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)

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Morning Sitting

Volume 42, Number 1

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2013

The House met at 10:02 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. R. Coleman: Since it's my first opportunity, I reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege relating to remarks by the member for Surrey-Whalley yesterday afternoon during his remarks to the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

C. Trevena: I'm very happy to resume my remarks on Budget 2013, which I finished last night, talking about cuts to the justice system.

The cuts to the justice system are going to have a huge impact, as I mentioned last night. But it doesn't just affect the criminal side. It is also civil and can have a devastating effect on child welfare.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Delays of months are happening in the system, and months are important. Months are important to anybody, but when you're talking about a child, a child who is maybe 18 months old…. If they're having to wait ten months, if their family is going to have to wait ten months for a ruling, that is almost their whole life lived again, held in limbo because of the backlog in our court system. This budget is not going to help deal with that, and that's a fundamental issue.

I'd like to talk for a little bit about what this budget means for the Ministry of Children and Families. That's the ministry of which I'm a shadow and very proud to be, but I've got to say it would be sad if it just simply wasn't so awful. The minister can try and claim an increase in the budget, but effectively, the increase is 0.9 percent. As we know, inflation is running over 1 percent, and while that's a low level, 0.9 percent doesn't even meet inflation.

[1005]

So while we've got the claim that there's an increase, the increase of $11.7 million is less than the money that is being spent on partisan ads. We've got $17 million being spent on advertising and $11 million being spent on our most vulnerable citizens, on our children, on our future. There's more emphasis on partisan advertising in this bogus budget than there is in our future.

The Bollywood film festival is getting more money than our kids are getting. This is the government's priority. It shows that no matter what they say, kids simply do not matter as long as we get our spin. As long as the government can get its message out, they don't care. So they can live in abusive homes. We have had the representative's report on that. We can leave kids without supports for mental health — many children in that position. We can ignore kids with special needs as long as we get re-elected. This is disgraceful, and the members opposite should, frankly, be ashamed of themselves.

I asked in question period yesterday how the government thinks it's going to pay for the recommendations from the representative's reports. The minister actually said that, yes, they're going to do it — six new beds. Six new beds? It's several million dollars; it's $3 million to $4 million. That is a third of the increase in this budget, and this budget is already going to be eaten up in just keeping the ministry hobbling along.

They're not cheap. Looking after children is not cheap, and we shouldn't shortchange them. Yet that's what we're doing. There's a desperate lack of services for children in our province, a desperate lack. We're looking at children who have special needs, some of the most vulnerable children — complex needs.

This bogus budget simply doesn't recognize that it is a ministry in crisis. There is a wait-list for children and youth with mental health problems — a wait-list. It's vastly under-resourced across the province. In the child and youth mental health section in the ministry there is…. I should say that in almost every office, they'll be at least one or two staff short there. Sick leave — they're so stressed that they're going on long-term sick leave. The places aren't being filled, and this is having a direct impact on our kids. Our teenagers are committing suicide because there is no help.

Highly vulnerable youth, kids with special needs. There are wait-lists for occupational therapists, wait-lists for physiotherapists. There is no funding. There is nothing in this budget that will give any relief for those families who are looking for those extra supports. Yet the ministry's own data shows there's an exponential increase in demands. But the minister hasn't bothered to fight in her corner, hasn't said that we need an increase because if we don't invest in our youth, in our kids, we haven't got a province that we can be proud of in the future. She's just ignored it.

We have a very strong Representative for Children and Youth, and I'd just like to quote her comments on the budget to underline what my own views are. She says: "For the children and families that we know already have deep needs, there's nothing there. When we look at issues like child and youth mental health, there
[ Page 12970 ]
is no relief. There's no relief on the type of homes we're putting children in care in, no therapeutic residential services money. It is not a friendly budget for vulnerable persons and those in demand-driven services like the Ministry of Children and Families." Not friendly — I think that's mild. I think it's an actual attack on those who are in most need.

So what has the ministry invested in? Well, we do see that there is more money going to executive services. I think everybody's fear is that it's money going down the drain of the data management system that has caused such chaos in the ministry — the integrated case management system, ICM. It's $200 million and growing. It has been a waste of resources and a waste of time. It's adding hours and hours to social workers' daily work, and it takes away from front-line work.

Time and again, the question has been asked: why didn't they know? Well, we now know that the answer is because they were simply trying to get the information out of the computer. That's why they didn't know what was happening. That's why they're finding kids falling through the cracks. They can't find information in the computer. This is a computer system designed more for sales than for tracking people.

[1010]

There was an independent report on this computer system, and I'd like to read a couple of quotes. "Without a well-documented project charter and plan, MCFD executive likely lacked the necessary understanding and line of sight into project dependencies and the potential impact of their decisions." Pretty damning. The quote says: "There was a significant underestimation of MCFD's required budget for its implementation." Time and again, this independent report on this computer system shows that it is not suited for the purpose. It is simply the wrong system.

The government is only now looking at alternatives. It didn't bother to check beforehand what is out there, what other jurisdictions are using. It went with this one. If they were running a business, they wouldn't get away with it. I mean, no one has taken responsibility for oversight, and it is simply frightening how much time and how much money this has wasted on what should be services to kids.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development is the ministry that has the pilot poverty reduction programs. I know, because there is one in my constituency. I've talked about that in the past — the failure of that one up in Port Hardy. But there's no money for it. There's no line item in this ministry saying how they're going to reduce poverty — nothing there, yet we have growing poverty levels in our province — nor anything for domestic violence. The domestic violence unit is also in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and yet we see nothing committed to that in this budget.

Part of an effort of this balancing — so-called finding a balanced budget in this…. I keep using the refrain: "It is a bogus budget." Partly, an attempt for trying to balance comes from selling public assets, selling public property. While, yes, governments sell property, the fact that they are using the potential of the sale to try and balance the budget shows how desperate they are and why there's such a lack of credibility about it.

Using this sort of bookkeeping goes against the advice of leading economists, who say you shouldn't count sales not completed to balance the books. Don Drummond wrote a report for the Ontario government and addressed the issue of asset sales and advised: "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." But here they're counting on $800 million.

I hope the people of B.C. see through this, because that $800 million they're using to balance the books is not there. Yet in this austerity budget — because "We're going to have everything balanced; everything is going to come out even," even though it isn't — the desperately needed services for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the other ministries are not there. The investment into areas of child and youth mental health, children with special needs, a fulsome child care program — these are not there. Instead, we get this false expectation that people are going to believe that we have a balanced budget.

Like using the selling of public property, we've got the continued fun with figures at B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is an institution of which we should be very proud. It is our public hydro corporation; it is ours. And yet this government is turning it into a political toy.

It's outrageous what's been happening with Hydro, underlined by the Auditor General. Debts and deferral accounts have grown by the billions. We're now at deferral accounts of $4.2 billion, and debt is going to reach $15.8 billion this year. I think a fundamental problem with all of this….

I spent yesterday talking about how this budget is going to impact my constituency. Today I've used my time to look at how it is going to affect the Ministry of Children and Family Development and how it's going to affect kids, and it's going to affect them badly. There is no question about that. I've been trying to show that this is a bogus budget, that this is an austerity budget. Austerity budgets hurt people. They hurt people across the board. They hurt the middle class, they hurt the vulnerable, they hurt people who are working in low-paying jobs, and they particularly hurt kids.

[1015]

I think this government, after 12 years, should finally have the courage to admit that they should be looking at a budget that means kids don't go to school hungry and parents don't have to worry about how they're going to clothe their kids or how they're going to feed or house their kids. Instead, we get this desperately futile attempt
[ Page 12971 ]
to balance the budget.

In my closing remarks, I'd like to just say that I think we've got to get beyond that facile argument that running a government is like running a household. It isn't. A government has a huge responsibility. In B.C. it's responsible for more than four million people, responsible for millions of hectares of public lands, responsible for electricity generation. It's responsible for so much of our public resources and for our people — for a healthy, literate, well-educated, well-fed and housed population. It is not like running a household.

There are times when you have to accept that a budget cannot balance, that it's not possible to balance a budget. Even Alberta — our next-door neighbours who've got all their oil revenues and all their prosperity, their own prosperity funds and everything else — is running deficits. They're running deficits because they know that they have to look after their people. They know they have to pay welfare rates that are not going to leave people in abject poverty and leave people who are disabled in abject poverty. They know they've got to make sure that there is a proper health care system and that kids are looked after.

There are times when you have to accept that you have to have a deficit. It is the only responsible approach for a government. To do an austerity budget in a time of poor economic activity is only going to hurt your citizens.

For the last five years we've not had a balanced budget. This is no exception. I think this government should admit it and should look at how we can make sure that it's looking after people.

There is a huge credibility gap with this government. Ahead of the last election, in 2009, we were promised a deficit of just $495 million, which after the election — I think everyone remembers — ballooned to $2 billion. We were told there wouldn't be a harmonized sales tax, but after the election the HST was brought in.

I have to ask, in my final remarks: why would people trust this pre-election budget any more than the last? But you can rest assured, Madam Speaker, that there's still going to be $17 million in taxpayer-funded ads to try and tell you why you should place your faith in a fantasy.

Hon. M. Stilwell: It's a pleasure, a real pleasure, to speak in support of the budget that the Minister of Finance presented to British Columbians yesterday.

By all reports, yesterday's budget was a surprise for many, particularly our friends across the aisle. In fact, as the minister read out the details, you could just feel the air being taken out of the opposition's sails. They were ready to pounce on what they thought would be a typical pre-election budget, the kind they were famous for as they tried to woo British Columbians with their own tax dollars in giving away everything but the kitchen sink, all in an attempt to buy an election victory with one spending promise after another.

So when my colleague the Minister of Finance detailed our government's budget for the coming year, they were shocked — shocked to see nothing but common sense, the kind of common sense that every B.C. family faces when they need to balance their family budget; the same common sense that every B.C. business, big or small, faces when they need to hold the line and look to the future.

Better than anyone, hard-working British Columbians know this is no time for big spending promises. This is no time for pre-election promises that dangle costly election goodies in front of the voters. British Columbians are well past that nonsense. They want the facts. They want good fiscal management, not costly pie-in-the-sky promises with no substance.

If the international recession that started in 2008 taught us anything, it reinforced that unbridled spending with no control of costs is just not sustainable. Taxpayers get it. Business gets it. Our government gets it. Only our friends in the opposition benches have failed to learn that lesson.

[1020]

This budget isn't about winning the election. This budget is about managing the finances of this province and the tax dollars sent to Victoria by hard-working British Columbians. It's a prudent, conservative, disciplined and practical budget. It's the same approach we have taken since 2001, when British Columbians hired us to turn this province around after the economic and fiscal disaster that highlighted the 1990s and turned B.C. into a have-not province for the first time in its history.

This budget is definitely not sexy. It's not glamorous, and it's not promising British Columbians the moon and the stars. What it is promising is balance and common sense — a balanced budget. It's a balanced budget because we have managed our fiscal house. We've balanced our books because we have all worked hard to keep B.C. a good place to live and work and invest. It's a balanced budget because on this side of the House we know that British Columbians expect government to focus on good management rather than election politics.

If this budget were a movie star, it would be the strong, silent type, the type of hero you can count on through thick and thin, who is there when the going gets tough and does the right thing — not because it's fashionable but because it's the right thing to do, much to the disappointment of our critics.

This budget is all about numbers, not about exaggerated promises that B.C. cannot afford. It's a budget that says that if we're going to balance our books, we have to do it together — business, taxpayers, consumers and government. After all, B.C.'s budget and B.C.'s economic success belongs to us all, and all of us must chip in to keep this the best place in Canada.

For instance, B.C. businesses and higher-earning British Columbians are being asked to shoulder a little more. All of us are being asked to shoulder a little more
[ Page 12972 ]
in health care premiums, and government is also doing its part by slowing down its own expenditures to the lowest increase in living memory. We're going to sell a limited number of assets. That makes sense. Together we're spreading the work and responsibility for a balanced budget around business, taxpayers, consumers and government. Everyone is pitching in.

There's nothing magic here. It's exactly what British Columbians and small businesses do every day. It's just common sense, and, more important, it works. It works because it means a balanced budget with a small surplus, less than $200 million this year. But after the deficits caused by the international recession, this turnaround is remarkable — not just because we've come through the worst of the recession, but we've done it quicker than most.

Look around the world. Look around the country. Europe is struggling and will be struggling for years to come. Here at home, oil-rich Alberta continues to be in a deficit, and Ontario, once the industrial and manufacturing heartland of our country, is still in the red.

This turnaround and relatively small surplus will grow next year and the year after. We have turned the corner, and this year's budget is just the start of more surpluses to come.

We promised to balance the books, and we have. We have kept our promise to British Columbians. The big question for British Columbians in May is: do you want to keep the books balanced? If you do, there's just one choice, just one party and just one leader, and they are sitting on this side of the House

This government is ready, willing and able to hit the ground running on May 15, the day after the election. Even though we have balanced the budget, we continue to recognize that budgets are also about the future, which means we continue to make record investments in health care and education.

The B.C. training and education savings grant of $1,200 for children who turn six is a reminder that budgets still need to be about tomorrow. They still need to be about the future. For our government that future is grounded in education and training, giving B.C.'s children the skills they need to keep building a better British Columbia.

The budget also means that about 90 percent of B.C. families with young children will be eligible for the early childhood tax benefit. It's $146 million for about 180,000 families with children under six years old. Our early-years strategy will invest $76 million over three years to create new child care spaces.

These modest commitments are possible because we have our fiscal house in order. They are investments in our future and in the future of B.C. families. They are only possible because when the international recession hit, this province and this government were ready. We had a strong economy and a prudent approach to spending tax dollars, and this did not happen by accident.

[1025]

It's not by chance that B.C. is in such good shape. It started with an approach to government that began when we were elected in 2001 and has continued for 12 years. We have kept our eye on the expenditures of government, always reminding ourselves whose money we were spending and that taxpayers need to be confident that their government is managing their money as if it were their own.

We've been able to do this and still ensure that B.C. has the lowest personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $122,000 a year. Why is that? Because we believe that it's your money and that you should keep as much of it as possible. That's right. It's your money, and you should keep as much of it as possible. It's a simple truism.

I know it makes our friends on the other side of the aisle cringe. It makes them uncomfortable, because tax-and-spend governments, the kinds of governments we had in the 1990s, think they know how to spend your money better than you do.

I know they've turned over a new leaf and have learned their lesson. They're not the same old NDP. But get them close to the public purse, and they start to salivate. They can't help it. It's wired into their tax-and-spend political DNA. You see, they believe that your money is really the government's money, and if they let you keep even a small part of what you earn, you should be grateful.

Madam Speaker, I know the critics were hoping for an over-the-top budget. I know they were hoping that this government would somehow try and spend its way to election victory. I know they were hoping that we'd do a fudge-it budget or a wriggle-room budget of the kind they produced in the '90s. So I can understand their disappointment.

It's easy to understand why they're upset, and I can understand their genuine lack of serious criticism. You see, they now have to rail against common sense, fiscal prudence, sound money management and a vision of the future that British Columbians want and can afford. I wish them good luck.

The numbers speak for themselves — no magic, no smoke and mirrors, just good old-fashioned math. It's called success by the numbers, the kind of success by the numbers that will translate into another kind of success by the numbers on May 14.

D. Thorne: It's an honour for me to stand here today and respond to the 2013 budget. I do so with mixed emotions. I take my place with very mixed emotions, as this will be the last opportunity that I will have to represent my constituents in my capacity as an MLA.

Before I address the budget I would like to acknowledge some people, especially my family, for all of their support and love over the last 20 years.

I know it's been said before and will be said many
[ Page 12973 ]
times again, but I could not have done what I have done in that period of time were it not for my family and, most especially, for my husband Neil, who is very excited about having me around more and having me at home. I've told him a number of times, "Be careful what you wish for," because this is something new — him being retired and now me being retired — but I thank him so much for his love and support.

Interjection.

D. Thorne: Let's all give him a hand. I'm sure everybody is thinking now in the House, "Oh, that poor guy" — right?

I would also like to thank my colleagues who have done an exceptional job, along with myself, over the last eight years. I'd like to wish them all the best in the future, especially the members for New Westminster, North Coast, Delta North and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who, like me, are not seeking re-election. Of course, my thanks and best wishes extend to the opposite side of the House, to the 18 members who are not running in the upcoming election either.

[1030]

I guess that I would be remiss to not thank my staff on the other side of the water, my constituency assistants, who have been just terrific and have run the constituency office way above and beyond what they've needed to do: Laura Gullickson and Joy Mo, and prior to Laura and Joy and even during their tenure, Linda Asgeirsson and Pat Cooper. I'd like to thank the four of them.

I'd also like to thank the four different legislative assistants on this side of the water that I've had over the last eight years: Heidi Reid, Angela Giuliano, Erich Nahser-Ringer and Danielle Dansel — also fantastic support to me. I truly could not have done this job without them.

I also feel that I would be remiss if I did not thank the government for finally calling a legislative session so that I might have this rare opportunity to represent my constituents in the Legislature.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to take a moment to thank the residents of Coquitlam-Maillardville and acknowledge it for the remarkable area that it is. In my role as MLA, I have had the opportunity to work with many businesses, social service organizations and individuals that drive our community — in particular, the Austin Heights BIA, of which I am a charter member.

This group of individuals has consistently gone above and beyond to positively change the face of the Austin Heights area. They continue and will continue in the future, and they're just doing a remarkable job.

It has been such an honour for me to be able to stand up and represent the historic community of Maillardville, the largest French Canadian community west of Winnipeg, and great fun for me and for everybody to participate in the yearly Festival du Bois, which, by the way — I should get a little plug in while I'm standing up here — is the weekend after next. It's great fun, if anybody wants to attend and eat maple sugar candy on snow, etc. We invite everybody. We invite the world.

I would also like to thank the dedicated volunteers who give selflessly of themselves to contribute to our little piece of Coquitlam, which is a unique multicultural community with a long, fascinating history and quite an exciting future. It is truly a wonderful place to live, and it has been a privilege for me to be able to represent.

I stand here today to speak for my Coquitlam-Maillardville constituents, who, like most people across this province, are working very hard but just not getting ahead. For 12 years this government has been deaf, apparently, to the issues and concerns of ordinary, hard-working people like my constituents. Families in B.C. are dealing with significant social and economic challenges, yet there is little in this budget — and there's even less in the throne speech — to reassure B.C. families and workers that they are the first and foremost priority of this government.

The government has been missing in action. Finally, after 8½ months the Legislature is called back, and we are presented with a hypothetical tale of five LNG plants and a $100 billion prosperity fund. The government has been promising British Columbians a balanced budget for months. This week they have presented us with documents proclaiming a razor-thin surplus.

Even the smallest degree of scrutiny exposes this to be a phantom surplus that depends almost entirely upon the rapid sale of $800 million of public assets, our assets — selling off our province in order to supposedly try to balance the budget. At least this time the balanced budget promise was broken just before the election, not just after the election as we all remember from 2009.

[1035]

This government has been preaching austerity and prudence to the people of British Columbia, yet the government itself has been spending with abandon. There is an astounding $4.2 billion residing in B.C. Hydro's deferral accounts. There's $26 million spent on partisan advertising, not to mention the $1.5 million spent promoting Family Day, which I hardly think needed any promotion. Believe me, everyone I know knew they had a holiday. And just in case anyone forgets, the Office of the Premier racked up $475,000 on its credit card bill. I'm afraid to think what that bill might have been if the government was not being prudent.

Back in the fall of 2011 the government presented British Columbians with a jobs plan. You may have heard about it; you may have even seen it advertised. It was rolled out with much fanfare and a fancy booklet outlining all the goals the government hoped to achieve. The problem back then, much like the problem with the new billion-dollar prosperity plan, is the lack of an actual plan. While goals are admirable, without comprehensive
[ Page 12974 ]
strategies and measurable targets, they're really just costly and poorly implemented ideas.

This budget does nothing to prove me wrong. The B.C. prosperity fund does not even seem to factor into the three-year fiscal plan. Considering the starring role it played in the Speech from the Throne, it really barely rated a mention in the budget. Given that the throne speech is supposed to outline this government's plans for the upcoming session, one would have to assume that they're planning to take some time off.

It can be a nice distraction speculating about a future with a multi-billion-dollar prosperity fund, five LNG plants, $100 billion in revenue and the elimination of debt and of the provincial sales tax. Why, for a brief moment, I even found myself imagining a future where we could buy back all the public assets that this government is selling off in an attempt to make it through this budget. Now I have to ask myself: given what we were presented in their hypothetical throne speech, is the budget that was delivered also hypothetical?

Advanced education and skills training are two issues that most people would consider essential to a jobs plan and to a healthy economy. However, the cuts continue in the Ministry of Advanced Education, which loses another $46 million in this budget. The government has itself predicted nearly 80 percent of future jobs will require some level of advanced education or certification. Yet the budget predicts a reduction in the number of student spaces in college and university, less money for student assistance and less support for advanced education. Sadly, post-secondary education is becoming increasingly inaccessible for British Columbians.

Looking at education in the K-to-12 sector, a common theme is a lack of funding, failed plans and failed policies. School district funding has been frozen, and despite a lot of talk about new initiatives and education reform, there is no money in the budget to back that up. For example, the Coquitlam school district, which is the third-largest in British Columbia — my school district — is in the midst of cutting $5 million from its budget. Even with that, it could still be facing a $2.5 million deficit. Unfortunately, my school district is not alone. Districts across the province are floundering, in a panic and at risk of being fired by the Ministry of Education and replaced with a public trustee.

Speaking of cuts, the cuts to the Ministry of Children and Families are astounding: cuts to Community Living, cuts to early childhood development, cuts to child and youth mental health, youth service justice cuts — cuts, cuts, cuts.

[1040]

Over the three-year period covered by this budget, the government plans to invest just $76 million to create new child care spaces — all of this without lifting the freeze on child care space funding. I don't call that an investment in families. I call it half an investment in families. As for this fantasy early childhood tax benefit, I hardly think promising a tax bonus for children two years from now will be very relevant to families that are struggling with child care and lack of spaces today.

The Ministry of Children and Families has also spent a lot of its money recently — in fact, $182 million — on the integrated case management system. Since its introduction it has been plagued with problems, and an additional $12 million has been spent on attempts to improve it. Just to quote the Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, she says: "I have reached the point where I am making this rare public statement as I strongly believe that the ICM is not adequate to provide safety to vulnerable children, youth and families in British Columbia."

Unfortunately, the government does not have a backup plan in the event of this kind of system failure. Looking at the budget, it does not appear to have such a plan in the future either. Not to be too facetious on such a serious subject, I will cross my fingers that we don't have similar problems with the new integrated B.C. services card. That would be an astounding calamity.

Looking at the Ministry of Justice and the budget is truly an exercise in futility, especially around the Missing Women Inquiry and women's issues in general. After much controversy surrounding the funding for the Missing Women Inquiry, where 20 out of 21 groups that had been given full standing at the inquiry pleaded with the government to be given the same taxpayer-funded legal representation as the police were receiving — a controversy that threatened the very legitimacy of the inquiry — Commissioner Oppal has released his much-anticipated report.

In the final 1,400-page report, Commissioner Oppal offered 63 recommendations, yet this budget cuts victim services and crime prevention.

I wrote this. I read this, and I can hardly believe what I'm writing and speaking. It's nothing short of astounding, but there is nothing in this budget to assure victims of domestic violence and sexual violence any access to support services.

It's stunning. Vulnerable people in this province are hardly being supported by this government. Instead of becoming the best system of support for women and children at risk, this government, over the past ten years, has systematically dismantled social programs for our most vulnerable citizens — in particular, women and children. Legal services, court services, prosecution services, victim services: cuts, cuts, cuts again.

Unfortunately, the smaller you cut this issue down, the larger the problem becomes. After years of making these systematic cuts to the justice system in British Columbia, the system itself is now in shambles. The Liberals have closed 60 legal aid offices, the Vancouver Pretrial Centre, ten jails and 24 courthouses. On top of that, they have ignored the concerns of the B.C. Provincial Court, and
[ Page 12975 ]
we are now seeing a dramatic increase in backlogs and unacceptable delays in the legal system, with serious criminal cases being dismissed now due to delays in getting to trial.

[1045]

Years of ongoing cuts to legal aid have left it critically underfunded. Again, the vulnerable, the vulnerable, the vulnerable — always the people who suffer most when they are ignored financially by their government representatives.

Looking at a complete change of pace, looking at B.C. Hydro, which one would probably never think of at the same time as one is looking at cuts to justice services and violence against women and those kinds of issues. But B.C. Hydro is quickly becoming one of the vulnerable groups in our province. That, too, is amazing.

Over the course of this budget, the debt will have grown to $18.9 billion. B.C. Hydro's debt has become so great that the dividend it normally pays to the province, which is equal to about 85 percent of its net income in past years, has had to be reduced to approximately 40 percent over the next three years. There just isn't the money there to pay it, with the debt and interest charges.

One can only imagine Hydro's deferral accounts, which have grown to $4.2 billion and have been reported but not detailed, although a printed copy of the details might just produce enough paper to jump-start B.C.'s forest economy. Again, I'm being facetious, but it could almost do that — a printed copy — because there would be so much if we were actually able to see and get the details.

The rollout of the smart meter program has been a controversial billion-dollar project with no independent oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission and zero public consultation. Yet it was full steam ahead, and don't look back — until now, that is. B.C. Hydro says that 95 percent of the meters have been installed, which leaves about 85,000 customers, give or take, who have refused the smart meters. We have a government now that is sending out conflicting messages to an increasingly frustrated, confused electorate about the smart meters.

Do we have to take them, or could we not take them? We're hearing different opinions from different ministers, and B.C. Hydro itself is afraid to, obviously, have an opinion. I mean, it's getting increasingly impossible to find somebody from B.C. Hydro to get answers from. So you can see why I put them in the vulnerable category — once our crown jewel and now a vulnerable Crown agency. One can only imagine how we're going to get out of this mess in the future.

The health care budget has taken a hit, and British Columbians can expect another MSP premium increase. This will make the fifth consecutive year that rates have been raised. Since 2001 premiums have increased approximately 92 percent.

The government is also moving to restrict laboratory costs. I know that I'm getting calls from constituents who have been charged for pre-operative lab work that they had never been charged for before. I know that we're looking at trying to restrict increases in laboratory costs, so I'm not sure what that means. But I have a feeling it's going to work itself into a full-blown increase in charges for patients, again, and will become perhaps like the MSP premiums, increasing every year or so.

[1050]

This will really affect the many people with disabilities who are burdened with these disproportionately high medical costs already. Now having to pay higher costs or costs for essential laboratory tests will be such a barrier that it will increase their difficulties in finding medical treatment. It will also affect their health and their well-being.

This is part of a category of charges — increases in fees and services and charges — that don't seem to get recognized as a tax. It's very interesting. We talk about having the lowest personal tax rates in the country. Only somebody from across the Legislature who hasn't looked at this thoroughly could be excited about any of the things I've been saying about vulnerable people and increasing taxes.

Back in 2007 the official opposition first introduced legislation with the aim of creating an independent officer to advocate for seniors in B.C. Six years later the government now says it has a plan. Perhaps it's cleverly hidden in the budget. I can hardly see it. Perhaps it's hidden somewhere in the health plan, perhaps in the PharmaCare section. I don't know, but I do know that any thought of having an independent seniors advocate has pretty much gone out the window.

What we're talking about now is more or less a staff position reporting to a minister. This is not what the official opposition had in mind when we talked about having an independent office. So we'll watch that and see what happens. But this budget did not clarify this situation and only brought more doubts to people reading and hearing it.

I can't talk about the health area without just mentioning Riverview. Even though it was not unexpected, it's still very upsetting to talk about Riverview hospital in the past tense. The last of the Riverview patients were transferred and the doors were permanently shuttered last June. A heritage conservation plan has been completed, and thousands of people who participated in one way or another with the plan and with Riverview — volunteers mostly — are waiting anxiously to see what happens next. As the ministers involved well know, the tri-city area is a very proactive community. We are watching very closely the public asset sale list. We care a great deal about the future of these Riverview lands, and nothing much has changed just because the doors have closed. So we're watching that with great interest and great anxiety.

The Pacific Carbon Trust is always an interesting thing to talk about. It's an issue that I have brought up in this
[ Page 12976 ]
House before. It's in the news once again but appears to be absent from the budget speech. British Columbia's public sector was forced to pay for carbon offsets, and this money was passed on to the private sector — always a very interesting topic of conversation. There doesn't appear to have been any or much government oversight to ensure that projects funded by schools and hospitals actually qualified for that funding.

The Coquitlam school district, my school district, paid a total of half a million dollars to the trust in just a two-year period — stunning. I really believe that money would have been better spent on green initiatives within our school district and within schools.

Environmental sustainability across the board was cut, a cut that will extend from this fiscal year right through to 2016. The climate action secretariat was cut. These were almost the only mention of climate and climate change or whatever in the budget. We certainly can't accuse this government of greenwashing. That would be ridiculous.

[1055]

There's a forest health crisis, and unbelievably, there is a cut to the forestry budget despite the recommendations made by the Special Committee on Timber Supply. The government is not taking this opportunity or any opportunity to reinvest in the land base. So one wonders why we had the committee on timber supply, why so many people participated across this province if nothing is going to happen. In fact, things look like they're getting worse, not even staying the same, let alone getting better.

The budget for tourism is now being transferred to Destination B.C., the new tourism Crown corporation — which is not really a new idea. It's more or less, I guess, this year's Tourism B.C. under a new name.

This didn't mean there would be any new support in the budget for the B.C. film industry, despite desperate pleas that jobs are being lost to Ontario and Quebec. There doesn't appear to have been any support around the tourism arts budget at all.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I'd just like to say we should remember that the issues that are not mentioned in this budget — such as poverty, child poverty, income equality, poverty reduction planning — are just as important as the cuts to services that do appear in the budget. They will affect people and neighbourhoods right across this province, especially if they're not mentioned. I mean, they don't exist if they're not mentioned.

In general, I'm sorry to say, it being my last budget speech, that this pre-election budget — what is often now being referred to as a bogus budget — has been a huge disappointment to the residents of British Columbia and to myself.

P. Pimm: It gives me great pleasure to stand and take my place in response to the budget speech. I have to say that I'm extremely pleased with this budget. It's a very conservative budget. And guess what. I'm kind of a conservative guy, and I represent a pretty conservative area of the province. So it certainly works extremely well for me.

Before I get too far into this discussion, I want to thank a few people that make it possible for me to be with you in the Leg. here and do this job for my constituents. First, I want to thank my wife for all that she gives up each and every day of her life so that I can be here — and to everybody else's spouses that give up what they give up for them to be here. It's a huge commitment for all of them and probably a bigger commitment for them than it is for us.

My children. Everything I do and say in this place and out in the public — they wear it, as well, as the rest of us do. I certainly thank them for their support for me.

CAs. I've got two very, very good CAs that I want to thank. Gayle Clark — she's been my CA since the first day I ran here. Gayle is actually going to be running off into retirement when we're all done this time around, and she's chasing her grandson off to the Kootenays. So that's a gain for the Kootenays and a loss for my region. Certainly, she's been great for my office and great for the people.

Jennifer Wilkinson — she and Gayle run the office so well that it just makes our lives so easy when our CAs do so much. I think one of the members mentioned yesterday throwing a dart at the board. That's what they deal with. It's everything that they deal with, and certainly, I'm very happy that we have them.

Our staff in Victoria. Darren Saunders. They've got a new LA coming up, Julia Phillips. Robert Scherf is EA in the Whip's office. Raz Diacu is a communications officer. Caitlin Conroy is my researcher. I just want to thank all those people before we get started here, and I thank them very much.

Yesterday I listened to the Minister of Energy do such an elegant job of talking about LNG. I'd be a little remiss if I didn't talk about natural gas and LNG a little bit. You know, it certainly is going to be our future, I believe. It's certainly very big in our area.

[1100]

I kind of want to frame this a little bit so you have an idea of what this is actually going to mean to us and how we have to get there. We've got five LNG plants that are being talked about very, very strongly at this point in time. And certainly, they're going to be going forward, at least some of them for sure.

We've got the LNG Canada, Shell and their partners, KOGAS and Mitsubishi and PetroChina. We've got Kitimat LNG — that's Apache Corp. — and Chevron, which just bought out the interests from EOG and EnCana.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

So that certainly moves that project along and puts them on a world stage as well. BG Group, obviously,
[ Page 12977 ]
British Gas, is a huge corporation that's well developed in the LNG. I mean, we have some very, very big players. The Petronas–Progress Energy partnership — absolutely fantastic. Those folks and the amount of work they're doing in our region, along with Shell, just amazes you — how much work that's actually going on. They've signed up with Spectra Energy to build a 4.1 BCF pipeline for that project.

Then we've got one that's a little bit smaller, the Douglas Channel project. That one is going to be up and running. That's going to really signal the world that we are in the LNG game, and we're in it for the long term. That's a pretty big deal.

I'll talk a little bit about what these plants are going do. LNG Canada are talking about two trains, going to four trains in time. The Kitimat plant — one to start with, going to two trains in the very near future after that. BG, two trains, going to four as well. These are big, big numbers.

Yesterday I heard one of the members from the Cowichan, Nanaimo–North Cowichan, saying that none of these have passed their EA processes. But that's not true. There are two that have already passed their EA process, and they're well along the line to get ready to be producing.

What are the requirements of the gas that we're going to need for these plants? Like I said earlier, each one of these things is called a train. Each one of these trains is going to take about three-quarters to one BCF of gas to run. Put that in perspective. We have three BCF of gas a day in British Columbia right now that comes out of our area. When you talk about each one of these trains, if all five plants get up and running, we could be anywhere from five to seven BCF of additional gas that we're going to need by 2020.

Like I said, we have three BCF now. Over the last four years or so we've produced about one BCF. So you can kind of do the math and you can see where this is going. It's going to be an awful lot of work. We can't just go down to Surrey or to North Van and turn on the tap and get this gas. We have to drill. We have to frack. We have to do some things that some don't really care for that much. But for the future of our province and for our children, it's going to be stuff that we have to come to grips with. We're going to need to figure it out. We're going to figure it out properly.

You talk about potential revenues. I mean, we could be talking about anywhere from $60 billion to $130 billion to $200 billion, depending on how much this goes. Those are big numbers. Everybody gets confused when you say "billion" real quickly. It doesn't seem like that much — but 1,000 millions in a billion. You just kind of have to remember that and keep it in perspective. They're huge, huge potentials that we're talking about.

When you talk about jobs, it could be as much as 40,000 jobs. It could be higher than that. For every dollar that's spent building an LNG project and dollars that are going to be spent in the northwest of our province…. We're talking about ten times that investment in the northeast of the province. The amount of jobs that are going to be produced over the next 20 and 30 years is phenomenal. It's not a part-time job anymore. It used to be part-time. We used to only drill three or four months a year. Now we drill 12 months a year. Everybody works non-stop.

The Premier had the insight to talk about a prosperity fund. I think that's great visionary thinking. It's absolutely phenomenal thinking. Alberta has had a heritage fund in the past, and I can tell you, living close to Grande Prairie in the Peace country, they always got this stuff from the heritage fund, and we never got nothing. The heritage fund has done so much for Alberta over the years.

[1105]

I heard the member for North Island talk about Alberta, and she said our budget is unrealistic, that even Alberta is going to have a deficit this year. Do you think they want a deficit? Absolutely not. They don't want to run no deficit over there. You take a look at how much the gas and the oil has depleted over the past few years and the prices of that. When it affects our budget by a billion dollars or that number, it's five and ten times that much in Alberta, because they're that much more dependent on that product.

We talk about power needs. Each one of these trains is going to need a lot of power, up to 250 megawatts of power. We've got seven trains. Guess how much power that is. Some 1,750 megawatts of power. Let's try and put that into perspective for a couple of minutes here. Site C, we're projecting about 1,100 megawatts of power. We're going to have growth in this province, an additional 20 percent, over the next five or ten years. We're going to need power, folks. We've got mining projects coming on stream. We're going to need power in a big way.

I kind of get a kick out of the NDP. They say they support LNG. I think that's great; I'm glad they support LNG. But it just doesn't quite add up for me. The problem is…. They say they don't support Site C. They certainly don't support natural gas cogeneration. They don't support IPPs. You know, I'm wondering: how are they going to power the plants? They say they want LNG. How are you going to power the plants?

How are you going to make these things run? You know, you can't just kick-start them and let them hum along. They have to have some generation, they have to have some power, and they're going to take a lot of it to make that happen.

Fracking is another issue. I've heard so many folks, some of your new members, that are so totally opposed to fracking. I've heard all sorts of different…. People talking about how that's going to play out over the years. But I want to just touch a little bit on it, because in our area
[ Page 12978 ]
of the province we've been fracking for 50 years. In B.C. and Alberta over the last 50 years we've fracked 300,000 wells. Some 300,000 wells have been fracked over the last 50 years.

But the opposition are going to say: "We're going to study the concept of fracking." You don't need to study it. We have been doing it for 50 years, and we do it safely. We do it better in British Columbia than they do it anywhere else in the world. We have an OGC that is absolutely phenomenal. We've got people from Australia that come and look at our OGC, for our regulators, to make sure things are happening in a proper way.

We talk about water. I just want to run a few facts by you on some water stuff, because it seems to be a big issue all the time. You do use some water in the fracking. It varies with each different geology and target formations. In the Montney play, for example, you could use anywhere from 8,000 to 30,000 cubic metres of water per well. For the Horn River, you're talking more water: 30,000 to 100,000 cubic metres per well. So it definitely varies — 90,000 to one million cubic metres per pad. That's kind of used over a two- to three-month period. It certainly is some usage.

So where do we get that water from? Well, there are four places you can get water from. Surface water is about 65 percent of what gets used. So fresh water — lakes, streams, rivers, dugouts.

Shallow groundwater — about 10 percent. Most of that water is…. There's very little shallow groundwater used.

Deeper groundwater — about 10 percent. There are some great little operations up in the Horn River. They drill down, and they get saline water. They bring that up to the surface. These saline systems are not attached to any groundwater or surface water. They are separate systems, and they've been utilized very well.

Then you get some flowback water, and that varies anywhere from 15 to 40 percent, depending on what area you're in. They reuse that water.

[1110]

We'll just talk a little bit about the Montney. The Montney area is 29,000, almost 30,000, square kilometres. I get a kick out of some of my friends from down here. You have a 15-minute ride across your riding by bicycle. Me — 29,000 square kilometres, and that's only half of my riding. That's just the Montney area. It takes a little more than a 15-minute bike ride to get across it.

Right now everybody uses water. There are 362 current water licences. Everybody uses water. Forestry, mining, agriculture, oil and gas, recreational, communities — they all use water. In our area — just in the lakes, the rivers, the runoff in our area — we have about 16.6 billion cubic metres in water runoff every year. So 16.6 billion cubic metres — that's what the runoff is.

The maximum amount of water requirement for hydraulic fracturing in the Montney is less than 15 million cubic metres per year. What that equates to is about 0.06 of 1 percent of the average annual runoff. There's no question that there's an abundance of water being used, but there is an abundance of water as well. As long as we're careful about how we do this, we're going to have lots of water. We have lots of water, and we're going to have lots of water for the future.

The OGC has authority. They issue short-term permits. Last year they issued permits for about 25 million cubic metres of water. Out of that 25 million that was used, they actually used a little bit less than five million cubic metres of water. That's about same amount of water the community of Fort St. John used last year, just to kind of put it into a perspective so you can understand. I know you don't know what cubic metres of water means. I don't know what that means, and I've lived there all my life.

The Oil and Gas Commission puts out reports every quarter on how much water is being used, and it's pretty phenomenal. But I want to bring up for people in the Leg and for people at home that there's a new system that's out. It's called the NEWT water management tool. It's called the NorthEast Water Tool.

You can go on line to the OGC's website and you can pull up any watershed in the Peace country, the northern Rockies area — any watershed. That's what this NEWT tool does. It tells you how much water is in the watershed. It tells you how much water is being used. It tells you how many water licences are attributed to that watershed. It's just a great management tool. I really want you to go on the OGC website and have a look at the NEWT water tool, because it's an extremely amazing tool to use.

Anyhow, that's my little oil and gas 101 for the minute. I think now it's time to go back and do some more talking about the budget here.

I know most people don't like to hear good discussion about the oil and gas industry and some actual facts about it. I know we don't like facts. We like to deal with fiction. That's usually what we get out of this place a lot times. Unfortunately, today I had to give a few facts for you to hear.

Over the last couple of years I've been honoured to be part of a couple of great committees in this House, the Finance Committee and the rural caucus. Those are two great committees that get to travel this province every year. I've had a great time being involved in both of those committees and hearing what the different folks around the province have for issues and what they've been talking about. I have to say that this budget has looked at the issues that we're hearing out on the road, and they're making some great strides to make the changes that we're hearing about.

We have such a diverse province, you know. When you're on the road, you really find this out, more and more so. That, to me, really drives home the reason why we need to have our party, the free enterprise coalition party, the B.C. Liberal Party. We're the right party to govern this province, and we've come up with a great budget
[ Page 12979 ]
to take us into the next round of election time.

[1115]

I just want to talk a little tiny bit about some of the things we found out on the Finance Committee. Carbon tax, for example. Here's a good one. There's such a rural-urban split on carbon tax, and you see it. You don't see it when you're not travelling the province, but when you travel the province, you really see it. We see the folks down south, like the Pembina Institute, Sierra Club, David Suzuki Foundation and others. They tell us they want a $175 carbon tax. Well, that's good. They say there should be no exemptions. They don't care about the poor farmer that feeds us. No exemptions for nobody is what they told us.

Then you get to go to the rural farming community, and they tell you exactly the opposite thing. They say: "Let's get rid of the carbon tax. We don't need it at all." That's why — the diversity; the size of our province — there are so many different feelings out there. That's why you have to come up with a budget that reflects those feelings. That's exactly what we've done here.

One of the things I'm very, very afraid of is that the Leader of the Official Opposition keeps his budget, or whatever it is…. It's a secret, I guess. I'm not sure what it is. My best guess is that he is going to listen to the urban folks, the Pembina Institute and those kind of people. Maybe he'll come clean with this — I'm not sure — but I'm sure his cash cow is going to be a carbon tax increase. I'm sure that is what he is holding out on. He'll do that on the backs of industry and on the backs of the rural public and the rural population. We don't have any ability to use transit and that sort of thing. I'm sure that's what his hidden agenda is. Maybe we'll find that out as time goes on.

I want to give a little overview on what my feelings are on this budget. I absolutely believe it's a prudent budget. It controls government spending. It allows us to make the investments that are required of us.

Last year we said we were going to balance by 2013. Guess what we did. We balanced. In every sense of the word, we balanced. Quite an accomplishment when you think that we were $1.2 billion in the glue last year.

On this side of the House we believe that the way to economic growth is through lower taxation, letting industry drive the economy and not through government spending. I've got to tell you that this is a fiscally responsible budget, one that all good conservatives, like myself, certainly appreciate. But there are some great family ideas in this budget too. That's where the balance is. That's what this party believes in — the balance.

What are some of the highlights? We're actually going to have surpluses in this budget, built into it — $197 million in 2013-14; $211 million in '14-15; $460 million in '15-16. I can tell you that I have full faith in our Finance Minister, in our Premier. We're going to deliver this budget exactly as it's laid out.

Our school system budgets are going to continue — $5.4 billion over the next three years; $210 million into the learning improvement fund to deal directly with issues in class composition and size. You can add another million dollars to the school fruit program. We're going to add local B.C. milk to that program, certainly helping to look after our local economies.

I want to talk a little bit about the LIF program. This has been such a good program since we brought it in last fall. It's touched nearly every school in British Columbia. There have been approximately 500 new teachers hired, at a cost of $37 million. We've added 400 new assistants into the classrooms, and we've extended hours for 7,400 existing assistants. This program is getting an A-plus around the province. The teachers love it. The assistants love it. The districts love it. It's great.

Just a little note on our health budget — $2.4 billion we're going to increase the health budget. But that's a cut, according to everybody on the opposition side of the House.

[1120]

You know, a few years ago you could go in and you could have a knee operation, for example, and you'd be laid up for three or four days. Now I can tell you that I went and had a knee operation last Wednesday, and here I am standing for a 30-minute presentation. My knee is almost 75 percent back to normal.

You walk into the operating room at eight o'clock in the morning. You get an epidural. By 8:20 they roll you out — they're done — and by 10:30 you walk out of the hospital. That's where our health system is. Our health system has improved so dramatically over the years. Those are the kinds of things that we're doing on a daily basis. We're improving our systems. You don't need to add huge money to improve it. You just have to make the improvements that work for people, and that's what we have done.

Our corporate income taxes are still among the lowest in the country, even though we had to raise them by 1 point. And you know what? Industry is okay. In 2001 it was 16 percent; now it's 11 percent. But it'll go back up to 16 under the NDP. I can assure you of that. No question about it.

Small business owners understand the importance of government balancing its budget. When we were on the Finance Committee and toured the province, every chamber in the entire province told us that their number one priority was for us to balance the budget.

That was our priority. We kept it. We've done it. It is not a big-frills budget, by any stretch of the imagination, but we have done it. And it was unanimous. There is absolutely no question about that. Our Finance Committee was unanimous in supporting that, but of course, I don't think that message got through to the opposition. They've now said that they wouldn't even look at having a balanced budget and that it would be at least four or five years before they'd even consider it.
[ Page 12980 ]

Personal income tax. B.C. families still have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada. When you include all of the following — income tax, consumption tax, property tax, health care premiums, payroll tax, everything — we still have one of the lowest taxes in the country.

For up to $120,000 in personal income tax we are the lowest in Canada, even lower than Alberta. I can remember in our area of the province that forever and ever everybody said: "Oh, we've got to go to Alberta because the tax rate is so low over there." We're lower than they are now, and I am very, very proud of that.

We've actually got some people coming back to British Columbia and not just rushing to run away from British Columbia, as they were in the 1990s. There were truckloads heading across to Alberta from my area. Maybe in the rest of the province they were okay. Certainly, from my area they were leaving.

Just a quick example. A family of two people that make $70,000 saved $2,100 over what they did in 2001, and that's $2,100 that goes a long ways to buying other consumables. An individual making $50,000 saves $1,500 from what he did in 2001. Hon. Speaker, anybody that makes under $19,000 doesn't pay one penny — not one penny — of income tax. I think that's pretty honourable.

Let's talk a little bit about our capital spending. We've got total taxpayer debt of $10.4 billion. We're going to continue spending on roads, schools, hospitals. We're going to keep our triple-A credit rating, even doing all of that.

When we look at British Columbia, our debt-to-GDP is 17 to 18 percent — somewhere in that neighbourhood. I think we're going to allow it to go up to 18.3 percent and then have it ramp back down. Ontario, 36.9 percent; Quebec, 48 percent; Canada, 69 percent; U.S., 92 percent — think they're not sweating a little down there? — European Union, 155, 160 percent debt-to-GDP. You certainly can't do that. You've got to keep it to a reasonable number, something that's reasonable to pay back. And at the end of the day, it does have to get paid back.

I want to get back to our Finance Committee. I want to talk about carbon taxes in particular — because that's something that's very, very near and dear to me and to my community, to my agriculture community — and what we heard around the province on a consistent basis.

One thing I want to clarify is that two years ago we didn't have a unanimous report by the Finance Committee. Last year we did have a unanimous committee report, and that was wonderful — great cooperation.

[1125]

Two years ago it wasn't unanimous. The opposition didn't support a few things that happened. They didn't support capping the carbon tax rate of July 2, 2012, which was done. They didn't support addressing the inequity of the B.C. cement producers. We are continuing to work with them to deal with their issues.

They didn't support reviewing the impact of carbon tax on business sectors and developing a strategy to keep B.C. businesses competitive with other jurisdictions. We are doing that. Our Finance Minister did it. We are right in the middle of that process as well. And they didn't consider immediate carbon tax exclusions for agriculture in the greenhouse sector, and that's what our Finance Minister and our Premier have done.

Let's talk about the detail of that. Last year we implemented the last of the series, a $30 carbon tax. That's where we're at, at this point in time. That's a revenue-neutral carbon tax, so every dollar that's raised from the carbon tax is offset by a reduction in the income tax system one way or another, whether it be personal or corporate or business.

This year our government undertook the competitive review that we asked them to do on carbon tax, both positive and negative, and examine the tax's impact on British Columbians. The review covered all aspects of the carbon tax, including revenue neutrality, and considered the impact on the competitiveness of the businesses — in particular, B.C.'s food producers.

One of the things that I did this year…. I know the opposition wasn't very happy with me on the Finance tour. Every group that came before the Finance Committee…. When they had something negative to say about the carbon tax, I asked them: "Have you submitted your presentation to the Finance Minister to get it into the competitive study?" Most of them had not.

I made a point, with our Chair…. We made a point to make sure that every one of those presentations was submitted to the Finance Minister, and they got the recognition that they needed. Guess what our Finance Minister did. He heard those reports. He heard those submissions. He did exactly what the Finance Committee asked him to do. He announced that he was going to commit to the greenhouse tax and, most importantly, the fuel tax so that our residents and our farmers in the Peace country finally get their relief.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

B. Ralston: I reserve my right to raise the question of privilege based on the comments we have just heard in that speech.

Debate Continued

M. Karagianis: I am happy to take my place here in this debate on the budget for 2013.

It strikes me that this budget once again really plays into the public's cynicism about government's ability to be straight with the people of British Columbia, coming out of the experience of 2009. Prior to the election this government made claims of a deficit of $495 million
[ Page 12981 ]
that post-election turned out to be significantly higher, four times higher, than that — well into the billions of dollars. They implemented the HST coming out of that election, as well, and really set in place action around this province that was unprecedented in the history of British Columbia.

I think one of the side effects of all of this is an increased sense of cynicism with voters across this province. This Budget 2013, in fact, continues to feed the cynicism that voters have that the government is unable to be straightforward with them about the state of the province.

I hear from my community all the time, and I know that members of this House have stood up and talked about the fact that voters and citizens are being assaulted every day with a rash of advertising making all kinds of claims that are misleading, really, to the public and, again, that feed into the sense of cynicism.

I'm going to talk here today a little bit about why communities loathe and despise those ads and why the millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars that are being spent on these are irresponsible and offensive to people, frankly.

[1130]

Now, the claims here that the government has made about this being a balanced budget I think are very truly being reported out, right across the province, as being patently false. It is a bogus balanced budget. It is not just members on this side of the House that are talking about that. It's happening everywhere across the province.

You only have to look at some of the recent editorials that have run in the newspapers across British Columbia to see that the claims the government has made…. It's obvious to those who pay attention to the workings of this place and to the citizens of British Columbia that this budget is only a pre-election budget. It is designed to try and profile the government in a more positive way than is truthful as they lead themselves towards an election 90-some-odd days from now.

Interesting that the past chief of staff who served under Gordon Campbell for the B.C. Liberals here, Martyn Brown himself, came out and trashed this budget. Now, if there's anybody who would really know exactly the implications of a budget, it would be somebody who sat in that position with Gordon Campbell for many, many years, and he came out very early to trash this budget.

As you look across the kind of commentary that we have seen from highly respected reporters and editorialists in this province, Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun — "The Liberals' Highly Debatable Budget Plans Include Fiscal Tricks, Asset Sales and Tax Hikes" — immediately set the tone for revealing the truth behind the false claims that this is a balanced budget.

Several articles that have run since then, I think, speak to the heart of what is happening in this budget as well. In the Vancouver Sun an article claimed: "The Minister of Finance Sets the Stage for Cuts." Times Colonist: "Government Plans to Slash Funding for Adults with Disabilities."

Again in the Times Colonist: "B.C. Siphons Hundreds of Millions From Hydro and ICBC to Balance Their Books." Again from the Times Colonist: "Government Makes $46 Million Cuts to Higher Education." I'm going to talk a little bit about those things, because in fact, they are the fundamental building blocks of this bogus balanced budget that the government has made claims to.

First of all, I'd like to address the kind of cornerstone of the government's claims to a balanced budget, which is this fire sale of government assets. There is not a person in this province that does not know the value of real estate and how important those assets are to your overall financial health. To see that the government would treat the assets of this province as some sort of tool to simply balance a budget, to make a budget look like it was balanced leading into an election when, in fact, those properties have not been sold, may not be sold…. We're uncertain of where they are, what the value of them is.

In the past when the government has talked about asset sales, we've called for a list of those. They've said: "Oh no, for reasons of secrecy, we don't want to show our hand. We're not going to talk about where those pieces of real estate are."

In fact, real estate gets advertised every single day here. Commercial and private real estate stock gets advertised all the time. It increases its value. It keeps the market thriving. Why the government feels a need to be secretive about that, I don't know. Perhaps it's because those projections of asset sales are, in fact, fantasy. We don't know what those properties are worth.

The example here of the Little Mountain property — where the government has included that now in three consecutive budgets and used that to falsely balance the budget — I think speaks very directly to the inability of government to guess what those assets might be worth, when they might sell and, in fact, what bearing they have on their ability to balance the budget.

Certainly, I think that the real budget in this province is probably much closer to the last quarterly report, of $1.2 billion in deficit.

[1135]

For the government to try and use asset sales to turn that debate around, to try and mislead the public going into this election on their ability to balance the budget, I think is highly questionable, and Little Mountain is a great example of it.

We've canvassed numerous times in this House the really deplorable job this government has done in managing B.C. Hydro assets and the depth of debt that is currently in existence in that B.C. Hydro asset, that Crown corporation that belongs to the taxpayers of British Columbia. This government has effectively, in a dozen years, driven this asset, this corporation, into an extra-
[ Page 12982 ]
ordinary level of debt. I believe that the latest reports say that this year that debt will grow to $15.8 billion.

We know that the use of all of these multiple deferral accounts — 27 multiple uses — is unprecedented anywhere. I sat at the municipal table for nine years in my community, and I know that deferral accounts can be used modestly in a very effective way. So 27 of them and the accumulation of debt there has been canvassed. The Auditor General has come out and said that this is the worst kind of accounting practices that this government is guilty of.

To then see the government try and claim that somehow there is enough profitability in this Hydro corporation to pay a dividend to help create this illusion of a balanced budget — again, completely irresponsible. It's a debt. It is a corporation that needs better management, and we are being misled in thinking that somehow falsely scraping dividends out of that corporation to try and balance this budget is in any way real. It's not real.

I think Vaughn Palmer talked about it very clearly here when he called it…. How did he state it here? Fiscal tricks. I think British Columbians can see through those, and they know that this budget is bogus; it is not balanced.

I think just as tragic, as we move into an election, is the fact that the government has tried to cover up the unsustainability of the expenditures that are also projected in this budget. I going to talk right off the top about the unsustainable cuts for Children and Families and for Community Living in particular, because that's a group of the most vulnerable citizens in this province. We have a moral and ethical obligation to provide the best care and not to jeopardize the safety or well-being of these individuals, if at all possible. In fact, what we're doing is making cuts that are going to have huge concerns.

I received a letter from a woman who I have brought to this House. I introduced her and her two sons to this House some time ago — Caroline Mavridis and her boys Neil and Scott, who both have Down syndrome. She has written to me this morning about her deep concerns about cuts to Community Living B.C. and about the uncertainty that this budget has now caused for families who are working very hard to make sure that their individuals get the kinds of care and supports they need, while participating vigorously in the economy.

Caroline writes to me today that she is really uncertain about the future for her sons. She's very fearful. As her two boys, Neil and Scott, graduate, what is the future going to hold for them? They just finished putting together their plan with Community Living B.C., but she said she feels very uncertain about whether or not that plan means anything if there are going to be cuts that will impact her boys. Caroline gave up full-time work to stay home and look after her sons when their services were cut back by this government in some of its existing clawbacks that have affected Community Living.

She was hoping that as these boys graduated and the support systems that had been promised to her were put in place, she would be able to go back to work. She is now today feeling "frustrated and let down" — her exact words — about the future for her boys. That's exactly what's happening with people who look to Community Living for services: this fear and uncertainty that's now been foisted on them by this bogus balanced budget. In fact, it is going to create huge cuts and unsustainability right across government services.

[1140]

It is going to most certainly affect health care spending. The projections that this government has now put in place of a very, very modest increase in funding, we know will not even keep pace in any way with the cost of living. In fact, the government is very wilfully once again going into a budget cycle where they know the impacts are going to be directly affected on the front lines of home care.

Now, this is a government that after a dozen years of running the business of this province has left us with some of the worst health care stories. We've seen hallway medicine, we've seen huge wait-lists, and we've seen people being treated in Tim Hortons as an addendum to emergency space in hospitals. That's unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable, in British Columbia.

Health care is a cornerstone of what people pay taxes for and expect in the way of services. When you pay taxes in this province, you expect that you are going to have health care provided to you. This government has touted all kinds of slogans about the kind of health care you can expect, and they continue to kind of purport that they are going to deliver great health care services. But how can they, when their very own bogus balanced budget here does not provide for even a cost of living increase in health care costs?

We know that those in Community Living and Children and Families are going to be affected by cuts. We know that the health care system is not sustainable with the kind of structure they've put in place that doesn't even meet the cost of living.

The justice system is also going to be cut. Now, the justice system has been crippled, effectively, over the last number of years. We've seen all kinds of cases turned away because of a delay in timely access to justice. We've heard judges talk about the lack of resources. We've seen community courts talk about this. Across this province it has been a hot topic for communities that there is a delay in access to justice, and yet we're seeing a cut there as well.

I think that even more egregious than all of that is the fact that we continue to see, as part of this $16 million tax-paid advertising to help improve the image of the B.C. Liberal Party leading into an election, a continued claim that somehow we are investing more and more in skills training. And yet, this pre-election bogus budget has cut $46 million out of post-secondary education at a time when everybody in this province — business, communities, that side of the House, this side of the House —
[ Page 12983 ]
knows that post-secondary education and skilled trades training are the keys to issues that will face us in the immediate and long-term future.

We know that 85 percent of the jobs of the future in this province will require some level of skills training or post-secondary education, and this government is advertising and bragging about skills training at a time when they're actually cutting the funding to that.

We have seen university professors and college presidents right across this province repeatedly, time and time again, go public on the fact that we don't have enough funding for the demands that are being put on these facilities — 11,000 spaces short right now, today, in this province, for post-secondary education demands, and yet the government has cut $46 million out of this budget.

It seems to me, if you're out there advertising on the one hand, with taxpayers dollars, to improve your image, falsely claiming that you're investing in skilled trades at a time when the budget has cut $46 million, it's a clear demonstration of how bogus this budget really is. That is not sustainable in any way.

I know we've had others on this side of the House who are very knowledgable and have great expertise in the forest industry repeatedly talk about the lack of management on the part of the B.C. Liberal government for our forest health.

[1145]

We have seen repeatedly, year after year, that forestry — which at one time was really one of the most significant contributors to the revenue of this province, one of the great resources of this province — has been sidelined and lowballed and had funding cut to such an extreme degree that our forest health now is in serious, serious jeopardy.

A group went around the province and talked to communities about forest health. They came back with some great information. All of that has been discarded by the Liberal Party. They sent everybody around, took the report back and went: "Immaterial." So $35 million is being cut from the forest health budget.

It seems to me these are just a few examples of why this budget doesn't stand up to scrutiny for five minutes. In no way does this budget demonstrate balance. It's certainly leading into an election. It was meant to kind of whitewash a lot of issues and in some way — I don't know — fool the people of British Columbia into thinking this government has the ability to manage our affairs. But in fact, hon. Speaker, they don't have the ability. After 12 years we see what has happened with B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Ferries. We haven't discussed that in this budget at all, but, in fact, B.C. Ferries — after 12 years of the failed experiment of privatization, of this government — has found itself, like every other Crown corporation we have, deeply in debt. Services are about to be cut to communities that are dependent on the ferries as part of the transportation infrastructure of this province. Ridership is down, fares have skyrocketed, and the debt at B.C. Ferries is $1.3 billion. It has skyrocketed to four times what it was when this government took over and tried to privatize it.

The sad fact is that when you look in the budget the line item is only the contribution portion that we make, along with the federal government. We don't even know what's in the books of B.C. Ferries. Although it's our corporation — we own it; the taxpayers of B.C. own it — we can't see what's in it, because it's behind a firewall.

There's not one word here about how this government is going to resolve the issues for coastal communities that depend on B.C. Ferries. Their economies depend on B.C. Ferries. Tourism is a significant part of the revenue stream in this province, and tourists can no longer afford to travel to the coastal communities because the cost of B.C. Ferries — priced it right out of the marketplace.

We've seen management at B.C. Ferries go from a modest 155 people to 600-some-odd people. We do know that much about how this government has let that situation get right out of control. We've seen nothing here about solutions there. Instead, the government says we're going to cut services to coastally dependent communities, further eroding their economic viability, further cutting off their ability to attract tourism and keep their communities rich and alive.

In some of these communities, hon. Speaker, it's not even a nice ferry ride back and forth from Vancouver to Victoria. These communities depend on ferries to bring them every single thing they have, because they are in remote areas like Haida Gwaii, yet the government thinks it's perfectly fine to start cutting services there. Where did they show up in the budget? Where was the balance for those communities in this? Nowhere.

This concept of balanced budgets, which the government…. You know, in this bogus budget here, the claims to it being balanced are about pre-election propaganda. Somehow this has become some new mantra for governments — about balancing your budget rather than being straightforward with the public that "revenues at this time are down; we, therefore, need to make sure the people of British Columbia are looked after first and foremost."

[1150]

Let's not cut health care — or funding to disabled adults, to children and families, to the health system, to forest health or to post-secondary education — if we are not capable of doing it.

Now there's an article today that ran in the Globe and Mail, by Gary Mason. The title is "Balanced Budget Legislation Works Only in Theory." I want to touch on it a little bit. In fact, that's not even something — in this article — that is a philosophy being pushed from this side of the House, necessarily.

This article quotes Mr. Jock Finlayson. Now, that side of the House will be very familiar with Mr. Finlayson, because he does advise them very much. He's a very well-
[ Page 12984 ]
respected individual in this province who does financial forecasting.

He talks in here about the efficacy of balanced-budget legislation. He says here: "At the provincial level, revenues can be volatile, which makes budget forecasting highly unreliable." Let's remember that — highly unreliable, from a government who is trying to purport to a balanced budget at a time when they have missed every one of the projections for gas revenues and have repeatedly had to come back and say: "Oops. We missed our projections by half a billion, a billion." After the election 2009 it was several billion. Yet they want to say to us: "Well, we can predict what's going to happen here, and our budget is balanced — absolutely." We heard that in '09. It was untrue then, and I am pretty sure it's untrue now.

But Mr. Finlayson goes on to say: "If a provincial government is going to be truly bound by its balanced-budget laws, it would have to establish a sizeable fiscal reserve to provide relief in the event of an unexpected deterioration of economic conditions," which is what we're currently experiencing.

Mr. Finlayson believes that "for a resource-based economy like B.C.'s, that forecast allowance would have to be about 5 per cent of the budget" — in this case, "slightly more than $2 billion."

In fact, what we have in the way of any kind of contingency here is $195 million, which in anybody's books is woefully inadequate, if it were even true, which I don't believe it is for one moment.

Mr. Finlayson goes on to say: "The allowance in the B.C. budget tabled Tuesday was a quarter of that" — of what we need. "And of course, when an economy suffers a catastrophic shock, such as the financial crisis in 2008, government needs flexibility to respond, said Mr. Finlayson. In such cases, balanced-budget decrees will be ignored or amended." We know that. The government has amended its own balanced budget numerous times, so this is not new.

He says: "So it's clear that these laws, whatever their symbolic utility, are not binding." In his view, "governments should concentrate more on public debt than the accounting in any particular year." Really wise advice at a time when this bogus balanced budget, in fact, is predicated on the sell-off of assets that we do not know the value of and cannot predict the value of. Nor can we predict when and if they will sell.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It is also predicated on raiding corporations for moneys that they don't have, taking dividends out of B.C. when their ballooning debt is so astronomically high. I didn't even touch on the fact that this government has contracted us here in British Columbia to take independent power and purchase it at three to four times what we can sell it for. I haven't even touched on the contractual debt that we have taken on there.

Instead, we are falsely raiding dividends out of a corporation that doesn't have any to try and prop up this bogus balanced budget. Then we go through and systematically cut the very core services that the government is advertising are solid and secure, like skills training.

This is so patently a false balanced budget. I would only add that the first thing the government should do, if they want to take any advice, is stop running those ads with the false claims in them. Frankly, it just is infuriating the public. The public sees right through them. It is a waste of tax dollars, money that could be better put back into Community Living.

[1155]

Take that $16 million or whatever's left of it that you haven't spent and put it into Community Living so people like Caroline Mavridis and her boys do not have to live with uncertainty and fear about their future. Stop taking this money from the most vulnerable and showcasing your own futures with this.

That is all I have to say.

M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.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