2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 41, Number 9

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2013

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

H. Lali: Today visiting us in this House is a good friend of the Legislature, a former MLA. He was MLA for almost 13 years, and he also served as the longest-serving government Whip in the entire Commonwealth. He finished his career as minister of small business. It's my good friend from Port Alberni, the former member from Alberni, Gerard Janssen, and his better half, Florence. They are visiting us here on the floor of the Legislature. Will the House please make them welcome.

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce Angela Liu. Angela has recently joined my office and the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. She's had a wonderful day here today. There's been a smile from ear to ear as she has looked at this wonderful building and met many MLAs from both sides of the House, research people and so on.

Angela, may your smile whenever you come to this place continue.

Will you please make her feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: It's not often that we get to introduce guests from the faraway place that we live, but I'm very delighted today to have in the gallery someone who was elected to his first term as mayor of the village of Valemount in the last municipal election. Mayor McCracken is here to meet with a number of ministers on important topics, particularly the economic circumstances that we have in our wonderful Robson Valley. I would ask the House to make Mayor McCracken welcome on this special trip to the Legislature today.

D. Horne: It's with great pleasure that I introduce 25 students from Gleneagle Secondary School, who are in the gallery behind me, led by their teacher, Chris Turpin. They have had the opportunity to tour through the Legislature today. Also with them are two chaperones, Chris's mother, Marilyn Turpin, as well as Eiman Borat Torabi. I wish the House would make them welcome.

M. Mungall: I'd like to introduce the House to Leann Dawson and Greg Melnechuk. They are with CUPE Local 4163, representing teachers' assistants, sessional lecturers, music performance instructors and English-as-a-second-language instructors at the University of Victoria. Please make them welcome.

Hon. N. Letnick: They say good things come in threes. I would like to announce that after three years working in the Legislature for the Ministry of Agriculture, Heidi Scott, my administrative assistant, today is 30 years of age. I'd like the House to join me in congratulating her.

J. Trasolini: It is my pleasure to introduce Bruce Ferguson, president, and Manuel Alvernaz, executive board member, of the Construction and Specialized Workers Union Local 1611, also proudly known as the Labourers Union. CSWU represents 6,000 men and women in British Columbia and the Yukon.

The Labourers Union has been a part of organized labour in B.C. since 1937. Members have been involved in all aspects of building this province, from dams for hydroelectric power, gas pipelines, mines and roads, as well as all types of buildings. Can the House please join me in making them welcome.

[1340]

M. McNeil: In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, Catherine Mustafa. She is someone that I grew up with in Vancouver, but she now resides in Victoria. We actually went to high school together, so that's around ten years ago. [Laughter.] I'm really thrilled to be able to welcome Catherine and hope you'll join me as well.

J. Kwan: I have the pleasure of introducing an old friend, someone who was an effective member of a small research team for the NDP caucus during the period of 2001 and 2005. She's visiting here today with her family — Sarah Hilbert-West. I want to say that she lives in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but she doesn't. To the delight of the Attorney General — I know she'll be pleased to hear this — she actually is from Prince George.

She's here with her entire family. Isaac is also in the gallery today. And in the precinct somewhere is her husband, John; her daughter, Hannah; and her other son, Jacob. So I ask the House to please make them very welcome.

M. Coell: I have two guests for question period today, Julia Phillips and Eddie Zhao. Will the House please make them welcome.

V. Huntington: I'm really pleased to be able to introduce five students today from Delta South, young people who act as advisers to my office. Would the House please make welcome Alex Gaio, Antony Tsui, Ben Laird, Dylan Kruger and Katy Weartherly.

G. Hogg: A few weeks ago a gentleman came into my office who said he wanted to learn more about what we
[ Page 12924 ]
were doing over here. He didn't have an active interest or understanding of a lot of things but wanted to come here and learn. He joins us today, so would you please give Jack Procter a rousing welcome to the Legislature.

D. Black: It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce people from my family — my aunt Mabel Bestwick, who's visiting here from Nanaimo. She's been a lifetime resident of Nanaimo in my hon. friend's constituency. In fact, in 1939 she was the May Queen in Nanaimo. That was an honour that she celebrated and that they celebrate on and on again in Nanaimo when they bring all the May Queens together every year.

She was my aunt who took me under her wing and always made sure that I had an opportunity to visit my family in Nanaimo. I lived on the Mainland. She's a very special person in my life, so I take a great deal of pleasure in having her here today. Accompanying her is my cousin Diane Bestwick. Would the House please make them very welcome today.

R. Austin: It's my pleasure today to introduce someone visiting from Kitimat. Rob Goffinet is a retired teacher. I believe he spent 35 years in that profession, but he's not resting on his laurels. He's a twice-elected city councillor for the district of Kitimat. He's a good friend and, I would say, a political mentor. I'd like to thank him for all of his sage advice over the years, and I ask the members of the House to please join me in welcoming him.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure and honour to introduce two dear friends of mine, Mel and Thelma Schmidt, currently residents of Barriere. Mel grew up in Barriere and came to Vancouver Island in 1955. He was a logger and then worked in mills, finally working in the Crofton pulp mill. Mel is the sort that no moss grows on that rock. He's always moving and energetic. He's a fantastic volunteer in the community.

As an NDP member, he organized a long-running dinner called the Heritage Dinner, which featured such meats as bear, cougar, moose and such. So that was a real highlight in central Vancouver Island. After retiring from Crofton mill, Mel and Thelma established Clean Warmth Services.

[1345]

Thelma is from near the Legislature here but moved to Barriere when she married Mel. Both these two fine people are lifetime members of the NDP. They are stalwarts in the community wherever they are, always active, and I'd like the House to help me make them welcome to their Legislature.

Joining them today is my CA, Patti McNamara. Everyone knows how important the work is that CAs do — everyone in this House. Not everyone in the community knows until they enter one of our offices, and then they find out that what CAs do — for anybody who is listening — is build relationships throughout the public service.

There was a cartoon a while back of CAs starting their day. They were standing with blindfolds, with a dart, throwing it at the wall. On the wall was every possible issue that you could confront in British Columbia, from health care to seniors care to small business issues — whatever.

They need to be experts in all of those things. So our communities are lucky to have these people doing the work they do, and we are especially lucky to have them doing the work they do. I think their competence has to be rivalled by no one in this House — seriously. Well, CA — I mean, it kind of rhymes with "cover assets."

I'm very pleased to introduce my fine CA, Patti McNamara.

L. Reid: I have a friend who watches this place each and every day. She's somewhat of a captive audience at the moment because she is wearing a very large cast. I'd ask the House to join me in wishing well Alice Mann as she recovers.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — SENIORS ADVOCATE ACT

Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Seniors Advocate Act.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I move that the Seniors Advocate Act be introduced and read now for a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: Our population in British Columbia is growing and aging. Over the next 20 years the number of seniors in our province will almost double to about 1.3 million people. This means resources need to be in place now to help the growing number of seniors live safe, healthy, active and independent lives. We want to make sure the voices of B.C. seniors continue to be heard and that their needs and concerns continue to be addressed in a timely fashion.

This new legislation paves the way for the creation of a seniors advocate. This will fulfil the commitment that government made in the seniors action plan to establish an office of the seniors advocate.

Once the legislation is enacted, British Columbia will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to have a seniors advocate. The seniors advocate will be a voice for seniors. The advocate will monitor seniors services and promote awareness. The advocate will also work collaboratively to identify solutions to systemic issues facing seniors and
[ Page 12925 ]
make recommendations to government to improve the welfare of seniors in our province.

I move that the introduction of the Seniors Advocate Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Seniors Advocate Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 8 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that Bill 8 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to introduce Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013. The bill will amend the following statutes: Child, Family and Community Service Act, Clean Energy Act, Forensic Psychiatry Act, Forest Act, Integrated Pest Management Act, Interpretation Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Medicare Protection Act, Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, Representative for Children and Youth Act, School Act and Statute Revision Act. The bill also makes validating provisions and consequential amendments to other statutes.

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

Bill 8, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

BILL M202 — FALL FIXED ELECTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

B. Simpson presented a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2013.

B. Simpson: I move that a bill intituled Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

B. Simpson: British Columbians have lost confidence in pre-election budgets, and there are growing calls to change our fixed election date to the fall. As evidence of this, in an effort to restore confidence in this year's pre-election budget, the government spent taxpayers' money to obtain an independent assessment of the process they used to arrive at this year's revenue projections. But confidence will not be restored as long as pre-election budgets are never debated, never subjected to the scrutiny of opposition members and B.C.'s independent officers and never passed into law.

Spring fixed election dates also mean that every four years government ministries and dependent agencies do not get spending authority until halfway through the fiscal year, and the Ministry of Finance is forced to prepare multiple budgets. This adds a high and unnecessary degree of uncertainty to the functioning of government every fourth year. This short pre-election session is the ideal time to change B.C.'s fixed elections to the fall, starting with the next election after this one, in October 2017.

Making the change now does not offer an advantage to one political party over another, as voters, not polls, will determine the outcome of the May election. Changing fixed elections to the fall is one part of the independent MLAs' agenda for democratic reform. It's our sincere hope the government and opposition will support this necessary reform in this session so we can restore confidence in the province's budgeting process every year, and prevent future budgets and interim finance bills from being used solely for political purposes.

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

Bill M202, Fall Fixed Election Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

ABORIGINAL STUDENT CENTRE
AT CAPILANO UNIVERSITY

J. Thornthwaite: As anyone who has pursued a post-secondary degree can appreciate, a healthy learning environment is important. That's why I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight Capilano University's Aboriginal Student Centre, where I attended the official opening at the beginning of this month. Known as Ḵéxwusm-áyaḵn — "a place to meet" — the centre will support a positive, safe, supportive environment.

It's a welcoming place where students can meet, socialize, study and share their experiences as a community or even share a meal. The centre also includes regular activities such as weekly drumming circles and visits from
[ Page 12926 ]
First Nations elders.

Since the opening of the Capilano campus 40 years ago the number of aboriginal students attending has increased, and their success in their studies has also increased by 45 percent. To ensure that this number keeps growing, DeDe DeRose, the superintendent of aboriginal achievement, has been doing a great job for this province's K-to-12 students. Just last week it was announced that more aboriginal students completed high school than ever before, and I know that many of these students will continue on to pursue post-secondary education.

Capilano University, along with our government, is working collaboratively to preserve and promote the culture and history for all of the aboriginal students who attend and graduate. The university is offering programs that focus on aboriginal learning, including an indigenous film-making program, a tourism management cooperative diploma, courses in aboriginal law, the Squamish Nation language and cultural certificate. On the traditional territory of the Squamish and the Tsleil-Waututh nations of the Coast Salish people, the Aboriginal Student Centre really is a home away from home.

MORDEN COLLIERY
HISTORIC PROVINCIAL PARK

D. Routley: I rise today to share with the members some information about the Morden historical park. Morden mine historical park is truly a valuable asset to central Vancouver Island. One might ask: what is the value of history? The value of history is manyfold, of course — to academics, to appreciate our history, as tourist attractions for our local economies.

In B.C. we have no Parthenon. We may have a sort of coliseum, in a sense, that we stand in here, but we have no lasting memory of so much of our history. So much of the First Nations history melts into the landscape, as did the early history of logging and mining, which either, similarly, melted into the landscape or was knocked down in order to be replaced.

When we save it, it pays back. The Kettle Valley trestles and the Kinsol Trestle here on Vancouver Island are both fine examples of how these artifacts pay back to our economy and to our communities.

[1355]

The history of the Morden mine is that it's a mine-head tipple, which is the elevator that took the coal from the ground up and then loaded it onto railway cars. It's unique in that it was an advanced form of concrete construction at the time — one of the first examples of reinforced concrete construction in North America. It's one of only two such structures. The one in West Virginia is very well taken care of by the U.S. federal government and very highly valued.

Portland Cement came up with the technology. They were located in Tod Inlet, here in Victoria, which is now Butchart Gardens. The material was delivered to South Wellington, where Morden is, by railway car.

The Friends of the Morden Mine do diligent work in preserving this site and working to advocate for its preservation and restoration. This is a non-partisan issue, and I hope both sides of the House will recognize the value of Morden historical park and invest in restoring and preserving this wonderful site.

SHUTTLE SERVICE BETWEEN
BURNABY NORTH AND HASTINGS AREA

R. Lee: The beautiful, diverse community of Burnaby North is where I call home. There, we pride ourselves on sustainability. We bike. We take transit. We buy local.

For the Burnaby Heights and Capitol Hill neighbourhoods, a connection to the Hastings corridor is essential. Citizens rely on this busy street for everything from groceries to health care.

For the past 13 years community shuttles have provided transit service, linking local residents with Hastings, the Kootenay bus loop and a commercial area with more than 350 businesses and 40 medical facilities.

When the shuttles were first introduced, they significantly lowered costs and reduced traffic congestion. Over the years they have become a vital and treasured service for the families, students and more than 2,000 seniors living in the community.

Unfortunately, the service is somehow in jeopardy. TransLink has proposed a reconfiguration of the C1 and C2 routes, as well as a reduction in frequency from shuttle service every 30 minutes to every 60.

Any change would greatly impact residents and businesses. Shoppers rely on this service for access to businesses. Seniors rely on it for access to medical care. These shuttles connect our region and provide a sense of community. Changing the route will make it more difficult for residents to access local businesses and services and create a separation between neighbourhoods.

This is an essential service. On behalf of my constituents, I look forward to working with TransLink to keep transit user-friendly for Burnaby North.

YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR DELTA SOUTH MLA

V. Huntington: During introductions I acknowledged five of the young people who volunteer their time and intellect to provide their MLA a point of view this House so often lacks — the energy, perspective and personal experience of our youth.

The genesis of the Delta South Youth Legislative Advisory Council was accidental. Over the last four years a number of high school students had made appointments with me to discuss various issues. Many were do-
[ Page 12927 ]
ing school assignments. One was making a video for his graduation ceremony. Another pursued a discussion started during my visit to his civics class. Each student was a self-starter, intelligent, articulate and engaged.

Some time ago my office contacted these young people to ask if they would participate in a discussion of issues not only important to youth but to others, from the perspective of youth. Some of these students were now in their first year of university. Others were in grade 12. They all said yes, and they all came to my office on a Friday evening. They stayed late, and we ate a lot of pizza, and we had an extraordinary conversation.

By the end of the evening we had decided to create a standing council of youth, and I was a proud and very impressed MLA. The students created a Facebook page to ease communication. Together they decided that the name of the advisory group should be the Delta South Youth Legislative Advisory Council — to which name, I hasten to add, the Clerk kindly consented.

Our first discussion surrounded the critical issues of democracy and education. Out of the discussion came advice on school curricula that is truly valuable and which I hope to share with this House. It is an honour to thank my youth legislative advisory council for the contribution they are making to our society.

[1400]

My office has a full agenda for them today, and I think they will enjoy this exploration of the parliament of their province.

DOWNTOWN MAPLE RIDGE
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION

M. Dalton: Driving through downtown Maple Ridge a few days ago with my wife Marlene, we remarked on its positive transformation over the past few years.

This hasn't happened by accident. A great deal of the credit goes to the Downtown Maple Ridge Business Improvement Association, or BIA. Created in 2007, the BIA exists to encourage and promote business in the downtown area through cooperative projects such as festivals, safety initiatives, street design, cleanup, graffiti prevention, street lighting, facade upgrades and holiday decorations. Our BIA provides regular merchant networking, trading opportunities and mural projects, and they even loan umbrellas to shoppers.

Maple Ridge's BIA has 700 members, and their participation has made it a very effective organization. The BIA won western Canada's Best in the West Award a couple of years back, and it was runner-up in three categories last year. Many thanks go to the board, including current president Phillip Hartwick, who devote countless volunteer hours for the benefit of members and the community. For the past six years Ineke Boekhorst has provided superb direction as its executive director.

The BIA movement in B.C. began in Gastown in the 1970s, when property owners, businesses and developers worked hard to revitalize the area. Since then, many dozens have sprung up across the province to enhance business and the communities.

The Downtown Maple Ridge BIA is a great example of their success. In conjunction with the district, the downtown core has become a vibrant place to be, with over 70 events and festivals. There is always something happening, whether it's Caribbean days, the lantern festival or a farmers market. As visitors and residents are drawn to Maple Ridge's centre, local merchants become more prosperous, employment increases, and our community becomes more connected. It's a win-win for everyone.

ENERGY CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
IN ROSSLAND

K. Conroy: The city of Rossland has been on a diet — an energy diet — and the results have been an unqualified success. Rossland is a community of just over 3,500 nestled high in the Monashee Mountains, home to the famous Red Mountain Resort, recently designated by the New York Times as one of the top ten spots in the world to visit. In December it was crowned, along with the city of Nelson, the best ski town in North America.

Cold winters and lots of snow initiated the drive behind the energy diet. Here are some of the stats. Two hundred and fifty-seven homeowners signed up to participate, and 135 invested in significant home improvements and accessed rebate programs through LiveSmart. That's about 24 percent energy savings per household, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 tonnes annually. Thirty-five small businesses received free lighting retrofits. FortisBC says each business will save about $800 a year.

In a December snowstorm over 230 people exchanged incandescent lightbulbs for energy-efficient ones, and over 1,400 energy-efficient mini-kits were distributed to households by the Girl Guides. It is estimated that the residents of Rossland invested $1.6 million and created 20 to 30 jobs over the six-month period of the campaign.

In order to make this happen, there were a lot of people and groups involved. The initiators of the diet were the Rossland Sustainability Commission and local residents Steve Ash, Aaron Cosbey, Ann Damude and Terry Miller. Their tenacity and enthusiasm were a big part of what made this program so successful.

The mayor, council members and staff are also very supportive, along with the Columbia Basin Trust and the Nelson and District Credit Union. And of course, there's FortisBC and the incredible FortisBC Kootenay team, who managed all the details and coordinated the efforts — Shelly Hastay, Suzanne Stansbury and Doug Lamminen. Your dedication, whether in answering questions or arranging energy assessments, was and is really appreciated throughout our region.
[ Page 12928 ]

I hope this example inspires more communities to get on board with future energy diets. It's good for the environment, the economy and the sustainability of healthy communities — although not, unfortunately, with the support of LiveSmart.

Oral Questions

BALANCED BUDGET AND
BUDGET PRIORITIES

A. Dix: Yesterday the Minister of Finance rose and acknowledged that there may be "some skepticism" among members of the public about whether this is in fact a balanced budget. Actually, hon. Speaker, I don't think the public is skeptical at all. They know this isn't a balanced budget.

[1405]

In fact, it's the Liberals' fifth deficit budget in a row: $150 million pushed into a prior fiscal year; the second annual budget that depends on one-time revenues from the Little Mountain Housing sale — perhaps a new Liberal tradition; one-time asset sales of $450 million; forcing B.C. Hydro to borrow money to pay the province a dividend; unfunded commitments by the Premier. If all that's not troubling enough, budgets that contain unsustainable cuts in the basic services required by people — seniors, families, people with disabilities that depend on those things, which the government will not detail and will attempt not to detail in advance of the election.

How can the Minister of Finance go out and spend taxpayers' dollars on a partisan Liberal ad campaign claiming a balanced budget when this budget isn't balanced at all?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm grateful, but I'll resist the invitation from the hon. Leader of the Opposition to repeat what I said at length yesterday in introducing the budget.

Tough decisions. Balancing the budget is not easy. It is a concept that members opposite are eminently unfamiliar with, I grant you. But this budget, as I said, does withstand scrutiny. It withstands scrutiny of an economic forecast council, upon which the revenue projections are based, and the added scrutiny of an eminent economist who was brought in to review those projections and actually added value by pointing out an area where improvements needed to be made and were made.

It is a budget that will withstand scrutiny on the spending side, based on a track record, particularly since the Great Recession hit a few years ago, of spending that shows we can exercise discipline. But balancing the budget is dependent on one thing, first and foremost. That is the political will to do it, and we have that will.

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

A. Dix: Well, I think the minister misunderstands what is tough in this budget. It's not tough to spend $16 million you said you wouldn't spend on partisan ads. It's not tough to spend $11 million on an awards pageant on the eve of the election. That's not tough.

Who this is tough for is adults with developmental disabilities, who will face, in this budget, cuts — all of them — to their supports. Page 130 of the budget — just so we're referencing these things. That's who it is tough for.

This is 2009 all over again, where the government claimed a deficit of $495 million — maximum — a week before the election and proved to be multiple times that afterwards. This is the same as 2009, when the government said, "No cuts to health care here," and then after the election imposed cuts to services to people that mattered.

If it's a tough budget, it should apply to the government too. Will the minister withdraw his ad campaign — not spend that money — claiming a balanced budget, which does not exist, in fact?

[1410]

Hon. M. de Jong: There's something else that's difficult. That is moving beyond a pattern — at least a four-year pattern — of nothing but criticism and moving to reveal at a crucial time in advance of the next election the Leader of the Opposition's option, vision, because we hear it in bits and pieces.

We have disclosed ours in detail, are answerable for it and, in fact, are proud of delivering a balanced budget. But what do British Columbians have upon which to base their decision from the opposition thus far? The hon. opposition critic opining, "Well, we might get around to balancing the budget in four or five years" — four or five years. "Tomorrow, tomorrow, we'll balance tomorrow." It's Little Orphan Annie fiscal policy from the opposition.

We heard the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill this morning, when asked a direct question in an interview: "Well, what's your policy on taxation as it relates to corporations?" "Well," she said, without daring to want to commit to anything, "you know, we've talked about 2 percent."

The time for that kind of airy-fairy speculation is over. I understand they're not going to support our balanced budget, but let's hear their version.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: I'm surprised to hear the minister talk about corporate taxes. I'm surprised. I understand….

I recall his speech — I'm sure he does — when I said 18 months ago what we were going to do specifically on
[ Page 12929 ]
that question, and all the things he said. "It would drive investment from the province." And now the only things they can find to staunch their credibility gap are some of my plans. So I think it's probably the case in a few months that the public will tell them to get out of the way and have us implement what we're planning to do.

But to present, as they did in 2009, a budget so disrespectful of people who require services in B.C., a budget where they fail to detail the extraordinary cuts to adults with developmental disabilities, the extraordinary cuts to health services, just like they did in 2009, is simply unacceptable.

So the Minister of Finance would like to answer questions? Here's a question: why don't you cut the public advertising that is designed to promote the Liberal Party? Why is it okay to reduce the funding for adults with developmental disabilities and not cut Liberal Party propaganda?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I must confess I am always obliged to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for the advice he is prepared to offer. It is, I must confess, sometimes confusing and often inconsistent.

He offered this advice back in November on some program called The World Today. "There is a role for government advertising, typically around a government's budget. They inform the public around what's in the budget. These are normal advertisements that the government does."

[1415]

I understand that that was then and this is now, and 2001 was then and this is now.

This is a budget that I am already, as I'm sure many members are, receiving positive feedback about on the fact that we have had the courage to stand up and give the straight goods to British Columbians about the money we have and the money we don't have, and how we are allocating that in defence of families and advancing the cause of families and young children and ensuring that, through a $1,200 grant, they will have the resources they need to advance their skills training and education when they graduate.

That's the power of savings. That's contained in this budget, and that is going to serve British Columbians well in the future.

BUDGET REVENUES FROM
SALE OF GOVERNMENT ASSETS

B. Ralston: It's interesting to hear the Minister of Finance reflect upon advertising. Premier Campbell, when he was in power, directed that there be no government advertising four months before the election. Oh, how times have changed on the other side.

Former senior bank economist Don Drummond said when speaking of asset sales: "Do not count chickens before they are hatched. If assets are to be sold, never incorporate any revenue from such planned sales into a budget before the fact." That's in fact exactly what the Minister of Finance has done in crafting his bogus budget.

He's booked over $800 million in asset sales in the coming fiscal year, which could be delayed or blocked for any number of reasons. Why won't the minister simply admit that his budget is, in truth, deeply in deficit?

Hon. M. de Jong: Dare I refer back, again, to records of other performance? The document I have is the budget for '97. What's the line I'm looking at? Oh my, asset dispositions — in fact, to an amount that would exceed $250 million.

The point is this. An operation the size of government, holding the number of assets that it does, sells them from time to time for very sound, appropriate reasons — particularly when they are surplus. Those sales are recorded. They are disclosed so that the public knows what has been sold. In this case we have actually brought that together and disclosed in group in an open and transparent way.

The properties that I talked about yesterday…. The member may think it makes sense to hold on to a property that was purchased in Surrey for a hospital that is now being built elsewhere. We on this side of the House think the private sector deserves to have access to that property to generate jobs and economic activity in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: The $300 million sale of the Little Mountain housing project land in Vancouver has served a double duty. It served as a line item in two previous budgets, and in November it was moved into this fiscal year, which can signify only one of two things. Either the government is shifting revenue from last year into this year to help balance the so-called bogus budget, or it's proof that their key asset sales take longer than the government ordinarily is prepared to admit and will not result in revenue in the fiscal year that we're talking about.

Will the minister agree that the $800 million budgeted for asset sales means, in fact, the budget is deeply in deficit?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: Not only will I not agree with the member's proposition; I will hasten to point out to him that the budget that was tabled yesterday includes a projected surplus of just below $200 million, a forecast allowance in excess of $200 million, a contingency fund in excess of $200 million. It was based on prudent financial projections at a level that will withstand any reasonable scrutiny.

If the member wonders why I'm having a little bit of difficulty taking his criticisms seriously, it's because when
[ Page 12930 ]
he is asked a direct question — based on all of the available data, based on all of the work that I'm certain the opposition has done over the last number of months — the best answer he can give today to a fundamental question about when he and a government he is part of would balance the budget is: "Maybe in four or five years."

That's not good enough. It's not good enough for British Columbians.

BUDGET REVENUES AND
FINANCIAL REPORTING BY B.C. HYDRO

J. Horgan: Bogus budget 2013 books a net income for B.C. Hydro of $545 million. In his report B.C. Hydro: The Effects of Rate-Regulated Accounting Auditor John Doyle said: "Over the last decade the impact of deferrals has been to consistently increase Hydro's reported net income." He went on to further say: "It creates the appearance of profitability where none actually exists."

When he did that report, the deferral account stood at $2.5 billion. As of the third quarterly report released yesterday, it's now $4.2 billion. We know we have 5,200 gigawatts of energy that we bought at $125 a megawatt hour, and based on the material assumptions in the minister's budget, we can sell it on the spot market for $29.

What conjurer's trick are you using to book $245 million of dividend from B.C. Hydro when clearly none exists?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two aspects to this question. First of all, I have heard, at various times and in various ways, the criticism that relates to the transference of dividends as an artificial means of adjusting upwards the bottom line. I think the member knows that is simply not the case — that that is simply incorrect to say.

I have also heard and read some of the reports that the member refers to around the use of deferral accounts, particularly the need to have a plausible plan in place going forward to retire those deferral accounts. The use of deferral accounts is a longstanding and, I am advised, accepted accounting practice.

I also understand that there is another narrative at play here — an opposition who are looking at the calendar, thinking before the population has even had an opportunity to cast a vote that they are preordained to move to this side of the House.

British Columbians deserve to make a choice based on a complete set of information. They have our information. They have our plan. Let's see what the opposition has to offer.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Certainly, the public would prefer to have accurate information to base those judgments on, and clearly, bogus budget doesn't cut it.

Again, a direct question specific to the dividend from B.C. Hydro. How is it possible to increase the debt of B.C. Hydro to well over $14 billion, to go from zero to $4 billion in eight years in deferral accounts and to create the appearance of profitability where none exists? You've got a massive amount of energy you can't give away, and somehow you want us and the people of B.C. to believe that you found $245 million in a dividend.

It makes no sense, Minister. Try and explain it. Use small words, if it'll help you. Go ahead. Give it a try.

[1425]

Hon. M. de Jong: British Columbians understand this. They understand that the B.C. Hydro corporation has served the interests of the province well. They understand that B.C. Hydro has developed generating capacity in this province in a way that not only serves our needs but provides us with the ability to export in a way that benefits all British Columbians.

They also understand that there are debt-to-equity requirements in place that govern the degree to which dividends can be paid out of the corporation. And they also understand this — that in order to make a proper decision next coming May, they need a complete set of information not just from the government but from the group that purports to want to replace the government.

We know where we stand — a balanced budget that has withstood scrutiny from any number of sources. But the opposition, for some perverse and bizarre reason, has their plan locked away in a vault and doesn't want to share it with British Columbians.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
HEALTH CARE SERVICES

M. Farnworth: What the people of British Columbia remember is bogus budget 2009, and now they're really concerned about bogus budget 2013.

In bogus budget 2013 the Liberal government has cut the projected increase in spending on health care by $233 million, a quarter-billion-dollar effective cut to health care. It will mean cancelled surgeries, less innovation, longer wait-lists and more.

Health care costs money, and the impact of this government is going to mean less services for the people of British Columbia — absolutely.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Farnworth: That's been the record. How can the Health Minister defend a budget that will negatively impact the health care of the people of British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am actually grateful to my friend
[ Page 12931 ]
the critic for raising the issue, because I think it's an important discussion to have. I think it represents an important point of delineation.

The member, perhaps going back to his days as a former Health Minister, seems to equate health care and a successful health care program purely and exclusively with how much you spend. That is a false analysis, and what proves that is health outcomes here in British Columbia.

We have taken spending that has grown in health care from 6 percent, which everyone acknowledged was unsustainable. I'll bet I can find quotes where the hon. member says that growth at that rate was unsustainable, and we have taken it down. Each time we have, people have said: "You can't do that."

The budget for health care over the next three years goes up $2.4 billion. Now, I'm going to sit down, and I'm going to listen, because I know that my learned friend over there is going to explain to me and convince me how a $2.4 billion increase actually represents a cut.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: It's not me he has to try and convince. It's the public that this government burned once before in 2009, when they said: "Oh, don't worry. Our health care budget will meet the challenges of health care in this province." What happened after the election? It was cut in service, cut in service, cut in service to the people of the province of British Columbia.

What this budget fails to acknowledge is realities in health care: the realities of demographic change, the realities of tech change, the realities of just basic inflation, never mind any agreements with nurses — all the cost pressures on this budget.

[1430]

This budget is unrealistic, and this government knows it. How can they table a budget that they know will result, after an election, in cuts, cuts, cuts?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can't say I'm shocked today to learn that the opposition, via the critic, have decided that a $2.4 billion increase in the health care budget is insufficient. I'm not shocked about that. What I guess my question is, is: if not $2.4 billion, then how much — $3 billion, $3.4 billion, $4.4 billion?

We look at the outcomes we have achieved in British Columbia. We look at the innovation that has been put in place. We look at the use we are now making of nurse practitioners, in ways that weren't envisioned just a few years ago. We look at the cost savings that have accrued as a result of smarter procurement around generic drugs.

What the member and his colleagues apparently have convinced themselves to ignore is that the only way to achieve better outcomes for healthy British Columbians is to spend more money.

Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you this. You can continue to advocate growth in the health care budget at some rate that the member refuses to disclose, and it will impact on every other public service that British Columbians expect and deserve.

We say no. We say that you can employ technology, you can employ innovation and you can bring some control to a health care budget and still deliver the best health care in the country.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
SERVICES TO VULNERABLE CHILDREN

C. Trevena: It seems like this government is also saying no to the most vulnerable children as well. We've had two years of flatline budgets for the Ministry of Children and Families.

Last week the Minister of Children and Families accepted all the recommendations from the children's representative report into the tragic case of the tasering of an 11-year-old boy. She said that she would immediately move to open six beds for children with complex special needs and provide other services.

My question is this. If she promised to create six beds and provide those extra services, where exactly is this money going to come from in this bogus flatline budget and what other cuts are going to come in its place?

Hon. S. Cadieux: I'd like to thank the member opposite for raising this. I did immediately accept all of the recommendations in the rep's report, because that was a tragic situation that clearly not one member of this House would accept.

I said that we would move immediately to open six new beds at the Maples Treatment Centre for children with complex behavioural needs, and we're going to do it.

We are moving forward. We've found the money. And do you know why? Because we're redesigning how we deliver residential services for children in our care. We are doing that because there is a better way to do things, and we're doing it within our means. Frankly, without the opportunity to grow the economy and without the opportunity to ensure that our budget is balanced, that we can maintain our credit rating, there is absolutely no way we can invest more money in the services that we all feel are absolutely essential.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

N. Simons: Last week I think people in the community living sector were disappointed when the throne speech had no mention of how this government was going to try to repair the credibility gap that they created with CLBC. Then with the budget, that disappointment has turned to shock when we see actual day programs, residential pro-
[ Page 12932 ]
grams and personal support initiatives all being cut over the next three years. If this is the government's response to the crisis in community living, it's shocking.

[1435]

When the Minister of Finance says, "I'm sorry. I can't afford it…." I'd like the minister to tell that to the family watching these ads, these partisan ads repeated over and over, when they are struggling to get by on a day-to-day basis.

This budget beats up on the families of people with developmental disabilities, and that side knows it. When will this government respect the fact that these people need support and stop spending money on useless ad campaigns?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's unfortunate that the member assigns, apparently, such little value to some of the initiatives that were included in the budget. If he thinks back, I think he will acknowledge that I said at the outset that given our commitment to achieve balance in the budget, the new spending was admittedly modest, and certainly modest by pre-election standards in this province dating back some decades.

But to suggest that the funds that are being advanced and allocated to assist families with early childhood learning, daycare, the education skills-training initiatives…. That represents real money that people can put to work on behalf of their children. Apparently, the member dismisses them as being insignificant. I don't. We don't.

As I am learning from correspondence and contact around the province, families are grateful, accept the fact and applaud the fact — applaud the fact — that the government is managing the provincial books in precisely the same way they have to manage their households.

[End of question period.]

Introductions by Members

D. Hayer: I have 55 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy. One part of the class was here earlier. The second class is here right now. They are from Pacific Academy, one of the best schools in Canada, in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

They're here to learn about how government works, because some of them might want to run for politics. A couple of them said they want to run for Prime Minister or Premier or an MLA, or one said for mayor.

They're here with their parents, and they are joined by their teachers Rick Bath and Nancy Bakken and 33 parent volunteers who have taken time away from their families to join them here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

K. Corrigan: I rise to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

K. Corrigan: This is a petition sponsored by Better Schools B.C., signed by 173 concerned citizens calling for a comprehensive and accountable child poverty reduction plan.

Reports from Committees

M. McNeil: I have the honour to present the interim report of the Select Standing Committee on Health for the fourth session of the 39th parliament.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

M. McNeil: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

M. McNeil: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

The Select Standing Committee on Health's interim report summarizes the committee's work from June 22, 2011, to October 31, 2012, as it examined the projected impact on our health care system of an aging population. The committee concluded that the demographic trends are only one of the many cost drivers in health care.

On behalf of all the committee members, current and past, I would also like to recognize the work of the former Chair of the committee, the current Minister of Agriculture. Without his dedication, passion and enthusiasm, this report would not have been possible. I would also like to thank the committee members who gave their time to contribute to the production of this report.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to rise and speak to the report and to thank the committee Chair for her remarks, as well as to thank previous Chairs of the committee — the member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

[1440]

It was a very interesting experience. I think the committee found it really useful and very informative. In fact, I think one of the key findings of the report is the impact of the aging of seniors on our health care system of about 1 percent a year.

This is just the first stage. There's a lot more work to be done, and I hope that we are able to do that in the future.

I just want to thank the members of the committee for making such an effort to put out this report.
[ Page 12933 ]

M. McNeil: I move the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling the Final Report of the 2010 British Columbia Judges Compensation Commission. As members may recall, the assembly first addressed this report in May of 2011 by unanimously endorsing the response brought forward by government. Following a judicial review of that response, I am obliged to table the report again.

Pursuant to the Judicial Compensation Act, I also advise the House that under section 6(3) of that act, if the assembly does not resolve to reject any of the recommendations contained in the report within the timelines established in the act, then the judges will receive the salaries and benefits recommended in the report. Accordingly, the government intends in the coming days to table in this House its response to the report.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

D. Routley: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise and reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

B. Ralston: Before I begin, perhaps I can just wait a moment until members have the opportunity to….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

B. Ralston: I wish to continue my remarks, which I began yesterday, and make some comments about the budget that was presented in the House yesterday.

The Finance Minister makes a claim — certainly, it's on the front cover of the budget — that it's balanced, and I propose to examine that claim in some detail. I expect to come to the conclusion after the analysis that I've done that the budget is not balanced. In fact, it's the fifth consecutive deficit budget that this government has tabled here in this House.

I think it's important to begin with that context because it clearly sets the challenge that the government faces both in terms of making the claim and in terms of the credibility of that claim.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The projected deficit in the third quarterly report, which was tabled with the budget yesterday — that is the third quarterly report which reports on its projection of the deficit to year-end, March 31, next month — is approximately $1.2 billion. The claim that's being made on the other side is that we have gone from…. We are expected or asked to believe that we've gone from a $1.2 billion deficit to around a $200 million surplus. That is a momentous shift in the finances of the province.

That might have been credible if we were back in the time when we were at the top of the resource supercycle back in 2006 or 2007, when world markets were humming and resource prices were at all-time highs and resource revenue, on which the province still depends very much, was rolling in. Clearly, those economic circumstances have changed, and we're no longer in that position. So it makes it difficult to accept, particularly in the current context.

[1445]

Now, I'll discuss somewhat further the economic situation of the province. There are economists — respected economists such as Jock Finlayson — who've talked about the economic circumstances of the province in recent months. I've attended some of those presentations, and there are some comments that I'll offer arising out of those presentations.

I'd like, first, to begin with the issue of asset sales. The government in its budget last year…. The previous Minister of Finance, who continues to be the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, presented a budget in which he projected in the three-year fiscal plan $475 million in revenue for the fiscal year coming up and slightly over $200 million in the subsequent fiscal year.

In a plan that he talked about on page 53 of last year's budget, he said that he expected the province would net approximately $700 million over the fiscal, planned period on the disposal of a portion of those properties and assets. The fiscal, planned period is a period of three years, and in fact, that number of $700 million appears to have grown. The number now projected for this year is $800 million, including the Little Mountain sale — a movable feast which was previously slated to be counted as revenue in the previous fiscal year and, indeed, in the year before that.

So it's not clear. It's not publicly disclosed why this asset is moved forward. Obviously, these are complex negotiations, but certainly, that maybe had something to do with the relationship between the developer and the province and the sense of when the sale will be recognized. It may have something to do with the rezoning process in Vancouver. I'm not entirely sure, because
[ Page 12934 ]
there's not a great deal of public information on that file.

Nonetheless, the result is that in the last quarterly report the disposition of the proceeds of that sale were moved into this fiscal year. Whether it will result in a sale or not, such that it can be recognized properly in the coming fiscal year, remains to be seen.

At that time, the then Minister of Finance talked about 100 properties, and he disclosed three. The list, he said, was confidential for proprietary reasons. I'm not entirely clear why, although he did say that the list had been disclosed in its entirety to the rating agencies in New York that spring. So approximately a year ago the rating agencies were given the list and some of the, I suppose, likely sale prices or an estimation of sale prices.

What then took place was that the government, out of contingency, allocated $5 million to begin the process of appraising and preparing the properties for sale and, I suppose, commissioning studies of the value of the properties and assessing their suitability for sale. Apparently, that process is ongoing.

What we did then receive in this budget is a further statement of what those properties are. There's a bit more disclosure, although we're far from a list of 100 properties. Apparently, the list continues. Approximately ten properties are styled, in the note on page 43, as on the market or where 2013-14 agreements are in process.

One assumes that for properties that may have been sold, the completion date for the purposes of recognizing the revenue is beyond April 1. It's not clear when the interim agreements were signed. There's not that level of disclosure.

The minister says it's open and transparent, so perhaps that's forthcoming. I haven't seen it yet. No one has provided it to me. No documents have been tabled in the Legislature. No news releases have been issued. So it's not entirely clear what the timing is on those transactions.

[1450]

Certainly, given the wish of the vendor, the province, to have those sales recognized in the fiscal year coming, one can well imagine that that's a completion date that could be pushed forward months for the fiscal convenience of the Minister of Finance's budget. Perhaps that's what was done. I don't know. That will be disclosed when the documents are released, I'm sure.

The other columns. There are about ten properties there that are in that list of "currently on the market" or where 2013-14 agreements are in process. Then there is talk of other properties to be marketed — the Pearson-Dogwood health centre, North Saanich Middle School, a six-hectare vacant lot in the Panorama neighbourhood in Surrey, the parking lot across the street from the Legislature and a seven-acre site north of Kelowna that was tentatively held for the new correctional facility.

That last reference is one of the three properties that was disclosed back in last year's budget. It's being, I suppose, redisclosed or disclosed again or listed again, but apparently, it hasn't moved into the category of a property that's on the market or where there's a 2013-14 agreement in process.

Those are the properties. Relative to what took place and was announced a year ago, there is relatively slow progress, it would be fair to say, given the fact that there has been a year to engage in this process. As part of the budget preparation process, this process began in the fall of 2011 in order to be ready for the budget in February 2012. We're now a year from that date, and we have a disclosure of ten properties and another five that are being considered.

That very timetable illustrates the problem inherent in this process. It's certainly routine for government to acquire property and to sell property. No one is disputing that. But what is unique about this program is its claim that it is going to specifically provide revenue for a 12-month window in the fiscal life of the province that is next budget year. It's one thing for the government to enter that number into the budget. It's quite another thing to realize. Given that we're very close to an election, I suppose there's not a great deal of anxiety about the reality of that or not.

Anyone who has had a real estate agent put a for-sale sign on the front lawn of their house or a sign in the window of their condo knows that that's only the first step in a sale. One can wait in a slow market a very long time, if ever. So there are inherent difficulties and uncertainties in that.

It's notable that the deputy minister and secretary to the Treasury Board, Mr. Milburn, is obliged by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to list his qualifications or, I suppose, comments on the budget as a whole. He says this about the sale of surplus corporate assets. That's what he calls it. "Revenue to be realized on the sale of surplus corporate assets is dependent on a successful marketing program, a continuation of current market condition and completed sales."

What he's saying is that it'll work if you sell property, but if they don't, it won't work, which is, I would have thought, a tautology, an obvious fact. But it doesn't really inspire a great deal of confidence, in the sense that his reservation is almost completely qualified and he doesn't hold out any certainty in that statement that the program will be realized.

[1455]

Given the careful and precise choice of language by the deputy minister, that suggests to me that there is some justifiable skepticism at the senior level in the Ministry of Finance as to whether this $800 million marked in the budget can actually be pulled off, so to speak. So that is, I think, an important qualification, given that $800 million is a substantial amount in anyone's fiscal life and, really, almost key to the realization of the alleged balance in the budget.

The other thing that's worth noting is that in the ori-
[ Page 12935 ]
ginal list of real estate assets to be sold, listed by the minister back in 2012 on the note at page 53 in that budget, it's also added that the government "has recently announced its intention to sell the liquor distribution warehousing facilities and associated distribution services to the private sector."

That's in the note. I'm quoting from the budget. Obviously, that sale has been abandoned. From the note and the very sketchy information that has been revealed so far, it's not clear whether some money was allocated in the column for the sale of surplus assets, the $475 million, in the first year or the $230 million in the second year — whether any of that was attributed to the sale of the Liquor Distribution Branch. The budget is silent on that issue.

Given the lack of disclosure in detail about the list of assets…. We only have 15 of the 100 assets now, while we're, if the preparation time is counted, over 15 months into the process — so not the most open and transparent government in the history of British Columbia, despite the claim that's sometimes made.

This issue is important enough and pivotal enough to the budget that, really, I think it's incumbent upon the government to make a fuller disclosure. Don't be shy. Tell us what's going on. But so far, that hasn't happened.

Let me further talk about the Pearson-Dogwood redevelopment project in Vancouver. This is a major piece of property in the city of Vancouver. It's about 25 acres. It's a block and a half or maybe two blocks from the Canada Line station at 49th and Cambie. There are highrise apartments — Langara Gardens, I believe they're called — that have been there for some time. So this is ideally situated for major redevelopment and certainly subject to the zoning process in Vancouver — a potential vast increase in the value of the property.

There is a note in this year's fiscal plan which is interesting. It's somewhat ambiguous. It says: "The 25-acre redevelopment project will potentially result in a complete community that could offer a range of complex care, residential care, supported- and assisted-living options, community amenities, and affordable and market housing." It's not clear whether it's intended to sell this to the private sector and then have these facilities built or not.

One looks to major pension funds like the Canada Pension fund. There's a corporation that manages the investment assets of the Canada Pension Plan. There's also one that manages the $90 billion or so in pension assets here in British Columbia. They invest long term for the future benefit of those who would receive pensions. They invest long term in real estate. Real estate assets — those are part of their portfolio.

One would think that a prudent government, looking to the future cost of health care, might see this strategically located 25-acre site of possible redevelopment in the city of Vancouver….

[1500]

One might think that they might reserve that to the government or an agency of the Crown or a partnership of which the controlling interest was held by the province to redevelop and reap the long-term benefits in the increase in value that would result from an upzoning and a potential stream of income well into the future that could result in long-term funding to assist with some of the costs of government and, particularly, of health care.

That doesn't appear to be the plan here, although again, it's very sketchy. The government doesn't seem to want to provide a lot of detail. That may be because they haven't thought that far ahead. It may be because they have no intention of doing that.

But certainly, the opportunity to take that property, to develop it, to hold it in a real estate trust with its income being for the benefit of the province or the ministry in the long run as a stream of income — much as a pension plan would hold key real estate assets; much as BCIMC, the Investment Management Corporation, does or the Canada Pension Plan does or the Alberta pension plan does….

They invest in real estate properties just like that for the benefit of their pensioners, so it would seem to be a logical and rational future investment decision that the province could make, rather than simply lining up and selling this off. Without a strategy on that, at least to capture the value that would be created by the rezoning, it seems very shortsighted indeed to take the property in that direction.

But there may be those on the government side who will clarify this issue for me. I'm always hopeful. Even after seven years here I'm always hopeful that when I ask a question like that, it will be clarified for me. Sometimes that happens. Most of the time it doesn't. But I'm hopeful that that will happen.

I think the key thing here is that the so-called balance that is spoken of is dependent upon the sale and realized sale in a 12-month span of time of $800 million in real estate assets. That is reasonable. I think it's eminently reasonable to be skeptical about that, and that shows the relatively unstable and unpredictable foundation on which the so-called balanced budget is built. It's certainly something that the public, when I talk to them, really are skeptical about.

We shall see, doubtlessly — perhaps in the time that remains. I don't know. Maybe there'll be government ads that'll be talking about selling government property. I don't know. Maybe that's part of a marketing plan. Maybe they'll tie it in with the television commercials and use market property as well to help to sell the budget — maybe even pay for the ads. I don't know. One could think of some commercial possibilities there that I'm sure are being thought up over there. But we'll see.

Now, I want to leave this topic just on that note — that this is a very shaky foundation. This is not something that withstands a lot of scrutiny. It's a faith-based exercise. It's:
[ Page 12936 ]
"Trust us; believe us." And frankly, without any detail, given that amount of money, most people don't believe this assertion in the budget. For that reason alone, this budget is not balanced.

Interjection.

B. Ralston: Go ahead. Applaud. That would be nice.

I thought that there was applause on the other side there for a moment, Madam Speaker. I know that things are a little rocky inside the caucus over there, but open applause for the Finance critic? That would be unprecedented. But you never know. It's a changing time.

M. Farnworth: The truth shall set them free.

B. Ralston: Yes. Or May 15 will set them free.

Now, I want to talk, also, next about the report of Mr. O'Neill, who was hired to come in and offer an opinion. He did two weeks' worth of work, received a payment, I think, of $25,000, which is a tidy sum for a couple weeks of work, and offered an opinion on revenue.

[1505]

But I think one should be clear about what…. There is an effort by some of those in the government, MLAs, and some in the media, who perhaps didn't read the full report, to characterize this as something that it's not.

First of all, clearly — and he says this up front — it is not an audit. There's an aversion on that side to the results of audits. We know that's why they stepped in and fired the Auditor General. But this is not an audit, so that was apparently an acceptable form of financial examination to them.

He looked at the modelling, or the way in which the standard system, by which it's a computer program, by which results of the budget are modelled in the B.C. economy.

He talked to some of the ministries and their specialized forecasting units — because one can imagine that different resource ministries monitor the expected or actual price of the commodities that they administer, whether it's the Ministry of Natural Resources on gas prices or the secretary of state for mines — and he looked at some assumptions about revenue.

He didn't examine in any detail Crown corporations. The only reference to Crown corporations is in a table on page 15 of the report, where they talk about revenue change from the budget.

But in terms of digging into the sources of revenue or the variables that would affect revenue in, for example, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Lotteries, the Liquor Distribution Branch or — there's one final one — ICBC…. Those big four Crown corporations last year generated over $2.8 billion in revenue. He didn't look at those. That wasn't part of his mandate.

He looked at a fairly conventional array of mainstream indicators of economic growth or not — prices and things like that.

But one thing that he did say, which I was struck by. One always hates to say I told you so, but I have done this, perhaps irritatingly, on the issue of natural gas prices for some time. I'm sure members of the Legislature will want to indulge me on this point.

What was evident in his report…. He said very clearly — I'm quoting from page 19: "On the other hand, prices have been significantly overestimated in each of the last four years and in six of the last nine years." That's the price of natural gas.

Now, I raised this issue with the previous Minister of Finance, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, back in the spring. Of course, I was roundly thumped and dismissed and told that I was advocating political interference in the revenue estimates of the ministry.

I raised it again with the current Minister of Finance before the Finance and Government Services Committee — the same suggestion that my simple queries from a lowly member of the opposition about the accuracy of these forecasts were somehow really beneath answering. They were an attempt to politically interfere with the good work of people in the Ministry of Finance.

I was pleasantly surprised when this independent economist actually confirmed everything that I'd said, and more besides. So there's doubtlessly some benefit from bringing in the occasional outside expert to assist the minister and lift him from his narrow set of preconceptions about what revenue might be in this sector.

Natural gas is, of course, a notoriously difficult sector in which to predict the price, and it's very volatile. Changes that have been brought about by the fracking technology have revolutionized the natural gas extraction industry around the globe.

[1510]

It is not surprising that in that environment it's difficult to predict the price. That's simply the point that I was trying to make and have finally confirmed, although there was a downgrade of the revenue projections by the Finance Minister in the last quarterly — I think, actually, in the second quarterly — based on the observations that I'd made. That was incorporated into the budget, and quite properly so.

That aside, it's a very conventional analysis and really doesn't, I don't think, add a great deal to the broad consensus on the fairly ordinary measures of the economic activity in the province. It's, I think, an effort to…. With all due respect to Mr. O'Neill, who is certainly the former chief economist with the Bank of Montreal, now retired but consulting — a very respectable, well-regarded, mainstream economist.

The terms of reference that he was given were to focus on some very conventional heads of revenue. He didn't look at expenditure, and it's pretty clear. Apparently, the government's explanation of that was: "Well, expenditure
[ Page 12937 ]
is more or less in the control of the government." How true that is. How true that is.

We've certainly seen some of the evidence of that in the budget, and I'll deal with that later. That's why he didn't deal with that. At least, that was the explanation of the government. This issue of the predictions that are supported by him, I think, is really no surprise.

Now, what the government also goes on to talk about in the budget, and another source of what they claim is another layer of fiscal control or fiscal prudence, is what they call expenditure management. Certainly, there was an imperative created with the collapse of the world economy in 2008, Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Governments around the world were obliged to respond, and the B.C. government was no different.

Premier Campbell went on the television and gave a speech setting out ten points as to the ways in which he was going to deal with the crisis. One of those ten points was the fact that he was going to have a television address and tell people about it. It seemed like he, maybe, was a little short of points, and he had to round it out to ten, but one sometimes understands these necessities in politics.

He and the government did unleash a program of expenditure management. These are all the conventional things that one talks about, that they teach in business school as a matter of course. Focus on reducing unessential travel. Reduce contracts for professional services, reduce accommodation and building charges, and reduce or eliminate discretionary grants.

All of those obvious steps were taken. That's the right thing to do, and that was done. That was, though, in 2009. So the government's claim in the document that's filed and the topic box that's filed with the budgetary papers is that they are continuing to do that.

I commend them for that. I think that's prudent and good public administration. But there is a practical limit to the number of times that one can find those kinds of savings in any budget. So once you've eliminated unnecessary travel, unless you decide to bring it back to better eliminate it again, it's gone as an item, as a topic.

[1515]

If you reduce down your hiring or use of professional services or management consultants, lawyers — professionals who provide services to government on a number of topics…. I know many ministries do engage professionals, and certainly, there are professional services firms that specialize in assisting government on difficult problems.

Sometimes when an extra set of eyes or an additional, more sophisticated approach — or maybe a less sophisticated approach but a different one — is required, those people come in and are hired. But if you grind that number down, after a while you can't do that again.

Similarly, with building charges. I know, for example, that TransLink, which is under some fiscal pressure, is moving its head office and the office of B.C. Transit from its existing headquarters in Burnaby to cheaper headquarters office space in New Westminster — a prudent example of good public administration. They're going to save some money.

But once you've done that and you've signed that new lease which is at a lower rate, you've made that savings. It's built into the budget, and you can't do it again.

Certainly, the same with discretionary grants. If you are in some ministries where there is that choice…. Either the budget is eliminated, or you decline to make any awards of discretionary grants, whether they might be — who knows? — in the ministry of local government, awards to municipalities.

Once you've made the decision not to do that, that's gone. Yet the government claims that they are going to hold spending to a very minimal increase over the next three years, and by that device, they claim that will assist them in reaching their budgetary targets.

So call me skeptical. Call me, perhaps, even unreasonable. I think that the focus on expenses — given simply the rate of inflation, the fact of contract settlements, the need to acquire ongoing equipment — makes those kinds of decisions very difficult to make and to keep within the budget.

I don't dispute the effort, but in my view, the item for expenditure management has been set artificially low, at 1.5 percent, to assist the government in achieving the number that's revealed in the budget. That's largely to assist them with getting over the hurdle of the election with this fiscal picture in mind.

That's the one that they intend…. As we know from the document that was provided to us, I gather from the B.C. Liberal caucus somewhere, the government intends to advertise the budget, to the tune of $4 million, over the next short while.

Perhaps that's something that they'll be trumpeting there, but that's one area that doesn't seem to have experienced the same attention to eliminating unnecessary spending.

This expenditure management, broadly spoken, also is in play — or the same principle is in play — when one looks at the increases in the Health budget. In question period just immediately past the member for Port Coquitlam did raise these very issues about the reality or not of the alleged rate of increase in the Health budget.

Certainly, in the 2012 budget, in the three-year fiscal plan, what was projected was a rate of increase in health spending of 3.2 percent, which has historically been a rate that's difficult to achieve but is, I suppose, one that is well within range in any event. But this year the rate of increase in this budget was reduced to 2.5 percent.

[1520]

As the member for Port Coquitlam, the opposition Health critic, said just moments ago, in order to accommodate reasonable change and the realities of a big ministry like the Ministry of Health, one looks to a number
[ Page 12938 ]
of factors that have to be accommodated and factored into health spending. One is demographic change. That's become a cliché. Everyone recognizes the — although slow-moving, one hopes; at least personally speaking, I do — aging of the population and the increased pressure that brings to health spending.

One also looks to the pace of the change of technology. New medical devices, new equipment, are invented and manufactured, and there is a wish in a contemporary health system to take advantage of those opportunities. That costs money. It costs money to acquire those — say, such as MRIs — but it also requires money to operate them.

In addition, beyond demographic change and technological change, there are changes in the cost of prescription drugs. The government has commendably adopted yet another policy, put forward very vigorously by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Health critic, which is to renegotiate the arrangement for the payment of generic drugs and, in fact, get the same deal that Ontario arrived at independently, which was generic drugs as a lower percentage of the cost of prescription drugs than British Columbia had obtained in its own negotiation.

In fact, that's what was done, and so there is some benefit. That is incremental and by no means explains all of the change, but certainly, that is a cost that's recognized in the health system.

Finally, the cost of hiring the people that do the work in the health sector, whether it's physicians; whether it's hospital workers who keep the hospital and care facilities clean and germ-free in an environment where that's obviously very important when people are ill and their immunity systems are lower; whether it's health professionals — dietitians, nutritionists, radiologists, profusionists — all the group of professionals who deliver services in the hospital; or whether it's nurses and practical nurses who obviously deliver care in the health system, whether in acute care hospitals or long-term hospitals.

The Ministry of Health is particularly intense in its labour costs. That's something that has to be looked at.

Really, when one looks at the budget that's put forward, it's not a question, as the Minister of Finance seemed to want to suggest, that somehow the issue was advocacy of spending more for money's sake alone — more for more's sake alone. That's not what we're advocating.

On the other hand, given the complex needs of the system and the real pressures of the system, it's difficult to conceive in the present environment that at the rate of increase that's budgeted, the services that are available now can continue to be delivered in the same way.

Certainly, there's room for innovation, and some innovations have been made, although I hear in my travels and from the people I discuss with that the level of intermediate management in the health authorities has expanded far beyond what used to take place at the hospital level years ago. I'm not able to objectively evaluate that suggestion. There may be some management savings that could be made there.

Nonetheless, the firm view of people who understand the health system is that the present budget won't accommodate the needs of the system. In an article in the Vancouver Sun the president of the Nurses Union has said:

[1525]

"With the government's determination to limit the growth of health spending in the upcoming years to even less than the historical lows they forecast in last year's budget" — so there's a reference to reducing even from last year — "there's no improvement in store for seniors or in already underserviced areas such as mental health or home community health care services.

"Instead, the budget will force health authorities to continue to run hospitals at over capacity and push people out more quickly in order to achieve funding that comes from meeting performance targets."

Now, that's certainly one opinion. Obviously, the government is going to disagree. The minister is going to disagree.

That's from a very knowledgeable person who has enjoyed a good working relationship with the government over the last number of years and is by no means a person who is regarded as speaking in an unconsidered or unrealistic way. That's her comment on these health numbers. So one has the view, based on comments like that, that the rate of increase that's been assigned to health care in this budget is a rate that cannot be sustained, is not good for the system and will lead to some of the consequences that she speaks of.

The member for Port Coquitlam, the opposition Health critic, made reference — admittedly fleeting, given the constraints of question period — to what took place in 2009, when a similar budget was tabled, another pre-election budget. There was discussion of cutting. I think it was, in the first year, $125 million from the budget and then in a subsequent year, $250 million, and there were a number of reductions. These are not trivial reductions. These are not so-called efficiencies. These are real programs that were closed or services that were ended.

I have a long list of about 100 or so items, but let me perhaps just read a few of them just so that people who might want to be convinced of the reality of my argument get a little bit of flavour of what took place. This is to illustrate the point that what is proposed in this budget is likely to lead, if it were carried out, to similar results as took place in 2009 after the budget that was tabled then.

Let me begin. Mental health and addictions. They have cut funding for ATLAS youth supported recovery in Terrace, the only residential recovery centre for youth in B.C.'s northwest; cut funding for the award-winning West Coast Alternatives Society, where drug and alcohol programs for adults, youth and children helped 600 residents a year; cut the social work budget in the
[ Page 12939 ]
Fraser Health regional hospital, resulting in a loss of 14 positions; closed the adolescent psychiatric unit at the Abbotsford Hospital; cut funding for 11 residential care beds at Bear Creek Lodge and 11 residential care beds at Newton Regency in Surrey.

They eliminated the only recreational therapist in an eating disorders clinic; cut funding for Burnaby life, a program for adults sufferers of sexual abuse; cut mental health and addiction services at the Capital Mental Health Association in the Victoria area; cut half the staff hours at the Gaumont Residence in Kamloops, specializing in treating mental health and addictions; closed Waddell's Haven Guest Home in Mission, a residential mental health facility also providing addiction services; closed the only withdrawal management program in the Fraser Valley at Chilliwack General Hospital; eliminated psychology services for adult rehabilitation at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops; eliminated music therapy, with other staff cuts — including dietician, social worker, counsellor and recreational therapist — at Burnaby Centre for Mental Health and Addictions.

That's one category.

Seniors and residential care. Let me give a few examples. Closed the 36-bed geriatric assessment and rehabilitation unit at Victoria General Hospital; closed the geriatric day hospital in Vancouver; closed the 25-bed convalescent care unit and eight-bed hospice at Queen's Park Care Centre in New Westminster; closed 42 residential care beds at Peace Arch Hospital; and closed Oak Bay Lodge and Mount Tolmie Hospital in the Victoria area.

[1530]

Service for children and infants with special needs. Cut funding to help young children access early intensive behavioural and intervention autism programming at Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health; threatened closure of Melissa Park Lodge in Port Coquitlam, a mental health residential facility and child development centre specializing in mental health and addiction services for children and youth.

Surgeries and diagnostic and rehabilitation services. Cancelled 328 knee and hip surgeries for people living in the Interior; cut 360 elective surgeries and 3,000 MRIs on Vancouver Island; cut almost 10,000 MRIs and possibly cutting 6,000 surgeries and closing 25 percent of the operating rooms in the Vancouver health region. Cancelled 35 percent of the elective surgeries in the Fraser Health Authority, adding up to 2,000 surgeries cancelled, and 450 surgeries in the Coastal Health Authority. Eliminated speech-language pathology services in Golden. There's a further list of many more.

Community outreach and support. There's elimination of the outpatient domestic violence program at Vancouver General Hospital. Cut crisis line services in the north Island. Closed the Chimo Achievement Centre, a therapeutic day program for adults with disabilities in Coquitlam and the Tri-Cities, promoting independence, preventing deterioration and enhancing quality of life. Reduced funding and introduced new charges for Meals on Wheels in Nanaimo. Cut 50 percent of the public health dietitians. Cut speech-language pathology services at the Deaf Children's Society of B.C.

Those are only a very few examples of the resulting budget. So when the minister says, "It's not about money; it's about delivering better health care," I think I understand that in a general sense. But there is a consequence to the decision to make that kind of rate of increase. This is a budget that's very comparable to the budget in 2009, and those were the consequences that were forced through.

I think most people would say those don't sound like frills. Those don't sound like unnecessary services. Those, in fact, sound like pretty important services for people with mental illness, with addictions, autistic children, people with behavioural disorders — people who, in a public health system, deserve our support.

I realize, and one realizes, that you can't do everything, and there's not an infinite supply of money, but there is a question of priorities and choices that are being made. This is certainly an illustration of what the consequence might be when one looks at the budget. So the rate of increase, therefore, that's proposed, if it's to be taken seriously, poses a real threat. If it's something that is simply there as a…. This is rather what I suspect. It's something that is there. It's an artificially suppressed number to assist in the alleged balancing of the budget in order to get over the election hump.

It's, I think, very similar to 2009 because the real budget there disclosed the deficit, not of $495 million maximum, in the words of then Premier Gordon Campbell, but $1.9 billion — much, much greater. So that's, I think, what is going on here. That's why the suspicion and cynicism and skepticism that this number attracts. It's just simply not something that the system can operate on, regardless of all the rhetoric about efficiencies and doing more with less and all the other maxims that are trotted out from time to time.

That number that results from reducing the rate of increase from the 2012 projected level to the 2013 level results in a reduction of the rate of increase of $235 million more than the alleged surplus in the bogus budget that we're debating today.

[1535]

That's clearly the purpose of it, and that's the result of it. That's why I've come to that particular conclusion.

I want to deal a little bit more with something else that's health-related, which is MSP premiums. In the budget the MSP premiums are raised 4 percent, yet the commitment of the government was — and this is only the first comment — to raise the MSP premiums by a rate no greater than the increase in the health budget itself. Well, when you budgeted an increase of 2.6 percent, you are obviously at 4 percent, not in sync with that.
[ Page 12940 ]

Maybe what was really meant was that this is a little bit of a vestigial remnant of what the real budget was. They intended a 4 percent increase. They found that they couldn't accommodate that in the fiscal plan in order to achieve the result they wanted, so they suppressed that down to 2.6 percent but still needed the revenue that the 4 percent MSP increase could generate. So they left it in there.

There is that stark contradiction with their own policy. The 4 percent contradicts the 2.6 percent rate of increase in health spending.

MSP premiums have increased, according to our research calculation, 85 percent since 2001. British Columbia is the only province, aside from Quebec, that gathers a premium this way. There are other provinces that have a payroll tax that is paid for by the employer — four other provinces, I believe.

Clearly, the note in the back of the budget says: "Well, that usually means that people are paid less." And in British Columbia, granted, employers do pay MSP premiums for some people. I think it's not quite 50 percent but somewhere around 50 percent.

The argument against the payroll tax is that it's a disincentive to employers to hire people. This increase, if employers pay it, following that logic, is a similar disincentive to employers to hire people, because if they agree to pay their premiums, that's an additional burden on the employer. You can't have it both ways that way.

Medicare, or MSP, premiums now are a substantial revenue source for the B.C. government. It's part of their readjustment of the way in which the fiscal reality of the province — over $2 billion in revenue…. The government has become increasingly dependent upon that revenue as a way of meeting the fiscal challenges.

Just as the government, which campaigned back in 2001 on no increase in gaming, has seen gaming revenue dramatically increase. It's now well over a billion dollars. I think it's $1.1 billion.

Similarly, making any government dependent upon gaming revenue in a big way…. One can't turn one's back on it easily or make a change in direction or a change in policy that would eliminate $1.1 billion in gaming revenue or over $2 billion in MSP premiums.

Notably, there are critiques of the impact of MSP premiums, whether they're from, I suppose, the right, from the Taxpayers Federation…. They regard it as an inefficient way to collect, in effect, a second tax. It has its own separate bureaucracy to collect the tax and has its own administrative costs, which they regard as being inefficient.

When Mr. Bateman presented before the Finance and Government Services Committee, I did ask him, because they advocated eliminating it entirely, whether he could explain how that $2 billion in revenue would be replaced. What he said — this is Mr. Bateman — was that he thought a shift in direction, some signal of a change of policy, was what was required. But he agreed that one could not replace that very easily, certainly not overnight.

[1540]

Similarly, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has a different analysis about the impact of MSP premiums. Below $30,000, there is some relief of the payment of the full amount of the premiums. But above $30,000 net taxable income, the payer of the premiums pays the same no matter what your income. If it's $35,000 or $105,000, you would pay the same premium as a single adult or depending on your family or whatever. The relief only applies to those below $30,000 net taxable.

It's what economists call a regressive tax in the sense that even if you have a greater ability to pay at a higher income, you don't pay more. You pay the same as someone with a lesser income and a lesser ability to pay. So there are some problems with MSP premiums.

Certainly, this is, I think, the fifth increase in the last…. There's been an increase budgeted every year for a number of years, and this comes on top of previously scheduled increases that were announced in the last budget. So not an entirely satisfactory state of affairs.

When I am having discussions with people — certainly, media questions — that's one of the first things they ask about. It does seem to attract a lot of public opposition — yet another increase in MSP premiums. But it's a marginal increase relative to the $800 million in asset sales when it comes to achieving the fiscal outcome that the government purports to have achieved in the budget.

I do want to talk now about a couple of other areas. The budget talks about what's called an early childhood tax benefit of $55 a month. I think it's important to recognize right at the outset that that would not start, if ever, until April 1 of 2015.

It is, I think, a very belated recognition by the B.C. Liberals that on this file — or in terms of assisting families with burdens and the challenges of raising young children, the fiscal challenges of daycare — they haven't done a very good job. They want to have something that they can talk about going into an election campaign. They haven't found the money for it in the budget, so they've put it off a couple of years.

No doubt, in the ads that we're going to pay for, we'll be hearing about this. And I doubt…. Maybe there will be a small asterisk in the corner on the pixels that says: "Not to start until April 1, 2015." I'm not sure. I rather expect the suggestion or the impression will be left that this is something that's imminent and available to families right now. It's not and may never be.

In any event, it's the subject of some scrutiny by those who follow these issues very closely. What is said is that, even taken as it is in this very belated recognition by government, that's a very slim list of accomplishments in this file. It really doesn't offer very much, given that it's $55 a month for daycare or child care.

That amount, even the yearly amount amassed togeth-
[ Page 12941 ]
er, would in many cases not pay for a single month of child care at the present rates in many communities. So a very belated recognition of a problem, put off into the future — not as far as the natural gas or the LNG future, but similarly, no impact in this budget and no impact before the election at all.

[1545]

The other program that the government has talked about…. I expect this will be bundled together in the advertisements with an effort to use the $4 million in ads that we'll see. I suppose.

I don't know whether they've already started. I haven't had a chance to look at the television lately. But it will be the taking of the program that was created back in 2007. At the top of the resource supercycle there was a surplus. It was put into a fund. Money was put aside — $1,000 when a child was born in B.C — for them, to be paid to them upon becoming an adult.

There's about, I think, $240 million in the fund now. What it's being converted into…. It's a no-cost program for the government. As that child comes of age, reaches age seven, it will be converted to an RESP, and the parents or guardians of the child will have conduct of an RESP, which will be funded to the amount of about $1,200.

There are certain federal tax benefits that flow to that. I think it's a maximum of $200 a year. It would be money that matches it. It's something, but again, doesn't help those who are seeking education now. It's very much in the future, and it's certainly a modest beginning to any RESP. I'm not sure it will be pitched in such modest and simple terms in the government ads that we'll hear beginning now.

I think the government felt a political need around the cabinet table. "We've got to say something on this issue. We've got to do something." These two things are really the best they could come up with, given a relative lack of commitment over the long term to these important issues of early childhood education.

So there you are. I don't think that it's something that has been widely praised, other than by the members opposite, but we'll see how it plays out in the government ads.

Now, there are a couple more topics that I wanted to comment on. It's not clear from the reductions in the budget that are scheduled for the Ministry of Natural Resources how that will impact the permitting backlog. Certainly, that was a case where you had, I think, a relatively counterintuitive proposition where members of the business community were coming forward and urging the government to hire more government employees to get on with the permitting process.

This was a mess totally created by the B.C. Liberals, completely mismanaged, and drew the ire of the mining community. Such was the ire that the government felt compelled to spend, I think, an additional $24 million to clean up their own mess and begin to unlock the backlog of permits.

A member on the Finance Committee heard from someone in Fort St. John who said that to get a permit to extract gravel — a relatively straightforward permit, he advised us — it was taking a minimum of nine months and sometimes up to a year. That's a relatively simple permit in the scheme of things, relative to some of the more complicated permits, such as notices of work, that are required to operate mines.

At the Smithers meeting of the Finance and Government Services Committee, Byng Giraud — the member for Shuswap will be acquainted with him; he's the representative of Imperial Metals Corp., which is a mining company that operates a number of mines here in British Columbia and is developing the Red Chris project up on Highway 37 — offered some advice to the government about continuing to clear this regulatory backlog.

[1550]

So it's with some real apprehension…. I'm not sure what the government is telling people like Mr. Giraud — given the reduction in the budget of that ministry, what is being said to people like that — and whether this program, which did begin to make some headway in the backlog, is going to be continued. It was an extraordinary expenditure that was required, and whether it's going to continue or not is clear.

I'm quoting from his slides that he presented on October 16, 2012, at Smithers. He's very balanced, so I want to convey that. He's not conveying this as a political partisan, at least in this context. I'm reading from his slides.

He appreciates the government's commitment to reducing the permit backlog. He also appreciates the opposition's attention to the issue. He goes on to say in the slides: "Some work has been done, but do not assume more people means better services. Quality and qualification of those people are more important. Permits are of importance to exploration and operations, but developers have unique needs. The entire process is still very long. Red Chris entered the EA" — that's the environmental assessment — "for the second time in 2002 and began construction in 2012."

That's ten years to get that project through the process. One can well imagine it would be different if there was a pro-business government sitting on the other side. It would have gone much more quickly, but that's what it took with the present government in power.

I go on quoting from the slides: "Seen too many places where delays can occur. Need empowered government project managers. Too much turnover, even within government."

He's saying it from the perspective of his industry. He's not giving it the political spin that I'm perhaps adding to it, so I don't want to misrepresent him. But there is a real concern, given the importance — and we acknowledge it; I'm sure the government likes to talk about it —
[ Page 12942 ]
that this process, getting through the permitting process properly….

He's not advocating anything improper or any regulations be changed. He's just saying: "Give us the specialized, capable people who know how to make the decision, can evaluate the project, can evaluate the application and can get it through." The budget is not there to do that.

I suppose, perhaps, the minister, when he stands up, will be able to help me with that issue. I'm not sure that that's in the budget, given that the budget itself — actually, it's not a question of a reduced rate of increase that the budget — for that ministry has actually been reduced.

I want to comment a little bit further about another aspect of the budget that, just coincidentally, helps in reducing expenditure in this fiscal year, and rather than move it forward a couple years or out to LNG-like distances off in the future, it actually moves expenditure backwards into the previous year. That's the issue of the minister responsible for local government — grants to municipalities. The grants for three years were bundled up.

I'm just going to quote from the minister in the House. My extract here doesn't give the date, but I understand this was in estimates debate. "There are no cuts in the future to local governments. The amount…they would have received over the course of the next three years will still be the amount…they would receive over the next three years. How it's being structured, in terms of it being advanced, is what we're talking about today."

What happened was the grants were allocated to the last fiscal year, rather than being allocated forward into subsequent fiscal years and divided up. Apparently, the jargon term for that is "re-profiling." It has the benefit, in my view — I would be interested to hear what the Auditor General has to say about it — of suppressing expenditure in the current fiscal year or the year coming up and putting that expenditure in a previous year.

[1555]

Since the political focus of this whole exercise is the year that we're about to enter, to create this impression of a balanced budget, it's very helpful in not having to spend that money or have it allocated in the fiscal year that's under scrutiny and have it take place in a previous year. So that was probably recognition by the government and the Finance Ministry that there might be a problem in achieving a so-called balanced budget in the fiscal year that's coming up. As a result, that manoeuvre was undertaken.

In my view, it's noteworthy, because it similarly creates a false impression about the state of the books and, certainly, this budget and adds to another level of devices that don't speak of the fiscal reality of the province.

I want to talk briefly a little bit about the report, because my colleague the opposition Energy critic has spoken of the report of Mr. Doyle, the Auditor General — The Effects of Rate-Regulated Accounting. He did quote some of that in question period just past.

I think it's important, because I know that in utility accounting there is a legitimate use of rate-regulated accounting to spread capital costs that should not be borne by the ratepayers in one year over a number of years. That's totally legitimate.

The Auditor General, in his report, recognized that there is, indeed, a legitimate use of rate-regulated accounting, but what he objected to in his report was the degree to which that was accelerating and, in his view, not consistent. He says:

"Financial management and public financial reporting have significantly different purposes. The purpose of public reporting is to serve the interests of transparency and public accountability by describing objectively the results of financial management by using an agreed-upon reporting framework.

"In our view, rate-regulated accounting as it is being practised is not consistent with this objective. Not only does rate-regulated accounting obscure financial management decisions that have been made; it allows management, sanctioned by the regulator, to determine how results will be publicly reported rather than following objective standards of presentation."

He goes on to talk about their return on equity:

"For example, to achieve its target return on equity, B.C. Hydro needs revenues to exceed expenses by a certain amount each year. For the March 31, 2010, fiscal year the return on equity of 13 percent assumed that budgeted revenues would exceed budgeted expenses, creating net income of $402 million. However, at the end of the year actual expenses exceeded actual revenues, creating a loss of $249 million before deferrals. To achieve the target return on equity, $696 million in expenses were deferred."

His concern is that the company appears to be working backwards. In order to achieve the return of equity, they decide how much to defer rather than make an objective decision about what to defer legitimately.

He goes on to say:

"This resulted in a final net income of $447 million and a return on equity that was close to the desired target.

"Expenses that would ordinarily be counted in calculating net income have been deferred to future years, allowed under rate-regulated accounting. While this practice is currently acceptable under Canadian generally accepted accounting standards, it creates the appearance of profitability where none actually exists."

That is his long-term concern.

The conclusion of the report was that he asked the Crown, the corporation, B.C. Hydro, to prepare a response as to how it will recover the net deferred costs in its regulatory accounts. So far, there's one follow-up response to that report. It hasn't met that.

So when it's raised by the Energy critic on our side, the point is simply the one that Mr. Doyle makes. While it's a technique that's used, it's concealing the financial reality of a very important Crown corporation, creating the illusion of profitability where none exists.

[1600]

There ought to be a plan to recover those in the long run — now $4.2 billion in deferral accounts — and there isn't one. Hence the concern, and hence the concern about the growing financial pressure on B.C. Hydro and on its finances.

That's the point that has been made, and that is some-
[ Page 12943 ]
thing that plays into the deficit that actually exists — or the purported surplus, which doesn't in fact exist, because part of that is a dividend from B.C. Hydro which, in the way in which Mr. Doyle expresses it, is illusory and misleading in the long run.

For the future health of B.C. Hydro, that problem has to be resolved. He's given a number of alternatives when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, which I chair. So far, I haven't heard that the government has taken any of them up.

I do want to talk about general economic trends in the province, because I did attend a lecture from Mr. Finlayson, who's the executive vice-president and chief policy officer of the Business Council of B.C. He did make some observations about the state of the B.C. economy which I think have to be borne in mind and are worth commenting on.

I'm quoting from his slides, and these are the headlines of his slides. This was presented on January 23, 2013, on behalf of the Business Council, to Pinton Forrest and Madden. They're an executive search firm. Apparently, they do some work in Victoria recruiting. I think they've done 100 successful searches, they said, in the Victoria area alone, and they have a much bigger business over on the Mainland.

What he does say — and I'm quoting from his slides: "Looking at the B.C. economy, job growth stalled in the second half of 2012." So contrary to what we heard from the Minister of Jobs and Tourism and industry about the success of the jobs plan, the chief policy officer at the Business Council of B.C. notes that job growth stalled. He doesn't say anything directly on that because he's not engaged in a political exercise there, but it's reasonable to draw the conclusion that the jobs plan was a failure, based on the comment of Mr. Finlayson that job growth stalled in the second half of 2012.

In fact, in the post-recession job gains are concentrated in the Metro Vancouver area, and the increase in jobs in the rest of British Columbia is at a much lower rate. It's basically only slightly above the 2007 level, whereas in Metro Vancouver it's increased much more dramatically.

He notes: "Going forward, residential construction is flat, although non-residential construction is doing very well indeed." I think that's a good thing and a comfort to those of us who watch the B.C. economy closely. He says that consumer spending was soft in 2012. In fact, growth in the last month, October 2012, was negative in terms of retail sales and the percentage of change.

I think there is good news coming. The Central 1 Credit Union said that with the return of the PST, they expect retail sales generally will increase. They're expecting an uptick in that, so that's good news.

He talked about B.C. exports to the Pacific Rim are now equal to the United States. That is, I think, an accomplishment that the shift in the market for B.C. resources, most notably coal…. There are certainly some comments on that, but coal exports have dramatically increased.

[1605]

What he also says on the following slide is that contrary to what we heard on the other side, lumber exports to China were down in 2012. In fact, the growth in B.C. lumber exports to China last year was negative. While there was some impressive growth in '09, '10 and '11, with the slight downturn in the Chinese economy, that has turned negative, unfortunately.

He also says — and the word is underlined: "Net interprovincial migration has turned negative." That's a measure of the number of people…. This was very prominent in the rhetoric of some of the people on the other side years ago. They don't seem to want to make the same claim now. But unfortunately, for British Columbia the net migration has turned negative.

There are three indices. There are births and deaths within the province, there's international immigration, and there's interprovincial migration, and in the last two years it's been negative in British Columbia. More people are leaving British Columbia to go to other provinces than are coming here, and that's been a worrying trend.

The other thing that he noticed, and this is something I wasn't aware of, is that more immigrants are now drawn to Alberta than they are to British Columbia. No doubt, that's a function of the relative health of the Alberta economy and probably the fact that Calgary, in particular, is becoming a more cosmopolitan city, as probably symbolized by its new mayor. But that's a worrisome trend in that sense — that immigrants are now bypassing British Columbia and heading to Alberta.

[D. Black in the chair.]

He notes, also, that overall B.C. population growth has fallen. It's now 1 percent, whereas it was as high as 1.5 percent annual growth as recently as '08, '09 and '10, so it seems to be heading downward. He does have a catalogue of strengths and weakness which I think is helpful when we look forward to the future.

He says the positive story…. He talks about wood products; energy, particularly LNG; transportation and logistics; all parts of the non-residential construction industry; engineering, scientific, technological and environmental services; mining, particularly if the global economy strengthens. A less favourable outlook: tourism; film and TV production; relatively labour-intensive components of manufacturing; printing, publishing, newspaper manufacturing; residential construction; and real estate.

I think that's a pretty fair summary of where we're at. He has some conclusions and a summary, which I won't read, which basically confirm that outlook. So there are real strengths in the B.C. economy, and there are areas of concern that Mr. Finlayson has pointed out.

I want to conclude by talking a little bit about some
[ Page 12944 ]
sectors that I think have been neglected in the budget. One particularly is what some people sometimes call the tech industry. The tech industry in B.C. encompasses jobs like clean tech — energy generation, transmission and storage; wireless; life sciences — medical devices, bioenergy; digital media — animation, social media, visual effects; and information and communications technologies.

I'm drawing from a B.C. Technology Industry Association report. This sector employs about 84,000 people, twice as many as are employed in forestry, and has more workers across the province than all of the resource industries combined. Now, because it's relatively disparate and in different subsectors of that sector, it doesn't perhaps get the attention. In the budget there was not very much mention of this.

Certainly, in its advertising and in its jobs plan the government only very belatedly talked about the high-tech sector and, really, chose to focus on what is understandably still the focus of much of a policy of the B.C. government, which is the natural resource sector. But this is a sector that has a huge potential, that employs a lot of people and that could be even bigger and more important in the B.C. economy.

[1610]

Its gross domestic product is over $9 billion, with revenues over $18 billion. It's ranked fourth among provinces in GDP revenue and business counts. B.C. has the third-largest clean energy sector in the world behind California and Germany. B.C. has more than 600 digital media companies which employ about 16,000 people. B.C. is also a global video games hub with over 85 development studios. These are good jobs. Generally, the average wage in this sector is higher than the B.C. average wage.

It's geographically dispersed. It isn't just in metropolitan Vancouver; there's Thompson-Okanagan. In Kelowna there's a business accelerator which focuses to some extent on the high-tech sector. It's also, certainly, on the Island and in the Kootenays as well. It's a growing sector, but it's underperforming in some ways because, perhaps, it hasn't met some of the challenges.

Some of those challenges are…. I just want to talk about those. Improving access to capital. Certainly, this is an effort where the government has taken some steps. But now, I think, most notably in 2003…. That's some time ago — the angel investor credit. That has not been reviewed, refreshed or renewed.

In venture capital, the Renaissance Fund has been focused…. The way in which it was restructured permitted those operating the Renaissance Fund to invest in companies outside of British Columbia — which, for developing access to capital for B.C. companies, is a little counterintuitive.

There is a need to expand the talent base. The labour study reports shortages in labour supply in the tech sector, a need to expand access to customers. Small tech firms typically lack the scale and capability to successfully access foreign markets and customers abroad.

Building company capacity. This is the capacity at the managerial level to take companies from startup, from small companies, and make them into bigger companies. Only 3.5 percent of all B.C. tech companies have more than 50 employees. The vast majority of firms are startups employing fewer than four people.

It's spoken of sometimes in a generic sense in discussions I've had with various people in the sector that there's no middle class. There are the competitive high-growth firms, which can grow into being major firms. There's that missing…. There are a lot of very small startup firms, and there are a few very big firms, but in the middle there's a gap.

That's, I think, something that should be a focus of government policy. It's not really something that's in the budget at all. Certainly, in the throne speech it's completely absent. Everything has been bet on an LNG future which may not come to pass.

Certainly, on this side, we have supported a future LNG sector and made that very clear. But the ultimate decision will be made by the companies involved. And there's an article today in the Globe and Mail pointing out that no individual company has yet reached the stage where they have secured the necessary long-term contract of 20 or 25 years to supply LNG to an offshore customer. That's required before the huge capital investment that's required to build a plant can be made.

Those decisions are at least a couple of years out, notwithstanding. That's not a decision that the government can particularly influence, although there is a sense from the representative of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, speaking today, that some of the discussions that have been mooted about an export tax have now entered the discussion with LNG companies and been factored into their decision. And I'm not sure that's something that has been helpful. That certainly seems to be the view of the industry.

The report that was spoken of was commissioned by, I think, Ernst and Young. I have not yet…. The Premier spoke of it last week, but I don't believe it has been released publicly. It's difficult to make an evaluation, sitting from the opposition side, when the government has a report that they've commissioned, paid for by public money, but are not prepared to share with the public. Perhaps that'll be provided to me. I hope so. I am concerned.

[1615]

To conclude, then, in summing up this budget, it's a budget based on very dubious assumptions. Its claim to be a balanced budget is not correct. It's false. It's a bogus budget, and that's a reason why we on this side of the House will be voting against this budget when the time comes.
[ Page 12945 ]

Hon. R. Coleman: I appreciate my opportunity to enter into the debate. I have some comments that I will touch on through my speech with regard to some of the comments from the member for Surrey-Whalley. But I want to start out today….

My mom is 93 years old. She raised six kids. My father died young. A couple of my siblings are actually still at home. She and my dad, who was an investigator with Revenue Canada, knew what it was to balance a household budget. Mom is now in care, in Langley — 93. She doesn't have a television, so she won't know I made any of these remarks about her. But she's a terrific lady, and she still reads the Globe and Mail most days. Recently in one of the articles that was written about me, she thought she should correct some of the English and send it back to the reporter, because she was an English teacher. I advised her that might not be such a good move for me.

She's now in care in Langley, but I should say when she fell and broke her hip recently…. She lived in her own home since 1957. She went into care in the Penticton memorial hospital, where two of my siblings were born. I know there's some controversy about that hospital, but I thought it was pretty good. I always thought of it as the new Penticton hospital, so maybe that's aging me relative to the city of Penticton, where I grew up.

The budget is about how you take a prudent approach to the future and how you look at how you get to where you want to be in the future. So I want to talk about a couple of things.

First of all, I have a friend that's a very successful real estate guy. He's one of the best marketers of real estate, probably, in British Columbia and maybe in Canada. He was at an event recently where somebody said: "You know, you're like an overnight success." He says: "Yeah, I'm an overnight success. It only took me 27 years." He built his business, his reputation, his marketing skills over that period of time.

I remember sitting in a meeting with the former Premier and members of my cabinet and caucus back in about 2001 or 2002. The conversation was that it would take about ten years to open the door to China, to actually change how trade was done in North America, and how we would actually be able to open our markets to our goods and services in China.

We set out to focus on that, and incrementally, slowly but surely, you could see it building and building and building to where today we no longer send 85 percent of our forest products to the U.S. We send a large amount, almost half, of our forest products to Asia.

That didn't happen overnight. That happened because we focused, because we picked the opportunity.

We did the Shanghai new-home China project. We had Forestry Innovation Investment over there on the ground. We actually went over and showed them how to change their building codes to match up to wood. We actually built trusses to show them how they could improve the insulation and trusses on buildings in China. All of that work was all meant to be successful for one thing, and that was to open the markets.

I also remember, over the same period of time — some of the members of the House were here, and some weren't — where the naysayers would get up and say: "Why are you wasting money going to China? Why are you doing a trade mission to China? It's a waste of taxpayers' money. It's never going to happen." Yet today if we had to renegotiate the softwood lumber deal, we'd be in a way stronger position, because when we had to do it in 2004-2005, 85 percent of our forest products went to the U.S. Today they don't. As a result of that, we have this success on our hands.

Take a look at the Olympics. This is one that the members opposite were actually interesting participants in. Their former Premier, Glen Clark, actually started the thought of bidding for the Olympics when he was Premier. The interesting thing is we came through the process of the bid. It was members of the NDP that rallied and campaigned against the bid in the referendum in Vancouver, opposed to the Olympics coming to British Columbia.

[1620]

They didn't have much trouble actually waving the flag in 2010 when they thought that something was actually going to finally be a success. But all the way up to it, the naysayers on the opposite side of the House said, as they did with getting into China: "By George, this won't work. It's going to be a disaster. It's going to put debt on the province. We won't get any resources out of it. We won't get any response."

So what happened? What happened? We had the most successful Olympics in Canadian and international history.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: You know, it's amazing. We've just sat here for almost an hour and a half and listened to the critic, and in only about 30 seconds I've got them riled up because they have to look in the mirror at themselves. It's amazing.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. R. Coleman: Do I get a pause button so I can get more time, Madam Speaker?

Something else happened about ten, 12 years ago when we became government. This was what happened. We decided that we only had about 15 years of North American supply for natural gas in reserves in what we knew we had in British Columbia. We felt, and there was enough geol-
[ Page 12946 ]
ogy to tell us, that there was a much bigger opportunity on the land base.

It also meant that we had to somehow figure out how we could get the market — it was only a seasonal drilling schedule in northeastern British Columbia — to move to an annualized, year-round drilling schedule and at the same time build the infrastructure — the roads, the pipelines, the bridges and things — that we needed, if we were successful, to be able to go up there and find the gas.

What we did is we actually incented the market with royalty programs for deep wells, year-round drilling, and we felt that that might be what might find us a significant opportunity. At the time, we were thinking of the significant opportunity for natural gas for us to supply the North American market, because the price of natural gas in North America was quite high and moving upward. There was an incentive to find more.

Well, we found the gas, and lots of it — over 150 years of gas today in reserves to actually supply all of the North American market for 150 years, and we have more. We have the Horn River, we have the Liard, we have more exploration, and it looks like we are sitting on this huge, massive resource.

So we started to look at other markets. Now, you can sit back and say — just like China, just like the Olympics: "It's never going to happen, so don't spend any time on it." Or you could do what the Premier of this province did, who said: "Let's go focus on building a new industry for British Columbia called liquefied natural gas. Let's go see what the market is interested in. Let's go see what would attract the investment, and let's put the focus of a deputy ministers committee and ministers on it together to be successful."

Well, today there are actually ten proposals in British Columbia in and around liquefied natural gas. Five of them are pretty mature, in areas around B.C. that are pretty significant with regards to natural gas in B.C. and in the world.

As we know, liquefied natural gas is gas compressed and cooled to a liquefied state so it can be shipped to Asia — to China, to Korea and to Japan — and to other countries like India who also want the natural gas. In Asia the price is higher. It's not orphaned in North America because then we would have a competitive market going two ways, which is obviously going to affect both our domestic success in natural gas and our international success.

We've been to work on this. Today there are multiple LNG projects advancing right now: the LNG Canada, which is a joint venture with Shell; coal gas, Mitsubishi and PetroChina; the Kitimat LNG project, which is a joint venture of Apache Corp. and Chevron Canada, who purchased the interest of Kitimat LNG and Pacific Trail Pipelines recently; the British Gas Group LNG project, who have developed an agreement with Spectra Energy for a pipeline to support British Gas's LNG project with Spectra Energy in Prince Rupert; the Petronas acquisition of Progress Energy, recently approved by Industry Canada, has led to Petronas moving aggressively with an LNG project in the northwest, in Prince Rupert; and the Douglas Channel project is a project with the Haisla as a business partner — First Nations involved in a number of these particular projects.

[1625]

If I added up all ten, the total capital investment is actually around $100 billion. If you want to put some comparison to that, all the infrastructure investment in British Columbia in the last ten years was around $50 billion. The five majors that I'm talking about, that are here today, are somewhere around $60 billion.

Now, as these come along, and I believe they will, there are certain things that are taking place.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, I'll get to the chirping of the members opposite. They're really talking about whether they're for natural gas or not. We know they're not, and I'll explain how I know that. And the comments of their own. They might find some inconvenient quotes of their own side of the House.

What does it mean? What does it mean for Prince Rupert, Port Simpson, Kitimat, Terrace — possibly even some opportunities on some brownfield sites on Vancouver Island and on the south coast of British Columbia? What does it mean? It means a foundation for the future.

Now, as we look at this, we have to recognize that the opposition have had some very interesting positions on this. The difficulty they have is the amount of time they're spending in the health care system getting their ankles removed as they jump on and off the liquefied natural gas fence. Because they're not on it.

The first thing they say is: "We need to study fracking." How long are you going to study it? One year? Two years? Three years? Four years? Five years? By the way, you'll miss the market. You'll miss the opportunity. You'll lose the jobs, the capital investment, and you'll lose the opportunity.

Another thing they say: "We want to study the water." They're going to study the water. They've got people as candidates in the next election who actually have said they're absolutely opposed to the extraction of natural gas by fracking — absolutely opposed.

Let me tell you, we've been studying fracking. We've been doing it over a decade safely. We do it better than anybody else in the world. We should be proud of British Columbians, of how they've developed this resource and done it right.

They're opposed to it. I should say to the opposition: "Don't be like the people that show up at public hearings for social housing projects." Don't be like those people
[ Page 12947 ]
who get up there and say: "Whoa. I'm opposed to that project in my neighbourhood because it means more traffic. I'm opposed to that project in my neighbourhood because it means more crime. I'm opposed to that project in the neighbourhood because I don't like the design."

The reality is that they're saying: "I'm opposed to it because I don't want those people living next door." And the NDP's way to say they oppose something is: "I'm not opposed. I'm just going to study it."

While we study it, Qatar, Australia, Africa will take the market. British Columbia will be left out hanging on the hook, because the NDP doesn't get the fact that we already know how to frack. We've already studied it, and we do it better, environmentally, than anywhere else in the world.

Now, in addition to that, they don't like the idea of a prosperity fund for British Columbia. This is why. It's because they didn't believe we could open the door to forest products in China. They didn't believe we could build a great Olympics. They don't believe that anything in the future can be accomplished. They live in the past and in the negative, and they never look forward. They can't look forward. It's so hard for them. It is so incredibly hard.

We know the opportunity. The opportunity is a fact. We did two studies, by Ernst and Young and Grant Thornton. Of course, all of those guys are much smarter than both of those firms. They actually know what they're talking about over there — not likely.

The fact of the matter is this. Total cumulative revenues to the B.C. government from five LNG plants could reach $79 billion, low case scenario, to $162 billion, high case scenario. That'd be 2011 to 2038. If those plants produced 82 million tonnes per annum, that would go up to $112 billion to $224 billion over the same period of time. That is a quote directly from the report by Ernst and Young.

[1630]

Now, in the second piece, Grant Thornton said this. I'll just go to the 82 million tonnes per annum. The estimate climbs at times from $160 billion to $270 billion over the same period of time.

Interjection.

Hon. R. Coleman: Don't look forward, hon. Member. We wouldn't want you to think about the future of the province of British Columbia. You don't need electricity, because you don't want any industrial development anyway. You don't want any jobs, because you don't care about that. It doesn't matter to you.

An annual average of 39,400 years of full-time equivalent jobs would be created for the nine-year construction period of five LNG plants. On top of that, during the operation phase, when plants are at full production, up to 75,200 permanent jobs would be created in British Columbia.

Now, I sit in this House, and I listen to these guys up there. Of course, I know they're opposed to LNG. That's what they are. Everybody in industry…. I keep telling them: "Don't believe what they say. They actually have a way of getting around this because they're like the folks that show up at public hearings and say a different thing because they don't want to admit what they're really going to do." They just can't do that.

In addition to that…. You know, looking forward to the future but having to go back to the past to realize how bad it was…. Last year $680 million — $680 million — was invested in exploration to find mineral opportunities and mines in British Columbia. In 2000, the last year the NDP were in government — $20 million. As a matter of fact, more money was invested in exploration in one year than was invested in ten years under the NDP.

No mines. You don't have to worry about permitting, as the member for Surrey-Whalley was talking about earlier. They didn't have anything to permit. They didn't have any notice of works to process. They didn't have any business. They pushed mining out of British Columbia, and it left. That's where it went.

Eight new mines and nine expanded mines will be here by 2015, and what we've got here today is a discussion about something that really frustrates me. Watch them howl when I say this. They are going to howl simply because when they hear the term "a balanced budget…"

H. Lali: Bogus budget.

Hon. R. Coleman: …they're going to go: "Oh, bogus."

I knew that's exactly what the member for Fraser-Nicola would say when I said that, so let's talk about budgets for a second.

In 1996 the NDP pushed and pressured professional, decent public servants to change the calculation numbers on their budget going into 1996 — change the numbers. There was an investigation. It was very, very clear that that's what they did. They actually compromised people whose careers and integrity were to serve the province of British Columbia, and they did not care.

In addition to that, we've already done the numbers on the promises and comments from the member opposite, the critic in Finance, and they've already prepared to put another $8 billion just into this year's budget. They'd add an $8 billion deficit to British Columbia's backside. And then he also has admitted: "Don't worry. In the first four to five years we're not even planning to balance the budget. We're not even going to do it."

So let's talk about this budget here. We have independent forecast council. We had a review of revenues. We have prudence built into the budget. I can tell you that the budget balancing is important, and I'm going to tell you why.

First of all, I say this to the members opposite as a member of Treasury Board. Sitting there going through this process, I know how difficult it's been for every sin-
[ Page 12948 ]
gle ministry to find the savings to balance the budget and get it under control. It is tough work. It's a tough thing to do, and you have to make tough decisions, but just like my mother and my dad did and how they ran our household with six kids…. They did the same thing. They planned ahead, and they had a vision for their children for the future, and now we're benefiting from that vision that they had.

[1635]

Why is it important? First, a triple-A credit rating actually gives us an advantage on the amount of money we might have to borrow to build a bridge or a highway or a hospital or a school, simply because we can borrow cheaper than any other jurisdiction, than anybody else, because of a triple-A credit rating.

That means we're talking about the future of everything — the future of health care, the future of education, the future of social services. If you don't have your fiscal house in order, you are going to go the way of so many other jurisdictions around the world that are facing huge problems.

How would you like to say to the people of British Columbia, with the NDP ready to go to $8 billion down in one year, and then there are going to be four or five years with a deficit budget…. In four or five years from now, like Greece, your chances are that your youth unemployment is going to be somewhere up around 30 percent to 40 percent. So your children, when they are planning to graduate from high school in the next few years, are going to look at that type of unemployment?

What would you say to them about the fact that investment isn't going to come here, because people are going to start to say that this is going to be a have-not jurisdiction? They'll only have one alternative, and that will be to go back and overtax everything so all investment leaves the jurisdiction.

We're not interested in doing that. We're not interested in selling out the future, like the NDP is, the future of everything — health care, education, social services, even something as simple as to have a conversation with somebody and explain to them….

I sat down with some young people that are all professionals, a number of them teachers, recently, in a conversation. They wanted me to give them a justification as to why it was so important to balance the books. I said: "Well, you're going to teach for about 30 years, and you believe at the end of that 30-year period you're going to have a defined-benefit pension. Your expectation is that that pension, the way it's structured today, will have a COLA clause, and that pension will follow the cost of living.

What if the jurisdiction you lived in was like Greece or Spain and decided that it was okay to spend the future of the children and grandchildren? What if they thought it was okay to do that? How would you like to wake up in 20 years and find out your pension that you thought you had is only worth 20 cents or 50 cents on the dollar?

They've had to cut it because they've overspent the bank, but they cannot actually fund the social services and pensions of their jurisdiction because they didn't listen. They weren't fiscally responsible, and because they weren't fiscally responsible, you could pay. So you'd better be clear about what you believe when you start thinking about what you want from society and how much you think they should pay.

The other thing I find interesting about the people across the House is that it's never about: "Could we do something better?" It's never about: "Could we do it more efficiently?" It's always about: "You're not spending enough." Over $2 billion more is going into health care, and the first thing we hear from the Leader of the Opposition and the critics today is this: "You're not putting enough money into health care."

We have the best health outcomes of anywhere in the world. If we were actually a country, we'd have the second-best outcomes in the world, next to Japan — the province of British Columbia. You're healthier here, you live longer here, you have better cancer outcomes, and you have better heart outcomes. And why? Not because of the number of dollars but how we've invested in technology and training and time and efficiency so that we can actually process people and give them the services they need in health.

But the NDP's solution is: "Just spend more money. We really don't care if you're efficient with it because we're not going to measure it anyway." They never did measure a single spending dollar they spent in the 1990s — never once. They didn't have business plans. They didn't have plans for anything, actually. It was rather interesting. Of course, I can say that because I was over there watching, listening and asking the questions.

Madam Speaker, in here, imagine this now. In this particular budget we have gone out there and said, "We're going to do this," and we let the independent people look at it and give us advice, so it was arm's length for us on how we would do it. I can talk about the balanced budget, and they'll pooh-pooh the balanced budget, because they're so good at fudging and changing budgets and pushing civil servants back to the 1990s, which would come back.

[1640]

But let's get this. This is a quote from Dr. Roslyn Kunin, Canada West Foundation, on CKNW today. "It is probably more balanced, in all sense of the word, and more realistic than any budget I've ever seen" — any budget I've ever seen.

"Good on them for living up to the commitment to balance the budget. It's hard to do, but I think it's realistic." That was John Winter, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

"They needed to cut spending a little and raise taxes a little bit, as there's nothing draconian about this. It's a balanced approach and appropriate." That's Bruce Carter.
[ Page 12949 ]

The fact of the matter is if you want to sell out the future, you can do that. We're not going to do that. Because there's a future here that I'm very concerned about, and that's my children and my grandchildren.

I have three children that are actually going to benefit from this registered education fund contribution of $1,200, because they've all been born in the last few years after the fund was started. But more important than that, my grandson will start kindergarten in the fall. He will have all-day kindergarten in the fall.

We know that investment in their education at an early stage will give them outcomes for life that are staggeringly better than if we don't make that investment in their future. And yet, I've heard members opposite pooh-pooh all-day kindergarten. Why would they do that? Why would they do that? Then they get up, and they say, "Oh, you should do this, and you should do that," but they never once have ever come up with a new initiative or thought for our children.

In addition to that, they criticize us — as we work forward and build the economy of British Columbia — making some additional investments in child care. Of course, their theory would be that they should have child care where they control it and they manage it and they tell every family how it is and put it in a little tiny box and say: "This is what you get."

We believe that investments in child care should be up to the people who are responsible for the child care. We actually believe families should have the opportunity to make these choices, so we let them decide how to raise their children and give them the opportunities, financially, to make those decisions.

The interesting thing about all this is that as you go through the discussion with regards to the budget, this budget actually fulfils a promise to balance the budget in fiscal 2013-14. That drives the NDP crazy. The plan contains key elements that will enable government to move to a surplus of $197 million from a projected deficit of $1.2 billion in 2012-13.

The members opposite like to talk about 2009. Just to clarify one thing for them, in 2009 the world saw the most significant crash of 100 years, almost overnight. You saw people lose their wealth. We saw people lose their homes, and all of these other things took place.

But the NDP lived in a bubble. They didn't see that and have always been upset about the fact that we had to make the tough decision to get back to balanced budget. We actually adapted. We had the fiscal prudence and the ability to adapt to change for the future.

Our revenues are projected to grow an average of 3 percent a year while our expenses are expected to grow at roughly half that rate. So let's do the math — 3 percent growth, 1½ spending, 1½ left over. We're actually putting money back in the bank for the future of our children and our grandchildren and bringing the fiscal future into a very solid place.

It also projects a modest economic growth, which is important. But over the three-year period of time we're going to continue to be that unique jurisdiction in most of the world, that has somehow survived because of prudence and good management — the ability to build a future for the next generation of British Columbians because we actually did the job.

We have a vision. LNG. We have a vision in the jobs plan. We have a vision in mining and resources and forestry. Those visions are going to leave the fundamentals in place for the solid future, for my children and my grandchildren, and I am proud to absolutely support this truly balanced budget.

[1645]

N. Macdonald: I guess that was a half-hour version of what we see every 20 minutes on TV, with all sorts of claims. The problem with even being here for eight years is we've heard all sorts of claims from this minister, and they simply don't pan out anywhere near the way the minister claims or the way this government claims. After 12 years the credibility goes, especially when you look at the past four years.

There's nobody that can look at the period from 2009 to 2012 and give assent to the government, based on the record. You cannot accept that that's a level of competence or trustworthiness that's acceptable. When the minister tries to go to the door with what he's just spun here, I think he's going to find what we find when we go door to door, with what members on the government side as they go door to door, that the credibility gap — whether you spend $16 million on advertising or $60 million — is not going to be bridged.

The fact is the credibility gap is real, because they simply aren't credible in what they did in 2009, and they're not credible in what they're doing here.

Let's begin by dismissing immediately any suggestion that this is in any way a balanced budget or that it represents in any way a vision for the province going forward. It's an attempt, part of a two-year attempt, to flounder around looking for something that will allow the government to run in the campaign. It's about power, it's about campaigning, but it has nothing to do, as what we've seen after initiative after initiative over the past two years, with governance.

There's a problem with that, because there's a whole host of really serious issues. The minister talked about an economic collapse. The fact is in 2008 there was a collapse. Now, I remember our critic for Finance pointing out to the minister of the time before the election that the projections the government had were not in line with the realities we were facing here in the province, that there was an economic collapse taking place in North America that we were not immune from. We haven't been immune from it.

The government chose to distort the realities and in-
[ Page 12950 ]
stead ran promising to protect health. Did that happen after the election? Absolutely not. To protect education. Did it happen after the election? Absolutely not. In writing, they promised not to introduce the HST, which they immediately did after the election. They guaranteed that the deficit would be $495 million — guaranteed it — and it was factors more than that.

Now the former minister I have tremendous respect for, and I guess it's not a guarantee on the HST that the minister made. But if you look at the book that was written by Premier Campbell's chief of staff, they talk about what took place. This is from the chief of staff that was in there. The chief of staff said clearly the party, in writing, read letters….

We had question period where we read the letters. The argument of the government is that somehow a written response, where it is absolutely clear that they will not proceed on the HST, is not something that should be binding or is not something that should irritate people or that people shouldn't feel they were betrayed with that action.

I mean, it just flies in the face of logic, and it flies in the face of experience, because people haven't forgotten that. People still talk about that. People still intend to send a message with their vote about what they accept from government. What's clear is they want a government that's trustworthy. This government fails on that score, with this budget as well. They want a government that's competent, and there is nobody that looks at this four years and does not see a complete and utter disaster.

Their crowning achievement, the most important thing they could do for the economy, was the HST. They have disrupted the B.C. economy bringing the HST in, and they have disrupted it as they remove it. That is the essence of the past four years. That's their contribution.

[1650]

Now, the idea of selling off lands and property to balance the budget is so obviously not sustainable. You can't do that constantly. It's obvious to anyone that that is not something you build a balanced budget with. You're selling off things that have value. You can't do that forever.

The other part of it is that it's a claim of funds. It's not a reality. We've already seen that money that was claimed in a previous budget is again being claimed in this budget as part of an asset sale.

We have heard from our critic, very effectively laying out why that's a poor way to proceed. It is especially a poor way to proceed when we have a government that is in its dying days and has, quite frankly, a history of transferring public wealth into private hands, with things like B.C. Rail. I mean, there's a history there as well.

You've set up a scenario where you're selling these assets off, but really, it's like selling furniture to pay off the credit card. It's not sustainable. It's not practical economics in any way.

You also have B.C. Hydro, a crown jewel that has been diminished significantly by this government — the use of deferral accounts, which was heavily criticized by the Auditor General as part of a body of really excellent work that the Auditor General has done, saying that the idea that B.C. Hydro would borrow money, would defer accounts and then would push it forward as if it was a profit…. There's a lot about that. My colleague from the Cowichan Valley would describe it as jiggery-pokery, and there are lots of ways you could describe it. It's certainly a practice that most would take a dim view of.

The reality is that we sit in a fiscal situation which is complex and difficult. There's not a jurisdiction in Canada, a jurisdiction in North America, that's not struggling with that issue. That's the reality.

Our debt is nowhere near the debt levels that you see in jurisdictions that are truly struggling — the example given of Greece and Spain. We're not there, but we do have to be careful with the debt that we have. Debt levels have risen over the course of the term of this government, from 2001 on, from $33.8 billion to $57.4 billion. That's a 70 percent increase.

On top of that, though, is the off-the-book debt, which has grown from nothing to $96 billion. You put that together, and you're dealing with a fiscal reality that has to be considered as we go forward.

Now, when people talk to me, I find that they're pretty reasonable. They have no expectations of anything that is too grand. They know what has happened in the United States. Property there devalued by $6 trillion. That was that bubble. Jock Finlayson — in his speech, that's the figure he used. That is a huge trauma that we have not escaped, especially since we sell structural products into the United States that feed that housing market.

We don't escape that. We have debt levels that are manageable but significant, and you have to keep in mind. But when I talk to people, what they actually want is they just want to be treated in an upfront way. They just want to be told the truth. "Just tell us the truth — we can deal with it — and then make decisions that are fair. Make decisions where the people that need the help are helped."

I can tell you that in my community people are consistent in terms of what they say. They say, "Look after your seniors," because it's what a community does, right? The community — it looks after its seniors, it looks after its children, and it looks after those who have fallen on tough times or who are sick. That's what we do in a community. That's what we've always done.

As a province, we have to do the same thing. So no grand promises. Understand that it's difficult times. Be honest with people and look after those that need to be looked after collectively. Because that's what we do. That's what we do.

Some of the choices that are being made here we need to fully explore. There was a debate in question period today around the increases to health care, and the minister quite correctly made the point that health care is going up.
[ Page 12951 ]
That's true. Health care goes up every year. What is different about this budget is that the amount that it normally would go up is being reduced to a level that's unrealistic.

[1655]

We know for a fact that there are cost pressures. Those are absolutely predictable. Our critic was a Minister of Health. I know the capability of previous ministers on both sides. These are difficult positions, but those pressures are real. If you are not meeting the expectations that our health services need, then you are making cuts. You are making decisions on people's lives, and you have to do that in a really forthright way.

In 2001 one of the reasons that Kimberley was a no-go zone for Premier Campbell was that — despite a promise to provide health care "where you need it, when you need it" — the decision was made to shut Kimberley Hospital. The people that were impacted — I mean, these are never easy decisions — were impacted profoundly by that decision. It was made worse by the fact that they were promised something different before the election.

If this government is going to run with this budget and they are going to make what will be cuts to services, they need to be clear in exactly what those cuts look like. They need to be clear in who is going to be impacted and how they're going to do it in a fair way. To suggest that there are easy savings in any place is simply not being fair to the people that you're seeking a mandate from.

This budget also has cuts to skills training and a host of other areas. But in the time that I have left, I want to talk about one particular area, which is my critic area: forestry. What shocked me is that there is a $35 million cut to forest stewardship. These are areas like inventory, areas like silviculture, which are provincial obligations.

I mean, in some ways, it shouldn't shock me, in the sense that for the whole 12 years of this B.C. Liberal government there have been cuts in areas that benefit the land. As soon as they got in, the current Finance Minister changed the law so that it was no longer a provincial obligation to replant in areas disturbed by forest fire, by disease and by pests, and then cut the replanting budget by 90 percent.

We've never recovered from that. We have a million hectares of land that should be replanted that haven't been replanted. That's the record, so you'd say: "Why are you surprised that they continue to cut?"

It's the same with inventory. Do members of the House know that 74 percent, almost three-quarters, of the land base has inventory data that's 30 years old or more? It's practically useless. On three-quarters of the land base of British Columbia, we do not have accurate inventory. That, again, was a decision made by this current Finance Minister when he was Minister of Forests.

They removed the legal obligation to keep inventory up to date, and they have repeatedly cut budgets. The average spending on inventory during the NDP years was $23.6 million a year. This government, on average, over its 12 years has spent $8.6 million. B.C. professional foresters say that you need $15 million just to break even or just to keep up to date with inventory, not even catch up. So you would say: "Why are you surprised that they cut it again?"

Well, I'm a bit surprised, because everybody was here last spring when there was this big emergency. We had to form a committee and go and speak to people about what needed to be done on the land base. We formed a committee of four Liberals and three NDP MLAs. And we spent — what? — two months, three months travelling around this province. Members should remember how much was spent on that committee — hundreds of thousands. We were helicoptered around; we were flown around. We brought Hansard with us. We had the Clerk's office support us.

[1700]

We had 650 people come forward — people and groups who thought that this was a legitimate process. I thought it was a legitimate process. I thought we were going to get information that we would take back and that would inform this government on what needed to be done.

It was good work. We worked together. We discussed. We listened to people, and 650 chose to participate. We went to 18 communities. Those communities: Smithers, Burns Lake, Prince George twice, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Kamloops. We had full houses. People came out believing that this government could be trusted to have a process that was legitimate.

We came up with a set of recommendations that were decided upon unanimously. We all agreed something had to be done with inventory. We were told by major licensees…. I need to read some of the quotes from some of the licensees who participated. You had Tolko, Canfor,West Fraser all saying that inventory had to be up to date, that they were selling B.C. wood as wood that came from a sustainably managed forest.

I don't understand how government doesn't see how important it is that we have an international reputation that is grounded in reality. Our forests have to be sustainably managed so that we can market our product in the United States and, increasingly, in China.

China wants that guarantee that this is a green product. That's what they're selling. To do that, you cannot have three-quarters of your land base with data that is inaccurate. You cannot manage what you haven't measured, and this government has consciously chosen not to measure.

We listened to people. We listened to the Auditor General. We listened to the Forest Practices Board. We listened to forest professionals. We put in recommendations that talked about the need to get our inventory up to date. The recommendations are credible. Four Liberal MLAs and three NDP MLAs agreed on the language. We struggled over the language. We made it so that it wasn't offensive to government members but it was still clear,
[ Page 12952 ]
and we agreed on it.

We said to government: "You need to deal with this issue." People on the ground know that. Forest companies know that. Environmental groups know that. And we said: "You have to replant. You cannot leave a million hectares without doing any work on it." It makes no sense. It makes no sense at all.

We brought those recommendations back. It was presented here in the House. The government had it, because they were in a big hurry to have it. They had it in the middle of the summer. In the middle of last summer they had the recommendations.

They knew that it was the right thing to do, and instead of dealing with the issue, instead of trying to fix an obvious problem, what do we see in this budget? They decide to make it worse. They decide to cut it by $35 million. What is the long-term damage that that does?

We're asked all the time to lay out our plans, and we try to figure out how we can proceed going forward. We've done an awful lot of work in forestry. How do we get caught up with some of the damage that has been done over the past 12 years? How do we get caught up? This budget sets us back — if we form government, if people choose us — another year. It will be four to five years before we get up to the 50 million seedling mark — to get up there.

We were supposed to be there as a province in 2012, if Premier Campbell's promises back in 2005 had been kept. We're actually at 16 million seedlings, and there's a cut. You know, you have to order the seedlings. You have to build capacity. You have to do all sorts of work to get caught up. Of course, with this budget, we're not going to be able to do that. As a province, we all lose.

When you don't look after your most valuable asset — if all you care about is money — then you're wasting it. You're wasting our good name, you are damaging our ability to sell our product, and you are guaranteeing that the opportunities that we have had are degraded for future generations. That's what this budget represents.

[1705]

But it begs the bigger question. Why did this government send seven MLAs all over the province and ask for the trust of people in communities across the interior of this province to come and participate in a process that ultimately looks like a complete farce? All of the recommendations that we put forward have been ignored — all of the recommendations.

It's true of the legislation that the minister introduced today on tenure reforms — it ignored the recommendations — and of this budget, with a $35 million cut in an area where we said there's a crisis that needs immediate attention from the government. It's as clear to me as can be that the government has absolutely no interest in forestry — barely mentioned in the throne speech, huge cuts in the budget. I guess they never did. That's how you lose 30,000 jobs.

The previous speaker, the current House Leader — I guess the face for the new B.C. Liberals — when he was Forests Minister — what? — 12,000 jobs were lost? Fifteen thousand? I mean, that was his record. He could stand up and make promises. I remember him standing up and making promises about bioenergy plants across the Cariboo, the equivalent of three times Site C.

I don't know if people remember that promise. That was the promise. What's the reality? Very, very different — a very, very different reality. So 30,000 jobs lost, 70 mills gone. We're up to six million cubic metres a year sent off as raw log exports and a crisis in forest health that is being made worse and worse by the actions of this government.

An election could not come soon enough. People in rural B.C., people who work in forestry, people who love the land need that change. They need that change, and they need it sooner rather than later.

I referred to the Auditor General's report, because the Auditor General not only…. Well, he's done good work in a whole host of areas, but his report on forestry is well worth reviewing. Anybody who is interested in forestry needs to look at some of the comments that the Auditor General made.

It talked about a need to ensure that restocking activities are part of a plan. It talks about the need to have a plan. It talks about the need to have information to have a plan. All pretty basic stuff for proper stewardship, but the Auditor General had to tell this government that that's how you run public lands.

What's the response to the Auditor General's work? Well, beyond trying to get rid of the guy, they basically ignored it. It's not the only report they have ignored. We have the Forest Practices Board that talks about up to a million hectares of land that's not sufficiently restocked — land that should be replanted as a provincial obligation, that hasn't been. The government hasn't responded to that report.

I remember early on that they would attack anybody who suggested that there was up to one million hectares of land that wasn't sufficiently stocked. I mean, the current Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation would write letters to the editor saying that it's actually 200,000 and that the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

Well, he was mixing apples and oranges, because, of course, he wasn't calling it NSR until it had been surveyed. And because there was no money for surveying, they just didn't bother to survey anything. They used that ignorance to suggest that the true number was much smaller than it was. It took the Forest Practices Board to come in and say: "No, you're wrong. We estimate at least a million. It could be two million."

There was a time when Forests ministers used to know about what was happening on the land. We don't know now. This minister doesn't know what's happening on the
[ Page 12953 ]
land, doesn't know how much NSR.

[1710]

One of the problems we had as we were trying to figure out what to do with Burns Lake is that we had no accurate information. We had no way of actually sitting down and working through what fibre was there and what was available to rebuild the mill. How do you manage a land base when you don't have that information? But the decision the government has made with this budget is to make that bad situation worse.

I'll just wrap up with one other thought. It's been said many times. I think the $16 million on advertising has been spent many times over. But I will make a point that the minimum that is needed for inventory, to do a proper job, is pretty close to that — $15 million, $16 million.

I think we should pause to think. The commercials, first, are incorrect. The commercials, second, are not very good. I don't know who the government gets. It's like the Stickman commercials. They're actually not very good, and they're a waste of money. They're so clearly partisan, and they're so clearly inadequate.

I think an awful lot of young people, too, view television differently. I know that the government thinks people are watching it, and I think people our age do. Even though my daughters have showed me many times, I still cannot figure out how to record and buzz through these commercials. Most people don't watch TV in the same way the older generation does.

So it's a waste of money for a whole bunch of reasons. And there are all sorts of reasons why the bill that was presented by the Leader of the Opposition is one that we need to put in place — so stuff like this doesn't happen again.

I'm going to finish there. This is a budget that the government intends to take to the people.

I say good on ya. Good luck with that. I think that you'll get a response not terribly dissimilar from the response that you have here. It's not credible. The argument that you balance budgets by fiddling around with accounts in a Crown corporation you've destroyed or by selling off property I think is dubious, at best.

The lack of information on where the cuts are going to come in health care and then the decisions on things like this — to cut in skills training, to cut in forest health — are just really beyond belief to me. But there you go. There's much over these past eight years that's been beyond belief.

I look forward to taking this to the people of British Columbia and getting a decision on the direction that they want to go forward with. I know that people are ready for a change and a change for the better. I look forward to that.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: That's true. We do have the same first names, but we won't say them, and we do have the same passion for the people of British Columbia, as I would say everyone else in this building does. Whether they're elected or whether they're working on staff, we all are here for the same reason. That is to improve the lives of our fellow British Columbians and leave this province in a better place than we found it.

It's been nearly four years since we were all elected into this chamber and four years since I was given the privilege of representing the people in Kelowna–Lake Country. I'm going to go through a little bit of the budget today, knowing that this is probably…. Well, it is the last budget speech that I'll be talking to in this term.

I hope, like many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, to be back here after May. In particular, I hope to have this job back after that position as well. I know we might not all agree on that particular point, but we'll all do our best to reach our aspirations.

An Hon. Member: But we really like you as a person.

Hon. N. Letnick: As a person. Apparently, I'm really liked as a person, no matter what. That's a good start.

With that, this budget really is about choices. I respect the opposition critics for bringing up the criticisms of this particular budget.

[1715]

I know that in QP we go back and forth, trying to get the opposition to come out with what its budget is going to be. Sooner or later they have to, and sooner or later…. They can't go to the people of British Columbia with the same song they're singing right now. They have to present an alternative. That's their place right now, to present an alternative to government.

Then the people of British Columbia will decide which future they would like to see: the future that the government is proposing with this budget over the next four years and longer term, through the throne speech, or the future that the hon. members across are proposing, once we all know what that is. Again, I say we'll probably find that out sooner or later. I'd obviously like to have it sooner, so we can compare the two right away, but that's fine, as long as we have it before the election. I'm sure the people will be voting accordingly.

What I'd like to do in the time that I have, and now I probably have about 25 minutes or so, is just read one note of validation. There are all kinds of validators out there for the budget, and I just want to read one note that was released yesterday.

After that, I'd like to talk about some of the highlights of the budget in general terms, talk about highlights from an agricultural perspective in my position and responsibility as Minister of Agriculture. Obviously, I'm very pleased with the budget in many ways, but specifically of the 20 percent increase in the agricultural budget.

I would imagine that the critic is also very pleased to
[ Page 12954 ]
see that, because that's something we talked about that would be nice to have. But like anything else, it's probably nice to have, but she'll want more, and you know what?

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: There we go. That's understandable as well.

You know, we all want more for our ministries, we all want more for our constituencies, and we all want more for the people that we represent. Unfortunately, sometimes there isn't enough for all the wants that we have. That's why this is a tough budget, a fair budget, a conservative budget, and yes, it is also a balanced budget.

The reaction from the Investment Industry Association of Canada yesterday, if I may just read this, says: "British Columbia stays the course with disciplined fiscal restraint and positions the province for strengthening economic recovery."

They said yesterday that the IIA of Canada, the IIAC, commends the B.C. government for holding to a steady course of fiscal restraint.

"The fiscal strategy will pay off by laying the foundation for strong recovery as global growth accelerates. Over the past decade, in good times the province strengthened its relative fiscal position, and in bad times, since 2008, limited fiscal deterioration.

"The IIAC congratulates the province in holding to its target of moving the operating deficit to balance in 2013-2014 and keeping the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio below the 20 percent threshold throughout the forecast period ending 2015-2016. The province has one of the lowest public debt burdens among all Canadian governments and one of the few with a triple-A credit rating. This high credit standing is a beacon to attract new business investment to British Columbia.

"One of the key decisions in the budget is to limit annual spending growth to 1.5 percent over the forecast period, half the rate of spending before the economic downturn. This is responsible restraint, with the economy projected at a slow average pace of 2 percent growth per year over the next three years.

"The budget has announced the small business corporate tax rate will stay at 2½ percent" — and as we know, most businesses in British Columbia are small businesses, so the small business tax rate will stay at 2½ percent — "and the general corporate tax rate will increase by one percentage point from 10 to 11, which is still one of the most competitive tax rates in the country.

"While we would like to have seen more on this front, such as the relief from PST on business production, reform of the municipal tax structure on business and a cap on the port property tax, the budget preserves the business competitiveness of this province. In an era of rising fiscal pressures among Canadian federal and provincial governments, and major governments around the world, this represents a major accomplishment and testifies to the responsible, bottom-line approach taken by the B.C. government in the past decade."

Just a last few words.

"Its fiscal strength positions the province well for business expansion, new investment and jobs as conditions for project and infrastructure investment improve, as the U.S. economy and housing starts continue recovery and as emerging economies, notably China, build economic momentum.

[1720]

"Further, this fiscal strength gives the province manoeuvrability that most other provinces don't have to limit tax increases, fund job training and needed social programs despite weakened revenues."

That is from the Investment Industry Association of Canada, not just British Columbia. What it really tells me is that even with some of the tough choices that had to be made….

It's the first time that I've had the privilege of watching those tough choices from inside the room, inside cabinet. There were a lot of tough decisions on where we should, if at all, get extra revenue to balance the budget, where we should look at maybe not increasing expenditures as fast in other areas to balance the budget. Should we or should we not sell some of the surplus properties to do that as well? And there's a whole range of other issues that any government would have to discuss as they look towards building a budget.

At every turn, the people of British Columbia were kept front and centre. How would that impact families? How would that impact the average British Columbia taxpayer — not only in the short term, not only my constituents, but constituents all across British Columbia on both sides, represented by good members on both sides of the House.

That's why I stand proud to say that I had something to do with this budget, that we all had something to do with this budget and getting it to this point.

We couldn't have done it, after 2008, immediately. There was just no way to go from what happened in 2008-2009, with the sub-prime mortgage crisis and how that tsunami hit around the world. It's still impacting people all across the world.

We've mentioned many times in this Legislature countries all across the world. We've talked about other provinces in Canada. We just have to look at what's happening in Alberta — rich Alberta — Ontario, Quebec and other provinces. We'll be the only ones in 2013-2014, other than Saskatchewan, to have balanced our budget. That's very important for us here in this room.

It'll give the government, after the next election, many more options as to what they're going to do in the years to come, and it'll give the people of British Columbia many more options, because they're going to have more money in their own pockets that they can then choose to spend on their priorities, rather than us digging our hands in their pockets and choosing to spend for them.

I'm happy with the budget. I feel very confident going back home to the people of Kelowna and Lake Country and saying: "Here's our balanced budget." We've done a lot over the last four years together. We still have a lot to do, and we're going to get that accomplished together.

At least I won't have to go to my kids and say: "By the way, you know the income that you're making over the next ten or 15 or 20 years? A big chunk of that is going to pay for the expenses that I accumulated while I was here representing all of the people of Kelowna–Lake Country."

We were able to balance the budget and now start to
[ Page 12955 ]
bring back down the debt-to-GDP ratio so that, should we be hit with another uncertain economic catastrophe like 2008-2009, we have that fiscal capacity, that fiscal room, that we can use to, again, cushion whatever uncertainty comes down the pipe, because we are still in an uncertain environment around the world.

A specific highlight from the budget that I'd like to draw to our attention is the new B.C. early childhood tax benefit, which will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six years old — what's surprising about that is not the item; it's the fact that I can read it without my reading glasses, so I'll put those down, actually — effective first in 2015.

Families with young children can receive up to $55 per child per month. Most will receive the full amount, while those with family incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 a year will receive a partial benefit and those over $150,000 won't.

Another highlight for me. I've had just under ten years of teaching business at Okanagan University College and Okanagan College before entering provincial public life, and a lot of my drive is young people. I've had the great privilege of working with a lot of young people, so when I see items like this coming out of the budget, it really strikes a chord for me personally, not only because I've worked with young people and I have my kids, who have grown up here, but also because of what it's going to do for people in my riding and across B.C.

That is the new B.C. early-years strategy, which will invest $76 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and improve the quality of child care in early years. I think that's going to be a tremendous benefit to families all across British Columbia.

[1725]

On the health care front, as was mentioned before, we had the privilege of members from both sides of this House working together on the report for the Select Standing Committee on Health. It was a labour of love, I believe, for all of us who participated.

We did part 1. There are still two parts to go. On that front, I'd just like to say that I look forward — with, of course, the permission of the people of Kelowna–Lake Country — to coming back in the new Legislature and working on that particular piece and continuing that one.

On the fiscal side of health care, the budget confirms government's ongoing commitment to protect health care. The Ministry of Health budget will increase by $2.4 billion over the next three years. Total health spending by function will reach $17.4 billion. That's more than 42 percent of all government expenses, 2015-2016 — 42 percent.

Obviously, it's a major part of our budget. It is the major part of our budget, with education following after that. It is being led by a very, very qualified physician, who is our Minister of Health. She has my full confidence in taking that increase of $2.4 billion over the next three years and investing it as best we can in services to British Columbians.

K to 12. It's been mentioned here a few times — the ongoing support for all-day kindergarten. That, again, is a very huge benefit to families and British Columbians. I don't think I've heard a single word across the province that this was a bad decision, but it was a decision that required investment of dollars. I'm very happy that we have over the last few years made that choice to invest dollars in this area.

Block funding to school districts for all-day kindergarten and other school programs will continue. They'll continue to increase to $4.7 billion annually through 2015-2016.

Arts and sports. Budget 2013 continues funding for the sport and arts legacy fund with an allocation of $60 million to continue the program, first introduced in Budget 2010. Also, to ensure B.C. young people are better prepared for the creative economy, Budget 2013 allocates $18 million over three years under B.C. Creative Futures.

We also have supports for individuals, families and community safety. This budget provides an additional $292 million over the next three years to support families and vulnerable individuals. I volunteer with vulnerable individuals. I volunteer a little bit every year, as much as I can, with the Inn from the Cold. It's a facility in my community that serves as an emergency shelter for people during intemperate times, mostly during the winter.

We continue to look for ways of leveraging the volunteerism all across British Columbia. Money that we provide from tax dollars and the volunteerism, working together, go a long way to provide good services to British Columbians.

Seventy-six million dollars over the next three years to improve access to quality early learning and child care services and supports and another $52 million over the next three years for increased RCMP policing costs, including hiring officers to combat organized crime and gang activity. There are many places across B.C. that are negatively impacted by that. As we all know, there was a shooting in my community not too long ago, gang-related, so this money is well received also.

On the tax side — because, obviously, in a balanced budget…. I'm talking more than just a bottom-line balanced budget. I'm also describing balance across the board, on taxes as well as expenditures. On the tax side, we are going to be bringing in a temporary tax, a two-year increase in the personal income tax rate for income over $150,000. This should generate $50 million.

I understand that there are only 65,000 British Columbians who claim to be making over $150,000. That's an interesting statistic all in itself. But we're going to start at $150,000 for a two-year, temporary increase to help balance the budget. I think it is definitely the responsibility of those making over $150,000 to help a little more.
[ Page 12956 ]

[1730]

Again, I don't think there'll be much discussion on this throughout British Columbia. I think British Columbians are prepared for that, and I think those making over $150,000 are also prepared for that, to help a little more so we can get through these tough times and get back to a balanced budget this year, and $205 million will be coming from a general corporate income tax rate increase to 11 percent from 10 percent, effective April 1, 2013.

Once again, corporations are part of our community. They play a major role in creating jobs. I don't believe that this small increase will be a huge detriment for future investment. Actually, with our publicly funded health care system, they have a competitive advantage that many other places in the world don't have. I think the welcome mat is still quite open.

When you go into Chilliwack, I believe, there's a sign that says, "We're open for business; call the mayor," with the phone number. I think we can do the same thing here. "We're open for business; call the Premier," with her phone number. I don't think this will make any significant difference on that. I still believe we have so many competitive advantages here that this small increase will help us go back to balance, which will, of course, invite a lot more investment because of that issue alone.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

To my smoking friends out there, I'm sorry to say that you're going to be helping as well — $2 a carton, effective October 1. The patch is available for free, so if you'd like help to quit smoking, please avail yourself of that. If not, thank you for helping — $17 million over the time period — with the balanced-budget legislation.

On the last piece, capital spending. Taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure across the province over the next three years is expected to total $10.4 billion, which is going all over British Columbia. In particular, I'd like to reiterate that the central Okanagan has seen a good piece of that — never enough. We always want more, and we'll be advocating for more, but it's a good start.

A new bridge, a new highway is being built right now — $77.9 million — through Lake Country, joining Oyama to Winfield. We have new intersections. We have a new Centennial tower that has been built, with the Dr. Anderson lab across the street joined by one of the first Plus-15s.

We also have the new cardiac and surgical centre built that's being built right now. We've already had our first open-heart surgery outside the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, right in Kelowna. I think the hon. Minister of Health was there for that. I chose not to watch, but it's apparently going to host 600 open-heart surgeries per year, once it's fully built and operational.

This is huge for all the Interior, huge for people, of course, from all walks of life throughout the Interior, and it's just one piece of the $1.5 billion that has been invested by this government over the last few years since 2001.

If I may say, that's five times the investment that the government — not this government, because a lot of the members weren't there, but the NDP government — in the '90s invested in that same area — five times the amount of investment.

Maintaining a balanced budget is a priority for government, and in the, it looks like, five minutes I have left, I'd just like to highlight some of the agricultural highlights. We are moving forward with our Growing Forward 2 plan. We're moving forward to ensure that we grow agriculture to $14 billion from the current amount over the next three or four years. I'm just moving over to the key parts of the agriculture budget.

For the ministry in 2013-2014, our operating budget is $79.3 million, an increase of 20 percent or $13.5 million from 2012-2013. The carbon tax is going to be rebated, up to $20 million over the next three years, for relief of those who are in the greenhouse industry — commercial greenhouse, vegetable and flower growers. We're also going to see new funding in this year's budget for them, which follows the $7.6 million that we put in last year on a temporary basis. That will give them certainty so they can invest in greenhouses for years to come.

[1735]

The grant announced in 2013 will be available for this following year and future years at 80 percent of carbon tax paid on specified fuels. The province is also going to be supporting relief to farmers through approximately $4.4 million on the coloured gas, which is available throughout the province. We'll see that kind of support, and that will support many parts of agriculture.

We're also….

Interjections.

Hon. N. Letnick: There we go. In particular, rural British Columbia, apparently, is very happy with that — rural B.C.

We also will see about $4 million in the support for our agricultural land reserve. The budget provides an additional $4 million over three years to support the Agricultural Land Commission for increased oversight of the land reserve. This year the province will provide the ALC with almost $3 million in an annual operating fund. The budget increase will enable the ALC to continue with the East Kootenay–Boundary review and undertake other targeted reviews which will be completed over the few years to come, to increase compliance and enforcement activities throughout the province and to build partnerships with local governments and provincial ministries.

We're also looking forward to working more closely with farmers, ranchers and agricultural organizations to
[ Page 12957 ]
preserve agricultural land and encourage farming. Also, with those funds, we'll continue digital conversion and mapping projects started with transitional funding last year, improving ability to evaluate the collective impacts of decisions on applications. The new funding in this year's budget is in addition to one-time funding of $1.6 million, as part of the package that we had to increase enforcement.

In order for agriculture to continue to succeed in B.C., producers will need a sustainable land base. The B.C. government has committed to help the ALC become a stronger and better organization and to transition to a more self-supporting operating model. We are working with local governments, producers and associations so that neighbours understand and value the benefits of farming, what it brings to their communities, and are aware of the farming lifestyle and activities before they move into an agricultural area.

One of the main commitments in our agrifoods strategy is to provide a sustainable land base for production. In November of 2011 the province strengthened the ALC with new legislation and $1.6 million in additional funding. The changes strengthened the ALC by giving it greater ability to focus on preserving farmland, to increase enforcement and to evolve into a sustainable organization.

In addition to the funding, the province also increased the number of provincial government officials authorized to investigate and respond to ALR violations to approximately 30, through coordinated multi-ministry enforcement. We will further expand enforcement by allowing qualified officials of other agencies and local government bylaw officers to conduct enforcement activities.

Other elements of the budget not directly related to my ministry, nonetheless with great benefit to agriculture, are the changes to the Property Transfer Tax Act, which will support farm succession. The transfer of a deceased person's family farm currently qualifies for exemption from property transfer tax if the deceased owner used and was farming the land immediately before death.

Effective on royal assent, the act will be amended to expand the exemption to include a family farm owned by the deceased that was immediately before the deceased's death used and farmed by one or more of the deceased, the deceased's family members or a family farm corporation.

Through the Ministry of Health, $1 million will expand the school fruit and vegetable nutritional program, a very popular program, which not only provides great leadership and great examples to youth all across British Columbia but also, of course, supports our agricultural industry in buying local school fruit and vegetables. Local milk will now be provided to schools around the province at no cost to students or their families.

I actually remember that when I was a young person — and I'm 55 now, if anybody's counting — there was a free milk program.

Interjection.

Hon. N. Letnick: I'm still a young person, according to others who are in my age bracket.

Now we're bringing it back. Our government has supported this program. Since its inception as a pilot in 2005 it now provides fresh produce to more than 1,400 schools. This not only provides students with healthy foods but also supports, as I said, agriculture producers.

Of course, the Buy Local program. I believe we have many points that we can agree on — the critic and myself. One is the Buy Local program.

[1740]

Budget 2013 carries on the constructive working relationship we've established with the B.C. agricultural sector. It builds on such positive initiatives as the $2 million in funding provided to businesses and organizations to launch or expand their own marketing programs. The funding is helping to promote B.C.'s diverse agrifood industry by allowing each applicant the freedom and expertise to market their product as they see best. This is an example of government and agrifood industry working together to promote local foods and generate economic benefits for B.C.'s food processors and communities.

Lastly, on the budget side dealing with agriculture, we talk about Growing Forward. Growing Forward builds on our successful partnership with the federal government. We signed the Growing Forward 2 agreement back in September in Whitehorse — approximately $3 billion across the country of which just under $500 million is right here in British Columbia.

We are moving towards signing the bilateral agreements with the federal government that will cover the innovation side of the equation. Approximately 80 percent of those dollars are for BRM programs and about 20 are percent for innovation. So we've got more money into innovation, roughly $110 million. We should have those agreements signed pretty soon, because of course April 1 we have to roll out Growing Forward 2 over the next five years.

I look forward to that. I look forward to announcing exactly what the final outcome would be. All in all, we will reach $14 billion a year by 2017 in industry economic activity.

Overall, this budget, while it is a conservative budget, is a balanced budget. While it is at sometimes a respectable budget, I would say that, overall, this budget is something that I can go to the people in my riding and say that I'm proud to be part of and would like to see them support me in coming back to the Legislature and speaking on their behalf for four more years after today.

H. Lali: I am honoured to have the privilege and am delighted to take my place in the debate.
[ Page 12958 ]

I'm very thrilled, the members opposite are thrilled, members on my side of the House are thrilled. In the moment of thrillness, I would like to, first of all, thank all of the members on the Liberal side and the NDP side who are retiring after having put in years of service to the public, trying to do the best job they possibly can on behalf of their constituents and the province of British Columbia.

I think there are almost 25, 30 people that are not running again and retiring for whatever reasons. I want to thank each and every one of them — and also, especially, thank their families for allowing them to actually take their place as members of this hallowed hall — for representing their constituencies and doing the diligence on behalf of the province of British Columbia.

The other thing I'd like to also mention: we disagree on politics and policies in this room, but we are all hon. members, and we do get along outside of these chambers. Often people don't think that we do, but we eat at the same places. Often we stay at the same hotels, travel on the same flights.

The member from Prince George, the Attorney General, is often on the same flights as I am. We get to chat and talk to each other and find out about our families. We wish each other well, especially the folks that are retiring.

I also want to say that the government has presented a budget, and a throne speech before that. Having listened to both the throne speech and the budget speech, I did not know whether to laugh or to cry. It was pretty hard to actually take both in.

I really feel sorry for the Lieutenant-Governor, who had to actually sit here and read that throne speech from which this budget flowed.

Actually, in the 18 years that I've been an MLA — almost 18 that I've been here; I think the Finance Minister mentioned there's been something like 18 or 19 budgets — this was the toughest budget to sit here and listen to.

[1745]

Again, like a lot of members on this side of the House…. I was watching folks on the other side of the House at the same time, during both the throne speech and the budget speech, and they felt the same way. They also didn't know whether to laugh or to cry. It was just laughable, because it was totally unbelievable — the budget speech.

What made you want to cry is how out of touch this Liberal government is with the reality outside of these chambers, with what the people of British Columbia really want. And they continue to actually attack the individuals in communities who are looking for some progressive change, some change, something, some hope for the future, for opportunities. That's why it was difficult to decide whether to laugh or to cry, listening to the budget speech.

I don't care how many times the Minister of Finance, the Premier, cabinet ministers and MLAs on the Liberal side find a stump to stand on to tell people that it is a so-called balanced budget, the fact of the matter is that it is not a balanced budget. It is not a balanced budget, and no one — members on both sides of the House have often heard me say this about the B.C. Liberals — in British Columbia believes that it's a balanced budget.

No one believes the Liberals anymore. They've lost all credibility. They've lost touch with the people that they're supposed to be governing for and on behalf of, and they bring forward this laughable document that they are purporting to call a so-called balanced budget. It is unreal. It is not balanced, hon. Speaker, and it fools no one in British Columbia. It fools no one.

You know, in the 12 years that the B.C. Liberals have governed here in Victoria, they've had eight deficit budgets, including this one. They purport to be the party of business and financial responsibility, yet what do we see? Deficit after deficit, five deficits in a row. The largest deficit in the history of British Columbia was brought by the B.C. Liberals, I think in their second year in office — the largest deficit. They brought it into place after inheriting a record surplus. That's the reality. That's the reality that we face. But you know what? What I say to my friends across the way — and they are my friends — is that they don't have to believe me.

They don't have to believe me, but I'll tell you something. The foundation for this budget was the throne speech. I'm going to read out what people out there are saying about not only the budget but also the throne speech. The framework was the throne speech, from which flowed this budget, this unbalanced budget.

I want to start off on February 14 in the Vancouver Sun. It's an article here by Peter O'Neil, and the headline says, "Oil and Gas Producers Balk at LNG Tax," which they were saying they were going to bring in, in that throne speech. The oil and gas producers are not necessarily friends of New Democrats. They are, more often than not, friends of the B.C. Liberals, but that's what they're saying.

In the Globe and Mail on February 14 — this is Justine Hunter who is reporting — the headline says: "Natural Gas Firms Fume as B.C. Proposes LNG Tax." That's these folks. They proposed that in the throne speech, from which flowed the budget. It says here: "The energy sector is lashing out at a British Columbia proposal to impose a major new tax on the impending export of natural gas, saying the province risks serious damage to a fledgling industry before it has a chance to take wing." That's even before shovels have gone into the ground.

[1750]

Also, the fact of the matter is, when you look at the 11 years before this budget, that the Liberals have actually projected, in their budgets, revenues from natural gas, in terms of their targets, that in seven of those 11 years were overestimated for the budget. But in actuality, the performance was much lower in seven of those years. Especially in the last four years in a row they've overestimated, and the reality was actually lower in terms of the revenues. So they were dreaming. They were dreaming.
[ Page 12959 ]
It's fantastic, the rate at which they dream.

Again, here's an editorial from the Times Colonist on February 13. It says: "Liberals Miss a Golden Chance." This is about the throne speech, from which flowed the budget. I'd like to read here. They name the Premier, but I won't do it. It says that the Premier's B.C. Liberals "could have written a throne speech to inspire British Columbians with a vision of the future, but instead, they kicked off the election campaign with vague promises and wishful thinking." That's what they say.

The editorial also continues. This is talking about the prosperity fund that the throne speech talked about. "Many of those voters will recall that Alberta has had a similar fund for 40 years, and yet Premier Alison Redford is talking about bringing in a sales tax to save her province's devastated finances after decades of overspending. A savings account is handy but not if you keep running your chequing account far into the overdraft to lavish gifts on all your friends and relatives."

That's what these Liberals have done for the last 11 years. They talk about bringing in a prosperity tax and actually getting rid of the PST. They talk about that. That's what their plan is or what they're saying they want to do. Yet when you look at their record, eight deficits out of the 12 years they've been in office — eight. The debt has gone from $33 billion to $64 billion under their watch — that's the direct debt — and then they've loaded on over $100 billion in contractual obligations, for which annual payments to the tune of billions have to be made by ratepayers and taxpayers in British Columbia.

When you look at that debt — $64 billion with the $102 billion of contractual obligations and that's even climbing; that's last year's figure — you're looking at about $166 billion of debt, a vast majority that these guys put on.

Again, Les Leyne writes on February 13. He names the Premier, but he says: "Premier Toys with Gassing the Sales Tax." He continues: "B.C. is only 46 days from the reintroduction of the provincial sales tax. Now they are publicly broaching the idea of some day doing away with it completely. You can't fault the Liberals for lack of long-term dreaming" — long-term dreaming.

He also says: "Discounting all the other things that need doing now, the throne speech has gone all-in on one volatile part of the economy that doesn't even exist yet."

He was talking about the LNG. And the throne speech was the basis for this budget.

Here's Michael Smyth in the Province on February 13. The headline says, "Poof! The Premier's 'Fund' Would Wipe out Debt" — just like that, snap of a finger or hocus-pocus or abracadabra or whatever magical term they might want to use. They're going to wipe out the debt, just like that — poof, a swing of the magic wand. That's how they're going to do it.

He says: "If a political party's desperation is directly proportional to the scale of its election promises, then the Premier's Liberals are about as desperate as you can get." That's what he says here. Then he continues: "The provincial sales tax? Appropriately set to return on April Fool's Day, the PST brings in more than $5 billion a year to government. But that massive burden on B.C. consumers would also be lifted by the so-called prosperity fund miracle." He calls it that. He calls it a miracle. "Amazing, isn't it? The only surprise is the government didn't throw in world peace, a cure for cancer and a solution to global warming for good measure."

Then he continues: "With the election looming in May, get set for lots more of this kind of excessive tub-thumping." That's what he called it — tub-thumping.

[1755]

He says, "The only date the Liberals care about now is May 14, election day, and that's what this fantastic dream-weaving is all about" — both the throne speech and the budget speech as well.

I especially like this one, Vancouver Sun, February 13, by Vaughn Palmer. The headline reads, "When the Gruel Is This Thin, Fantasy Looks Like a Good Alternative" — fantasy. It's called a fantasy.

He continues: "Bereft of revenues, political momentum and much in the way of new ideas, the B.C. Liberals Tuesday staked the last throne speech of their current term on wild speculation about a single sector of the economy." Bereft of ideas is what he calls it. "By this point in the day's overheated narrative, one needed reminding that to date the province has precisely zero LNG plants, nor have any of the major global players with an interest in B.C. — such as Shell and Chevron, etc. — green-lighted the construction of one."

Really, this sort of reminds me of a bad episode of The Twilight Zone. You can just hear those bells going "Doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo" — that kind of a song. It's the twilight zone that they're living in. I never was much of a singer, and I don't purport to be one.

He also says: "Still, one could readily grasp the Liberal predicament as they sat down to craft their legislative agenda. The remainder of the throne speech" — on which the budget was actually formulated — "was the thinnest gruel imaginable, recycled promises from past years, new promises so negligible as to be pathetic." That's what he called it — pathetic.

My good friend the member from Surrey-Panorama — he was interviewed on a radio station. You know what he called it? People have called the throne speech and the budget pie in the sky. You know what he called it? Building castles in the sky. That's what the Premier and the Liberal government is imagining doing — building castles in the sky. That is what they're dreaming of doing.

It sort of also reminds me of that old Beatles song — what was it? — "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." They were accused of actually talking about some psychedelic drugs at the time. But this is exactly what this budget and this throne speech that they presented reminds me of. It really is.
[ Page 12960 ]

To be frank, the Liberals have lost credibility. No one believes them. I've read a list of what the others have had to say about the throne speech. The same things could be said about the budget as well. When we continue on with the budget, again, the Liberals don't like to hear what we have to say, so I'm going to quote what others are saying.

Here we are. This is February 19, in the Vancouver Sun, by Vaughn Palmer. "Liberals' Highly Debatable Budget Plans Include Fiscal Tricks, Asset Sales and Tax Hikes." This is the headline. He says:

"The Liberals resorted to a combination of stopgap measures, some unprecedented, others merely unusual, all highly debatable."

Then he continues:

"But without the projected returns of the government's ambitious venture into the real estate market the Finance Minister's purported $200 million surplus would have had to be reported as running more than half a billion dollars into the red."

People out there — commentators and pundits — can see right through this fantasy, this unbalanced budget that the Liberals purport to be balanced.

He continues:

"Another fiscal trick saw the government bring forward into the outgoing financial year, meaning the one ending this March 31, about $150 million worth of program spending that would have otherwise been booked to the incoming year, meaning the one beginning April 1."

The Liberals call that re-profiling.

"Re-profiling is the fancy word given to the practice by the Finance Ministry. The practical political significance is what it does to the bottom line.

[1800]

"The outgoing financial year was already in the red, so the $150 million was simply tacked on to an existing deficit. But the shift put the government that much closer to bringing the next budget into" — so-called; that's my word — "balance."

Again, this is Vaughn Palmer in his article.

He continued:

"Still, for all that, the Liberals were able to offer next to nothing in the way of new programs nor even much in the way of improvements in existing ones. Making lemonade out of the lemon, the Finance Minister tried to frame the dearth of new giveaways as a commendable accomplishment in an election year."

This is in the Vancouver Sun.

Regarding the budget, in the Times Colonist Les Leyne writes, on the 20th of February: "Since the election date was fixed in May almost 12 years ago, every fourth budget becomes a bit of a farce." He calls this budget a farce, and it always happens around election time.

Do folks around here remember 2009? Hon. Speaker, do you remember 2009?

The Minister of Finance, my good friend from Vancouver-Quilchena — he was the minister at the time — brought in a budget. It said a $495 million deficit, and not a penny more. Maximum. The roof. That's it. The ceiling. Guaranteed. You can take that to the bank — or actually withdraw that from the bank. That's what he said — $495 million in 2009.

Yet when the Finance Minister and the Premier were both asked, "Are you going to bring in the harmonized sales tax?" they said: "No. No, we're not. Read my lips. No, we're not. That's it."

Guess what. Not a day after the election, when these guys were sworn in, guess what they said. You know, everybody in British Columbia — except for the B.C. Liberals — all said they did not believe the Liberals. No one believed them. They all knew — even the pundits. They knew that it was not a balanced budget. They knew it, and they called it.

A couple of weeks after the election was over, guess what. "Oh my god," they said, "the bottom has fallen out." Yet all the warning signs were there by everybody, except they were going to be immune because they said: "Oh no, no. This is not going to affect us in B.C."

That $500 million ballooned to a $2 billion deficit. And guess what. They brought in the HST. This is a repeat of 2009.

To continue with Les Leyne, he says: "For all the hopes, dreams and hard work that went into the effort, Tuesday's budget has a shelf life of six weeks." He's talking about the fixed dates. He says: "If the B.C. Liberals win, which looks unlikely at this point, they will have to reintroduce it later this year."

Does anybody recall that movie, "2009"?

Interjection.

H. Lali: Exactly. "2009."

Here's the Vancouver Sun, an editorial, February 20. The headline says: "Election Budget Shows Need to Move Voting Day." Same thing. Same thing, is what it says. It says: "Many of the spending estimates included in this budget will be difficult to achieve. The overall spending target is less than the rate of inflation. It barely covers the estimated population growth. To maintain that rate over three years implies a continued agenda of program cuts."

The Vancouver Sun — they figured it out. These guys are going to cut services. The Liberals are.

Here's Don Cayo in the Vancouver Sun, February 20. This is the headline: "Provincial Budget a Tricky Balancing Act for Liberals with Unknown Future." He says: "I see several other risks. One involves the fancy footwork, if not downright sleight of hand" — he calls it — "to turn this year's $1.2 billion deficit into surpluses in the $200 million range for both 2013-14 and 2014-15." They know this. It's a sleight of hand.

[1805]

You know, they touted the jobs plan. They're spending all these millions of dollars promoting the jobs plan. Now they're going to go out there to promote a budget that is not balanced, but they're going to say it is. But people know differently.

On February 13 there was an opinion by Herb Spencer from Surrey. It's entitled "Facts in the Figures: The Premier's Jobs Plan Just Isn't Working." It says:

"The Liberals are obsessed with presenting an image that they are better stewards of the economy than the NDP, but to do this,
[ Page 12961 ]
they have chosen to sell off B.C.'s assets, make giveaway deals with Chinese and foreign mining companies, slash health funding and increase MSP premiums, etc.

"This is not economic management. It is a scorched-earth policy to keep their own well-paid jobs at any cost to the rest of us."

That's what he says.

Here's another one, by Don Smith from Vancouver, entitled "Jobs? You Kidding?" It's sort of like the response when somebody doesn't believe someone: "Are you serious? You're not kidding me, are you?" That's exactly what it says. "Jobs? You Kidding?"

He says:

"Like me, are you sick of seeing the Premier on TV telling us how hard the Liberals are working getting jobs for B.C. while importing 200 coal miners from China, canvassing Britain transit police, laying off 60 personnel at transit and shipping engines to Detroit for rebuilding?

"What about giving $11 million to India's film industry, while refusing to give our own film companies a tax break, or building B.C. ferries and the SeaBus in Europe.

"And wasn't it the Liberals who cut funding for apprenticeship training? Really, the Premier is out to lunch on this."

This is Don Smith from Vancouver.

Of course, the Liberals like to really talk about the 1990s. It's all they ever want to talk about, but the facts reveal something totally the opposite. Here's what happened.

Under the Liberals, in their last decade, B.C.'s economy has grown more slowly, created fewer jobs and attracted fewer people to B.C. than it did under the NDP in the 1990s. That's according to Stats Canada. Stats Canada doesn't listen to the NDP. They do their own independent research. It says that under the Liberals B.C. was a have-not province five times — five times — receiving payments of $2.4 billion, versus just once under the NDP, receiving just $125 million.

Interprovincial migration to B.C. during the 1990s, when the NDP was in power, totalled 130,000 net people coming in. Under the Liberals it has been less than half of that, just over 56,000 people. But they like to pretend it's the opposite.

Also, if you look at the last three decades and the performance of government as measured by economic growth as a percentage of the GDP, under the Social Credit it was 2.8 percent, averaged over those ten years. Under the NDP in the 1990s, it was 2.9 percent. But under the Liberals it's been 2.5 percent, the lowest of all three. Of the Social Credit, NDP and the Liberals, the Liberals come in dead last.

On jobs, the Liberals' jobs plan has been a complete failure as well. Since the plan was introduced in September 2011, B.C. has lost 37,000 private sector jobs — which they purport to be supporting, but they've lost 37,000 jobs. B.C. has lost 16,000 jobs in January alone. Overall growth has been stagnant since the jobs plan was actually introduced.

It just doesn't make sense. I mean, what we've seen under the B.C. Liberals, and they continue this year after year, is the mismanagement of the finances of this province. They've mismanaged every year. They've had eight record deficits. Most of those have been record deficits under them. They have eight deficits, including this one.

You've got all sorts of people who are out there — not NDPers but folks out there and pundits — who are calling the budget a stopgap measure. They're calling it debatable. They're calling it sad, making lemonade out of lemons, fancy footwork, sleight of hand — all these kinds of things — fantasyland. Makes you nostalgic for Bill Vander Zalm and his Fantasy Gardens. Compared to this budget, compared to these Liberals, it really does.

[1810]

But I've got to tell you. There's another word here that's missing out of all the other ones. This budget, which the Liberals purport to be balanced, is a bogus budget. It's a bogus budget. This budget is so bogus. It is about as phony as a $3 bill, and everybody in British Columbia knows that. People are laughing at the B.C. Liberals everywhere you go.

They're planning massive cuts to health care again — $235 million worth. Why don't they come out here and put forward that plan? Where do they plan to cut? What hospitals do they plan to cut? Are they planning on cutting services to seniors? Are they planning to cut services to rural British Columbia?

What about the ambulance service, the totally inadequate ambulance service that has been provided by the B.C. Liberals with their cuts?

Which hospitals are they going to cut? Are they going to actually make sure that ERs are open in Ashcroft and Lytton and Princeton? Are they? Which hospitals are they going to close? They need to put that on the record. They don't.

We know one thing. They're cutting $40 million out of forestry, and $35 million of that is coming from where? From forestry health.

You know, we need a timber supply for the future. If you don't have a healthy forest, if you don't have silviculture, if you don't have tree planting…. There's a million hectares of that land that is NSR, not sufficiently restocked. We've got a mill in Merritt, Ardew Wood Products, that's gone down because there's not enough green timber available. There's not enough green timber.

Why don't they come out here and tell the people of British Columbia where they want to make the cuts? Why don't they tell us which hospitals and which services they're going to close?

Which schools are they going to close? Which schools? How much are tuition fees going to go up for students again? No one believes the B.C. Liberals. No one believes this bogus budget that they've put forward. It is bogus to the extreme. It's bogus to the max. They would have been more credible if they had come out and actually presented something that was reasonable, that everybody….
[ Page 12962 ]

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat.

H. Lali: I will take my seat and pick another day.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat, please.

Hon. R. Sultan: It's a great challenge to follow the measured and calm discourse from the member for Fraser-Nicola, but I will give it my scholarly best and start off by saying it's a great honour to have the opportunity to offer some comments on recently delivered speeches from the throne and the budget.

I will begin by delving more deeply into the government's declaration in the throne speech of its intention to create an office of the seniors advocate. Since I was appointed Minister of State for Seniors in September, I have travelled throughout British Columbia to meet many seniors; families; caregivers; administrators, both public and private; and others in the seniors world. One of the ideas repeated to me was that British Columbia seniors welcomed the idea of having a seniors advocate.

Government first committed to this idea of an office of the seniors advocate as part of our seniors action plan, issued about 12 months ago. That action plan was influenced by the reports of the Ombudsperson, who had studied seniors care within B.C. extensively.

Government also heard that the public welcomed this idea as a result of a public consultation in the spring and summer of 2012 on the role and mandate of such a position. Our MLA from Parksville-Qualicum capably chaired the public consultation with more than 500 British Columbians in communities around our province between May and July of last year.

During the same time period the ministry also received more than 100 submissions by mail and e-mail and a dozen electronic individual surveys from seniors and families around the province. Their ideas are incorporated in the proposed act.

[1815]

The legislation introduced into this House today will create a seniors advocate. This person will work closely, in a collaborative way, within government and with others outside of government to promote positive changes that will enhance the well-being of seniors. By seniors, we refer to residents of British Columbia 65 years or older, as well as others who may be receiving seniors services.

The advocate's mandate will be broad indeed: to consider systemic seniors issues in programs, services or support systems in relation to health care, personal care — by which we mean non-medical care — housing, transportation or income support as used by or associated with seniors. Please note that, frequently, the most important issues for seniors are not necessarily health-related. They may be as simple as the challenge of getting to the store or — as with someone I talked to after lunch today, dealing with seniors in the Cariboo — the issue of getting to a lady whose wood supply is running low in a cabin in the Cariboo.

The advocate's responsibilities will cut across entities both public and private. The advocate will be expected to focus on increasing the well-being of seniors as impacted by public or private service providers or by those entities which fund, in whole or in part, seniors services. The advocate's responsibilities may be summed up in three verbs: monitor, analyze and advocate.

The advocate will not be a complaint office. Other existing entities within the government and the Legislature perform that role already. On the complaints front line we have, for example, 85 well-funded MLA offices throughout the land. We also have such entities as the patient care quality offices, the quality review boards in the health system, the rentsalsman in housing, sectoral ombudsmen industry by industry and many others, not to mention the media.

Therefore, rather than process individual complaints, the advocate will be expected to identify systemic issues that affect seniors generally, then figure out reasonable changes in policies, programs or procedures that could advance seniors well-being, and then advocate for those changes.

Although the mandate of the seniors advocate will not include resolving an individual person's issues or problems, an individual case could be the catalyst prompting the advocate to initiate a systemwide policy review. It's expected the advocate will work collaboratively with policy-makers, with those who deliver seniors services and with others in the world of seniors to find positive solutions. If this sounds like a broad mandate, it certainly is.

While some may believe that contention and headlines are the only way to get things done in government, it's my own personal view, honed by years of experience, that collaboration and persuasion offer the more productive path. When stronger tools are needed to effect change, the advocate will have the power to require information from prescribed service providers.

The advocate will submit reports to the public as well as annual reports to the government, and the power of the public pen should not be underestimated in influencing the intricate affairs of the seniors world.

The issue of independence is frequently raised. The seniors advocate will be established as a statutory officer appointed through order-in-council and reporting to the minister responsible for seniors. That is, for now at least, me.

[1820]

Some will argue this undercuts independence. I disagree. Let us count the ways.

To enhance the autonomy of the office, the advocate will be able to appoint, independently, a council of his or her own advisers; identify his or her own work priorities; gather information across that broad spectrum previ-
[ Page 12963 ]
ously described; assure protection for those assisting the advocate in fulfilling his or her responsibilities; make independent recommendations to the minister responsible for seniors as well as to any other public official and to those who deliver seniors services; independently hire staff and outside experts; make reports to the public; report annually to the government; and be compensated in a manner befitting a senior official of the government.

A useful role model may be the provincial health officer, Dr. Perry Kendall, who is required by law to provide independent advice to the government on public health matters. In similar fashion, we may say that the seniors advocate will be responsible for serving as an independent adviser to government on issues important to the well-being of seniors and, furthermore, to work to promote positive change in the world of seniors generally.

As I have already emphasized, the preferred method for resolving issues will be for the advocate to identify, analyze and propose changes through collaborative dialogue. Fulfilling this mandate could well involve working simultaneously with seniors directly, with various government ministries, with government agencies, with private organizations and entities, and with community-based non-profit societies, not to mention the many existing advocates we find in the field.

This is key. The proposed advocate model strikes the best balance between the independence needed to review government policies clearly and without bias, and the necessity of working within the government system to effect needed changes. My commitment to my fellow seniors is to ensure that this is indeed how it will work.

The Seniors Advocate Act is the culmination of a lot of consultation, a lot of work, a lot of discussion and considerable thought. Our current focus is on passing this legislation in the current session of parliament. Once this law is enacted, we will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to have a legislated seniors advocate. I think that's something this parliament can be proud of — that is to say, assuming the legislation actually passes.

From my point of view, the introduction of this legislation is an exciting moment for British Columbia seniors. I'm sure that both sides of the House will make sure the bill is strongly supported.

So much for the seniors advocate. I would like to now turn to the 2013 budget and how it is impacting seniors in particular. Let me say that seniors of the province — many of whom, like myself, grew up during the Depression or during World War II — understand the need to live within your means. They understand that you cannot always have what you want right away. They understand saving and thrift. These are not radical concepts to those of a certain age.

Seniors believe in balanced budgets, and they are suspicious of those who don't. When seniors see a Finance Minister such as ours, who, in the run-up to the budget day, scrimped and saved — a Finance Minister such as ours, who said no, despite overpowering temptations; a Finance Minister such as ours, who rejected wishful thinking on the revenue side — well, hardened seniors can say that they've been through it all before, themselves. And when our Finance Minister produces a solid, thrifty and not terribly exciting but completely credible balanced budget, British Columbia seniors like that a lot.

[1825]

I must confess to getting highly annoyed when persons on the opposite bench fail to see this and rush to tell the media that we're simply making it all up. They must be suffering from high anxiety.

I'd like to quote — in juxtaposition to the various quotations of the member for Fraser-Nicola of what I might deign to call less reputable journalistic sources — what I would say the premiere newspaper in Canada, the Globe and Mail, has to say about our budget.

The headline on the editorial page is, without quoting the names: "B.C.'s Premier Delivers Solid Budget." The Globe and Mail editorial goes on to say, just to quote an excerpt, that the Premier and the Minister of Finance "deserve praise for a sober pre-election budget which does not attempt to buy voters with their own money."

It goes on later in the same editorial to describe this budget: "A balance or modest surplus after four successive deficits is an accomplishment in hard times, difficult especially for a natural resource–based provincial economy, when the other large Canadian provinces are in deficit."

Well, I would call that praise of the highest order, particularly when we compare our gnashing of the teeth over a few tens or even 50s of millions of dollars worth of deficits. They're now contemplating in Alberta — rich, oil-fat-cat Alberta — a $3 billion operating deficit. How are they going to handle that?

That's small change compared to the situation in Ontario, where the good news is that the projected deficit has been reduced from $15 billion down to a mere $12 billion, operating. Lots of luck, Ontario. You are reaping the whirlwind of the type of wastrel policies that this government has avoided for British Columbia.

Another thing seniors like is low taxes, and I'd like to just spend a moment talking about low taxes. British Columbia is a low-tax haven. I find people are astonished when I make this declaration. They don't believe me. They read the headlines and say: "Oh damn, we're being taxed to death, and it's all the fault of those rascals over in Victoria." We are, in truth, a fierce competitor when it comes to attracting tax-sensitive foreign investment. We are almost in a class of our own. Believe it or not, it happens to be the truth.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Now, this budget modestly increased both personal and business income taxes. Our friends in the NDP had
[ Page 12964 ]
some fun, and I grant that it made me smile too, gloating that we were stealing their ideas. But hardly.

Let's first look at personal income taxes. More than a million of our citizens don't pay any income tax at all. Those who complain about high taxes in B.C., in my suspicion, are often those who don't pay taxes at all. Go figure.

Many do not realize the magnitude of the personal income tax introduced by this government over the years and which will continue in the main. Nor do they recall how voracious the NDP tax collectors were in decades past.

Let me give you some examples. Let's start at the lower end of the income scale: an individual earning $20,000 and enjoying life under the previous NDP government in 2001. That individual earning $20,000 would have paid personal income taxes of $752 under the NDP. Today under this government his tax bill is only $81.

[1830]

Let's look at a low-income couple earning $40,000. In today's cost of living that would hardly be considered affluent. Enjoying life under the NDP government in 2001, that couple earning $40,000 would have paid personal income taxes of $793. Under this government, their tax bill is zero.

Final example. A family of four earning $70,000 — I guess we'd call that comfortably middle-class; let's hope we could call it that — and enjoying life under the NDP government in 2001 would have paid personal income tax of a shade under $4,300. Under this government, their tax bill was around $2,200.

Okay. To achieve a balanced budget, the Finance Minister this year increased the health insurance premiums $2½ a month for individuals and $4½ for a family of two. For some seniors this can be an issue. But again, let's put this in perspective. My son, who lives in Washington State and works down there as a professional engineer, pays about $30,000 a year in annual health insurance premiums — $30,000 a year in health insurance premiums in Washington State for himself and his family. Of course, the company he works for basically picks up the tab.

Meanwhile, more than 800,000 British Columbia citizens do not pay one cent for health insurance. Another one million — including more than a third of all seniors, in fact — receive MSP subsidies. Therefore, the very small increase in MSP premiums, confined essentially to those who can pay in this budget, is hardly noticeable in the grand comparison of B.C.'s personal income tax advantage. We are still by far the lowest personal income tax jurisdiction in all of Canada.

B.C.'s tax advantage is also spectacular on the business side. According to the global accounting giant KPMG, in its publication in 2012, Special Report: Focus on Tax — a worldwide survey of this worldwide accounting firm — companies located in Canada pay about 40 percent less in overall average tax costs than their peers in the United States. Let me restate that. Companies in Canada pay about 40 percent less in overall average tax costs than their peers in the United States, 60 percent less than in Germany and 70 percent less than in Japan.

That's just the Canadian advantage. As measured by KPMG in British Columbia, it even gets better. For our sources here, we revert to a city-by-city survey of total taxes of all types, taken simultaneously by KPMG. I believe it includes real estate, income, capital, sales taxes, etc. Add it all up. What it shows in this worldwide comparison is if you pay $49 of tax in Vancouver, you'd pay $56 in Toronto; $80 in London; $93 in Seattle; $101 in New York City; $126 in Sydney, Australia; and $187 in Paris, France — versus $49 in Vancouver.

Want to move your head office to Toronto or to France? I don't think so. Therefore, the very small 1 percent business tax increase in our 2013 budget is hardly noticeable amidst the dramatic comparisons of the low-tax British Columbia advantage. Clearly, British Columbia's very low income taxes are a major cornerstone of our economic prosperity. We have a duty to remind citizens of how tax-friendly we are, in comparison with the opposition party's clear signal.

The clear signal from the NDP is that they would significantly boost personal tax rates, that they would significantly raise corporate income tax rates more than we did, and that they would reinstate the dreaded capital tax. That would be a three-way haymaker punch to anybody's economic confidence in British Columbia.

[1835]

We've been having a little trouble getting a glimpse of the plan proposed for our destiny by the people on the opposite bench. In particular, what exact tax rates do they propose? Unfortunately, a cone of silence has been imposed on the benches opposite. Of one thing we can be clear: the NDP favours bigger government and higher taxes, and their public sector union allies are standing in the wings, holding out their open purses in anticipation.

About two years ago analysts working on this side of the House started tracking the spending promises of the politicians on the other side. This was a profitable exercise up until our opponents realized they were letting the cat out of the bag. They quickly learned that the less-scary-to-voters strategy was simply to keep their mouth shut — which strategy, I must admit, has worked better for them.

Nevertheless, we can get a pretty good hint of the spending intentions and ambitions of members opposite by adding up the fiscal consequences of the various promises they sprinkled around the province before the cone of silence descended.

As the current Minister of Transport, sitting right in front of me, and I reported at a news conference on this topic many months ago, it was not difficult to add up an additional incremental $8 billion of quite random new
[ Page 12965 ]
spending promises, which would happen to represent roughly a 20 percent increase in the provincial budget in government spending.

Could it be less than that? Of course. Could it be more than that? Sure. They weren't giving us the details, and once the scale of their promises was exposed, they rapidly lowered the iron curtains. So let's just take a 20 percent government spending increase as a reasonable guesstimate of their intentions, based only a scattershot sampling of promises.

Where would they get the money? Well, unfortunately for them and us, the windfalls from the conventional natural gas industry sales and royalties previously enjoyed are unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. LNG promises huge longer-term rewards, but that will take time, and the election of an NDP government, I assure you, would cause alarm bells to ring loudly in the boardrooms of the oil patch and tend to encourage deferment of many plans.

How would the NDP finance a 20 percent increase in spending plans? They could raise the provincial debt, probably a very tempting alternative for them. Or they could raise taxes 20 percent, or they could cut other essential services by about 20 percent, which seems unlikely. Take your pick. None of them appeal to me.

Summing up, the strategy outlined in our Budget 2013 is, in my view — and to quote the adjective used by the Globe and Mail in its editorial this morning — a "sober" blend of longer-term optimism combined with short-term fiscal prudence and a continuation of the core fiscal policies which has made British Columbia the destination of people and investments from around the world.

I suggest to my fellow British Columbians that we should keep it that way. This is no time to turn over the helm to a captain who refuses to tell the passengers where we are being taken.

C. Trevena: It's always a pleasure to listen to the member for…. Or now I have to say the Minister of State for Seniors. He is an articulate ideologue rather than just a raucous voice. It's quite pleasant to hear arguments given in such a thoughtful manner, even though I choose to disagree wholeheartedly with them.

[1840]

I will be picking up on some of his comments about taxes and fees in a little while, but I did want to start my remarks on this pre-election bogus budget with its claims of being balanced. I think people are learning more and more — we've only had it out for 24 hours now — that it simply isn't balanced.

Essentially, it's an austerity budget. Those sorts of budgets we've seen in other jurisdictions. Austerity budgets that cut to the bone are extraordinarily damaging to people and to institutions. I think it's something that we should all be very aware of, that what is happening here is going to be very damaging if this budget goes through. The deeper the cuts to services, the harder it is for people in communities to survive.

I'd like to focus a little bit in the beginning of my remarks on my own constituency on the north Island. One always looks through your own community lens when looking at a budget. What concerns me greatly about this is that it does undermine the foundations on which our communities are built.

One of the real horrors in going through the figures…. We do go through the figures, and we analyze them very closely. We look at the figures in the investment and the reductions in comparison to what we know is going on, on the ground.

For me, I represent forest-dependent communities. I've talked a lot about that. So I look at Ministry of Forests, and what do I find? I find that there is a massive cut to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations — or the alphabet ministry, as people who work there describe it — at a time when we should be investing in our land base.

We still rely on our forests for our economy. It's the foundation of our economy in the north Island. That is both in logging…. It's not so much in value-added now. I mentioned this time and again, because we do see logs shipped out of the constituency. We see them shipped out of the west coast. We see them trucked down through the Island out of the constituency, out from jobs and often exported.

But it's also important for tourism, because we have a land base that people come and want to see. It's wilderness. People want to see that. So a $35 million cut to forest health is going to have a huge impact on my constituency — absolutely devastating when you're looking at the reinvestment into our resource, reinvestment into the health of our natural resources.

It's like carrying on taking from the cupboard, taking from the cupboard, taking from the cupboard and never putting anything back. It's going to hurt. It's going to hurt right across the board.

We've seen years of neglect on the land base in habitat, in conservation, in parks and in forests. It's a fantastic public resource. We are so lucky to have such an extent of Crown lands, but without healthy forests, we don't have either a healthy economy or a healthy environment for either my constituency of North Island or for B.C.

The other startling cut — because there were cuts in that ministry last year too, so it's startling that there are going to be cuts again this year — were cuts to Advanced Education. This is a vital ministry because that's where we look to for training, for apprenticeships and for the skill development that our young people need.

As I say, it was cut last year. This time it's going to see $46 million taken out over three years. This is at a time when we should be investing in our young people. We know that the majority of work that's going to be coming up is going to need post-secondary education. It's going to need skills.
[ Page 12966 ]

I've been up at North Island College and talking to students there. People who are taking courses there are desperately worried. Young people are desperately worried about the value and the quality of the apprenticeship system. They want to train fully in the trades, get a high-quality apprenticeship. They're telling me they're looking to go to Alberta because they're going to get better apprenticeship training than they are in B.C.

That saddens me, the fact that our young people are thinking about leaving the province for apprenticeships when we could be doing that here in our communities, in colleges such as North Island College, which is perfectly set up to provide those high-quality apprenticeships. But they want to leave.

Instead of dealing with these issues, these real fundamental issues, we get trinkets. I know that this is a pre-election budget and there isn't much there, but we get these weird little things dangling. Instead of investing in post-secondary, investing in either the colleges or in the students who are going to the colleges, we get the investment in the RESP, the registered education savings plan.

[1845]

I've got to say it's quite right that it has been derided as a gimmick. The Confederation of University Faculty Associations president called it, in fact, a "cynical gimmick" and said: "The value of the government's contribution will not even cover the increase in tuition fees by the time a child reaches 18." There is a huge need now to be investing in students in post-secondary, and we get this.

Our side of the House has been very clear on what we would do, and we keep getting questions about what we would do. We have said this for some time. We are going to tackle the outrageous cost of post-secondary education with grants to students to increase their access to post-secondary.

Likewise, there is no money to deal with the downloading on the school districts. Education is — from preschool through K-to-12, through to post-secondary — such a fundamental part of a stable society. What we get, instead, is more downloading.

I have three school districts in my constituency. I refer to them often. School district 85 in the north Island — lots of great ideas and a small population. School district 84, over on the west coast, has got fewer students than most high schools have in the whole school district — very remote, very specific needs in its dealings. Then school district 72 — both urban requirements and rural.

School district 72 wrote to the Minister of Education, my neighbouring MLA for the Comox Valley. What the school district wrote to the minister just last year was:

"Of significant concern is the government's apparent belief we have the ability to free up funding from existing budgets to provide for compensation increases without negatively impacting the delivery of educational programming for students, transfer costs, or reducing service levels to the public.

"Over the last five years our board has had to make significant reductions and changes to programs and services in order to deliver a balanced budget. Cumulatively, we have had to cut over $3 million during this time, with cuts over $1 million each year for two consecutive years.

"In addition to the past cuts made to our budget, we are facing the following challenges next year: a reduction in funding of $576,000, possible loss of educational plan funding of $100,000, teacher pension plan increases of $330,000 and a WCB and hydro increase of $60,000. Total implication of $1 million, before taking into account the 1.5 percent increase expected under the cooperative gains."

It is continuing downloading that is going to impact the school system and going to impact education. It is unacceptable that this government can simply ignore that, both in its throne speech and, specifically, in this budget.

What we do get…. We get fresh veggies for the school systems but nothing that's going to actually help school districts deal with this constant downloading of costs.

The commitment to education is so minimal that this government is allowing cuts to literacy programs, and $127,000 is coming from my constituency alone.

As I mentioned, I have small rural communities. Kyuquot, over on the west coast. To get to it, you go up the highway, along a logging road, and 74 kilometres out, on a boat, you get to Kyuquot. It's out there on the west coast. Brooks Peninsula: it's just from there. It's one of the Maa-nulth treaty territories. Gorgeous place. It's got a school, got a population, needs literacy support.

Likewise, Zeballos. It's got a school, got a small population, needs literacy support — had active and successful programs cut. In fact, in Zeballos — a small community; it's the smallest municipality in B.C. — 50 of the 200 residents took upgrading last year in Zeballos. It resulted in several community members obtaining their high school graduation. That program has been cut.

Likewise, another foundational part of our society: health care. Glad to see a commitment to the capital plan for our two new hospitals, but there are very serious concerns in Campbell River from the doctors, from the community, that the hospital is going to be too small. It's only going to have 95 beds, and regularly, we are over-census at 98 beds. But we are also told there's not going to be room for the autopsy suite. This is even before the designs have been done.

[1850]

It appears that the health authority clearly misread the population statistics for Campbell River and north. My only glimmer of hope and the only glimmer of hope for the people of Campbell River north is that the budget, in commenting on the $600,000 allocated to that, notes: "Figures are estimates and will be confirmed through the planning and procurement process." I hope that those confirmations will be higher, to take into account that we will need more beds there.

I know that there is a whole setup under the public-private-partnership model that it's moving through, that is driving this through before the election. But I hope there will be the opportunity to stop and look at that and make sure that we get the adequate number of beds there, the
[ Page 12967 ]
adequate services there, so that we are not just a satellite of the Courtenay hospital but have the hospital we need for a growing population in the north Island.

On health care generally, bad news for many, many people when we see a 4 percent increase in the MSP payments. The Minister of State for Seniors was talking about the tax regime and low taxes and so on. He forgot to mention that we have seen increases in fees across the board since 2001, with MSP payments going up 91.66 percent, 92 percent. The government sometimes boasts — in fact, the minister boasted — about how many people don't pay MSP: "Isn't this great, all these people who don't pay MSP?"

I think the government should be more worried about that, because those 800,000 to one million people who don't pay MSP, don't pay MSP because they don't earn an income commensurate with having to pay MSP. They are poor. These are people who are too poor to pay their MSP premiums. I think that that is something they should be worried about.

In fact, in health totally, there are going to be cuts. The government says there's an increase, but the increase is so slight that there are going to be cuts. We know we need to do health differently, but this budget — this austerity budget, this bogus budget — is going to mean wait-lists. There's no doubt about it.

The other keystone for my constituency is ferries. I often talk about ferries because they are our highways. They are our highways that have been ignored and that have been turned into the most egregious example of user-pay that I think anyone has come across. We have seen fares multiply year upon year upon year, forcing families to leave their homes of generations.

When I mentioned ferries in my response to the throne speech, the Minister of Citizens' Services said, and I paraphrase, that people should live close to where they work. That was a slap in the face for thousands of people — my constituents and others who live on the islands. He doesn't see from his cabinet perch that in our island communities, they are working communities. This is where people live and work. We are a coastal province. Tens of thousands of people live and work in communities which are served by ferries. His attitude shows unmitigated arrogance.

Ferries. What do we have for ferries? Well, actually we lose money for ferries here. We lose $10 million. What a surprise? That means, in terms of this government — if the Minister of Citizens' Services is reflecting his cabinet opinion — fares will go up again because this is that system of user-pay we have delivered for ferries yet again. How many businesses in my constituency will be hit by this? How many families will leave? How can the government justify removing a highway from the people who use it?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In this budget even items which are supposed to help families, like the child care tax credit, are really very cynical. They don't come into effect for two years, and then equate to $55 a month. I think most parents are going to be pretty insulted by that.

There are also cuts…. I'm looking at the cuts across the board, as I'm going through the figures. There are cuts to the Ministry of Justice, and this at a time when we're seeing courts overwhelmed and a real crisis in access to the system.

Mr. Speaker, I note the hour. I reserve the right to continue my remarks, and I move to adjourn debate.

C. Trevena moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:55 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 © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada