assets, especially when you don't own them outright. That's in fact what the corporate capital tax did. I don't know if the members really spent the time to understand that, but it was a tax that did not factor in the net value of the asset. It did, in fact, tax assets.

When you have the investment community — who are prepared to bring some dollars in to buy a warehouse or some land and build a plant and hire hundreds, if not thousands, of people and perhaps not have a profit for the first five or six years — told that they could possibly be paying tax, which is then called the corporate capital tax, you have to wonder why they would even consider locating to British Columbia. That's where it sounds like the NDP are headed.

I know they might think it's irrelevant, but that is absolutely the tax that they would like to bring back. What was more surprising is that it was not a tax they brought in. It was actually a tax that was brought in by Bill Vander Zalm. It was Mike Harcourt who said he wanted to get rid of it, but he didn't. That was quickly silenced, because they didn't know exactly what needed to be done.

As I say, I think that it's important to raise those questions, as those questions are being raised for those of us who are travelling around the province as well.

The other highlights of Budget 2012. It certainly projects modest economic growth over the next three years, but it really talks about containing spending growth, and it's going to contain that growth to an average of 2 percent. Health care and education budgets, as always, are being protected.

It's very strange, but it's anticipated…. The NDP are promoting the words of these budgets being cut, but if you take a look, if you want to be honest and you pulled the blue books out each and every year and lined them all up, you will see that every successive budget for health care and education since 2001 has increased. Every actual budget has increased.

At a time when we do see a declining enrolment in our elementary schools, you would expect, and logic would dictate, that you probably should be able to reduce spending because the demands are not that great. So why are those budgets increasing? It's because we made that commitment, and the Education Ministry works diligently with the districts to find ways to be innovative, to spend in the most economical way as well.

In this budget you will also see some new tax meas-
[ Page 9483 ]
ures that benefit seniors, that benefit families, that benefit businesses. I'm really happy to see the B.C. first-time new homebuyers bonus of up to $10,000 — certainly, I believe, a welcome addition. We do hear from families, especially parents who are hoping that their children, when ready to move out, are in fact able to move out. Sometimes to find that down payment, sometimes to struggle to make ends meet, a $10,000 differential can make all the difference.

Hon. Speaker, I have to confess I don't have children of my own, but I do have a number of nieces and nephews. I can tell you that as my brothers and sisters look to see their children leave the nest, I'm sure that they will welcome the $10,000 additional bonus to help out.

[1630]

B.C. seniors home-renovation tax credit of $1,000. What a timely tax credit at a time when we have so many people aging and wanting to age in place at home. Those small renovations, whether it's better accessibility in their stairs, better mobility in their washroom facilities — whatever it takes for those slight modifications or renovations…. To be able to get a tax break on that, a tax credit, I think is a great idea, and I'm looking forward to seeing many people take advantage of that.

The children's fitness credit and the children's arts credit — a promise, I might add, that the Premier made last year. But I want to say that it wasn't a promise that she only made last year. This was something that the Premier, when she was a private member at the end of her last term here in government, had introduced as a private member's bill, an issue that she had heard about and has been advocating for such a long time and then, in a return as the Premier here in this province, has been able to put it in place.

I know she must be incredibly proud, and all the people who spoke to her about this must be incredibly proud about this as well. It may seem like a modest amount, but sometimes the modest amount is what it takes to drive a family to look into those kinds of spending.

We also see that the small business corporate tax rate will be maintained at 2.5 percent. I know the opposition has made a lot of hay about the fact that we're not reducing it down to what we had originally committed to. I will say this: the business community understands, because of the floor that is changing below us in terms of the fiscal challenges that we face, and understands that in this particular instance it would be wise and it would be prudent that we do hold off on driving that down any further, because even at 2.5 percent, we still would have one of the lowest small business tax rates.

We shouldn't just look at it as a tax amount, a tax rate, because what we have been able to do on this side of the House as well…. We have looked at the threshold of what the small business rate is, so in effect that has driven down the taxes a little bit further.

I want to just speak briefly as well about the jobs plan. In my opening remarks I touched upon a number of industries, but I think what really is important is that the fact that we have a jobs plan, the fact that we're focusing on eight particular sectors will provide us an opportunity to help those sectors that create very high-paying jobs to continue to exist and expand, which in turn will affect other sectors and allow us to, eventually, expand and put more focus on those areas.

One of the areas, of course, is the high-tech sector as well. I think that's important. I mention that because even in today's fiscal climate where, as I said, investment dollars are finding a place to park themselves, this province, this city, has been able to, incredibly, secure a new business here, and that's Microsoft. A large company, but Microsoft has located to Victoria — welcome news indeed. That's because they believe we have the talented people here because we've invested in training. They believe that we have a strong fiscal discipline here in this government and a drive to have the lowest taxes that we can, that we can afford. They also believe that their investment dollars are safe here.

Those are the foundations of what the jobs plan is about and what the Premier has been talking about — to have British Columbia viewed to be a safe harbour for investment. I do believe that that is what is happening.

I do recall, as well, in talking with the tourism industry here, as much as the spending on disposable income is challenging around the world, British Columbia is still looked upon as a place where people want to come and visit because it is a safe place. We are still seeing the Lower Mainland, in particular Vancouver-Whistler, be given great attention and continue to rank highly in some of the vacation journals because of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1635]

The amount of exposure that we received at the time was phenomenal to say the least, and the visitors that talk about Vancouver and Whistler continue on to this day. But that's not to say we should rest on our laurels. It's still important to find ways to increase our tourism potential, because that is important for all parts of British Columbia, not just here in the capital region.

I want to now touch upon some of the areas that I have responsibility for. That, essentially, is with local governments and with the sport community — as well, with the arts and culture community. I think it's important to note that local governments have never before been supported financially by any other government than our government, especially in the last five or six years. We have provided so much additional funding to UBCM — for them, in particular — to administer.

We have worked well with the federal government to secure the infrastructure programs in place to allow for infrastructure in just about every community in the province. Some are green projects. Some are community centres. Some are roadways. Some are cycling paths. Some
[ Page 9484 ]
are bridges. But regardless of what the needs are, the fact that we have been able to work well with the federal government and will continue to do so — because it is an important partnership — means that we will be able to provide infrastructure to these well needed communities.

My concern, as I see my time is almost up, is to not be able to share with you the incredible advances we've made with the sport sector. They have come together in a way that, I think, over the next number of months will show the rest of the province how the sport sector is capitalizing on the Olympics to ensure that our youth have an opportunity to be healthy and, more importantly, have an opportunity to compete — not just provincially but, perhaps, internationally as well. That is so important. We saw in the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games how sport really galvanized the province.

While I would like to spend a bit more time talking about the arts and culture community, which I've been spending quite a great deal of time on, what I can say is that in speaking with the B.C. Arts Council in particular, they have been gratified knowing that their funding is maintained, that in fact we will continue to work with them to find savings so that they can look at reinvesting them. We have made some major investments with them over the past few years. I can only see that, as we work together, going forward, we continue on with that great relationship.

No doubt, I will be supporting this budget. I'd like to convince members opposite to do so. I'm sure that that would be a long wait on my part. So I will just close with the fact that I am honoured to be able to continue to represent the constituents that I have, of Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

I thank you, hon. Speaker, for this time that I've had to share my thoughts on the budget.

G. Gentner: I rise in opposition to the 2012 budget, simply because this is the worst budget I've ever seen in the House during my seven-year tenure here.

We understand this is indeed supposed to be the Premier's first budget. But this is actually the anti-family budget. When you start breaking it down and looking at the hidden tax through fees, other means of taking from ICBC, which I'm going to discuss…. It's not an easy place for families, these days.

I was talking to a constituent of mine the other day. She has two girls in soccer, and she's going to have to pull them out because they're having a having a hard time making ends meet. They make a reasonable salary, but they're being hit so many different ways that it's getting very, very difficult to get through these days. This budget is not supporting families at all.

The Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development mentioned the need to invest in public health, and the worries of SARS. Meanwhile, we have a whooping cough epidemic that has started up by Hope and is following its way — it's airborne — through the valley. It's now into Vancouver Coastal.

[1640]

This is a very serious situation. When it comes down to public health, we don't see that special attention in this budget. In fact, it seems to be turning a blind eye to it. You know, it's quite unfortunate in that we seem to have these silos with the different health care authorities created by the government. The government wants to be arm's length, but we need a coordinated approach when it comes down to these airborne types of diseases.

I say this is the worst budget I have ever seen in the House because it's a cumulative effect over 11 years of what has come down. We know that in health care the minister is now suggesting that we're going to be bending down the curve of health care. In other words, we're going to see it capped — obviously not this budget. But that's where the government is going — a cap in the health care.

I can appreciate it, in many ways, if there was a plan and a strategy in how we're going to get there and offset it with putting moneys into public health to make sure that people don't get to the hospitals for the right reasons — because they are healthy.

Now, one of the things it really affects, of course…. It includes another hike of the MSP, the medical service premiums. This time it's another 4 percent hike. This increase alone, which is scheduled to come into effect January 1, 2013, will take more money out of B.C. families. It's a form of tax, and with the increase announced, individuals will pay $366 more every year for MSP than they did in 2001. Families will pay an additional $732 each year. As of 2013 a family will pay $1,596 per year for MSP, an astounding 85 percent increase since 2001. I don't see how this could possibly be seen as a pro-family budget for the people of British Columbia.

I want to discuss more about the revenue side of things today, in particular the selling of our assets. I mean, this is what the budget says. The minister spoke up on budget day and said: "Our goal is to take those surplus assets and turn them into economic generators." Does that sound familiar? You bet it does. B.C. Rail, an asset, was sold lock, stock, and barrel without proper consultation. So this is the old song. But we know what happens when you have a major asset that has been, for years for the people of British Columbia…. It's just garnered away, sold — at bargain prices, I may add. We're going to see it again.

I'm going to be a little specific here and talk about what the minister had in mind. One of the examples the minister had was: "The province owns a 15-acre site in Surrey, just off Highway 10." That's right across the street, literally across the street, from the minister's own constituency of Highway 10, where this new development is going to occur. It is also located in the Ministry of Social Development, her ministries, in her constituency of Surrey-Panorama.
[ Page 9485 ]

I think the minister should be concerned, because here is a jewel, an asset right in the centre of that constituency, set aside for future use for the people of British Columbia and her constituents. If it isn't going to be used for health care, think of all the things it could be used for, in particular for the minister's own Ministry of Social Development.

You just have to now give a call to the financial assistance line for help. What the government has done is it shut down the welfare office a few years ago in North Delta, and they moved it over to somewhere in Surrey with very poor transit service. Now we have a one-call centre for not only Delta, Burnaby. The one-call service includes New Westminster. It includes Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam. You try, when you need financial assistance, to get through that line. It's busy, or they put you on hold all day. This government has turned its back on the needy.

[1645]

Here's a jewel located in the minister's own constituency that can be used to help people. But that is not what this government is doing. The minister said in the budget that it's a hatchet job, basically. The Minister of Finance says it's about selling off a valuable piece of our future. "We were holding on to it in the event the new Surrey Memorial Hospital needed it." Wrong, wrong, wrong, hon. Speaker. It was a reserve set aside, not an extension of Surrey Memorial Hospital but for the people of British Columbia, for the constituents of Surrey-Panorama, Surrey-Newton and, of course, North Delta and all those who lived in the hospital catchment area south of the Fraser. Talk about twisting it.

We live in the South Fraser communities. We need those assets. We need to hang on to the eventual amenities in Canada's fastest-growing community, and they're throwing it away.

The minister stands up and goes on and says: "So rather than letting it sit there…." It is sitting there because the government refuses to do anything with it. It's not our fault. It's not the people of North Delta's fault or Surrey's or Panorama's fault. It's the government's fault that has created the worst health care outcomes anywhere in Canada, right in the Fraser Health Authority, right in the North Delta–Surrey area. It sits there because they've done nothing with it. It's a bunch of malarkey.

"So rather than letting it sit there…." Tell that to the patient waiting months and months for treatments. "So rather than letting it sit there…." Tell that to the people with eating disorders who are waiting for years for help. "So rather than letting it sit there…." Tell that to the mentally ill.

"So rather than letting it sit there…." Tell that to the senior who is dubbed as the alien, the wrong person, who is now a bed-blocker taking up a hospital bed in Surrey Memorial Hospital — extensive health care, $1,200 a day. This property sits empty while the senior is waiting for placement in assisted-living facilities.

"So rather than letting it sit there…." Yes, it is there for a reason. It's there for the needs of health care, for perhaps nursing, teaching for nurses. You know, we do have something called Kwantlen College just down the street, an expansive service that's well needed for a growing health care capacity south of the Fraser River or for a medical clinic — a medical clinic that should be open 24-7 a day, taking the relief off our hospitals. That's cost-effective. There's a 13-acre site waiting, right now, and they're going to throw it away.

The needs for quasi-emergency relief for Surrey Memorial, relief for Peace Arch, for Delta Hospital. Perhaps wellness centres. There's the future. So rather than letting it sit there, let's talk about a wellness centre to deal with creating a strategy of a healthy society before people become too chronic, stuck in acute care beds. Let's plan for the 21st century in order to address the huge costs of health care.

But the B.C. Liberal government will have nothing to do with that. "Rather than letting it sit there costing taxpayers money…." That's what came out of the minister's mouth — "costing taxpayers money." An asset that is already paid for, mind you, sitting there today for the future needs, which may exceed health care demands. It could be education, a training centre. But he goes on to say: "We intend to sell it." We — the B.C. Liberals. And to who? We don't know.

That smacks of B.C. Rail. Here we go again. We're going to sell our assets. To who? Interesting. I thought we were in a new beginning with this government. Obviously not. They intend to sell the farm to pay for today's groceries. They run this economy into the ground. The government has no longer the foresight to save for the future. Sell low and buy high. That's what's going….

[1650]

This is the worst government in the history of British Columbia. No question. "We intend to sell it and let the private sector use it to generate…economic activity." Let's look at that one. What does that mean? I thought this former Health Minister, who's now the Minister of Finance, had more in his cranium. Is he implying that St. Paul's or Vancouver hospital or Surrey Memorial Hospital or Royal Columbian doesn't generate economic activity?

Health care centres have a 5-to-1 multiplier effect on our economies. They are vital instruments of our economies. This is the kind of activity the government wants to do — sell it off to a bunch of developers? Maybe the government believes car dealerships are far more important at 152nd and Highway 10 than the health care needs of the people of Surrey and Delta.

It's really a question of priorities. Yes, if the priorities have shifted, fine. If that's the strategy, fine. But don't sell the farm. The property is there for the people of British Columbia — for the people of British Columbia, not as dictated by needs of a vision created in that empty place of a government that it tries to call a brain. It's lost its
[ Page 9486 ]
trust; it's lost its vision.

I want to talk a little more about the one little paragraph in the budget. I heard the minister's response during last week's question period when two members of the opposition inquired as to what exactly the minister is doing regarding the parcel of land. His response was that the NDP did nothing with it.

I have to say: "Nonsense." The NDP of the day, with the cooperation of the Surrey municipal council of the day — and it was not a New Democrat mayor; his name was Doug McCallum — bought the land in 1999. It took foresight and planning to purchase and acquire that land. The government of the day teed it up for the following government, and what did the Liberals do? Nothing. Now because it sits there, they want to sell it.

Think about this. Think about the negotiation behind assembling that land and why at that particular location. It is centrally located. Extensive location studies were done to find the strategic spot for our future — I want to emphasize: our future, not a few friends of the government — a spot that was between Surrey Memorial Hospital in the north and Peace Arch Hospital in the south, Delta Hospital in the west and Langley in the east. It was plain in the centre. Now, with all the work done, this government is squandering our future and our children's future away because it can't manage the books. It's really, quite frankly, an utter disgrace.

No wonder one member opposite last week offered his disdain for selling assets. Any fool can sell away his assets, but takes a very smart person to build contingencies and save those assets for another day. But these aren't any anybody's particular assets. These are ours, yours, our children's and our children's futures. A small, little paragraph in the budget means so much — selling our assets.

A former government purchased the land, aided with support by various municipal governments, mayors in Surrey and Delta and even former Premiers Rita Johnston, Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark. The notion came about with community effort, which I was involved with — years of efforts by residents, doctors, health care workers. In the summer of 1989 a group of North Delta residents formed the North Delta Public Hospital Society and later changed the name to the North Delta–Newton Public Hospital Society under the Society Act.

One year later it launched a campaign for support, and within one month it received over 5,000 letters of support to the government, led by the president, Gary Harding. Ironically, Gary died at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Dr. Michael Stibbs is now no longer with us.

It took a whole lot of work, toil and pain of various communities to get together and push for this location. I think of the people who worked hard: Dave Hales, Kathy Peterson — all community leaders — Vince Trayers. They worked hard. It was done by normal, average people, not by stakeholders or medical service people or, perhaps, nurses or unions. It was normal, everyday citizens — residents who stood up and believed that it was time that those living south of the Fraser would finally get their fair share.

I remember well the knocking on doors, the signatures, talking to the mayors, talking to the Premier, a rally for the push of the Fraser Health Authority of the day to work on behalf of the community, the number of letters. I remember the petitions, the door-to-door campaign.

[1655]

I remember small business and their unequivocal support for this essential need. Now it's squandered away by this provincial Liberal government.

Also in May of 1991 Mayor Beth Johnson and Delta council publicly endorsed the notion for a set-aside for the future health care needs. It was protected at a time when we had 1.3 acute care beds per thousand, the lowest in Canada. Now we're hearing all these accolades, how we're now boosting it. But even when we meet the new objectives of the government, we are still going to be substantially short of the acute care bed needs south of the Fraser.

I remember when we went door to door. We polled thousands of people, and 94 percent identified themselves from North Delta–Newton. Among many findings the society found at that time was of those who were polled, 93 percent favoured the acquisition of lands immediately. Considering the fledgling society, it was amazing that 300 people within that same month joined it. It was probably one of the most amazing political activities I'd ever been involved in, in all my 25 years as an activist and a politician.

Now location. Location is built on its accessibility within the community. As I said earlier, it was strategically placed. The society believed that it was important that, yes, there was a need for a secondary…. We're not talking about a tertiary hospital. We're talking about a primary acute care hospital. It was to be seen as a satellite within. It made perfect sense, because not all could access downtown Surrey. We were also, of course, hopeful that it would help the needs of the elderly and infirm who really couldn't make it to larger hospitals.

The other things that could be involved in here were ambulatory stations at the same corner. It had perfect noise abatement. There was no air traffic up above, trains, industry. A lot of effort and planning, not only by the society but by all levels of government. Get this. For $5 million it was purchased, almost $5 million. It's on the block now, I believe, for close to $24 million, and it's not even zoned completely for commercial. We're just talking institutional use. Boy, talk about a flip. Yoo-hoo. B.C. Rail all over again.

This is what this government does. It's not here for you or me or families. It is here for the insiders, and you can take that to the bank. You just have to go look at a former trial that was conducted, and still the Auditor General is trying to get that information, to look at how that all
[ Page 9487 ]
came about. You know, it's quite amazing how this government seems to profit over and over again from the good deeds done by the previous government.

It's also interesting. When the Liberal government took control of the province, they conducted back then what was known as core reviews. But where is the core review on this one, and all the other fire sales?

This is not a proper business case. This is blatant selling away your assets. We saw it before — St. Mary's Hospital, Nelson hospital, Lytton hospital. "Let's get rid of the hospitals. It's costing us way too much money." They pared it down. What else could be left? But they'll continue to sell it away. It will be gone — no question there. I'm going to leave that for now. Time is going to run out pretty quick here.

We know that the Surrey municipal government set aside in its official community plan, 6.6 on their institution…. "The Panorama village development, which is located in the minister's own seat, includes a 6-hectare — 15-acre — site owned by the greater Vancouver regional hospital district and is intended for a future hospital." That's the position of the city of Surrey. It's in their official community plan.

Has the government gone out and solicited, negotiated and talked to the local government of Surrey? No. Nada. No. Wouldn't do that. It's just grab and take.

Very quickly, I want to talk about another interesting part. Page 51 of the budget talks about surplus assets. I'd really like to know what "surplus" means. We'll hopefully find that out.

[1700]

It says: "Properties under consideration include surplus acquired for the development of transportation corridors, vacant parcels of Crown land and a number of longstanding provincial holdings that are appropriately developed by the private sector." Isn't B.C. Rail — what's left of it — a corridor? What's left of it — the consolation prize that Omnitrax was going to buy?

Whoa. They're going to sell transportation corridors. Give us the list. Maybe someone already knows what the list is. Inside track. I mean, you think they'd learn something.

Will the government come clean? I mean, what does the government do? We know the government has been, before, buying up options to purchase B.C. Rail lands, out by Delta. You can take land out of the ALR that way; it's cabinet. Then you can sell it and make more money. Boy, oh boy, we're going to have fun here in the estimates. I can't wait.

In North Delta we've got another corridor called the South Fraser perimeter road. The land was assembled. We have residents that lost their home, threatened with expropriation.

Now the government, in its wisdom, can turn around and sell surplus lands along that corridor? Tell that to Dale Laurent, who is now still fighting. He's stuck. He was told that he was going to have a view of the river, but now the freeway is in his backyard. A resident of mine. Tell him if he's going to get a way out of here — nada.

The Ministry of Transportation has the legislative authority…. This is the thing. It can dictate corridors. It doesn't have to go through the means of local government. Once it gets that swath, it can do what it wants. It can trade land, buy land. It can make a deal with the developer in order to get some ramp access.

This is what the government is doing. We have to drill deep. This opposition is going to have to drill deep to find out what it means, because this government is not going to offer it.

I'm sure the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is listening very closely to this one. I hope so, because a lot of people have lost their homes. A lot of people have changed their lives for transportation corridors to now to be sold on the block because the government made a mistake.

They said that $1.3 billion to the South Fraser perimeter road is going to scoot traffic along — boom, boom, thank you very much. Guess what's happened now. They realize: "Oops, we made a mistake. We're in a recession. No ramps. No freeway. We're going to put traffic lights along the way."

It's no different from what we've got today. Talk about mismanagement of funding. Tolls? Well, let's not even talk about tolls. That's part of this budget too. I'm sure our opposition critic for transportation and highways certainly is going to bring that to the forefront, because what it's going to do….

The toll evaders in my community — the toll evaders who are not going to pay the tolls off the Port Mann bridge, just like they aren't paying at Golden Ears — are going to come west, my friends, and my community is going to be a repository for all the traffic trying to get home and to work. It's $3 a day to go to work, $3 to come back from work. They're going to find congestion in North Delta and avoid it, and south of the Fraser, once again, is going to get the wrong end of the stick.

Assets. Hydro. Deferred accounts. ICBC. Well, whoa, whoa. You know, this was supposed to be a one-off raid of ICBC. Not anymore. I mean, we used to think…. We were worried that ICBC was going to be sold. They're not going to sell it. It's a cash cow. They can grab at will, and we know that under the new changes in the ICBC act, the Lieutenant-Governor may order and record the required payments as liabilities in the corporation's financial statements. It is gutting and destroying ICBC.

The credibility and the ability of ICBC to look after itself is being destroyed under section 26 of that act. It has been built on good esteem, but the money — $400 million, $500 million — is going to be siphoned away. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has been opposed to it. The Consumers Association of Canada is opposed to it. ICBC, the Crown corporation owned and operated by
[ Page 9488 ]
the people of British Columbia and this province….

The government has a responsibility to ensure that it operates in the best interests of British Columbians and the motorists and the ratepayers, not to line the government's pockets as another mean of taxation because they have mismanaged this province. It's shameful.

Same thing happening…. They may have got the idea years ago when they decided to raid the surplus to hand out big bonuses to management. Maybe something twigged. "We can go a little further with this kind of thing."

[1705]

So 12 percent, and rates are going up, not because we have bad motorists on the road but because this government has mismanaged the province.

In the 1990s ICBC was argued as a break-even business. Its job was not to make profit but to provide the best possible auto insurance for the least possible cost. That's what the NDP government did then, and that's what we're going to do when we're government again. We're not here to gouge the public.

With the premiums, the taxes, they've increased the tax burden again on families. You know, this is supposed to be an agenda for the families. It's not. You have a deteriorating middle class that will get hit once again with an increase of $187 more this year. The low-income will pay an extra $152 this year. And of course, as I said earlier, Hydro is the other one that's going to have a bad outcome.

I'm just going to leave with this one note, because it's something that should be earmarked. That's the subtle gouging of the unfortunate, the low-income. Yeah, I'm sure some of you buy lottery tickets. It's an issue, for a reason I haven't been talking about. The view was that, per annum, on the surplus plans we were going to see 8 percent revenue. Maybe we had 3 percent GDP year after year, but for whatever reason we're increasing the grab, through promotion of gaming in this province, 8 percent. In this budget it's now 12 percent.

It's going after those who've lost hope. It's another poor man's tax, and this government should be ashamed of itself. We've heard all the stories about loan sharking in Richmond. We know on-line gaming is going to continue, and this government is going after the vulnerable once again. It's all it knows. Its bottom line is not for the people of British Columbia.

I'm opposed to this budget, and I will fight hard to defeat this government.

M. Dalton: I'm happy to stand in support of this budget. Just hearing the remarks from the MLA for Delta North, I almost wonder if I'm in the same province as the one he's talking about. Hopefully, as we go through this, we will be able to look at some of the discrepancies.

I believe that this is a prudent budget. I will say this also: I believe that it is a visionary budget.

Interjections.

M. Dalton: A visionary budget, yes. Now, you may say: "How is not spending billions of dollars more being visionary?"

I think what it is, is this. We're right now in the midst of celebrating Heritage Week. I think of the pioneers that first moved here in the Fraser Valley and other places in British Columbia and spent much time clearing the forests, whether it be for cattle or for agriculture, whatever it may be. It takes sacrifice, but they have a mind to a crop down the road.

I really believe that this right here is…. Yes, you know, it would be nice to be more flush, but I believe that the choices that we're making will actually lead to tremendous productivity as time progresses. I believe that we need to live within our means, because if we do that, then we will have more for tomorrow.

There are plenty of examples of governments that have lived beyond their means. We don't have to look far. We can look to Canada. In the 1990s, one-third of our revenue, all the income that went to the government, went to debt servicing, so one out of three dollars that you paid in income taxes, corporate taxes, whatever it might be, went into servicing the debt.

That is just like getting a third of your paycheque and lighting it on fire, because it goes to no good purposes. When we add to the debt by deficits, we are hurting our children. We are hurting our grandchildren. We are hurting ourselves, and it doesn't take very long for that to impact us.

[1710]

Drastic action had to be taken, and there was. The 1990s in Canada. We're not talking about British Columbia. Let's talk about the early '90s. They had to make some drastic changes.

Imagine if we had to drop one-third of our budget here — if you can imagine — because you have to pay it into debt servicing. That that would include all of Education, Advanced Education, probably also Environment and criminal justice. Add all those departments, all the expenditures just into debt servicing. It is essential that we get the deficit under control. And we're committed to doing that and bringing it to a surplus next year.

I have children. They're grown children, and they have credit cards. So I'm glad to see that there have been some changes in the laws where the credit card limits are no longer just automatically bumped up, because a lot of people were getting into that trap. I think it takes education — how to handle your credit cards. I know that my daughters are learning that. But the main thing is to keep the debt, hopefully, paid off every time.

You shouldn't be spending more than you have. But it can quickly lead into great problems through compound interest. And that's the same thing with the government.

We need to keep mindful of the problems that occur if
[ Page 9489 ]
we're living beyond our means. That's what we're doing with this right here. I'm sure it would be nice to be a bit more flush, but when we compare ourselves to so many places around the world, we actually are quite flush, and that has been because of good decisions.

People have often mentioned Greece as an example, because of rioting on the streets — tens of thousands of people rioting on the streets. You can go to Italy, you can go to Portugal, you can go to Spain, and there are tremendous problems there. But even closer we have the States, where there are places where they are tearing up paved roads because it's less expensive to have gravel roads as opposed to paved roads.

Look at Ireland. Tens of thousands of people, young people, are leaving the province. Not the province — well, actually, it reminds me of our province of British Columbia in the 1990s — the nation. Well, we also in the 1990s had tens of thousands of people that left the province. That was because of poor choices.

I know that the opposition cringes sometimes — not cringes, but we normally get…. There's laughing that occurs when we talk about the 1990s, because it's so far away. But the issue is that the 1990s were the last time they were in power, and I hope that continues for many more years. But the problem there, again, was not living within their means.

Here's one thing. We have a surplus projected for next year. It's a thin one, but it's a surplus nevertheless. Eight of nine budgets that have come forth from the B.C. Liberals — we have been on budget. We have met the targets or exceeded them — eight out of nine. We missed one, and that was the 2008-2009 budget. If it was just here, that's one thing. But it was in Alberta. It was in Ontario. It was around the world because of what happened in the world economic situation.

We rely upon a panel of forecasters from banks. The province has always been very cautious. We've always gone several points under the ratings, and that's worked well for us. We've maintained that we've got surpluses, and we've met the forecasts, except for that one year. We have confidence. We have the confidence of outside agencies. We have a triple-A credit rating and seen seven credit-rating increases.

Now, you might say: "Oh, we hear time and time again about the triple-A credit rating." Well, what does that mean? Well, with the deficit we have or the debt we have right now, it would mean this. If you add about a 2 percent differential to the debt-servicing charges, it would equal about $750 million to a little over a billion dollars extra. That's the difference of having a top-notch credit rating as opposed to having one that is significantly lower, which we saw not that many years ago under a different administration.

[1715]

That $1 billion goes a long ways. If you didn't have that money, because of a lower credit rating, you'd have even less to help out, whether it be CLBC or whether it be the court system — whatever it may be. Belt-tightening now allows for flexibility later.

I want to thank all the public sector unions, Madam Speaker, for the fact that we've had remarkable labour peace. They have understood the fiscal situation that we have been under. Over 50 percent of the government budget goes into public sector wages, so it's essential that we have that under control, and we've seen that.

For the record, MLAs have not taken raises that were scheduled to us for the past couple of years, and we've also agreed to for the next couple of years. Also, ministers have a further 10 percent reduction of their ministerial salary if there is a debt, so we're seeing a decrease there also.

I am a public school teacher. I have been for about a decade and a half. It's not an easy job, and for the majority it means a lot more time than just the hours that you are there. Now, there's a challenge here, and that is we're unable to come to an agreement of net zero. The challenge is that we have the me-too clause. The me-too clause means that any gains that are seen among the teachers also go to all other public sectors that are negotiated.

For the past five years we, as teachers, have seen about a 16 percent increase while other public sector unions have not seen anything. The last time that there was a negotiated settlement was with the B.C. Liberal government in 2006. All the others have been back-to-work legislation.

Also, something that happened in the last negotiation was that it reduced the number of categories for a teacher to reach their max from 12 steps, or 12 years, to ten steps. That made a significant difference in the increase of salary for many teachers, including myself, who saw thousands of dollars more just because of the increase.

But under the NDP government, when they were in power, as teachers we saw zero-zero-zero percent increases, a 0.05 increase and a 1 percent increase. This is what we saw, as opposed to being under the B.C. Liberals.

I believe that teachers have fared much better under the B.C. Liberals than under the NDP. It's why I became a B.C. Liberal. Previously, I campaigned against the B.C. Liberals. I was in more conservative provincial parties, but I saw their track record.

What did I see? I saw taxation rates slashed. Now, taxation slashed — that helped my family, and I was much happier to have the dollars in my pocket than to give them back to the government because I thought I could manage it a lot better than the government.

We have the lowest personal income tax in Canada. Oh, that's nice to hear, but it means more dollars in your pocket. The difference for a family of four making $70,000 is about $2,000 a year now as opposed to under the NDP. For example, the difference between British Columbia — for somebody who was making $80,000, which is what I was doing as a teacher, when I got elect-
[ Page 9490 ]
ed — compared to Saskatchewan is about $3,000 a year, every year. If you go to Quebec, the difference is about $5,300 that you are saving because you live in British Columbia as opposed to that province — and I have lived in Quebec also.

It's very significant. That is money that you could put into education, as a parent helping a family, or you could put it into a vacation. You could put it in investment. It's money, your dollars, that you can put somewhere else, and it's a very substantial chunk of change.

[1720]

Under the NDP we had the highest marginal tax rate in Canada. They had a small business tax at one point that was 9 percent. There are one million people in British Columbia that are in small business — either they're owners or they work for small businesses.

Let's talk about a small business making $100,000 then as opposed to now, where the small business tax is 2.5 percent, and the difference between is about $6,500 for a small business owner. That is significant, and that is profit for himself that he can use to either expand his business or to improve his lifestyle or to hire new employees.

It was a made-in-B.C. recession, and we did become a have-not province. It was tax, tax, tax and, also, overspend. Unfortunately, they did not make any, not any, of their budget targets. Not one, which was what we didn't make — none of their budget targets, because of poor fiscal management.

What did it do? It impacted everybody. For example, real estate. I purchased a townhome in 1994 in Pitt Meadows, and I paid $165,000 for it. It never recovered in price. It decreased almost right away, and it never recovered until the B.C. Liberals came into power. My next house I bought in Maple Ridge in 2003, and since that time it's nearly doubled. Now, I benefited from that increased housing value, but so have millions of other British Columbians.

Now we have a healthy market; some may say too healthy. We are the most expensive place, the Lower Mainland, in North America, and that is also because it's a good place to live and a good place to do business. Many people have their retirement plans based upon their home, the value of their home. They hope to buy their home and then to downsize when they sell later on into a smaller place. That is their nest egg.

When there are economic policies that happen inside the province, by the provincial government, that really substantially lower, deflate the market, then that impacts everybody. That impacts seniors. That impacts their nest eggs. And it impacted me personally.

We're also in this budget making some changes to help the housing market. For one, we're increasing the HST exemption from $525,000 to $850,000. Also, for people that are buying second properties outside of the Lower Mainland and the capital regional district, there's also that opportunity to get that exemption. The response to that from the real estate agents that I've been talking to, the people in the industry, has been really positive.

Also, for first-time buyers they'll receive a $10,000 cheque for helping them in their place. This is good for another year. This will help the market, because the housing market is important. Why? Not only for the people who are in construction but also for the retailers, the furniture. It impacts so many different factors of our economy. Good economic management makes all the difference and everyone benefits, and so does mismanagement.

As for health care, by 2014-15 it will be over $19 billion, which is 42 percent of government expenditures — very significant. It's a 76 percent increase since the NDP was in power. This means in three years that $1.5 billion each and every year will be added on top of the money that is currently being spent.

I know that there has been some criticisms, saying: "What are you doing? You're knocking the amount of money that you're putting into health care." Well, I believe that it's not just a matter of how much you spend but how efficiently and effectively you use the dollars. You have to look also at the outcomes.

What are some of the outcomes? Well, for one thing, we live longer here in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. In 2005 to 2009 we lived 81.4 years. Good news for everybody here: we're now living 81.7 years. From year to year from 2006 to 2010, it's now 81.7. We have the best cancer outcomes for cancer patients.

[1725]

We are doing it efficiently. We cannot afford to see the increases that we were seeing beforehand. We were seeing a 7 percent increase year to year — this is prior to the recession. When you're at 40 percent, approaching 50 percent, that can quickly…. It's just a matter of years before it takes every tax dollar, every dollar coming to the province, with nothing else towards education or anything else.

So that went from 7 percent, and then, since the recession, to 5 percent and then 3 percent. I think that's good because there is room for making and having efficiencies, whether it be in shared services or administration, whether it be bulk purchases between the different health authorities.

But we're continuing to invest billions of dollars in capital projects, in hospitals across the province, whether it be in Vancouver, whether it be in Victoria, whether it be in Vernon, in Quesnel, in Prince George, in Abbotsford, in Surrey, in Kelowna — all over.

In Mission Memorial, I'm pleased to see that we're having a $50 million investment in that hospital in conjunction with the district. It wasn't very long ago…. It was only two or three years ago that there were protests there because of concerns. I know that myself and the member for Abbotsford-Mission worked on this also, as well as many other people. I'm happy to say that there's
[ Page 9491 ]
a centre of care that's going to be put there, a new residential seniors building, and this will be a pilot project for the province.

Also, Ridge Meadows Hospital. We've had, in 2009, a $20 million investment for emergency and ambulatory care and improvement of the psychiatric ward. It's a good facility, and I'm glad to see the changes that we're making. We've also doubled the number of spaces in our educational system for nurses and for doctors.

Now, I appreciate that the official opposition is here to oppose, but it's not enough just to say "not enough" — okay? When you say "not enough," it implies more spending, and increased spending can only happen in so many ways. You are either increasing the debt — we've been talking about the problems of debt, and I think we all are aware that you eventually hang yourself — or taxes. You can increase taxes.

Interjections.

M. Dalton: Our friends from across the floor here have been great at taxes, whether it be income taxes, whether it be small business taxes, whether it be corporate taxes, and all these sorts of things that would drive…. Though there may be the best of intentions, taxation drives investment away, and it drives people away.

Our record…. It's more about people. I've gotten to know a number of my colleagues. They're fine people. They are fine people. But this is not about people. This really is about policies. It's about policies, the B.C. Liberal policies as opposed to the NDP policies, and it's about prosperity or the lack thereof.

The B.C. Liberals are a party that sees the importance of free enterprise as the base of wealth, as they obtain the resources necessary for social services, education and health. You need to have a good economy in order to provide the resources to pay for health care, to pay for infrastructure.

We are seeing infrastructure improvements all over the province. In my area we saw the Pitt River Bridge. We've seen the expansion of the Lougheed Highway. We added another lane last year between the Pitt River Bridge and Maple Ridge and also four lanes around Mission. So that's just one — and the hospital. Downtown infrastructure improvements — all sorts of improvements. So it is about….

What I hear on this side, right here, when we refer to the 1990s, it isn't so much…. Yes, it's getting more distant, but I don't hear a lot over there that is anything different than the policy, which is socialism. It was then, and it is now, and that is where the state controls the levers from cradle to grave, which removes initiative and incentives.

[1730]

Socialism has had a similar outcome all over the world. Go to Venezuela. Go to China. Now, China — there's a change. What did they do? Well, you know what? They started to allow more free enterprise. That's making a difference to their economy, and we're benefiting from that.

They used to point to Saskatchewan as a good place where the NDP was an example of good management. Well, we've seen the change in the party there a few years ago, with Brad Wall, and what's happening there now is that the population is growing again, and the economy is firing on all cylinders.

Good things are happening in our economy here in British Columbia. It's about jobs. It's about the future. There have been announcements as far as LNG plants. Now, that's important, because gas prices are three times the price over in Asia. That provides great-paying jobs.

I've been up to that part in the northwest part of the province only one time. It's a beautiful part of the province, but it was struggling. It has been struggling. I think this is what we're seeing here with the investments, whether it'll be the transmission lines going up, whether it'll be the LNG plants with the different projects. The future of our province is happening there, so that's great.

Other great announcements. Seaspan, $8 billion, thousands of jobs. Mining has been booming. What we're seeing in the hinterlands helps us here, because the royalties that we receive pay for our health care, pay for education, pay our salaries. Also, oil. Now, that's another discussion.

Currently, what's happening with oil is that it's being shipped down to the States, and it's making about $20 less a barrel, which is about $50 million a day less in revenues for Canada. I know that the federal government and Canadians see this as a very important issue. There's a great motivation, one way or another — whether it be Kinder Morgan or rail or Enbridge, I'm not sure — to expand our markets and not be held hostage to one market in the States, where we're receiving so much less.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I'm pleased to see the things that are happening in my own communities. In Maple Ridge good things are happening. It's stated as the fifth-best place in Canada to invest and the second-best in British Columbia. We have the Pitt River Bridge, Golden Ears Bridge.

Now that has opened up…. I know that it is a toll bridge, but we're seeing a lot more mobility between Surrey and Langley, a lot more commuting. It is saving wear and tear on vehicles but also wear and tear on people's lives, because they are able to have probably up to about an hour, an hour and a half more time a day with their family. If they want, they could work an extra hour that they were previously doing in their cars. A fraction of that would pay the tolls.

It's a growing community with hundreds of new homes, and that's because of the good fiscal management, the good governance that the B.C. Liberal government is providing. Also, in Mission there's been new investments. There's growth and optimism. I'm pleased to see
[ Page 9492 ]
what's happening.

Now there's a children's fitness tax credit and art credit. I know that the opposition has kind of brushed it aside like it's no big deal, but I think that it's an important issue. I think that combined with the federal tax credit, it's probably about 20 percent of the cost — whether it be sports or judo or baseball or whatever it would be — that you would see back, up to $500.

Also, if a child takes music lessons, there's extra incentive there. It's $50 combined, max, per child. If you do it including the federal tax credit, it's about $100. It was one of the recommendations from the family task force that I was on a while back. I looked specifically at taxation and financial issues. This was one of the issues that we recommended, and I'm glad to see that it was accepted and adopted.

Also, I was recently in Asia. I talked to people. I met numerous government people but also people in the air industry. I know that there's a desire to have more flights sent to Canada. There's a real need.

[1735]

I know that there are issues with our national carrier, but this 2 percent decrease in the jet fuel is important. It makes us more competitive, because we're finding a lot of the people are going to Bellingham or Seattle, and they are getting flights from there. We need to do what we can to see it more affordable for flights, also realizing that every national carrier, every flight that comes here on a daily basis for international flights is about 150 to 200 good-paying jobs.

I think, on the balance of things, that this is a good budget, that it is the right budget for this time. I do believe that by making these choices now, it will allow us more flexibility in the future to be able to provide the types of resources and services that we all desire.

H. Lali: I rise in the chamber today to take my place in the debate on Budget 2012. I've had a chance for the last few days, last week and today as well, to listen to speakers on both sides of the House put up their case why they're supporting or not supporting the budget. I've had a chance to listen to some of the Liberal speakers in here as well as on the television monitor as I was punching away on my speech for today.

I've got to tell you, when I look at this budget and I look at the member who just spoke before me…. When he looked at this budget, he said it was very, very visionary. That was the word he used. It was a great vision; it was visionary.

The only problem is that I think that he was looking in the rearview mirror when he was talking about the vision, because you get the same old stuff that the B.C. Liberals have been putting forward for the last 11 years — the same stuff, except it's actually worse than it has been in the past.

They just don't seem to get it. Year after year B.C. Liberal Finance Ministers — and it's like musical chairs; they keep changing every couple years — keep putting forward the same tired old rhetoric, the same kind of tired old policies that come forward as a result of putting forward the budget. It's the same old stuff.

It demonstrates one thing. When you start getting the same old stuff, nothing except a rearview vision, as the hon. speaker before me has spoken, you know that a particular government has been in office for too long and that it's actually the same old tired ideology that they keep putting forward year after year.

What it also demonstrates is that over the last 11 years now every single thing that the B.C. Liberals have touched — every single thing — they've made a mess of. They have made a mess of every single thing they've touched in the last 11 years.

Look at forestry, where in the decade before there were 32,000 additional jobs that were created in the forest industry at the time. All you've got, under the B.C. Liberals, are mill closure after mill closure after mill closure — massive job losses in the forest industry as a result of mismanagement and neglect by this Liberal government.

If you look at health, over the years you've seen 23 hospitals and health centres that have been closed by this Liberal government. You've seen the doubling and the tripling of wait times for surgeries, medical procedures and also tests, ER closures all throughout rural British Columbia. It doesn't matter what community you go to. In Lytton or Princeton in my community, or Ashcroft and even Merritt, you see closures of ERs. There are closures going on right now in Princeton — all of February, midnight to 8 a.m. in the morning, for instance.

If you take a look at education, the B.C. Liberals have closed 197 schools. That's one school closing every 14½ days. That's the record of the B.C. Liberals. They fired 3,500 teachers; 12,000 overcrowded classrooms and schools in this province. This is the record of the B.C. Liberals.

[1740]

When you look at justice, they've closed 25 courthouses over the years, five of them in my constituency. The MLA before me, David Chutter, didn't even know. He wasn't even a part of the process. He had absolutely no idea until one of the reporters put a microphone close to his mouth and asked him why they were closed. He didn't even know. They didn't even bother to tell him. Justice delayed — that's the order of the day.

When you look at job creation, they have the lowest record of job creation over the last three decades. They have the lowest record of job creation. They can look at their own report. They can look at the Stats Canada figures. The Auditor General's report shows the lowest record of job creation, the lowest record. Under the Social Credit or the NDP, the lowest record of job creation is by this Liberal government, and you see them get up in this House to mislead.
[ Page 9493 ]

Financial mismanagement. Again, that's the order of the day for the B.C. Liberals. They took the largest surplus in the history of B.C. and turned it into the largest deficit. That's what they did — went from $2 billion up to $3.4 billion. They brought in the four largest deficits in the history of British Columbia — by this B.C. Liberal government.

I hear voices on the opposite benches. They have woken up. You know why? Because truth hurts. That's why they're speaking. Poverty — eighth year in a row, the highest level of child poverty in the entire country under this B.C. Liberal government. Minimum wage — again, lowest in the country. They just finally raised it after ten years, but it's still the lowest. ICBC rates have nearly doubled since they have been in office. We know, under the B.C. Liberals, their record. Well, B.C. Rail…. You talk about B.C. Hydro. The list just goes on.

What this budget demonstrates once again is that this Liberal government is out of ideas, and nothing makes sense. Nothing makes sense. There's no original idea. It's like the lights are on but nobody is home. Other folks in the media have described the B.C. Liberals in the last couple years now. They use words such as: "The tank is empty." The tank is empty. There's no fuel in the tank. They've run out of gas. Those are the kinds of things that they say — or the cupboards are empty, when it comes to the B.C. Liberals.

All of this…. It translates…. There is only one saying in my mother tongue, in Punjabi, and I'm going to translate that for you in English as well, just to stay within the parliamentary rules. What they're saying in the Punjabi and the South Asian community is: "The B.C. Liberals [Punjabi was spoken]."

You know what that means? That means they have sold out all of their seeds. You know what seeds are important for? So you can replant the seeds so that next year we have a crop, and then your children and your grandchildren will have a crop after that, forever and ever. You save a bunch of your seeds so you can replant them. But in this case they've either eaten it all or given it away to their friends. The B.C. Liberals [Punjabi was spoken].

That's what has happened. They have sold their last bit of seeds. They have nothing to plant anymore. That's what is happening. It's because this budget continues to reward friends. I'll tell you how they're going to do that. I'll tell you one thing. This budget is not….

Interjection.

H. Lali: That's right too. This is a great observation. My colleague from Surrey-Fleetwood has just added something else as well. Not only have the B.C. Liberals [Punjabi was spoken] — which means they have sold their seeds — they're beginning to sell the land that you plant the seeds in as well. [Punjabi was spoken] — that's what that means. They're selling the land that they plant the seeds on.

But this budget…. It's interesting to see what is not included and what it's not about. It's not about poverty reduction, and I said for the eighth year in a row B.C. has the highest levels of poverty of any province. So they've got no plan. There's no plan. We're the only province basically without a plan, and it's not about ending aboriginal poverty either, or about demonstrating a respect for the dignity of our First Nations neighbours. Good luck to that.

I mean, what do you do if you're in a First Nations in B.C.? It's haunting, but I see a sad image…. There's that painting of an aboriginal warrior on horseback at the end of the land at the Pacific, just looking out into the sea. There's nowhere to go, nowhere else to go. I just see that with this government.

[1745]

There's no plan to end homelessness in this province either. There's no plan in there about actually ending wait-lists for surgeries in our hospitals that are overcrowded. It's not about ending school closures or reducing class sizes. It's not about this budget the B.C. Liberals have put forward. It's not about reducing your taxes if you're a middle-class earner either. They know people in B.C. pay the highest taxes, income or otherwise, in all of Canada right now — in all of Canada — and I'll get to that in a minute.

So this is a further continuation of the B.C. Liberals' anti-family, anti-middle-class agenda. It's as if Gordon Campbell wrote the budget himself. That's what this is about. The Premier comes in and says they've got a new vision, a new way of doing things. But the present Premier doesn't care. It's demonstrated.

She was a huge supporter and a cheerleader of Gordon Campbell when he was Premier, and as Education Minister, this Premier herself was responsible for the closure of 135 schools in this province — 135 schools. When this Premier was the Minister of Children and Families, she actually administered the largest cuts for the Ministry of Children and Families — 42 percent — and actually put children at risk.

Now, why would the person who is holding the chair as Premier…? Why would she care as Premier when she didn't care as a Minister of Education and of Children and Families and as the right-hand person to Premier Gordon Campbell?

This budget continues to reflect, actually, the Premier's and this Liberal government's uncaring attitude that they've demonstrated all along toward the middle class, towards the poor, towards First Nations and towards anybody else — other than if you happen to be a CEO of a large corporation and the richest 1 percent in the province. That's what this budget is about. It speaks to those two groups.

The other interesting thing is what they're trying to do. They're trying to solidify their own base, which puts
[ Page 9494 ]
shovelfuls of money into their coffers as a political party. But that's what happens to a tired government when they're on their way out.

It's like the B.C. Liberals have thrown this party. They're throwing a going away party for themselves, and they've invited all of their folks to dine. They invited all their friends in the corporate world and the richest 1 percent to actually dine on what's left of British Columbia — what's left of the carcass, actually.

This budget does not contain much in the way of what everyday people and the middle class actually expect. There are increased taxes in this — increased taxes. MSP premiums are going up 4 percent. Folks are already paying through the nose, and they're going up again. This is in addition to over the last almost dozen years, where ICBC rates have gone up. Hydro rates have gone up astronomically. Tuition fees have gone up, as well as fees and licences — medical fees, delisting of services. They've all gone up under this….

They're all taxes. Doesn't matter what you call it. Whether you call it an income tax or call it a payroll tax or whatever or call it a fee or a licence increase or a premium or a rate — they're all taxes. Doesn't matter if it's coming out of the taxpayer's right pocket or left pocket or the back pocket or the pocket in the front or their wallet or their purse. It's all taxes, and this government has been collecting it.

They added a carbon tax under the guise that it was going to help the environment, and all of the carbon tax is going into general revenue. That's where it's going. It's not going to where it was supposed to go.

HST — they're still collecting $1.8 billion a year. This Liberal government, which actually misled the people of British Columbia during the election in 2009 and brought in the HST under a guise, is still collecting it. It took them only nine months to bring it in. They're saying: "Oh my god. It's going to take 18 months to two years to take it out."

The only reason they're doing that is because they're on their way out and trying to run out the election cycle of May 2013. They've said…. When will it end? On April Fool's Day next year. That's when they want to end it. April Fool's Day next year. That's when they're going to do this. So they're trying to run out the election cycle, so they can actually continue to invite their friends to their going away party.

When it comes to corporate taxes — you know what? — they said they're going to raise it 1 percent. But they're only going to take the money if they need it to balance the budget.

[1750]

That's not what they're saying to the middle class. "Oh, we're going to raise your MSP premiums 4 percent, but we're going to only take it if we need it." No, no. They're saying that to those folks who fund their elections, the folks in the corporate world. And they continue to do that year after year, every year, and it just doesn't end. It just keeps on going.

When it comes to MSP premiums, they have increased MSP premiums for individuals and families by approximately 85 percent since taking office in 2001, and the increase in rates actually works out to an additional $732 per year for families of three or more and an additional $366 per year for individuals since they took office.

The increases to the MSP premiums have also had a disproportionately negative impact on low- to moderate-income families, due to the regressive nature of the fee. Families currently making $30,000 per year pay the same as families making $300,000 per year. It's regressive. They're paying, since the Liberals took office, $732 per year for families of three or more. And they don't think that's a tax? Shame on them; shame on them for thinking that.

You know, this budget basically reflects the attitude of the B.C. Liberals and their mixed sense of priorities. Or should I say their misdirected sense of priorities? You know, on the one side they're bringing in…. And nobody wanted it, except for a few folks who were supporting the Premier when she was running for leader. She made this backroom deal with them to bring in a municipal auditor general, called the auditor general for local government.

It's going to cost $2.6 million, after promising that it was going to be embedded within the provincial Auditor General. That's what the Premier promised. That's what the minister had promised as well. They're setting it up separately as a separate bureaucracy — $2.6 million. They found the $2.6 million out of thin air, but when it comes to courthouse delays, providing money for perhaps a new courthouse…. It could pay for two courthouses, two judges, but it's not there. It's not there. They're not going to do that. Their choice is to bring in a municipal auditor general that nobody wanted and nobody needed, for a variety of reasons.

When it comes to keeping open the emergency rooms and providing the appropriate number of nurses and health care professionals in all of those small communities throughout the province, those small hospitals…. I named some of them, those health centres in my constituency, whether we're talking about Logan Lake, Lytton, Ashcroft, Princeton or even Merritt and Lillooet. We've had a sign that's up there all of the time in Ashcroft: "If you're in a real emergency, go to Merritt or to Kamloops." There's a sign there directing people to go that way. They've had signs up in Princeton and other places as well.

When you need a few thousand bucks to be able to provide the essential services, health care services for people in those small communities, the answer is a big fat no from this government. But in this budget there's a line for $15 million. The government miraculously found $15 million for self-promotion ads — self-promotion, aggrandizement of themselves. That's what they're going to
[ Page 9495 ]
do. They're going to promote their so-called jobs plan — or, should I say, the Premier's no-jobs plan.

This is the first jobs plan that I've seen anywhere in North America, the first jobs plan in history, where there are no jobs attached to it. They don't talk about jobs or how they're going to create them. It's just this nice big slogan, the Premier's jobs plan. It's a no-jobs plan. But you know what? They've got $15 million to promote this jobs plan.

Maybe that's their idea of a job: to create a whole bunch of jobs promoting a no-jobs plan. That's their idea of a job, under the B.C. Liberals. It's unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable.

[1755]

I've already talked about rural health care and ambulance service. That's very, very important for people in the unincorporated territories, living in the regional districts and the small communities spread throughout British Columbia, some of them high up in the mountains and on First Nations reserves — which are, obviously, outside of municipalities and, again, in remote areas. And ambulance service is very important.

So where's the respect for First Nations? Where's the respect for rural British Columbians? Their cuts to ambulance service over the last 11 years resulted in the severe downgrading of the service, the medical services that are available for people in rural British Columbia. That's what we see.

When you look at it, there's not a word about forestry in the budget. When the minister tabled the budget — he had an hour-long speech — not one word about forestry. Yet there are further cuts to forest health — $20 million over the next two years in an area where they're direly needed. I'll talk about forestry more in a minute.

Skills development and training — 80 percent of new jobs need it in this area. The 80 percent of the new jobs will need some skills and training. B.C.'s labour market outlook actually states that nearly 80 percent of the jobs by 2020 will require post-secondary or trades training. At B.C.'s current graduation rates, this will create a gap of over 61,000 jobs.

From 2008 to 2011 the number of registered apprentices has plummeted by 4,100, and from 2004 to 2011 B.C.'s registered training participants have plummeted by 5,800.

Tuition fees have doubled in the last 11 years that the B.C. Liberals have been in power. The average student debt in B.C. is the highest, outside of the Maritimes, at over $27,000 upon graduation, and B.C. students face the highest student loan interest rates in all of Canada. Yet Budget 2012 cuts funding to B.C.'s colleges and universities by 3 percent over the next three years. So despite this no-jobs plan, the Liberals have actually put zero new money into skills and training and are even cutting their contribution to the Industry Training Authority by 12 percent to 2015.

You look at many of B.C.'s colleges and universities, and they're already facing projected deficits in 2012-2013. Northwest Community College — a $1.7 million deficit. The College of New Caledonia — $1.8 million. Vancouver Island University — $2.4 million. Camosun College — $2 million. Kwantlen Polytechnic University — a $1.3 million deficit. And it just goes on.

But one of the other interesting items that the Liberals have put in the budget is the sell-off of…. One of the items is the distribution of liquor — the distribution centres in this province. You know, it begs the question: who has the inside track? Well, the way it looks like, it's going to be Patrick Kinsella, because he seems to have lots of meetings and information already. That's what seems to be happening. We'll have more to say about that later.

The minister, in the budget, said — actually, in a briefing before the budget — that this and other public asset sales will raise at least $706 million. That's what he said — $706 million. So we're going to have a massive sell-off of assets that belong to the people of British Columbia. The B.C. Liberals are going to have a sell-off of Crown assets. That's what they are going to do and have directed folks — the school district, health authorities and elsewhere, the Liquor Distribution Branch — that this is what they want to do.

What is unbelievable here is that we're in the middle of a real estate downturn, and they want to sell assets.

I mean, the idea…. They like to pride themselves in saying, "Oh, we're pro-business; we're a business party," and yet what we've seen is 11 years of fiscal mismanagement. Huge deficits, and the debt has gone up. The lowest record of job creation in the last 30 years of any government. That's been a reality that has happened with them. The idea is that you buy property and assets when the prices are down, and then when the prices go up, you sell.

That's what's happening with the B.C. Liberals. We're in a downturn, and they want to sell off assets. They've directed their folks…. It's like selling the farm to pay for their groceries. I just hope that Patrick Kinsella doesn't have an inside track on all of this as well.

[1800]

They're not doing any consultation with First Nations, who obviously said that…. They haven't done any of that.

Interjections.

H. Lali: Look at that, hon. Speaker. You mention the word "First Nations," and these folks go ballistic — the same folks who ridiculously wanted to put forward and did a referendum on aboriginal rights. That's right — aboriginal rights. There was no consultation with municipalities or regional districts to see what they think here as well.

With sell-offs in the middle of a real estate downturn, who will make the profits? Well, obviously, their friends — Liberal friends and insiders. Watch them line
[ Page 9496 ]
up. They're all going to line up. They're going to buy low, and when those prices go up, they're going to sell high. That's exactly what will happen. They will line up, and then they will sell high.

I'm just looking for something to read into the budget, hon. Speaker.

Don't worry. Wait for it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

H. Lali: I'm glad that the Liberals across the way are all sitting there waiting to hear what it is.

Interjection.

H. Lali: With bated breath — that's what he said, hon. Speaker.

It's $706 million in terms of the sell-off. I want to talk about a property in particular that they're looking at. This land is actually at 152nd Street and Highway 10 at 56 Avenue in the Surrey-Newton constituency. The address is 2570 Panorama Drive.

It was bought by the provincial government and the greater Vancouver regional hospital district in 1999 for $5.8 million when the NDP was in office, with the intention that it was actually going to be used in the future for a hospital.

Now, today that land is still vacant, but it is assessed at $22.4 million and is zoned for industrial use. So in 13 years the value of the land has gone up by almost four times. We're going to need that land, because Surrey is a growing community and may have other needs for this land in the future, as a community.

It is strategically located in the middle of the city, between Surrey's five town centres. There's only one hospital in the whole city, and someday there may need to be another one, or it may have other uses. But they want to get rid of it. And you watch Liberal friends and insiders start lining up for this so that they can make a hefty profit later on when prices really pick up.

Forestry. That's one area that I want to talk about, because in the Minister of Finance's speech the word "forestry" was not even mentioned once — our number one resource, our number one industry in this province. It has been for well over 100 years. Not a word.

As a matter of fact, when you look at what they've done over the last 11 years, why would they? Why would they put the word in there? When you look at forestry, it's actually been characterized by mismanagement and neglect, a policy of abandonment of workers and of communities in this province under the B.C. Liberals. They have a record that is not enviable by any chances.

When you look at this whole issue of the raw log exports and how badly they've mismanaged it, raw log exports have skyrocketed. It used to be less than half a million cubic metres per year in the 1990s. But it's 5.5 million cubic metres per year now, with the value increasing — this is for raw log exports — by 136 percent since 2009 and 5.5 million cubic metres of raw logs exported in 2011.

That amounts to logs — filled trucks — lining every lane of every road on TransLink's road network or a line on the highway stretching from Vancouver to Thunder Bay. I mean, that's the reality with the B.C. Liberals here.

Yet at the same time we've got companies in this province that are starving for fibre, and the B.C. Liberals are allowing it to be shipped off with massive layoffs taking place in the forest industry here in British Columbia.

When you look at the Auditor General's report, which came down about a week or ten days ago, the report by the Auditor General says what the NDP have been saying for a long time now — that the government has abandoned the B.C. forests.

[1805]

If you look at the timber assets in our forests now, B.C.'s timber assets are worth approximately a quarter of a trillion dollars or $250 billion. But the B.C. Liberals' mismanagement will result actually in our future forests having a lower timber supply and less species diversity because of their neglect.

The ministry's own estimates also say that we will lose 20 percent of our forest productivity, declining from a long-term sustainable harvest of 70 million cubic metres per year down to 50 or 60 million within the next decade. The B.C. Liberals have had the opportunity to reverse this trend — they've been in office for 11 years — but have chosen to ignore it.

In 2002 they removed the legal obligation for the government to actually manage and reforest areas that were hit by pests and wildfires, just at the same time when the mountain pine beetle was actually ravaging B.C. The mountain pine beetle or a fire ravages the forest, and they say: "Well, they don't have to replant it. Let it go through natural regen." That' what the B.C. Liberals are doing, and they are going to continue with that.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak, and I'll be voting against the budget.

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'm pleased to take my place here today to talk in favour of Budget 2012, which I'm sure will not spark any great surprise. What I would like to do, of course, is bring back some optimism and some fact to the discussion here today.

With the opportunity to speak here today I'd like to talk a little bit about the tremendous community that I call home and recognize some of the amazing groups that do make a difference in my community. Surrey is a growing, vibrant city, and I'm struck by the tremendous change that's occurring there every day in every part of the city.
[ Page 9497 ]

Last year the Surrey centre, the new library, opened. As many members of the House may know, literacy is a passion of mine, and I was very, very happy to be able to attend the library recently. Literacy is one of the most important factors in determining a person's success in life, and libraries can play an important role in that, so I'd like to thank Mayor Dianne Watts and her team for their leadership to build this library in partnership with all levels of government.

The $36 million library features just beautiful architecture, grand staircases, plenty of room for families and individuals to spend time and move about. It's a very welcoming environment. It's part of what is a rapidly changing skyline in Surrey.

Communities are made by people, and we're fortunate to have many organizations and people in Surrey that are committed to improving the lives of their neighbours. One of the organizations I'd like to mention is the Surrey Crime Prevention Society. Judy Higginbotham and her team of volunteers and staff spend countless hours every year preventing break and enters, car thefts, drug trafficking and other crime by supporting police initiatives and acting as eyes and ears in the community. They do a tremendous job, and they're assisted by a tremendous number of community partners — corporations, local businesses — that contribute greatly to the organization's success in their community.

They're, of course, able to do that because they're successful here in British Columbia, under the watchful eye of this government in terms of business and corporate tax incentives and so on. Very often their work goes unnoticed — both the work of the volunteers of the Crime Prevention Society and the work and the contributions of local corporations. They deserve our praise and thanks for helping secure our neighbourhoods.

I'd also like to note a few achievements in the business community this year in my area, because so often what we hear from the other side of the House is doom and gloom.

The following Surrey businesses had an outstanding year last year. Healthy Berries farms expanded their markets into the U.S. M&M Farms has been expanding rapidly and employed 30 more people last year than the year previous.

CPx, which is Coastal Pacific Xpress, has grown over the past ten years, in the same period of time that this government has been in power, from $2 million to $100 million in revenue. They've got a very profitable business. They are recognized as being one of the top employers. They've got fantastic records for their health and safety programs. They're truly a great employer, and it's a pleasure to have them operating in my riding.

[1810]

As well, a number of businesses saw fit to open or expand or to move to my riding during the last year. Just a couple of those include Dean's Flowers, Mahek Restaurant, which has got some fantastic Indian food that I like to partake of, and MVP Hair salon. There are so many businesses and individuals who are making their opportunities in Surrey.

We all know, as well, that tomorrow we're going to be needing the youth of today to take on leadership roles. I also would like to mention that this year we had the first Service Above Self by Surrey Youth awards in Surrey put on by the Semiahmoo Rotary Club. The award winners — Jon Davidson, Jake Bruchet, Amie Johnson, Kanwalnain Grewal, Stephanie Blain, Joe Given and Cynthia Bhourji — all received $500 in recognition of their great efforts to donate to the charity of their choice.

I just wanted to mention these organizations and these people because they truly are the people that make our communities great. It's their contributions and their optimism that help us all to enjoy the communities we live in.

As I gathered my thoughts for my response today, I was reminded of the tremendous significance of this budget. More than any other government document, this budget touches British Columbians far and wide, old and young. It encompasses our province's aspirations and lays out a road map to reach them. And although many people will pay little attention to the province's budget and certainly very few will read it in detail, the reality is that this is important to them.

Our government is committed to ensuring that families feel supported and safe in their communities. I'm happy that our budget for 2012 delivers on this promise, while ensuring our commitment to balance the budget in 2013.

The Finance Minister has crafted a prudent budget that makes important investments and creates jobs to support families within a framework that controls government spending. The fiscal realities of the world are much different than they were only a few years ago. We've entered a period of much slower economic growth, and government must adjust to face these significant consequences.

Due to strong fiscal management, British Columbia has not felt the same pain as other jurisdictions. I have spoken to many, many people over the last year who reside in other jurisdictions — jurisdictions where government employees are seeing their salaries rolled back significantly, where other economies are seeing great, great need for austerity measures that we are not seeing here in this province. We can feel very fortunate about that.

We've been able to offer things in this budget that make jurisdictions around the world and in other parts of Canada envious, and they are looking to us as examples of how to properly manage spending during fiscal uncertainty. Most importantly, the budget maintains spending for vital services like health care and education.

I know, as do many other members of this House, that Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities anywhere in Canada. I grew up in Delta, and not many minutes ago
[ Page 9498 ]
in this House we heard the member for Delta North and other members talk about how, for years, Surrey has been needing health care. They talked, as well, about future needs in health care.

I think it's interesting, and I'd like to remind the House, that for years under that NDP government there was no money spent on health care facilities in Surrey. There were no additional nurses trained. There were no additional doctors trained to meet that growing and future demand.

In fact, it's under this government and in contrast that we've doubled the number of doctors that we're training and we're training hundreds more nurses. That's great news because we're going to need them. We're going to need them to fill that three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of new health care investment in Surrey, in facilities like Surrey Memorial and the Jim Pattison outpatient centre.

[1815]

We are seeing unprecedented investments in health across British Columbia — investments like in Abbotsford, in the cancer centre, in other hospitals and other regions and here in Victoria. The reality is that that's important spending, and I'm proud to be part of a government that has taken it upon itself to make those very significant investments.

Surrey's growth is unprecedented, really, and that also places tremendous pressures on our school districts. It's no big surprise that with 1,000 new residents a month, enrolment in schools is also a constant challenge and growing constantly. I'm proud that this budget protects education funding and commits dollars towards new schools.

Working with the Surrey school board, we've committed funding to alleviate overcapacity pressures by expanding existing schools, building new ones and purchasing land for future ones. The list of facilities is long. There are new elementary schools to be built in South Newton, in my neighbourhood, and in East Clayton. Fraser Heights Secondary and Panorama Ridge, which are also in my riding, will receive additions. Four parcels of land will be acquired for two new secondary and elementary schools in Clayton and Grandview Heights.

This is both exciting news for families in Surrey and necessary news, and kids are going to benefit from these projects. Not only will new schools and additions add to our community, but they add in that jobs are created through the development of these projects.

Our government is keenly aware, though, that we don't spend time in our communities or in health care or in education facilities for any other reason than that we need them. But where our hearts are is in our homes, and families are important to this government, as is homeownership and making homeownership a priority. So the $10,000 first-time new homebuyers credit that's included in Budget 2012 is going to help more young families get into that first home.

I know that many of my friends and family have purchased their first homes in the last ten years. I'm sure they're all feeling like they wish they were a few years younger and that they were making those decisions this year, because it's going to make a great deal of difference to a number of families. The incentives, therefore, in combination with the increase to the new housing rebate threshold, will go a long way to help support new home construction and, again, create millions of dollars in investment in British Columbia, from Surrey right up to Dawson Creek.

While many families are trying to get into their first home, there are also individuals that are aging. We know that the silver tsunami is coming. Retirees also face challenges in their homes and in ensuring that they can stay in their homes longer, so the seniors renovation tax credit is going to help reduce the cost of maintaining them in their homes longer, which is good for all of us. It's good for our communities.

I am keenly aware of the concerns of families and young couples and also of seniors, and I'm delighted that this budget delivers benefits that they'll feel in their pocketbooks.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This budget also addresses another serious concern for constituents of mine — a concern that constituents have raised to me and that we have all read about in the papers, and that's crime. Feeling safe in your community is of prime importance, and that's why Budget 2012 will allocate an additional $237 million over three years to the justice system. It's going to be added to address caseload pressures. It's going to be added to support those nine new Provincial Court judges, two of whom have just been added in Surrey.

As well, it provides for the $81 million over three years to fund the new Surrey Pretrial Services Centre. I had the opportunity to go and learn about and to tour the old facility. These are all welcome investments in the city of Surrey.

I'm very proud to be leading a ministry that serves B.C.'s most vulnerable. Our social welfare system is something that we as Canadians and as British Columbians identify with, expect and value. I'm very pleased that over the next three years, 444 million additional dollars has been provided to my ministry to meet the needs of the most vulnerable citizens of British Columbia.

[1820]

But we mustn't forget that we are only able to collectively take pride in these programs if we are committed to paying for them through tax dollars. Those tax dollars come from two sources. They come from us working British Columbians as taxpayers, and they come from business and industry, also as taxpayers. The reality
[ Page 9499 ]
is that we are only able to pay if we have jobs. Business and industry, similarly, are only able to pay if they can be profitable.

That's why I'm proud to stand with this side of the House in support of this budget, proud to be a part of the team that is working hard to balance the budget for the province, just as we all must do in our own personal budgets. I'm proud to be helping to make investments that support our most vulnerable and proud of the commitment to ensuring that we remain a safe harbour for investment driving profitability, jobs and revenues for the province.

There's the old Chinese proverb that I'm sure many are aware of: "May you live in interesting times." Certainly, that seems to be holding true today. The world's economic paradigms are shifting. The realities we are all facing collectively are different, and that's why, now more than ever, it's imperative that we have the courage and conviction to be strong, to make tough choices, to be prudent and to protect our credit rating, our competitive advantage and our unique place in the Canadian economic landscape.

We all collectively must work to ensure that the generations to follow — those children and grandchildren that are so warmly recognized in this House on a regular basis — are protected. If we truly care about their future, then we won't spend their future earnings before they have a chance to earn them.

I'd like to take a moment, just as I wrap up my comments, to thank my husband and my family and, of course, my constituency assistants, who all, while I am here, are home supporting me and supporting my efforts in the community. I couldn't do this job without that support.

I'm sure you can tell from my remarks that I will be voting in favour of Budget 2012. I look forward to the rest of the debate, but noting the hour, I would move adjournment of debate.

Hon. S. Cadieux moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:23 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 © 2012: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada