2011 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Morning Sitting

Volume 30, Number 8

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

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2012

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report from the Representative for Children and Youth, Honouring Kaitlynne, Max and Cordon: Make Their Voices Heard Now.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: I call continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Simpson: I appreciate the recognition and the right to speak in the House this morning. I started last night talking about the fact that this budget reflects our times and reflects the sense of our times, in the sense that an election budget is lauded as a conservative budget.

It used to be that an election budget was an opportunity for government to shovel money off the back of a truck to try and buy votes through lifts to programs and various other things. Now we've got one that's touted as an election budget, that is deemed to be a conservative budget, although I do note that for the leader of the B.C. Conservative Party, it's not conservative enough. It remains to be seen how this appeals to the conservative voters that it's supposed to appeal to.

I also note that there's an interesting flavour in the budget debate, where the government members seem so anxious to get to debate the NDP's budget. There's a bit of strangeness in that that suggests a desire to get to election mode. The government members speak more about their anxiousness about what the NDP is going to do when and if they take power after the next election. So there is a strangeness to the debate in this House.

The budget also reflects our times, in the sense that we've had four decades of this mantra that government is bad, that taxes are bad, that we have to deregulate in order to attract investment, in order to create jobs. Yet at the end of those four decades the other aspect that this government is reflecting is that we are in economic collapse worldwide — those four decades of, "Let's get taxes down to attract investment. Let's create jobs through giving large corporations the free trade agreements that they need, the deregulation that they need" and all of that stuff.

[1005]

[D. Black in the chair.]

I find it quite striking that economists, people who are in the banking industry, people who are in the finance industry and politicians that are right-leaning all continue to spout the same mantra that somehow government has to get smaller, that taxes have to get lower, despite the fact that the evidence is all around us that that didn't work and isn't working. So this government has tabled a budget that reflects our times, but it also reflects the fact and the bankruptcy in the mantra of our times.

We have not realized the promised jobs. British Columbia certainly has not realized the promised investment. Investment in British Columbia in a low-tax regime — in a low income tax and corporate tax regime — is down. It's not coming to us. Yet in a natural resource–rich province like we are, in a natural resource–constrained world, one would think that we should be attracting that investment, and we're not. We're not creating jobs from that.

If I suspend my critique, I would say that this budget…. The government should be applauded for this budget on the matter of balancing spending relative to revenue. Other jurisdictions have not done that, and they're paying the price for that.

I think it should be mandatory reading for every MLA and every citizen — the austerity report from Ontario, the Drummond report. It should be mandatory reading because it is our future if we don't balance revenue and spending, if we just continue to cut back on taxation, cut back on revenue to government, and continue to spend as if the future doesn't matter.

Ontario is looking at a substantial budget deficit and debt increase in the near future, and they asked Mr. Drummond to go and look at that. Of course, Drummond did look at that, and that austerity report is worth reading.

It's worth reading because it gives us a sense of what the future holds if we're not careful. It gives us a sense that health care — and Drummond says it — will move from preventative care and acute care to chronic care. All you'll be able to deal with are the chronic cases, because you won't have the budget, you won't have the ability to actually deal with the preventative aspects of care or even with acute care. It will be just chronic cases.

He also speaks about the fact that in a world that's addressing this issue, you're going to go down the path that other jurisdictions have, and you're going to break the back of the public sector unions.

The logic that Drummond uses is quite intriguing. He makes the case, logically, that taxpayers' money should only be spent on essential services, that if the services that are paid for by taxes are essential, then there is no right to collective-bargain. If there's no right to collective-bargain, then why do you allow the public sector unions?

He makes the case for what Wisconsin is trying to do, what Greece is trying to do, and that is to completely
[ Page 9612 ]
eliminate public sector unions so that they can control costs directly by government fiat.

We will begin the debate in this House of moving down that path with the teachers bill. A direct assault on collective bargaining in that bill is just simply what is happening in other jurisdictions as they try to rein in costs on the backs of public sector workers.

The Drummond report is interesting in who most vehemently responded to it, and it's an interesting feature of what governments have done over the last number of years. While they've reined in government spending, they have ramped up subsidies, both direct and indirect, and benefits to corporations and businesses, all under the auspices of: "It's going to attract investment. It's going to create jobs."

The single strongest point of contention to the Drummond report didn't come from the public sector unions, didn't come from people who would be hurt by program cuts. It came from the business community, because they didn't like the fact that Mr. Drummond said that one of the things government must do right away is stop all subsidies, indirect and direct, to business.

[1010]

The biggest whine in response to Drummond's report was from the business community. If we want to talk about welfare bums, I would suggest we need to take a good hard look at what government's relationship is to business and the handouts that go to businesses, and not just in this province but all over the world.

There's a false logic in that, and this is where my critique of the budget comes. Taxes are not bad. Taxes are the thing that allows us to gain efficiencies of scale in our society, allow us to enjoy services and programs, allow us to enjoy communities that we otherwise would not afford if we all had to pay for it ourselves. We're beginning to see what paying for it ourselves looks like, as this government has reduced income taxes, reduced corporate taxes. It has shifted the burden onto individual fee-for-service, onto rates, onto things that impact the household in an escalating fashion.

I note, Madam Speaker, the shift in this government on MSP, for example. For '01-02 MSP garnered for the government $954 million. In '12-13 in the budget it's just over $2 billion. From $947 million revenue to the Crown to over $2 billion is a 114 percent increase on MSP.

If you look at other fees, in the post-secondary education system in '01-02, $452 million revenue to the Crown, now $1.3 billion — a 192 percent increase in revenue from that source, while corporate taxes and income tax revenue has come down.

The government is not wrong. Government members are not wrong when they say: "We have a low-tax regime on income tax and corporate tax." They're absolutely correct on that. What they're not saying is where they have incremented the household impact of that through direct fees and services — increases to B.C. Hydro, increases to ICBC, increases to MSP — chipping away at disposable income.

I've said it many times in this House: disposable income is the real engine of our economy. Disposable income is the engine of our economy, and if disposable income is chipped away at, you shut the economy down. That's what's really happening in the world. That's why the economy is shutting down — not because corporate taxes are too high, not because income taxes are too high and still have to be rolled back.

In fact, Jock Finlayson, the head of the B.C. Business Council, stated in response to this budget…. He sees and he thinks it's correct that we are at the end of tax cuts, both personal and corporate. I'd say Jock's a few years too late on seeing that, but he's correct.

We must stop this assault on disposable income, and this budget continues that assault. HST was the biggest assault on disposable income, but we are now seeing a continuation of that with B.C. Hydro rate increases, MSP increases, etc.

The other part that I want to speak to, and I don't have lots of time this morning because of scheduling, is the fact that we have a situation in which this budget projects a balance in 2013-14. I'm willing to go on the record today and challenge my colleagues on the government side of the House that that budget is not going to be balanced in 2013. I think government members know it's not going to be balanced in 2013, and the chest pounding that's going on around that I think does a disservice to British Columbians.

Missing in this budget is the crime bill implications for British Columbia. It's not in there. Missing in this budget is addressing justice concerns. It's not in there. The justice budget is flatlined. Missing in this budget is addressing seniors care, as has been pointed out by the Ombudsman, and that needs to be addressed.

Missing in this budget is the squeeze on federal transfers that's going to occur as we get the federal budget. Missing in this budget is the cost of the government's new education plan, if they're serious about moving on that. And missing in this budget, and very dramatically missing in this budget, is the need to address our forest stewardship issues.

The problem of decades of tax cuts and deregulation and low government is that we have lean government now and that we are no longer cutting fat. We are no longer cutting muscle. We are cutting to the bone.

[1015]

There's a basic mathematic principle that seems to be misunderstood by those who are defending this budget, and that mathematic principle is that flatline budgets are cuts. Flatline wages are cuts. A flatline wage that is a cut is another assault on disposable income. A flatline budget for the service sector, for any of the programs that government delivers, is a cut to those programs. That's just the basic math of how the economy works, because
[ Page 9613 ]
inflation doesn't disappear because the government flatlines budgets.

What the government has is a revenue problem, not a spending problem. We've butted up against the fact that we have given away too much of our revenue. Over the next few weeks I'll be looking at that and have some comment on that.

This government has also done what accountants and corporations and businesses have done for a long time. They've taken a sharp pencil to 2013-14, and they've simply sharpened their pencil in order to project a surplus in that year.

As an example, forest stewardship — a $60 million cut. It goes up a little bit, drops $60 million in 2013-14 and comes up a little bit the next year. That's just a sharp pencil. That's not the needs in forest stewardship. That's not the demand of the land base. That's not good government planning and programming. That's just simply a sharp pencil, and the budget is full of those sharp pencils in 2013-14 in order to show this small surplus of $154 million. Fire and flood alone in that year can negate that, including the forecast allowance.

The assault on our forests under this government has been pointed out by the Auditor General. In '06-07 the government's own documentation said that to address the forest stewardship challenge in the mountain pine beetle alone would be a $1 billion challenge over ten years. That's a $1 billion challenge over ten years for mountain pine beetle alone — not my figures, the government's figures. Yet what we see in 2013-14, in order to do the accounting to balance the budget, is a cut of $60 million in that year on that one line item alone.

So they've taken a sharp pencil to the budget. I can guarantee you — I'm willing to take bets from the other side, if that's allowed in the House — that for 2013 it just simply won't be balanced at all.

Interjections.

B. Simpson: I've got takers for that, Madam Speaker.

On the revenue side the projections are inflated. I don't know if people have read about the implications of what's happening with the deflated natural gas market, but natural gas is down. Drilling is down. Production is down. As well, consumption is down.

The government has projected significant increases over the next two years in order to balance their budget on what's going to happen with natural gas. Yet the natural gas community, including the major producers, is saying that it's not going to see any change in that until the LNG plant is built. The LNG plant won't be up and operating until, at the earliest, 2015-2016, so that bump they have got for natural gas doesn't exist. That will impact corporate taxes, that will impact income taxes, and that will impact natural gas royalties all the way down the line.

Their land base sales. This has been a point of contention in this House, land base sales. The government sells off assets. It's nonsensical to say that they don't and that they don't have the right to do that in a strategic way. What's different in this budget is actually pinning it as a line item going forward. It's all simply about trying to, again, get to this balance.

So on the revenue side I think that the government has inflated revenue. Knowing the state of the economy, it's a deliberate inflation.

The final comment I'll make before I close here is that I do think there's an area that the government needs to get more serious about, and I've said it many times. That is, given that they're flatlining the public sector budgets, with the exception of health…. They've got a lift in health, but I don't think that lift is equivalent to what the demand is going to be on there. It doesn't take into consideration the escalating demand from seniors.

Now is the time to end taking money from the carbon offsets from the public sector. That has to stop, because that's just a direct tax on public sector operating budgets at a time when those budgets are going to be severely strained.

[1020]

Based on calculations that we've done in our office, the Minister of Environment has admitted that 20 percent of the non-taxed carbon emissions in this province could be eligible for a carbon tax at the same rate that Alberta charges — $15 a tonne. This government could garner around $190 million from putting a tax on that 20 percent of the non-captured emissions. That's almost $200 million that the government could have to either go directly towards climate change initiatives through the Pacific Carbon Trust, because they're not going to meet their climate change targets until we get more serious about that, or given our time of restraint, go into program spending.

There are options for the government. They could raise corporate taxes right now — not out to 2014-2015, but do it now. So there are options that could be utilized. I, unfortunately, cannot support this budget, but I would support the government if they took that tax panel that they've got looking at business taxes and turned it into a panel to engage British Columbians in a conversation about taxation and expectations of government services. I challenge the NDP to join me in that call.

We need a conversation in British Columbia about rationalizing public expectations against their willingness to pay for taxes. I think we'll be pleasantly surprised that there's a willingness, that people understand what's not understood in this House — that taxes can buy them good public services. They need to trust us more to do the right thing with their taxes.

N. Letnick: It gives me great pleasure to be here once again. I'd like to thank the constituents of Kelowna–Lake Country for giving me the privilege of speaking to this budget; my support staff in Kelowna, Katja Maurmann
[ Page 9614 ]
and Monika Jatel; those in Victoria — Gabrielle Price, Geoff Ingram, Maclean Kay, Brandon Reddy; and of course, most especially, my family at home — Helene, J.P., Melanie, Kat, Naomi and also my mom, who's probably watching, in a way. She's legally blind and probably listening to this right now. Again, thank you to all of them for giving me this privilege.

I have great respect for all the members of this House, from the Premier and others who are raising a family as a sole parent, to those with grandchildren and great-grandchildren, from those who have never been in cabinet to those who are or have been or are no longer in cabinet, from those who came from humble beginnings to those who have humbled themselves to help others begin.

I believe every member of this assembly and the public service is here for the right reasons — to work hard to improve the lives of their constituents, both individually and collectively. We are here for the greater good. So I understand how it comes to pass that the members opposite, each in their turn, stand up to oppose the budget and ask for more resources. I, too, have aspirations for the people back home. I would list them here, but my experience with others taking my honest thoughts out of context to score political points…. I'll keep them to myself for now.

While I understand why the members opposite continually demand more spending, now I believe that to lay down our guard, to succumb to the temptation to break our fiscal discipline, would be immediately met with condemnation internationally and would compromise the achievement of those very goals that all the members of this House aspire to achieve.

This is the right budget for our times. It has been described by Laura Jones, senior vice-president for western Canada for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as a pretty good job. With spending increases of about 2 percent per year over the next three years, she says that it's one of the country's more disciplined approaches to budgeting. She goes on to say that while the debt is still growing, compared to other provinces like Ontario, it remains in manageable bounds.

Ontario is in a big mess. It had a $14 billion deficit budget in its 2010-2011 period, the largest deficit relative to GDP of any province, and it isn't planning to balance its books until 2017-2018. This is three years behind any other province, and she says it's likely unrealistic.

Don Drummond says that based on Ontario's rate of spending outpacing revenues, balancing the budget by the target date of '17-18 would require "a wrenching reduction from the path that spending is now on." Greg D'Avignon, president and CEO of Business Council of B.C., said: "The cautious direction set in today's budget, which includes conservative economic forecasting — lower than the Business Council GDP growth projections — is important to ensure sustainable long-term funding of social programs and to maintain B.C.'s competitive advantages as a fiscally responsible and competitively taxed jurisdiction."

Together with the new B.C. jobs plan, we believe Minister Falcon's budget will help to safeguard and advance the province's prosperity.

[1025]

John Winter, president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, adds that the budget restraint in spending — considerable restraint, he adds — with increases only to those areas of highest demand — education, health care and some of the social services…. And even those spending increases are only at the rate of inflation or less. So in his mind it is a good budget that respects the times — "one that I think respects the times," he says.

The times, Madam Speaker. It's a riddle to me how members of the NDP can each respectfully stand up and engage in the manner of rhetoric they have been, as if they are oblivious to the circumstances the world finds itself in.

The last time I had this much fun with riddles was in 1980. I was climbing the north face of Mount Bryce, and my partner and I got hit by some rocks. We had to decide whether to stay on the north face and wait for a helicopter or to try to make our way out. But he had some broken bones, so we decided to stay.

It took us five days. In five days we recounted a lot of riddles to each other. The first one I remember was: "The man who built it doesn't want it, the man who bought it doesn't need it, and the man who needs it doesn't know it." I might actually give you the answer to that at the end of the speech.

How, in light of everything happening around the world today, the NDP can continue to make these politically motivated statements is a riddle to me. I believe the answer lies in promises made to members of their political support base and the style of their leaders. I don't believe even they believe what they're saying: "Spend more, tax more, borrow more."

If tax-and-spend is a model for B.C., then why is Greece such a bankrupt basket case? Greece voters elected socialist politicians because they promised free ouzo and pizza with no calories. Now they face extreme poverty and international disgrace for years to come. The opposition and the Occupy Wall Street folks apparently don't get it.

With the Spanish elections a few months ago, only 3 percent of European Union citizens now live under leftist governments. Why? Because socialism isn't a textbook concept to Europeans. They have lived it and forcefully rejected it.

Human nature is to take the path of least resistance, the wide path well trodden. But it's the narrow path, the path of self-discipline and hard work, that leads to sustainable success. That is the illusion that leftists across the chamber offer — the illusion of prosperity without accountability, progress without productivity, success without
[ Page 9615 ]
sacrifice and happiness without self-discipline.

So the Greek people have avoided catastrophe one more time with a $172 billion bailout. It won't work. The ring fence being laid around Greece is made up on a foundation of sand supported by credit default swaps. They will fail and will only serve to prop up the country as it slides into bankruptcy and takes along with it a number of banks. Who knows where the dominoes will fall next?

The riddle is that the Finance critic is a smart man. He knows this, and so should his party. You can't spend more than your income indefinitely and not suffer the consequences. But it's gone beyond him, beyond the members of the party. It's entrenched in their culture and the traditions of their success.

They can no more see the forest from the trees than they can resist the temptation to take things out of context or engage in misdirection for political gain. I know; I learned that lesson firsthand. After I was first elected, a statement of mine was taken out of context by the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and was used against cabinet in question period.

Just last week the member for Vancouver-Hastings took a statement I made out of context again and used it in the debate on the municipal auditor general. But the pièce de résistance came at the hand of the Leader of the Opposition. A few weeks ago the NDP held a caucus meeting in Kelowna where, in his attempt to coddle the student vote, he was reported as saying that the government had taken the people of the Okanagan for granted. The opposition leader was trying to rewrite history.

Again, perhaps they all don't recognize the irony of the statement when it was made at UBCO, a campus which has seen over $180 million invested in the past six years, expanding programs for students in teaching, health sciences, engineering, management, arts and sciences. This allows our local students to complete their education closer to home, saving them tens of thousands of dollars each. Let's not forget the new master's and doctorate degrees that locals can now get here in the neglected Okanagan.

[1030]

Or maybe he was referring to Okanagan College, where I taught business for nine years and where we now have a $28 million Centre for Learning. Perhaps if he had taken more time talking with students, he would know that it has received rave reviews from both students and faculty alike.

Maybe he was referring to how citizens have been neglected with the new bridge, additional traffic lanes on Highway 97, the four-laning of Highway 33 or the passing lane up Walker Hill. Or perhaps he was talking about the new transit buses in our expanded system, the flyover at UBCO or the new highway connecting Oyama to Winfield, or maybe it was the new Dr. Knox Middle School or some of our new playgrounds.

It couldn't have been that, Madam Speaker. What could it have been? I know. He was thinking that we aren't building enough social or seniors housing. He obviously doesn't know about our investment in the recently opened 72-unit Apple Valley housing development for seniors and persons with disabilities, Cedar Court apartments and Blue Heron apartments in Lake Country, Cardington Apartments, Willowbridge transitional housing or Tutt Street apartments for women and children. How about the 49-unit Newgate building nearing completion in Rutland?

Well, I guess it wasn't that either. Maybe it's our investment in parks around Kelowna and Lake Country. Perhaps he hasn't had the opportunity to swim in the new H2O Centre or skate in front of city hall in Stuart Park, like many of us enjoyed this winter.

Please don't tell me he's thinking we've taken our neighbours for granted on health care. Nearly a billion dollars invested between Kelowna and Vernon hospitals are expanding services that will improve and save lives. A new UBC Okanagan medical program is helping our children go to medical school right at home. Very soon we will see a new heart and surgical centre, not only saving lives for the people we represent but for people from all around the Interior.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to compare what his party invested into the region in the '90s with our government's total, and I know he won't. We've invested over five times what they did when they were in power, yet he has the gall to say the Okanagan is neglected. Ridiculous. When you begin to compare the styles and misdirection of these members from Vancouver to their contemporaries from more rural ridings, the riddle gets even murkier.

Take, for example, the member for Nelson-Creston. It is clear that on many issues we disagree, but at least, Madam Speaker, she has the honesty to dislike us. Unlike many of her colleagues, she is transparent in her contempt. While others on the front benches opposite are worthy of Academy Awards for their acting prowess, she, on the other hand, buzzes by, more than any member of this House, and I have great respect for her. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if, after we win the next election, the NDP selects her as their new leader. Just imagine the sparks in QP over the next four years as she goes head-to-head with the Premier of British Columbia.

But alas, back to the present and the threat of countries falling as a result of unbridled spending and the NDP's death wish for B.C. to follow suit. Margaret Thatcher once said: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of people's money." The bill for decades of socialist policies is coming due, and we on this side of the House recognize that the sustainable way forward is to commit ourselves to the principles of free markets and make hard choices today to avoid the need for the catastrophic decisions tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I visited Greece six years ago. It was a
[ Page 9616 ]
great place, but as beautiful as it was, there were signs of things yet to come. Once, upon returning from an excursion in the Greek countryside, we returned from Athens only to find our path to the hotel blocked by riots in the streets. Imagine: our cab, when he couldn't get to the hotel, had to go in the Plaka. They were driving the cab, we opened the windows, and people were handing us drinks from their seats at their tables in the piazza. It was that close. It was like a James Bond movie, quite interesting.

Today Médecins du Monde, an organization that provides health care to the most destitute, says that since the crisis began in Greece, something startling has happened. Greeks have started to turn up at their medical clinics in ever-larger numbers. Dr. Kanakis, president of the charity, says it's gone from 8 percent of the users to 30 percent in four months. And because he can see the trends across all his clinics, he is sure it will reach 50 percent by the end of 2012.

It's impacting the average Greek, their Freds and Marthas, people like Maria Vitali.

"Maria Vitali just hit bad luck. Her husband is a construction worker whose access to the social security system got withdrawn. So she sits with her five-month-old baby and her toddler in the waiting room.

"The free clinic sees about 90 patients a day. Recently they had to vaccinate 400 Greek children for free because they could not afford the vaccination fee. 'Apart from any issues of poverty, it makes no sense medically,' says Dr. Kanakis, 'because vaccination only works if you do it to everyone.'"

[1035]

He says even the pregnant women have to pay for delivery in state hospitals. Sometimes this can be €800 or €1,000, so if they can't afford to pay, they don't give them a birth certificate.

The people who use their clinic are trapped amid advancing extreme poverty and the retreating state. The minimum wage has been slashed by 20 percent, and the government has voted to cut the health care budget by a further €1 billion.

Is this what we really want for B.C.? I don't think so. The opposition knows about Greece, and they should also recall that it was a socialist government in Portugal that wrecked its economy. The current riots in Greece are about the failure of socialism. As benefits become more available and more lucrative, they attract larger numbers of people out of the private sector, reducing government revenue while increasing government costs.

Simultaneously, a greying population affects many western countries and further removes people from the workforce through retirements and adds retirees to the benefit rolls. Eventually, the number of productive workers to retirees can no longer support the bills, and cumulative debt becomes a crisis, as is now happening around the world in Italy, Greece, Spain, Iceland, the United States and France.

So with all this evidence, the puzzle, the riddle, is: why do some continue to oppose a budget which is right for these times? The answer is clear for me, and that is short-term political gain in the hope of winning the next election.

Their answer is to tax more, to spend more and to borrow more — and wow, is it ever more. According to the fine work of two of my colleagues, the promises add up to something like $6.8 billion in annual spending, a 16-percent increase over what was forecasted in the second-quarter fiscal update. To pay for their spending commitments, it's been calculated that they pledge an additional $1.6 billion in revenue. That leaves a $5.2 billion shortfall every year, per year.

The only way to pay for these commitments is to hike taxes or borrow money. What are some of these spending commitments? Health, transit, child care, contract demands, student grants, income assistance, poverty, TransLink, long-term care, the Michael Smith Foundation, gaming grants, legal aid, midwives. All good things — the only challenge is how do we pay for all of them in the upcoming year?

To pay for that, the NDP have proposed to cancel corresponding tax cuts associated with the B.C. carbon tax and divert that revenue to general revenue for $1.5 billion, plus $120 million by reinstating the corporate capital tax on financial institutions. But where's the rest of the money to come from?

I believe this argument is wrong-headed — to raise taxes and hope that nothing will impact us. I believe that by raising taxes, companies facing these higher taxes will just cut back their production. There will be a loss of jobs like in the 1990s, and due to lower demand for labour, there will be lower negotiated wages for everyone. Ultimately, structural corporate income tax hikes are regressive and making lower-income British Columbians worse off.

Well, my time is almost up. It's not like we have NDP ideas of the party itself enjoying the support of a majority of people in B.C. You only need to look at the polls to that see over the past two years these ideas have stayed steady at around 42 percent, and the free enterprise parties have gone from a combined level of 42 percent to 49 percent today.

With over a year to go, that will see the failures of sovereign governments around the world and the realization that the policies cannot sustain job creation in B.C. or health care. I am optimistic that we will prevail in 2013, and I'm optimistic that this will happen. A prime example of our success is Kelowna General Hospital, just one of many around the province.

In conclusion, Budget 2012 is the right budget for our times. It is fiscally conservative and prudent. It sets a course for the future that is sustainable and respects the need not to compromise the opportunities for future generations by spending beyond our means today.

The motto "Splendor sine occasu" means "Splendour without diminishment," or beauty without end. It is written on many of the walls in the Legislature. We on this
[ Page 9617 ]
side of the House take that statement seriously. It's unfortunate that not all do the same.

For the sake of my children and yours, I hope everyone will do the right thing and send a message to all who can hear that now is not the time for large budget spending. Now is the time for leadership. Now is the time for collaboration. Now is the time for fiscal prudence.

[1040]

Now is the time to return to balanced budgets without significant tax increases, to lay down a foundation upon which we can build a superstructure that can rise proudly above the Rockies for all the world to see — that in a world of failing nation-states, British Columbia is a safe place to invest, is open for business and is keen to create jobs and deliver prosperity to all our citizens without diminishment for those yet to come.

A. Dix: It is a great honour for me, as I think it is for all members of the House, to rise at this important moment in the history of British Columbia and speak in a debate on the budget, to talk in a positive sense of where I think the province needs to go and to discuss, I think, the priorities of the budget, which I think are mistaken. I say that because I think all members of this House have a contribution to make.

We have different roles as members of the House. Some people are committee Chairs. Some people are cabinet ministers. There's one Premier and a Deputy Premier. There are leaders. There are critics. But we're all representatives. We're all MLAs. We're all here because of our connection with our community and our desire to represent our community.

In 2005 when I was elected as the MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway and took my place in this House, as many members have, I think it was a moving moment for me and a huge responsibility. The people of my community, I think, are extraordinary people, as people of the province are.

I think of the students at Windermere Secondary School who work with all the elementary schools in their neighbourhood in volunteering programs. They've defined what a community school is in the city of Vancouver — their involvement in the community.

I think of Collingwood Neighbourhood House, which is at the centre of a community that probably is among the most diverse in the entire world, where people work together to create programs, where the community got together and, even though in our absolute neighbourhood there is a small number of people without homes, set up a program — a breakfast program and a shower program — for homeless people in their community. They involved the whole community to make that happen, and they made it happen in their community.

I think it's important to recognize all of the small businesses up and down Kingsway who I get to represent, who sometimes struggle with decisions of government — witness the HST decision, which for many was very destabilizing for their business — but also contribute mightily to all that, are involved in volunteering in the community, support volunteering, support co-op programs and involve young people in their businesses, work together with the community.

Small businesses along Kingsway work together in community consultation to deal with some of the most difficult problems in our community — problems of the sex trade in our community. Everybody is working on these problems together.

It's an honour for me to be MLA for Vancouver-Kingsway and to speak in this budget debate and to speak about what I think is important that we, not as a community…. I think as MLAs, it's at the core of what we need to do, which is to not sacrifice the future for the political present. I'm afraid we have a budget that does just that, and I think that's unfortunate.

I know that ministers of the Crown struggle with this. I know MLAs on the government side struggle with this. I think I have more understanding and empathy with that struggle than many members of the House.

But I think they've missed here. I think there are different directions that we need to take the province in, and that's our job as an opposition — to offer those suggestions, to hold the government accountable. I'll do some of that in this speech but also offer suggestions and do that in a spirit of, I think, the positive role and the positive contribution that an opposition can make.

I'll just give one example of that, amongst many. When I came here as a member of the Legislature in 2005, the hon. member for Victoria–Beacon Hill named me the critic for Children and Families. In that period, in that first year as critic, I worked with the late Stan Hagen, who was an honoured member of this House. We had a difficult debate sometimes, but we brought some changes to this House and changes to the child protection system that made real improvements for children.

That's what we have to do, just as, as Health critic when the government, I think, brought forward an ill-founded scheme on generic drugs that cost the province money, I made the case for change. Yesterday the government acknowledged, I think, that what I had said was correct and that the direction they had gone was wrong. That's good opposition politics too. And, by the way, that's good government politics.

[1045]

So where are we, hon. Speaker? Where are we at this point in time? This is the budget tabled in 2012, and it's in a successive line of budgets that I think have avoided dealing with the core issues of our province.

In 2009 the government tabled a budget it said had a deficit of $475 million. Six months after the Premier of the day — and most principal players in the government are still here — had gone on TV in response to an economic crisis, they said the deficit was $475 million.
[ Page 9618 ]

They were not only wrong; they said it two weeks before the election day, and they were dramatically wrong. They said that was the case, and clearly, it wasn't the case. That action, that — I think it's fair to say — misleading interpretation of the government's finances has dominated the government's agenda over the last number of years.

What happened after the election? They had said they weren't going to bring in the HST; then they brought it in — a direct result of the fact that they brought forward a budget that, frankly, did not accurately reflect the finances of the province.

Nobody can say we didn't know the financial crisis was coming. It had started the previous year. Lehman Brothers had happened the previous year. The Premier had gone on TV the previous year to speak about it, yet this is what we got, and this guided the province for the next number of years.

In 2010, other than the HST, we had a budget that did not address the key economic issues of the province. In fact, the Olympic Games were going on, a celebration that both sides of the House had worked and contributed to bringing about. It wasn't really, frankly, much of a budget at all.

Then in 2011, because we were in the context of a leadership race on the government side, it was a budget that didn't address any of the problems. It was just a stand-pat budget. So we've had a four-year mandate.

In '09-10 we had a budget that was solely dealing with the fact that they were completely inaccurate on the deficit side. In '10-11 we had a stand-pat budget, except for the HST, which they said they hadn't brought in. In '11-12 we had a budget that had no changes. So here we are in 2012-13 — a government elected in 2009 that has essentially not dealt with the key issues facing the province in difficult times in that period.

What are those key issues? You know, hon. Speaker, I've heard the members of the House talk about Greece and other countries — from the previous member, presumably, who was celebrating the rule of Silvio Berlusconi, a right-wing politician in Italy.

For most of Greece's history, it has been dominated by the military — excessive and unpaid spending on military issues — and by right-wing political parties. That is the history of Greek politics. The presence of social democratic parties in Greece has been the exception. When the member from Kelowna was there six years ago, there was a right-wing government, like the Liberal Party, in power — right?

Let's be serious here. There are serious problems in the world, and they deal with all of us, and they affect British Columbia. But let's not engage in that discussion in the spirit of name-calling, which is contrary to what is happening around the world.

Let's understand that is the case, understand that British Columbia, in many respects, is well situated to deal with some of those issues because of our geographic location and our history and our extraordinary people.

You talk about a relationship with Asia. In my constituency, where a majority of my constituents are Chinese-Canadian, where a huge percentage have come from Vietnam, have come from the Philippines…. Our relationship with Asia and our relationship with the United States are key advantages, and that gives us an opportunity to build on those advantages, if we do the right things here in British Columbia.

[1050]

So what are our core problems? Well, one of them is that our economy is clearly growing too slowly to sustain prosperity and to sustain the jobs of the future. Again, these debates, on the government side — and I think it's strange on the government side — become the subject of name-calling and negative television ads.

The reality is that the economic growth record of this current government is the worst of any government in my lifetime. Now, what do we conclude from that? These are the facts. They were there in B.C. Stats. What do we conclude from that? The B.C. Progress Board notes this on the key economic indicators. We've gone down and not up. So just as in forestry, where we no longer keep an inventory of our forest resources, the response is to get rid of the Progress Board.

The reality is that over the last ten years we've gone down, not up. Now, is that all the government's fault? Of course not. Is it the Premier's fault that every quarter since she's become Premier, more people have left the province for other provinces than have come here? Is that the Premier's fault? No. Often the individual actions are good actions. I met someone in Kelowna when I was there recently who's going to the University of Calgary. That's out-migration, but I think you would argue that's good out-migration in the sense that he is going to upgrade his skills. So let's stop the name-calling.

We are not getting enough growth. Surely the key issues in that regard also include the growing inequality we're seeing in our province, which itself, I would argue, is an impediment to growth. All of the evidence shows that more unequal societies, societies where there is not the capacity for social mobility…. In other words, even if you're born a low-income person, if you live in a society that has social mobility, you can rise up, and that is an entrepreneurial force in every sense in the society.

What we are seeing in British Columbia by any standard — by the Progress Board's standards, by the Conference Board report standards, by the government's own standards as published by B.C. Stats — says that we have the worst disparities in incomes in the entire country. This has economic consequences for us as well.

These are the big issues of our time. How do we sustain growth? How do we address issues of inequality that will in the long term impede our economic success and our societal success and cause division in our society? That's the second question. The third question is: how do we
[ Page 9619 ]
sustain that with respect to our environment? These are key questions of our time, and I think it's in that context that we have to look at the budget.

The credibility — unfortunately, as I said — of the government is low on their projections. It's $80 billion in contractual obligations going over…. It went up $27 billion in one year. I think even the Berlusconi government would look at that, hon. Speaker. I think even the Berlusconi government would consider that. To follow the thinking and the logic of the members opposite — the most massive deficit mistake in B.C. history…. You know, the Vander Zalm government was pretty good at that. They beat them before the last election.

So what do we do in these times? It seems to me we have to get the fundamentals right. It is not right, it does not make sense, to do at its core what the government is doing, having made these terrible mistakes around the time of the last election that not only hurt the people of B.C. but hurt the government itself, disrupted the government itself.

The deficit projection that led to the HST has led to chaos in the economic policy of the government. This is what has happened over the last number of years. It has not, I would argue, been good for them. So what do they present us in this budget? A desperate effort to pretend there's a balanced budget in the year leading into a general election based on — get this — the short-term sale of assets that belong not only to the people of British Columbia but to their children and grandchildren.

[1055]

Hon. Speaker, as you know…. I want to get this number right. I think I was off by $2 million the other day in the House. It's $706 million. The Minister of Finance says he'd come up with a number, and it's $706 million. Apparently, they're going to keep selling till they get to that number. That's their strategy.

They can't tell us what properties they want to sell, except the Minister of Finance, perhaps because he's an MLA from Surrey, gave us an idea, an inkling of what was going to happen in Surrey. But think of this. Think of Surrey. Over successive governments — Liberal, Social Credit, NDP governments — from 1960 to 1970 they gained 5,000 people a year; 1970 to 1980 — 10,000 people a year; 1980 to '90 — 10,000 people a year; 1990 to 2000 — 10,000 people a year; and 10,000 people a year under the current government.

Why would you be selling the land assets of the government in Surrey? Why would that make any sense? Everything tells us that Surrey is going to continue to grow as a community and grow in importance. And they are selling assets now? The Minister of Finance is doing it because his surplus is only about $160 million in the election year. He needs to sell $475 million in assets to get there. How does that make sense for our children, for the future citizens of Surrey? It does not make sense to sell out the future for the Liberal Party's present.

I think even more…. This is an important question. I think it's an important debate we have to have in this House, which is the debate around skills training. It's a debate, interestingly enough, across the political spectrum. Across the political spectrum there is consensus, which is that there's a skill shortage in the province.

The Liberal government says that we're going to be short 61,500 skilled workers through this decade — 61,500. The B.C. Construction Association is looking for skilled workers in Ireland, while some people face long-term unemployment in our province. Businesses are telling us that project costs are going up because of the skills shortage. There is a massive gap between the skills in the workforce today and the skills that they're going to need.

The government's own statistics show that 80 percent of the jobs of the future will require some form of post-secondary education. I think 34 percent of that requires university-style education; 44 percent of it, other styles of education from trades to training to apprenticeship.

This is a key economic problem. Our prosperity depends on investing in the human capital of our workforce. And what does this budget do? Does it listen to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which says this is a key question — that governments have to focus on skills training? Does it follow even the Drummond report in Ontario?

Mr. Drummond offered lots of suggestions around cuts. It was generally viewed as a hard report on government. He said that the one area of government that you don't cut for the future of your economy at a time of a skills shortage is skills training. That's what Mr. Drummond said. The B.C. Business Council said the same thing. The B.C. Federation of Labour said the same thing. There is a consensus out there of everybody on this question, save one.

The area of government singled out for the largest cuts in this budget was the Ministry of Advanced Education, skills training and apprenticeships. This seems to me to be a government that ultimately is giving up on the future. Why and how, when everyone recognizes, when the government in the rhetoric of the jobs plan…?

We know a lot about the rhetoric of the jobs plan because they spent a lot of money on advertising. So we know a lot about the rhetoric of the jobs plan. They're spending $15 million on television ads advertising the jobs plan, and they're cutting spending for young people who would need to be trained to get the jobs of the future.

[1100]

Selling out the future for the present — for the Liberal Party's present — is the wrong approach. It's why, since the government came out with its jobs plan and before, we've given so much focus on this side of the House to positive suggestions on skills training. But it's not just us. It is community college and university college presidents who've made specific suggestions to the government in Prince George. School boards in Kamloops have made
[ Page 9620 ]
specific suggestions to the government. Business leaders and labour leaders and community leaders who've said skills training is…. Aboriginal leaders, First Nations leaders have said the same thing.

And the government comes forward with a budget in these economic times with this skills shortage that cuts the budget for skills training. That is the wrong approach for our economy and the wrong approach for our province. Of course, it's about choices, and of course, it's about priorities. But everybody, I think, would acknowledge that those are the wrong choices and the wrong priorities.

Then we move on to an area that I think was raised in this House with a report tabled by the Auditor General around forest health. Now, I don't need to tell anybody in this House that the last decade has been difficult times for our forest industry — in fact, the last several decades have been. Over the last decade we've lost 35,000 jobs, mills have gone down across the province, the value of our exports have declined.

It's been a difficult decade, but I think all of us would acknowledge that the forest industry remains a great force in our province. What it requires is, first — and every time that you talk to anybody in the forest industry they'll tell you this — a commitment to training that this government doesn't have. Secondly, if we are going to have in the future a forest industry that has sustained communities and sustained our economy, as it has in the past, we have to have a commitment to forest health.

We cannot have a "don't-ask, don't-tell" policy towards forest health. The government does not know — not sufficiently restocked lands. We have estimates from government agencies that say that it's two million hectares, and we have government ministers saying it's 245,000 hectares. It sounds like the 2009-10 budget in some respects.

But all of us, if we're going to make the right decisions for the future at a crucial time in our forest industry, with all that has occurred, need to have the basis of that in order to make the right decisions, because some of those decisions, by definition, are going to be difficult decisions. So not knowing is not an option, and not knowing seems to be government policy. That has been expressly indicated by the Auditor General in his report. Rather than accepting that and changing that, the government provides nothing in their budget to address it and denies the facts as laid out by the independent Auditor General.

So we have a government that in the first week of this session denied, essentially, the main findings of the independent Ombudsperson's report on seniors care; denied the main findings of the independent Auditor General on forest health; denied the findings of the B.C. Utilities Commission about their mismanagement of B.C. Hydro, about their ultimate use of selling out the future for the past — the proliferation of deferral accounts at B.C. Hydro.

I think there is a legitimate difference of opinion about the direction of the province between the Liberal Party and the NDP, but I think we have to have that discussion. Surely we have to have that discussion about how we improve productivity in our economy, about how we improve public services on the basis of understanding and facts and not ignorance.

Finally, on the fundamentals, the key fundamentals of where government is going, I think the government has failed to show the required leadership. In this period from 2006 on, in our justice system….

[1105]

British Columbia has had lots of things. Public health care came much later in our history. The form of public education we had came later in our history. Public post-secondary education came later in our history, but we've always had a justice system. And from 2006 to the present, the government has engaged in an unfortunate experiment. They have not engaged in any reforms in the system of any consequence, and they've been reducing the resources to the existing system.

They appear surprised that the consequence of not taking any action in reform and reducing the resources to the present system is longer wait times and the kind of stays of proceeding we're seeing. But these are key issues, ultimately, for the way we function and the confidence we have in our government. We have to do better.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think on these key issues, whether it's issues of health care where the opportunity to save money on prescription drugs has been lost up to now…. The government has finally taken some steps to do that, but there are steps that are still missing. We are spending too much on prescription drugs, money that could otherwise be spent in our health care system. We have missed the opportunity to promote prevention and primary care in a period when the Canada Health Transfer was higher, and now we've lost it.

This approach of the government, of ultimately abandoning the future for the present, has hurt us in all these areas. We have to try and do better. So that's why we're going to continue to do what we've been doing as an official opposition.

Last year we made sure to raise the issues around Community Living British Columbia, and we have pressed the government for action. We are going to continue to act on skills training and press the government for action, and we're going to continue to propose alternatives and say how we're going to pay for them. That is our approach as an opposition. That is the reason why we're opposing a budget that sells out the future for the Liberal present.

So in my case — and they seem to have been woken up on the other side of the House — they've sold out the future for the present. We are going to continue to argue for the future of our children. All members of the House
[ Page 9621 ]
came here to do that, to leave a better British Columbia for their children, and the official opposition is going to continue down that path.

Hon. P. Bell: I just ask for a five-minute recess.

Some Hon. Members: Nay.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members….

J. Horgan: We have ten members of the opposition that haven't spoken. We're ready to go. I'm ready to speak right this minute. Let's get going.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm pleased to stand and take my place on the debate on the budget today.

As we move through the 21st century, it's absolutely critical that we all acknowledge that the world is changing out there. I think this budget is very much a budget for the 21st century. In fact, when we look at the challenges that are being faced by other jurisdictions like Ontario, like Greece, like Italy, right across the globe, what we're finding is that we need to respond and be responsive in a similar way.

In fact, it would be irresponsible to not clearly define what our spending objectives are and make sure that we acknowledge those changes. That's been done exactly in this speech.

This budget has been, I think, carefully crafted by the Minister of Finance. It reflects the priorities of government. It truly speaks to the priorities of all British Columbians through targeted taxation investments.

So with that, I certainly would like to indicate my support for this budget. We will ensure that it is delivered in a way that is consistent with the needs of all British Columbians.

As someone who, although not formally announced, will be happy to be a grandfather within about three months, I think it's absolutely critical that we ensure that we protect the long-term integrity of British Columbia's economy.

[1110]

J. Kwan: It's my pleasure to rise to take my place to debate Budget 2012. This is an important budget. There's no doubt about it. This is the first budget, in fact, that the current Premier has tabled, and it is a significant budget because I think it shows British Columbians the trajectory of where we're going under the Premier's leadership.

I looked at the budget carefully, like all members of this House, reviewed it and made an analysis on the budget.

What does Budget 2012 tell you? For me, it is revealing in this way. It shows a pattern of behaviour. The strategic road map that the Premier has chosen is highlighted, I think, in this budget — Budget 2012. It indicates to me that the Premier is reaffirming the Minister of Finance's characterization of the Premier's approach when she was seeking the Liberal leadership.

At the time, the Minister of Finance defined the Premier's approach as ready-fire-aim. That was the approach that the current Premier adopted when she was running for the Liberal leadership. Now, I want to be very clear. Those were not my words — ready-fire-aim. Those were the words of the current Minister of Finance of the current Premier. So now it appears that that approach is indeed the order of the day for this government.

Let's look at a couple of aspects of Budget 2012 and look at the government's intentions around that. What we see, most tellingly, is the government's intention to sell B.C.'s assets. The Minister of Finance says that the Liberal government has a plan to sell B.C.'s assets and that there is, in fact, a list of over 100 properties and assets that would generate $706 million. That's what the Minister of Finance says.

Yet in the spirit of accountability, transparency and openness, when the opposition asked the government about the business case and the tabling of the list of the properties of the selling of the assets of the future of the young generation of British Columbia, the government did the usual and evaded the request.

In Budget 2012 the Liberal government says that they're going to sell these properties, but they will not produce the list of properties or the assets that would generate the $706 million to cover the red ink in the budget. On Monday in question period the opposition, along with the rest of British Columbia, found out from the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that the Liberal government has no idea, in fact, what properties they intend to sell off to generate the projected $706 million to cover the red ink in their budget.

Well, that's the Liberal world. That's their great financial management tactics for British Columbians to see, for opposition members to see. The truth is that they don't even have a plan of what properties they're going to sell. They don't have a plan, let alone a business case behind that. Yes, this is happening under the leadership of the new Premier.

So make no mistake about it. It's not previous administrations. It's not the NDP who is causing this situation. It is the current Premier and the current Liberal government that's doing that. They have no one else to blame, nobody to point fingers at but themselves.

[1115]

Yes, that is the stamp of this Premier's first budget that she has tabled in this House. Therefore, I say this. It is very significant, and it shows the strategy and the tactics that the Premier has adopted as how she will govern British Columbia, under her leadership.

For the first time…. I never thought in my lifetime that I would actually agree with the Minister of Finance, but I agree with his analysis of the current Premier's approach — that is, the ready-fire-aim approach. That
[ Page 9622 ]
says it. Now we see that practice firsthand right here in this Legislature in Budget 2012. And yup, the Minister of Finance's analysis of the Premier is actually dead-on.

Now, the only trouble is that the Premier's ready-fire-aim approach is being implemented in government policies, and the collateral damage of that would be the people of British Columbia.

If it's just politics, it might be amusing. But it's not. It is about the future of British Columbia and the impacts. The Leader of the Official Opposition has so eloquently, just moments ago, highlighted the impacts of that — that the Liberal government is selling out the future of future generations today. Today that is what they're doing.

So the collateral damage will be felt for generations to come — most certainly that of my children and the generations beyond that. Many, many members in this House rose in the last number of years and talked about their grandchildren. How proudly they announced to the House the birth of their grandchildren. And you better know it, Budget 2012 is going to impact that generation.

That's why it is so important that we do this work seriously, that we do our homework, that we do the analysis. You don't just sort of come forward with a plan and say: "Hey, we're going to cover the red ink in the budget by selling off assets, but we don't even know what those assets are going to be."

You do not adopt that approach because too much is at stake. Surely, somewhere over there in the cabinet, somebody around that cabinet table, when this budget was being prepared around the Treasury Board table, got up and said: "Let's do an appraisal of some of these properties. Let's do a business analysis of this to see where it's going to land, how it's going to look and what it really means. Is it a wise decision to sell off these lands today for a one-time return, at the risk of what it might be for the future in losing those properties?" Surely someone has done that. But it appears not.

What else has caught my eye in Budget 2012? Well, consistent with the Premier's approach, the government is investing in advertising — something that the Premier is really, really good at. To be sure, $15 million on a marketing campaign, whereas the government could have taken that money and invested it into the future of the people of British Columbia — in education, in skills training. Yet the government refused to do that. The Premier refused to do that.

At a time when seniors are in desperate need of services — home support, amongst other things — the government is refusing to invest in that. The judicial system is so bogged down that allegations of serious offences are not even tried. Students are starved for educational supports, whether it be at the elementary level all the way to advanced education. They actually did not get the attention of the government in Budget 2012.

Physicians are waving red flags all over the place about so many issues, particularly issues around the hospitals — most recently on the infectious diseases, related to cleanliness. What does the government do? They didn't pay attention to that either as it related to Budget 2012.

[1120]

The Premier thought it would be wise instead to dump $15 million of the hard-earned money of taxpayers into a marketing campaign. More advertising seems to be the order of the day. What value would that actually generate in return for British Columbians?

So here we go again. The B.C. Liberal government is once again spending taxpayers' money on promotional advertisement in an attempt to make the government look good. That's what that's about.

Remember, one of the latest rounds of spending sprees on advertising took place during a prime-time sporting event, the Super Bowl — a negative ad, really, in some ways. It was another round of the Premier's attempt to convince British Columbians that she actually has a plan, that she has a strategic plan around the economy and jobs for British Columbia.

Of course, we all know that the jobs plan is just rhetoric and photo ops for the Premier, and no amount of advertising will change that. These ads essentially amount to nothing more than a public relations exercise for the Premier and the B.C. Liberal government. Is it a wonder that people are cynical when you see the government choose those kinds of actions, that they prioritize the spending in their budget in this way?

Instead of investing it in areas that matter for British Columbians, they decide to spend the money on an advertising campaign. That's $1 million over the prime-time sporting events that's sort of gone down the drain. At a time when resources are scarce and everybody is wanting more resources into our system, services to support our community, the government and the Premier have chosen a different course.

The Premier and her team have decided that spending taxpayers' money on self-promotional ads should take precedence over spending on skills training for young people. That kind of spending of taxpayers' money, frankly, won't help British Columbia's financial situation. It will not build for the future and prepare British Columbia in the future. It won't help, in my view, balance B.C.'s budget.

As businesses struggle to keep their doors open and families try to stretch their dollars in the face of increased costs downloaded by the government, the Liberal government continues to pour taxpayers' money down the drain.

Just this last summer, you will recall, the B.C. Liberal government spent $7 million of taxpayers' money to promote the HST, the pro-HST side, during the HST referendum. They spent $780,000 on the design and printing of a promotional HST pamphlet that was never used. Every one of those pamphlets was shredded.

I ask this question to any British Columbian that's
[ Page 9623 ]
out there. Would you put $780,000 of your hard-earned money into a shredder? Would you simply just take a $5 bill, a $10 bill, a $100 bill, a $1,000 bill and stick them in the shredder until you reached $780,000 of it? The answer is: of course not. Yet that's exactly what this government has done.

Yes, under the leadership of this Premier, they chose that course and spent that money in that direction. That $780,000, I want to say very clearly, would have supported a number of different programs that matter to British Columbians.

[1125]

In my own riding the Ray-Cam community centre just lost some significant dollars to support children in the inner city with a variety of special needs. In fact, they don't need $780,000. Less than $100,000 would actually have ensured that 111 special needs kids in the Ray-Cam community centre would have had excellent child care supports and integration and programs to ensure that they're part of the community and that their learning opportunities were enhanced so that they could be prepared for the future of tomorrow.

Instead of doing that, the government decided to invest $780,000 of the hard-earned money of British Columbians in making promotional pamphlets that were never used. That money essentially was flushed down the toilet. That's the net effect of it.

I ask you: is that how you would define and say and call the government managing the taxpayers' money well? Are they managing, then, taxpayers' money wisely? Is it any wonder that B.C.'s largest deficit in its history occurred under the Liberal government? This was actually in 2003, when the B.C. Liberals incurred a deficit of $2.6 billion — that is, of course, until this deficit year of $3.1 billion, which set a new record.

That's actually on the Liberal record — not the NDP record but rather the Liberal record. This is the same Liberal government that said, before the last election, that the deficit would only be a maximum of $495 million in the fiscal year of 2009-2010. The deficit turned out to be — what? — six or seven times larger than that?

Ever since the B.C. Liberals brought in their Balanced Budget Act in 2001, they've had to amend the balanced-budget legislation three times — in 2009 and twice in 2010 — so that they could say that they didn't break their own law.

While you hear the Liberals talk about how they balanced the budget — that they have actually met their budget requirements — and how they brought in the law around balanced-budget legislation, and so on, the truth is that they left out the fine print to let British Columbians know that every time they couldn't meet their budget targets, they simply went and amended that legislation to give them room for breaking their own law. That is the reality.

Under the B.C. Liberals, the truth is that they have run deficits six years out of 11. And yes, Budget 2012 is another deficit budget as well. That's the sum of the B.C. Liberals' pattern of behaviour and economic strategy.

I find it very interesting that Budget 2012 does not say a thing about how the government is going to realize its target of increasing the international students, I think by 40 percent in the jobs plan, if memory serves me correctly. If the government has a plan for that, I would have thought that Budget 2012 would have reflected that — that investments would have gone into the post-secondary education system and that there would be enough spaces for both the domestic and international students.

You know, consistent with the Premier's approach of ready, fire, aim, I bet that the Premier didn't even take the time to talk to key stakeholders in the post-secondary education system about the target and what needs to be done to realize that target.

As you look to the future of British Columbia, as you plan ahead, you would think that ensuring young people have the skills and training they require to compete and succeed in the global market is number one. You would have thought that that would have been high on the agenda on any jobs plan for any government. But that is not the case.

It is not the case, because if you look at the budget carefully, what you'll find is that the Ministry of Advanced Education…. The skills-training component actually falls under the Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation, in some order of that fashion. That ministry…. Sadly, on that line item, for skills training, there's actually a cut. There's actually a 9 percent cut, totalling $9.5 million, between year 2011-12 to the year 2014-15. You've got to ask: why would the government do that? How does that make logical sense?

[1130]

I want to ask the former Minister of Advanced Education, who I know is a strong advocate in setting the future and ensuring that young people are ready to take on the future with a foundation of education and skills afforded to them. I know she believes in that. She talked about it when she was the Advanced Education Minister, and she highlighted it during the leadership campaign. I don't get why that is not reflected in this budget, in Budget 2012.

Not only is this not just a hold-the-line kind of budget; there's actually a budget reduction. That $9.45 million would have been covered off if the government had chosen the course, if the Premier had chosen the course not to spend $15 million on an advertising campaign. They would have been able to ensure skills training, have the resources they need and then some. But the government chose not to do that.

I don't get it. Why would the Premier make her stamp in her first budget with that kind of impression, saying to the future generations: "Your future — I say all the time
[ Page 9624 ]
and in advertisements — is really important to me" and that that's her focus? But when it comes right down to investing in their future, the budget is just not there to back it up. That is distressing, actually. It's disappointing, and it is distressing.

The pattern of behaviour creates what I fear — a sense of disengagement amongst the public. You wonder why voter turnout is so low. You wonder why young people are not engaged. You wonder why people do not participate in our democratic system. I think, in part, these are the reasons why, which I highlighted in the comments that I have made.

The pattern of behaviour from the B.C. Liberal government sets people off. It creates a sense of mistrust and distrust. It creates a sense that the government's priorities are misplaced, that in fact their only agenda, their first agenda, of utmost priority, is to ensure that the government self-promotes.

They put that and their political interests and their political need to be perceived well by the public — and they think the most efficient way to do that is by promotional ads — ahead of the interests of British Columbians. I think when British Columbians see that year after year, they become disengaged.

When the Premier engages in that kind of practice, it does not serve, I think, our democracy well. It does not serve the interests of British Columbians well. I think that that is the major difference that I want to highlight between the B.C. Liberals and the New Democrat opposition.

We heard earlier from the Leader of the Official Opposition. He had highlighted for British Columbians the trajectory of where New Democrats would go, where our priorities would be and how we would govern differently. I think it is an important thing to note, around that stark contrast.

Mr. Speaker, we have a little over a year, I guess, between now and the 2013 election. Is there going to be a change of course? Will there be anybody from the government's side, on the government bench, who will rise up and challenge the current direction of the Premier and this government, who will have the courage of conviction around the cabinet table to say that this is not what we should be doing, that this is not the right approach?

In fact, I know that this budget is going to be voted on shortly. Will there be anybody from the government side who will rise up and say no to this government budget of the wrong priorities and the wrong direction and say that this is not what we're going to do? Will there be anyone from that side of the House who will champion that? Or will everybody just sit down, drink their own Kool-Aid and then move in the same direction that they've been moving in — even though somewhere, I think, for some of them, deep down in their hearts they know that this is the wrong approach?

[1135]

The test remains to be seen. I know we're going to be voting on this imminently today, on the budget today. I hope that somebody on that side of the House would have the courage to stand up and do exactly that.

I know that time is running out, as we're only allotted 30 minutes to engage in our debate. In my closing I do want to just highlight my thank-you to the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I have been elected here since 1996 and have had great honour to represent the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Yes, I do have five more minutes, so I'm just going to wrap up by talking a little bit about Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant is a challenging community in the sense that we're one of the poorest constituents' neighbourhoods in all of Canada. Having said that, though, it is also one of the most beautiful communities that I have ever seen, where it is the people and the essence of the people that shines through day in and day out. When you think about people with so little and how little that they can actually offer to others, when the occasion requires, people always, always rise to the occasion. I have seen it repeatedly.

I walk in the Downtown Eastside of my riding from time to time. I see people who are hungry, who are homeless…. By the way, this budget reduced the operating budget for housing by 26 percent, some 26 percent, at a time when we have a desperate situation of homelessness in our community. I find that a little bit astounding.

When the housing stock is not there, when the government is not investing in affordable housing for the people of our community, is it a wonder that you see people who are homeless on the streets? I see that a lot in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. When I see the hunger, the poverty and the desperation that goes on in my community, I also see the beauty of it, where people will stand up.

Most recently an inner-city school teacher in my riding, Carrie Gelson, actually raised the issue of the children in her classroom — about their needs and how they come to school hungry, without proper jackets, no socks or proper shoes in the wintery weather — and how the people in the community come together to support each other. It is an amazing thing to see how people in the community rise to the occasion time and time again.

I have seen it in the Downtown Eastside where a person on a limited, fixed income, a senior, will reach into his pocket and actually take out what spare change that individual has got to give to the next person who is hungry and begging at that moment. That is about the Downtown Eastside and how the people come together to support each other no matter how challenging their own circumstances are.

British Columbians have so much to offer. Together we
[ Page 9625 ]
can do so much, if we can only focus on what is important and set the priorities right.

If we can just set aside for a moment the need to self-promote and ensure that there's political gain as the first priority, as the current Premier has done, imagine the possibility of what could happen for British Columbia, where we work together across partisan lines, where we work together with the people in the community, non-profit and business and labour alike, and link with each other hand in hand and focus on the challenges of today, come up with positive solutions for tomorrow and then invest in those solutions to try and make a difference.

That future can be British Columbia's future. If we vote down this budget, we can redo a budget that could actually bring forward initiatives that could make a difference for British Columbia. I know that people will say: "Gee, table your budget now if you have that."

Well, I'll tell you this. If we defeat this budget, I'm sure that the New Democrats will work with the government on this effort. Or if the government decides to call an election immediately, we will then actually see that budget as well.

I want to say this to the government members. They have an opportunity here today to do what is right on behalf of all British Columbians. Say no to Budget 2012. Say no to advertising campaigns, and say yes to skills training. Say yes to a better future for all British Columbians.

[1140]

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to rise and speak to the budget. I want to just take a moment to pay a special tribute to the Minister of Finance and the work that he has done in preparing this very skilfully crafted budget.

We introduced our jobs plan in September, and in that plan we talked about reaching out and growing new markets so that we could bring the benefits here, home, for British Columbia families. That's all about our families-first approach to government.

Families can do the best job as parents and as children of aging parents when they are able to put food on the table for their kids, when they're able to make sure they don't have to worry about whether or not they're going to make their mortgage or their rent payment next month, because they have a job. We launched that in September, and this budget is a cornerstone of making that jobs plan work.

Prior to 2008 government spending was at about 6 percent. It was $2 billion in additional money every year. Then, after the global economic downturn, it was down to about 3 percent. Well, in this budget, coupled with prudent spending increases, we are going to make sure that we keep it at about 2 percent. That means that we will be on track to eliminate the deficit.

One of Canada's national newspapers called this the most conservative budget in the country, and I am very proud that this was my first budget.

The B.C. economy is slowly picking up steam, but we have to protect that recovery. That means we have to hold the line on spending, and it means that we have to live within our means.

Let me be clear, and I think the budget very clearly demonstrates this. If we have a choice between increasing spending and raising taxes in order to support that spending and lowering taxes on the other side, we are going to choose to lower taxes each and every time.

You'll see this in our government's approach to labour as well. We will not raise taxes on families in order to fund public sector wage increases. I appreciate the work that our civil servants do, but I cannot justify an additional tax burden on families in order to increase the salaries of public servants in this economic environment.

Now, the government has moved to introduce legislation to address these issues. We will not be imposing a contract, as many of our critics said we most certainly would. What we have done instead is something very reasonable, something that both the teachers union and the opposition were asking for — that is, bring in a mediator.

Appoint a mediator; work through the issues; facilitate bargaining outside the zero-zero mandate. But we are providing certainty for students and their parents by making sure that the current strike action is suspended and setting a cooling-off period. It's important that students be in B.C. classrooms. That's what parents want to know their kids are doing, and that is what we are going to be doing.

If you look at countries that are suffering today all around the world, you'll see that they are countries that have pursued high tax policies, high spending policies, high debt policies. Those are the same reckless and risky policies that B.C. pursued in the 1990s. We can never go back.

We can never go back to those days when British Columbia thought we were teaching the world a lesson. Sadly, we didn't. Greece, Spain, the United States — countries around the world are learning that lesson today. British Columbia can never afford to learn that lesson again.

It's always easier to say yes than it is to say no, but if we're serious about creating and protecting jobs in B.C., we need to make sure that we are keeping taxes and spending under control. The biggest danger for us right now is to cave in to temptation, to do what the opposition always says we should do, and that's to think that we can spend our way out of economic turbulence. We can't. It won't protect us. It will expose us, and it will destroy the enviable foundation of fiscal prudence that British Columbia has built.

[1145]

Now more than ever before, with the global economy in the balance, we cannot afford to lose our nerve. If we do, we could lose. British Columbia could lose a whole lot more.
[ Page 9626 ]

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I believe passionately that government is the expression of our collective will to look after one another. I see government as an organization. Rather than an organization that does something to people, it's an organization through which we do something for each other.

Good citizens come from families that instil character. I often say that. They become the foundation for safe, stable communities. Ultimately, that's what's going to build a great province, and it's ultimately what is also going to build a great country.

Our people here in British Columbia are our biggest advantage. Our population is educated. Our diversity provides direct links to the world's fastest-growing markets, and that opportunity is reinforced by our geography. We back this up with controlled spending, reasonable taxes and modern infrastructure.

B.C. has been through some tough times, and so has the world, but I am optimistic about the future. We have a plan. Budget 2012 is the cornerstone of building on that plan and building a stronger, better British Columbia.

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

Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly, I want to thank all of you for your debate on the budget. I listened carefully. I tried to listen to all or as many of the opposition discussions on the budget as possible. I listened to many of the discussions on our side of the House too.

At the end of the day, budgets are about choices. Budget 2012 is built on a foundation of fiscal discipline which lays a firm foundation to build British Columbia's future. First and foremost, it sets out a plan to eliminate the deficit that we, unfortunately, were dragged into as a result of the world economic meltdown in 2009.

At a time when financial markets around the world are showing very little tolerance for governments that are not fiscally responsible, this budget stands out, as the Premier noted. It stands out by the fact that it is built on prudence. It reaffirms our commitment as government to maintaining a triple-A credit rating and the hard-built reputation as good, strong, sound financial managers in the province.

As I listened to the discussion, I must say I was surprised listening to the opposition, because the theme that constantly raised itself was that we are not spending enough, that in virtually every ministry of government the answer is more spending. Government needs to spend more and continue to make more spending decisions.

It was a budget, Budget 2012, that was made in a context, and it's a very real context. It's a context of around the world we have seen what happens to governments that have spent without discipline; which have believed that they could somehow spend, borrow and tax and that there would be no implications of that.

But everywhere around the world we see the landscape is littered with governments that have made that mistake and are now reaping the whirlwind, and it is a very ugly whirlwind to reap. Difficult, unpopular decisions must be made because they are being forced to be made. We are not going down that road with this budget.

In the fall the opposition apparently had prepared a budget, a budget they were prepared to take to the people. What I found interesting is they now refuse to show anyone what was in the budget that they apparently were prepared to take to the people. I wonder why that would be of any concern. I mean, government put out a budget. They apparently had one ready to be released, and I think it would be an important opportunity to allow the public to see the difference between the two approaches.

[1150]

I want to be very clear that on this side of the House we are proud of our budget. We are proud to put it before the public. We are proud to defend the decisions in this budget. But I think I do know why. I think I know why, because during the ten years that they were in office, they followed the approach that is very common around the world now — the European approach, if I may — an approach where, in eight out of the ten years they were in power, they ran deficits. The last two years they didn't because natural gas prices saved them.

They had five budget management plans, as they called them. They missed every single target they set, and they stopped issuing the budget management plans. In contrast, in ten out of 11 budgets we have introduced on this side of the House we have outperformed our budget targets every time except one — every time.

Now, I want members to know that although we may be criticized for being prudent in our budget, and although we may be criticized for not answering the siren call, the siren song of more money for every minister, more money for all the different groups that want to spend more money, we are investing the additional dollars very strategically in health care, in K-to-12 education, in significant capital and operating investments in post-secondary, recognizing that we are going to build for the next generation. But we're doing it in the context of being responsible.

We're also including, in the budget, measures that will help move the economy forward and continue to build on the success that we've had. It is instructive to know that in spite of all of the criticisms you've heard from across the way, today in British Columbia we enjoy a 6.9 percent unemployment rate, the highest level of employment we've ever had in history — today, right now, in British Columbia.

It is significant that today in British Columbia we have the highest levels of consumer spending ever in the history of the province of British Columbia, and Budget 2012
[ Page 9627 ]
builds on that. It builds on it by providing some important strategic investments.

For new home purchasers, for our young people that are trying to get into their first home, up to $10,000 towards their down payment to ensure they can get into their first home.

It provides a credit for seniors to allow seniors to stay in their home longer. It looks after seniors by providing an incentive to make the kinds of investments…. Whether it's a lift to help them up the stairs, whether it's lift bars to help them get up in their bathroom, whether it's investments that allow walk-in tubs, they are going to be allowed, with the $1,000 seniors credit.

I heard members opposite criticize that, saying that seniors would have to spend $10,000 to get that. It just shows that they don't even understand how a credit works, so I will explain to the members opposite. Even if you spend $1,000, you're still entitled to $1,000 back. That's what a 10 percent credit…. That's how it works. So $1,000, $2,000, $5,000, $10,000 — whatever investment they make, they get 10 percent of that back, and that helps seniors remain in their homes longer, which is what seniors want to do in British Columbia.

Let me start to conclude by pointing out that the strategic investments in training, the investments we're making to ensure that British Columbians have every opportunity to continue to raise a family and build a future in a growing economy will continue to take place.

We know this about British Columbia. For 150 years the defining quality of British Columbia has always been that we are open to investment, that we are open to trade, that we are confident about our future, that we are confident about our place in that future.

We are not pessimistic. We are not negative. We do not view all the challenges, big though they may be, around the world as challenges that are insurmountable for this great province of British Columbia, and that's why this budget is forward-looking. It is forward-looking and confident in the knowledge that maintaining our fiscal discipline, maintaining the seven successive credit-rating upgrades that now see British Columbia with the highest possible credit rating you can get, a triple-A credit rating, is important.

[1155]

It is forward-thinking, and it is visionary in the sense that we know that British Columbia enjoys something that very few jurisdictions enjoy. We have, because of the fiscal discipline we've shown over the last decade, the flexibility to go out there aggressively — I acknowledge, Member, very aggressively. We're going to go tell the world about the opportunities in British Columbia unapologetically and with confidence about the fact that they can invest, build a future, raise a family right here in British Columbia.

I move, seconded by the hon. Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

[1200]

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 12:01 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