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

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 42, Number 2

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Stewart: It's an honour today to introduce the Hon. James Moore, first elected to the House of Commons in Ottawa in 2000, representing Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam. He currently serves as the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and is the regional minister for B.C. With him today is his assistant Elyse Newbert. Will the House please join in welcoming them here.

Hon. B. Bennett: It's an honour for me today to introduce two hard-working people from British Columbia's film and TV industry. With us today somewhere in the gallery, probably behind me, is Wayne Bennett, a film and TV production manager from Port Moody. With him is Gina Hole Lazarowich from North Vancouver, who is a producer, makeup artist and agent and has been in the industry for a long, long time. We had a great meeting this morning. I'd like the House to help me make them welcome.

Also, just in looking for my two friends from the film and TV industry, I noticed a former MLA and minister from the Social Credit days, who probably will kill me for introducing him. Terry Segarty is with us from Cranbrook today.

[1335]

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, on behalf of the official opposition, would like to welcome Wayne Bennett and Gina Lazarowich to the House. They've been strong voices for the film industry, certainly, with their campaign, Save B.C. Film. Look it up — lots of very good information there. Please join me in welcoming them to this House and thanking them for their great work.

Hon. I. Chong: Oftentimes when we come to this chamber and have events, we acknowledge the traditional territory of our Coast Salish people, in particular Esquimalt and Songhees. Today I am particularly pleased to welcome Chief Andy Thomas from Esquimalt Nation, who is in the gallery today. He attends here often. I enjoyed having lunch with him earlier today to hear about the progress that his nation is making with respect to his young people. I'm really pleased to know that he was interested in watching question period. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Tributes

CONSERVATION OFFICER AWARD
RECIPIENT BOB BUTCHER

Hon. T. Lake: In the gallery today we have our chief conservation officer, Kelly Larkin, and our Assistant Deputy Minister of B.C. Parks and the conservation officer service, Lori Halls, here today with a very special member of our conservation officer service.

Conservation officers around the province work hard every day to minimize human-wildlife conflicts and also to protect our environment. It gives me great pleasure to introduce one conservation officer who is being recognized for going above and beyond the typical call of duty.

Bob Butcher is here today to be awarded conservation officer of the year. Bob was earlier joined by his spouse, Roxanne, sons Bodan, who is nine, Charlie, who is eight, Barrett, who is seven, and Cole, who is five. Sounds like Roxanne should get an award for mom of the year.

Bob began his conservation officer career in 1994 and currently serves communities like Lillooet, Clinton, 70 Mile House and Cache Creek. He's fondly known as the MacGyver of the conservation officer service for his creative problem-solving techniques, like fixing a snowmobile in the backcountry with very few resources.

Bob has managed many sensitive and high-profile investigations, including the poaching of big horn sheep. He demonstrates every day great professionalism. He's very familiar with the region's geography, biology and access routes and uses the knowledge of the area to identify the best approach to respond to violations quickly and effectively. The conservation officer service is one of the most technically advanced and mobile workforces in the B.C. public service, and Bob has been a very big part of that.

He's also a caring spouse and father, as I found today, having lunch with him and his family, meeting them today. He also manages to find the time to coach his sons' minor hockey team. He's the 22nd recipient of the Outstanding Officer of the Year award, so I'd like the House to please make conservation officer Bob Butcher and his family most welcome.

Introductions by Members

D. Black: On behalf of the official opposition, I'd also like to welcome the Hon. James Moore, a former colleague of mine in the House of Commons. Again, on behalf of the official opposition, I welcome him to the B.C. Legislature today. I hope all colleagues in the House will make him very welcome.

D. Horne: I'd like to join the member for New Westminster in introducing a very good friend of mine, the Hon. James Moore, someone who works tirelessly for British Columbia and all Canadians, a Member of Parliament
[ Page 12986 ]
since the year 2000 representing the riding of Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam. He currently serves as the Minister of Canadian Heritage and is someone who, as I say, really represents British Columbia well as the senior minister from British Columbia. I'd also like to introduce his assistant, Elyse Newbert, who also joins us today. I'll ask for the House to make them both welcome.

Statements

KITSELAS FIRST NATION

Hon. I. Chong: I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kitselas First Nation members and their leadership in achieving a yes vote in favour of the Kitselas agreement-in-principle yesterday evening. I was recently up in the area and know how important this vote was to the community.

[1340]

Community support is important as we move toward a treaty that will bring many benefits to them and see Kitselas become a full self-governing treaty nation.

In that regard, I would like to acknowledge and thank some of the following people. While there are too many to name from the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, I do want to thank chief negotiator Mark Lofthouse and his team. From Kitselas First Nation, I do want to thank chief negotiator Gerald Wesley; Mel Bevan, who is a former negotiator; Glenn Bennett, who is a current negotiator, as well as to pay respect to and thank chief councillor Judy Gerow and all of the other councillors there as well.

When I was up there speaking to them, they offered very positive comments toward this, and it was looking very hopeful. More importantly, the youth I met at that meeting were so positive and encouraged about the opportunities for them and for their future and for their children that I was most pleased last night to see that vote.

Again, I offer congratulations and hope the House will join me in doing so.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: Today in the gallery are several leaders from our non-profit and volunteer sector and also the policing sector. They are here in anticipation of legislation that I will be introducing shortly.

I am very pleased today to introduce Peter Lawless, who has been involved in high-performance sports for more than two decades, coaching athletes to over 20 world records, world championships and Paralympic gold medals. Mr. Lawless is also president of Coaches of Canada and sits on the board of the Canadian Olympic Committee.

It is also my pleasure to introduce Chief Supt. Rosemary Abbruzzese. She is the chief superintendent, deputy criminal operations officer, in policing support services with the B.C. RCMP.

I also want to recognize the executive director of policing, security and law enforcement in the Ministry of Justice, Sam MacLeod. He and his team have done an exceptional job. Our public servants work very hard every day, and I'm delighted that Sam is able to be here for the introduction of the bills that he worked so very hard on.

Please join me in making all of them welcome today.

N. Simons: Today I have the pleasure of introducing Melinda Heidsma, the executive director of AiMHi Prince George Association for Community Living, and one of her board members, Ellen Tarshis. AiMHi provides advocacy support and support services for people with developmental disabilities and other special needs, as well as their families. I'm just pleased to have them here. Welcome, on behalf of everyone in this House.

K. Krueger: With us in the House today is a woman who was a really good friend of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. They were both born and raised in the Comox Valley. He knew her long before I did. She's been my constituent in Kamloops, first North and then South Thompson, for 17 years now, and is very close to me. She's an outstanding teacher in school district 73. She's put up with me for 38 years tomorrow. She sort of crossed my path, and I couldn't let her go 40 years ago. Now we have six children and seven grandchildren. I'd like you to welcome my wife. She was Debbie Law and now is Debbie Krueger.

Statements

KITSELAS FIRST NATION

R. Austin: I'd like to join with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation on congratulating the members of the Kitselas Band for their decision yesterday. It was a big decision. I believe the vote was 66 percent in favour of moving to the next stage in negotiating a final agreement. I was with the minister just two or three weeks ago attending a signing of an interim treaty agreement. I know that there were lots of concerns amongst the community before they made this big decision, but I'm glad that they've made it, and I think that they'll move forward to a very bright future.

Tributes

QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE
MEDAL RECIPIENTS

Hon. D. McRae: I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge three of B.C.'s finest educators, who are joining us
[ Page 12987 ]
in the House today: Anne Cooper, Laura Verhoeven and Steve Cardwell all received the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal today and were kind enough to accompany myself and the Shuswap MLA and former Minister of Education to lunch.

Anne has recently retired as superintendent in Revelstoke after an outstanding 13 years. Revelstoke, as many members may know, consistently performs very high academically in areas such as graduation rates and literacy. Anne has been the driving force behind a very successful capital projects that includes the beautiful new secondary and elementary schools.

[1345]

Now, Laura has only been teaching for five years, but she has already earned the Amgen Award for Science Teaching Excellence for her inspiring work at the Metchosin Technical Centre at Pacific Secondary School in Sooke. Laura's philosophy is to learn with her students, explore with them and ask questions with them, and she's only been in the profession for five years. This unique approach continually motivates her students and builds special collaborative relationships with them.

Steve Cardwell has been a longtime supporter of the province's public education system and joined the Vancouver school district in 2010 to serve as superintendent. While being a key member of numerous provincial education committees, Steve continues to be known as an advocate of ethical leadership, lead in learning with technology and foster strong working relationships.

Anne, Laura and Steve, thank you again for your dedication to the students of British Columbia.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 10, 2013, An Audit of Biodiversity in B.C.: Assessing the Effectiveness of Key Tools.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — CRIMINAL RECORDS REVIEW
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 11, Criminal Records Review Amendment Act, 2013. This legislation supports volunteers and non-profit organizations who work with children and vulnerable adults by providing them with free criminal record checks and reducing the number of checks that they require.

British Columbia is currently the only jurisdiction in Canada with a legislative program that protects the vulnerable sector by requiring people who work with children or vulnerable adults in publicly funded or regulated sectors to undergo a criminal record check. We are now offering this program to the volunteer sector free of charge.

Non-profit agencies will have the option of choosing to have their volunteer criminal record checks completed by our program or by their local police agencies. Those who opt into the government's program will receive free criminal record checks and risk assessments of persons who have a relevant criminal record. Additional amendments will allow both volunteers and those already covered by the act to share their criminal record check results between agencies. This portability will streamline the criminal record check process while continuing to ensure that our vulnerable sector is protected.

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 11, Criminal Records Review 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.

BILL 12 — COMMUNITY SAFETY ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Safety Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to introduce Bill 12, Community Safety Act. The Community Safety Act fulfils a commitment that we made to propose a law to improve community safety by providing the provincial government with the authority to respond when specified unlawful activities impact neighbours.

British Columbians deserve to feel secure and safe in the communities in which they live. No family in British Columbia should have to be subject to living next door to a property routinely used for activities such as drug trafficking, a marijuana grow-op, gang or organized crime, or unlawful and unsafe uses. These problem properties lead to an overall decline in public safety and prevent the
[ Page 12988 ]
development of a vibrant, strong economy and a sense of community that helps people thrive and flourish together.

Under the proposed legislation, a citizen will be able to file a complaint about a problem property with a provincial director of community safety. The director then initiates an investigation and, if the complaint is substantiated, will take steps to stop the occurrence of the threatening or disruptive activities.

The goal here is to get property owners to take charge of their properties to ensure that unwanted activities cease. However, if the director's warnings are unsuccessful and the activities in question continue, the director may apply to the court for a community safety order which can close a problem property to use and occupation for up to 90 days.

[1350]

The Community Safety Act follows the model of safer communities and neighbourhoods legislation enacted in six other Canadian jurisdictions. These other jurisdictions have experienced tremendous success in stopping unlawful activities without resorting to the courts.

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 12, Community Safety 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.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

25th ANNIVERSARY OF VIEW ROYAL

M. Karagianis: This year is a special milestone for a community in my constituency. The town of View Royal is celebrating its 25th anniversary, and they're doing it in style. View Royal was incorporated as the tenth municipality in the capital regional district on December 5, 1988, following a vote by residents of the View Royal electoral area. The very first council, elected that November, was led by Marjorie Aldersmith, a retired businesswoman who had been a leader in the community for more than 20 years.

View Royal is located between Esquimalt Harbour and Portage Inlet, one of the most richly historic areas in the province. People have been calling this place home for thousands of years. It is part of the traditional territory of the Esquimalt and Songhees First Nations, and let me again welcome Chief Thomas here today, as one of the primary First Nations in the area.

European settlers began in the 1850s. Craigflower Manor was built, starting in 1853, to support Craigflower Farm. Today the original manor house is a national historical site and a provincial heritage site.

Led by Mayor Graham Hill and Councillors Ron Mattson, Heidi Rast, John Rogers and David Screech, the town is planning several events to mark the 25th anniversary. That will include a time capsule ceremony on the town's rock wall on the Island Highway. If any of you have a chance to drive along Craigflower and out the Island Highway, the rock wall is quite an amazing piece of art. I would certainly urge you to go and take a look at it, because it's fantastic. They are going to have a summer picnic party and a historical walking tour.

I would hope all members will join me in congratulating View Royal on its 25th anniversary. Best wishes for a wonderful year of celebrations and fun.

SCOUT-GUIDE WEEK

H. Bloy: Every year I rise in the House to talk about an organization that is very dear to me. Today I'm very pleased to continue that tradition.

From now until February 24, Scouts Canada and Girl Guides of Canada are coming together to celebrate Scout-Guide Week. It is an important time for both organizations, when they can join hands in the spirit of friendship and honour their shared heritage. It's also an ideal opportunity for the public to recognize the limitless potential of Canadian youth and appreciate the invaluable work that scouting and guiding does to help build a better world for our nation's future leaders.

Over 50 percent of the leadership in this country participated in scouting and guiding in their youth. Scouting instils the values of leadership, honour and cooperation through a variety of exciting outdoor programs for boys and girls, young men and women nationwide. These programs are developed and maintained by energetic, dedicated Scouts Canada and Guides adult volunteers who give selflessly of their time and deserve our wholehearted praise and thanks.

For so many Canadians, the principles of teamwork, good citizenship and public service all start with Scouts and Guides. They provide a solid foundation of life skills that help youth find inner strength and pave the way for future success.

I am proud and honoured to be a volunteer, as are many members of this House, for Scouts, to support our future leaders. I ask all members of this House to join me in wishing Scouts Canada and the Girl Guides of Canada a wonderful Scout Week and continued success for a strong, vibrant future.

RESPONSE TO FLOOD EMERGENCY
IN KOOTENAY LAKE AREA

M. Mungall: Every community has them: heroes. This past summer the heroes around Kootenay Lake showed their mettle, and it is my pleasure today to rise in the House to say thank you.

With record amounts of rain, summer on Kootenay
[ Page 12989 ]
Lake started with the highest water levels in 40 years. We were flooded. Roads were washed out, property was damaged, and people stacked sandbags. It couldn't get worse; then it did.

[1355]

Johnsons Landing has been a quiet, beautiful place at the end of the road. On July 12 at 10:30 in the morning this remote community was ripped apart when the mountainside came down in a massive mudslide.

In mere seconds the mud cleared old-growth trees, boulders and homes. Four people lost their lives: Petra Frehse, Valentine Webber and his two daughters, Rachel and Diana. As everyone can imagine, this was devastating for the entire region and most for friends and family of Johnsons Landing residents.

The community responded by coming together, raising funds for those who lost their homes, and sheltering and feeding evacuees as well as all those involved in the emergency response: the regional district of Central Kootenay emergency services; B.C. emergency management; the RCMP; the heavy urban search and rescue team from the Lower Mainland; Salvation Army; Canadian Red Cross; the coroner's office; B.C. Hydro; Telus; Yellowhead Road and Bridge; B.C. Assessment; the village of Kaslo; and staff at the Ministries of Transportation and Infrastructure, at Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and at Health; and our very own volunteers with Kaslo Search and Rescue.

We saw many heroes around Kootenay Lake this past summer. To all of them: thank you.

MAËLLE RICKER

J. McIntyre: I rise today to pay tribute to an amazing Canadian female athlete, Maëlle Ricker. Maëlle, a resident of Squamish who grew up in West Vancouver and attended Sentinel Secondary, is continuing to dominate her sport, snowboard cross, well into her 30s.

She humbly credits her years of experience in technical races, over youth, humorously referring to herself as a dinosaur in the sport. But not only is she the first Canadian woman to win a gold medal on home turf in the 2010 games, in an exciting contest on Cypress Mountain, she's continuing her winning ways this year. This is along with a number of other Canadian athletes to emerge at the games, like Kaillie Humphries in bobsleigh, proving that Canada's Own the Podium program can produce lasting superstars.

Maëlle struck gold again recently in snowboard cross in January at the FIS Snowboard World Championship in Quebec, a medal that apparently had eluded her despite her many championships during her career. On February 10 she also just won the Legendary Banked Slalom at Mount Baker in Washington State for the seventh year in a row in the pro women's class, breaking the record for most pro women's titles and also tying the record for most wins overall, with a Norwegian legend.

This dedication to her sport and her ability to overcome adversity, such as befell her in the Torino Olympic Games, reveals her strength of character. Not only is she a top athlete, but she generously gives back to community and inspires young athletes. I had the pleasure of meeting her several times, including at an event to celebrate B.C. Parks' 100th anniversary, where she graciously helped Jerry the Moose and I serve birthday cake to a number of soggy campers at Alice Lake, north of Squamish.

I ask the House to join me in honouring the many accomplishments and recent victories of British Columbia's own Maëlle Ricker, an inspiration to us all.

BOUNDARY BAY OYSTERS

G. Gentner: Until recently the delectable Boundary Bay oyster has been part of the human palate for thousands of years. Boundary Bay's tide and wave action, salinity, oxygen content, silt and fresh water made it ideal for oyster propagation. Except for some remote parts of the coast, the small, soft-shelled native oyster was bountiful in the bay until the introduction of the Atlantic oyster by William Bowser and his company in 1904. In 1912 it was no coincidence that Bowser, the minister of agriculture and finance, was able to obtain extended oyster leases in the area.

Unfortunately, with the Atlantic oyster came its parasite, the drill snail, which helped wipe out the native oyster. In 1936 B.C. Packers introduced the Japanese oyster to Boundary Bay. In the 1940s about four million Japanese oyster seeds had been distributed into the bay, but with this oyster came its own version of the drill snail, and it helped wipe out the Atlantic oyster.

[1400]

Of the 18 oyster shuckers in the plant, Charlie Smith was the best shucker, at 13 gallons a day, 31 cents a gallon, totalling 374 gallons for $115 in the month of December 1940. Charlie only took four days off in December, including Christmas. Good for Charlie.

On February 8, 1963, the province cancelled all oyster leases due to high fecal coliform count and DDT, with an estimated loss of more than one million oysters left on the bed. At the time of its closure the oyster-shucking plant contributed toward 50 percent of the oyster production in the province. As a former member of the Delta heritage committee, I was able to participate in today's resurrection of the interpretive sign commemorating the plant.

Humans change ecosystems. We introduce species; we destroy species. The Boundary Bay oyster is our canary in the mine. It tells us how pristine or polluted our waters can be. Oysters are, I hope, here to come once again.
[ Page 12990 ]

OPEN HEART SURGERY AT
KELOWNA GENERAL HOSPITAL

E. Foster: I rise today to talk about a meaningful milestone that took place yesterday in the Okanagan — the completion of the 100th open heart surgery at Kelowna General Hospital.

In the past patients and their families from B.C.'s Interior and the north had to travel to the Lower Mainland and Victoria for open heart surgery. Well, as of last December this is no longer the case, when the first open heart surgery was performed at Kelowna General.

Thanks to the great work of the entire cardiac team — including doctors Guy Fradet, Calvin Wan and Ahmad Poostizadeh — potential life-saving heart surgeries are being performed at a pace of two a day. These first 100 surgeries have been performed on patients from all over the Interior — from the north, from Trail to Prince George.

Currently surgeries are taking place in two renovated operating rooms at the Kelowna General while the Interior heart and surgical centre is being constructed. Construction of the new centre broke ground last October, and the centre is scheduled to open in mid-2015.

Once fully operational, approximately 600 cardiac surgeries per year are expected to be performed. That's 600 more people and their families whose lives will be improved and potentially saved thanks to this new centre. I'm proud to see this new health care facility opening in my region of British Columbia, and I look forward to even more — including the two top floors at the Vernon Jubilee Hospital, where the construction will start shortly.

It means that more patients can be treated near their homes and near their families and loved ones. I congratulate the entire team at Kelowna General for all of their great work.

Oral Questions

FOREST INDUSTRY JOBS
AND LOG EXPORT POLICY

N. Macdonald: Today David Gray, a respected member of the timber export advisory committee, announced that he was resigning his post. This is the result of the Forests Minister overruling the committee more than 100 times.

He also resigned because the regulations that are needed to protect jobs here in British Columbia were changed last month. This is just the latest independent observer to conclude that Liberal forest policy has been an utter failure.

The question for the minister is: will he accept the need for change — a need for a drastic change in direction — and immediately take steps to ensure that B.C. logs create B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: The question just leads to the continuing recurring theme that we're hearing in this House in terms of questions without a plan behind them.

Let's look at the record here in terms of the opposite members' plan. First of all, in 2011 they said they would ban raw log exports. In 2012, less than a year later, they said they wouldn't, or couldn't. Then the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke said: "We'll reveal our plan after we get a mandate."

We might ask — I know we're going to get a supplemental on that — where is the opposite members' plan for this. What our plan is doing is creating jobs, creating additional harvest on the coast — in the last year, 3,000 additional jobs in the industry.

[1405]

Our plan is building a world-competitive industry, one that has increased the value of the industry in product export from $7.6 billion in 2009 to over $10.2 billion in 2012.

Mr. Speaker: The member has….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: This is what the minister is bragging about: 30,000 jobs lost under the B.C. Liberal watch — 30,000 jobs lost. That's the B.C. Liberal record, and we have watched as six million cubic metres of raw logs leave the shores of British Columbia, unprocessed, every year.

There are mills here in British Columbia that can use these logs today. Mr. Gray came here to this Legislature to speak to journalists and to explain the need to allow logs that are from British Columbia to be processed in British Columbia. The people of B.C. understand that need; this government doesn't. When are we going to get a government that understands that B.C. logs are for B.C. jobs?

Hon. S. Thomson: If we want to refer back to the evolution of planning from the members opposite, yes, first of all they said they were going to ban them. Then a year later they say: "No, we won't. No, we couldn't ban them." Now they're saying and continue to say: "Well, we'll wait till after the mandate. Then we'll tell you what our plan is." Again, to the member opposite, what is the plan? What would you do?

Our plan is building jobs here in British Columbia — 3,000 jobs in the last year, as I said — and a plan to increase harvest on the coast in the coastal industry. That will bring additional fibre to the domestic industry — 500,000 cubic metres of B.C. Timber Sales volume brought forward for the industry. As Coast Forest
[ Page 12991 ]
Products said, that is estimated to bring an additional 4,000 jobs.

Our plan is building jobs and building harvest activity, which is contributing to economic activity on the coast, in the coastal communities and First Nations and across the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

N. Macdonald: The fact is that this government has given up on forestry completely. You see it on every front.

There are six million cubic metres of wood leaving B.C. shores, even though there are mills here on the coast, on Vancouver Island, in Surrey and Port Moody that need those logs now. Instead, this government makes a conscious choice to send those logs offshore. It is forest policy at its worst, from a government that has consistently failed forest workers in this province.

Mr. Gray runs mills….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: Mr. Gray runs mills, tries to run mills, here in this province. He was a member of the timber export advisory committee. He has resigned because of the actions of this minister and this government. There are 30,000 forestry jobs that we have lost under this government. And it's no surprise, given the actions of this minister.

The question is: why won't the minister listen to experts so that B.C. jobs can once again flow to B.C. mills?

Hon. S. Thomson: Let's look at the $900 million investment in the industry in the last two years; two very significant investments in the riding represented by the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke — the reopening of the Radium mill and a very, very significant investment in the Elko mill.

What we have done is to work with the industry to build a world-competitive industry, one that can compete. We have brought the industry through one of the most difficult recessions, one of the most difficult economic times for the industry. We've created an additional 3,000 jobs in the industry. We're taking steps to increase the coastal harvest, which will provide additional fibre for coastal mills and the coastal industry, one that Coast Forest Products estimates will provide 4,000 jobs.

[1410]

Our plan is creating jobs in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, and I'd ask the member opposite where their plan is. Would they ban raw log exports? Would they significantly restrict them? We don't know, because they've told us they won't bring the plan out until after they get a mandate.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND
FOREST HEALTH FUNDING

H. Bains: Everyone knows there's a forest health crisis, and yet this bogus budget ignores it. Everyone knows of the Liberal neglect for the last 12 years, of burned-out stands not being replanted — 12 years of needed silviculture not being done. The Forest Practices Board and the Auditor General have both slammed this government for their failure and neglect.

And in response? Government cut $35 million from the forest health programs. Without a healthy forest, it's impossible to have a healthy forest industry. So how can this Liberal government claim that this is a balanced budget when they are slashing funding for programs that are absolutely vital for the programs for a resource economy?

Hon. S. Thomson: I didn't hear the plan from the member opposite, from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. Maybe the member who's asking the question will reveal some of the plan. Our plan has built jobs here in British Columbia and built economic activity in British Columbia, has resulted in over $900 million in investment in the industry and has resulted in increases in product export value for the industry.

We've made difficult decisions in this budget, and I'm proud to stand and say that we have a balanced budget here in British Columbia. That's what the industry is looking for. That's what all industries are looking for — to ensure that we have that balanced budget to create that economic climate here in British Columbia that's going to continue to drive investments and jobs here in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: The minister's response is as bogus as the budget is. Here's what's happening. This summer a bipartisan committee toured the province to talk about the forest industry. What the committee heard over and over again was that we needed to reinvest in forest health. Some 650 presenters, dozens of communities, major licensees like Canfor, small forest operators, the local government representatives, the First Nations, the workers, all over in the Interior….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: They agreed with one thing: that we need to reinvest in forest health. The committee agreed and unanimously put a report together, including recommendations to invest in forest health. What does this minister do? The committee did not call for a $35 million cut. Why
[ Page 12992 ]
didn't the minister stand up to the Premier and refuse to agree to participate in a bogus budget exercise and refuse to cut this $35 million — massive cuts to the programs that are so vital to forest health?

Hon. S. Thomson: Our budget is balanced, which is what industry is looking for to ensure that we have the fiscal discipline and the balanced approach to the budget, to ensure that we continue to attract investment and economic activity and continue to build jobs here in British Columbia. That's what our budget does.

I ask the member opposite: "Where is the plan? How much will you spend?" This is another recurring theme: just spend, spend, spend, without any evidence of how you're going to pay for that additional spending.

We're making these significant investments in inventory, which was the key recommendation of the mid-term timber supply committee report — to focus on the inventory work.

[1415]

Our budget this year does that, and that will continue to be a significant area of focus for our ministry going forward into the next year.

FOREST MANAGEMENT AND
FOREST INVENTORY FUNDING

J. Trasolini: To make matters worse, the Liberal government doesn't even know what's going on in the forests. The Forest Practices Board….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member.

Continue, Member.

J. Trasolini: The Forest Practices Board went out to look at a tree farm licence in the northern Interior and found a gravel pit. At the same time as they have been cutting back on the work needed to restore the land base, they have cut funding to forest inventory — more evidence of a bogus budget.

The minister has acknowledged that they don't know what's happening on the land. So how can the minister defend a budget that still fails to commit the resources needed to tell us what's happening in the woods?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let's listen to the question and listen to the answer, please.

Hon. S. Thomson: Maybe with this from the member opposite and…. With this question, maybe we'll have this member reveal the plan in terms of how much they will spend, how much they say they will spend and how they're going to pay for it.

What I've said is that we've continued to work with the industry. We've built a diversified market, a strengthened market that has resulted in economic recovery in the industry. We are seeing increased investment and increased jobs being built in the industry. As I said in the answer to the previous question, this budget provides us resources to do the important inventory work that needs to be done to ensure that we can make the future planning decisions. We're committed to doing that, following up on the recommendations of the mid-term timber supply committee report.

What's the plan again? We're hearing this recurring theme of "Just spend more money. Just do more. Don't worry about where you're spending it. Make sure…." How are you going to pay for it? Again, our plan is building a world-competitive, world-leading forest industry.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Trasolini: To get the most out of your assets, you need to know what your assets are. If you're running a grocery store, the only way to get the most out of that store is to know exactly what's happening to all parts of the store. Only the worst manager would walk into a part of the store and find, say, a gravel pit that had opened up in the back corner of the store. But that's exactly the kind of mismanagement we've been seeing under the Liberal government. They have lost track of our land base. Instead of investing in the land base, they're cutting spending to maintain the illusion of balance in their bogus budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Trasolini: When will this government take some real action so that we know what's happening in our publicly owned forests?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I ask the question to the member opposite. What's the plan? How much are you planning on spending? Where are you going to spend it? And how are you going to raise the money?

[1420]

I'm proud to stand on this side of the House and be part of a government that has tabled a balanced budget, one that is going to see continued investment in the industry. It's provided the economic framework that has allowed this industry to recover from, as I said, one of the worst downturns — the worst downturn — in the industry. It's resulted in over $900 million in capital investment in the last two years, much of that investment in mills and in ridings — as I mentioned, in the riding for the mem-
[ Page 12993 ]
ber for Columbia River–Revelstoke, in Midway and in Vavenby — reinvestments in mills that are helping build jobs and economic activity in this province.

That's what we're going to continue to do: continue to build a diversified market, continue to build the strength for the industry that will allow it to continue to make those investments, based on an economic framework here in British Columbia that allows it to do it.

PLACER MINING OPERATIONS
IN CARIBOO AREA

B. Simpson: An audit of placer mining operations was conducted by the Ministry of Environment in the Cariboo in 2009. The results of that audit were withheld until they were released as a result of an FOI request in 2012.

The Ministry of Environment audit concluded that 74 percent of the placer operations they inspected were out of compliance. However, in the same FOI material the Ministry of Mines responded to that audit, saying that Ministry of Environment staff violated the Mines Act when they conducted the inspections and that the placer mine operations that were audited were actually 94 percent in compliance.

Will the Minister of Environment or the Minister of Mines please inform this House: are Cariboo placer operations 74 percent out of compliance or 94 percent in compliance? Which is it?

Hon. R. Coleman: With regards to this, the audit report had some unresolved issues respecting methodology, and that's why the differentiation of the numbers. Placer mining and other resource activities are important. It's expected to adhere to environmental standards, which we inspect. Certainly, since 2009 and going into the 2013 season, in particular, we'll be doing joint field inspections with both ministries.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: The minister is right. Placer mining operations in the Cariboo have a long history. As a result of the price of gold, they have had increased activity over the last number of years, and that's to the benefit of the Cariboo, which is in the heart of the mountain pine beetle. It's part of our diversification. However, that increased activity has caused increased concern by First Nations — in particular, Williams Lake Indian Band and Soda Creek Indian Band. It has caused formal concerns to be lodged with the government by the district of Wells.

What the area needs — and I did speak with the minister about this briefly — is a round table to be convened to come up with best practices for placer that not only make sure the ministries are aligned but make sure First Nations, local government and the placer miners are all on the same page and that this activity is fully supported.

I ask the minister today: would he commit to convening a round table to develop best practices so that that activity can continue with full support of all of the communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: The ministries have already been working with the Cariboo Mining Association to bring awareness of current safety and environmental standards. Those conversations will obviously continue out as far as First Nations activity is concerned, and that work will continue into 2013.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
EDUCATION AND SKILLS TRAINING

M. Mungall: At a time when we're in the midst of a major skills shortage, when businesses are struggling to find the skilled workers they need to compete in the world economy, this government has tabled a budget with a $46 million cut to post-secondary education — a budget that assumes 6,000 fewer students will be enrolling in their colleges and universities, despite the fact that last year's enrolments were higher than anticipated.

[1425]

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why is this government staking their budget on declining enrolment at a time when advanced education is more important than ever?

Hon. J. Yap: Earlier this week something truly significant, something really historic, happened, something which all members on this side of the House are proud of: this government delivered a balanced budget. Balancing the budget is the right thing to do for our children and for our grandchildren, and it takes strong leadership to accomplish this.

Budget 2013 continues to invest in key areas — key areas like post-secondary education, an area in which this government, since 2001, has made record investments. The operating grant is $1.9 billion. That's an increase of 47 percent during this period. We've added 32,000 additional seats during this period.

Balanced budget 2013 is our plan. We haven't heard what the opposition's plan is. What is your plan? Tell us your plan, please.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Our plan is $100 million into financial needs–based grants. We've said how we're going to pay for it. This government has offered zero to students — zero.

If the minister has not seen the budget book yet, I'll tell you who has: the vice-president for external relations at University of Northern British Columbia in Prince
[ Page 12994 ]
George. He had this to say about that budget. "What has been very frustrating is that there's all this discussion around skills and education, and training more people to be everything from pipefitters to doctors at the same time that we're having to cut."

Leaders at every public post-secondary institution in the province have made it clear that it is simply not realistic to expect them to slash their budgets without impacting students.

Here's a multiple choice for the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Mungall: Is it (a) this government has no intention of maintaining access to post-secondary education at a time when 80 percent of new jobs require this level of training? Or is it (b) they have no intention of sticking to what actually is a bogus budget?

Hon. J. Yap: I wonder if the gentleman that the member for Nelson-Creston referred to was saying this as he walked by the brand-new UNBC medical facility.

It's a bit rich taking advice from this group. Some members here were in government in the 1990s when they mismanaged our post-secondary education system.

An Hon. Member: Absolutely.

Hon. J. Yap: Absolutely.

Let me refresh the memories for the benefit of members. Here's a quote from the Vancouver Province regarding the dismal state of post-secondary education under that government. In the years 1997 to 2001, "the major universities have faced a virtual freeze in new buildings over this period of time."

Contrast that to our plan: over $2 billion in the last ten years; over 1,100 capital projects all around the province. We have a great plan for post-secondary education. What is their plan?

[1430]

G. O'Mahony: We are in the midst of a skills shortage, with every indication that the need for skilled workers is going to get worse before it gets better. So what does this government do? They flatline the budget for the Industry Training Authority at a time when our province already has dismal completion rates.

My question is to the minister. Why is this government spending millions of dollars on advertisements instead of skills training?

Hon. P. Bell: I hate to take the member opposite down memory lane, but I think perhaps it's time to, because this government is the one that has increased the investment in trades training substantially over the last ten years — in fact, in this last year $75 million towards capital projects throughout this province. New facilities at Camosun College, new facilities at Kelowna, new facilities in Kamloops and an upgraded training facility in Prince George — one end of this province to the other, it's improved facilities. That's what we stand for.

What we haven't heard from today…. We've asked every single member, every single questioner on the other side: "What's your plan? What do you plan to do?" When are they going to table their budget? When are they going to table their strategy?

Our plan is increased trades-training seats in every corner of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. O'Mahony: Yes, let's take a trip down memory lane and speak of an uncomfortable fact. In 2008 the Mineral Exploration and Mining Industry Labour Shortage Task Force said that it is clear that without pre-emptive and concerted action…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

G. O'Mahony: …on labour shortage issues in British Columbia, mineral exploration and the mining industry will suffer, and correspondingly, so too will the B.C. economy and British Columbians. Well, the government didn't listen, and we've seen how this has turned out. Now they are on track to repeat history.

At a time when 80 percent of new jobs require higher education and skills training, we have a government that is more interested in taking money from the pockets of British Columbians to close their credibility gap than in taking real action to make life better for British Columbian families.

The Liberals have spent $16 million on ads that say their government is "investing in skills training." Yet this budget flatlines the Industry Training Authority.

Either this government has no intention of meeting their bogus budget targets, or they have no intention of training more people to meet the demand for skilled workers. Which is it, Minister?

Hon. P. Bell: What the member opposite knows is that in the 1990s, the mining industry was irrelevant, and there was no need to have any training programs. But what the member opposite should know is this. The mining industry pays for social services in this province. The mining industry pays for educational services in this province. The mining industry even pays for health care services in this province.
[ Page 12995 ]

I'm advised that every time a coal train rolls out of the East Kootenays into the Vancouver port, that generates sufficient economic activity to pay for about four cardiac surgeries. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I'm personally attached to the notion of those cardiac surgeries to be paid for. So I say: "Let them trains roll, baby. Let them trains roll."

[End of question period.]

N. Macdonald: Permission to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

[1435]

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: Earlier the Minister of Education spoke and introduced Superintendent Anne Cooper from Revelstoke. I think, for members who know Anne — and there are many here — she's an exceptional public servant and an exceptional educator.

The other thing I want to point out is that the last number of years she has worked on two new schools in Revelstoke. While it usually bites you to compliment the government on anything, these are two of the most exceptional schools that I have seen, and I've been to a number of them.

Any MLAs who are in the midst of a project that has a school would do well to go to Revelstoke and see what was done. In terms of some of the concepts that Premier Campbell talked about — the idea of centres of learning, where you have the secondary school, a theatre.…

Mr. Speaker: Introduction, Member?

N. Macdonald: Anyway, it's remarkable — an exceptional person and, like I say, well worth looking at what was done there.

Petitions

Hon. I. Chong: I'm here to present a petition on behalf of Kids for Climate Action — approximately 3,700 names. I want to say that it was last August 25 that myself and the member for Victoria–Swan Lake met a number of young people who were participating in what they called their Ride for Our Future, a 70-kilometre bike ride. They at that time presented us both with a 2,200-name petition. They have since added another 1,500 names, and I hereby present that.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: Continued debate on the budget.

Budget Debate

(continued)

J. Thornthwaite: I am honoured to be able to stand up and give my support to the budget that we just announced.

First of all, I'd just like to say a couple of thank-yous — one to my family, my kids Jeremy and Mallory and Zoey. As everybody knows in this House, this job takes us, the members, away from our families far too often, even when we are in our constituency. So I just wanted to say thank you to my kids for being very patient with their mother not being at home and also to say hi to my constituency assistants back home, Carol and Lynn and Karina; and my new helper that I've got in my office to do with social media, Nick.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Thank you very much for all your help in helping me.

I'd like to start with my comments in general now with regards to the budget that we introduced. I believe that this budget is sensible. It's realistic, and it responsibly guides the government over the next few years. It fulfils the government's promise to balance the budget in this particular 2013-2014 year, and it contains elements that will enable the government to move to a surplus of $197 million from a projected deficit of $1.2 billion in 2012-13.

Prudent debt management and spending restraint in B.C. have freed up more than $1 billion, about half of which has been allocated to increased program funding and refundable tax credits for the government's families-first initiative. Most of my remarks following my introduction here will be based on talking about what we're doing for families.

First of all, I'd like to mention a few remarks about comments that have been coming from the members opposite with regards to their exposé of the budget. I've got a few references here. There have been many, but I'm only going to quote a few. One of them was in yesterday's Globe and Mail.

In contrast to what the members opposite have been commenting, this budget does not attempt to buy the voters with their own money. It is a balanced or modest surplus over four successive deficits. It is an accomplishment in hard times. We still are in hard times, even though we are recovering.

Certainly, British Columbia has come out ahead over many, many jurisdictions over the last years. We should be proud of that. But it is fiscal responsibility and fiscal prudence that have done that.

[1440]

This is something that other Canadian provinces have found difficult to do. In fact, I'm told that Saskatchewan is the only other province in Canada that actually does have a balanced budget, so we're one of two.
[ Page 12996 ]

The numbers in this budget appear to be solid from other sources as well, not just from us or our economists. The Vancouver Board of Trade has found the $1.1 billion savings in government departments to be plausible, and projected natural gas revenues were revised by $370 million at the guidance and recommendation of an independent economist, Dr. Tim O'Neill. He's the former vice-president of the Bank of Montreal. So not only did we have our own economists; we had independent economists looking at the budget and the budget books to ensure that our credibility with regards to the budget was sound.

As I said, he's a nationally respected economist, and he was hired to evaluate our budget. Again, he said and concluded that "the province's economic and revenue expectations are based on sound processes, methodologies, effective use of private sector outlooks, and incorporate prudence through adopting a cautious economic forecast that reflects global uncertainty and risks. The revenue forecasts in Budget 2013 contain a reasonable level of prudence in areas such as forestry, metals, minerals, income taxes and the economic outlook for B.C. and its key trading partners."

But one of the other two recommendations…. I'm just about finished here with the recommendations that I'm going to be mentioning. Jock Finlayson, who's the executive vice-president of the Business Council of B.C., mentioned: "B.C.'s current fiscal situation is comparatively good, better than most other provinces like Alberta and Ontario where governments have been less successful in controlling spending growth."

My personal favourite is by John Winter, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He said: "Good on them for living up to the commitment to balance the budget. It's hard to do, but I think it's realistic." I think that puts to bed that our budget is definitely credible. I'm very proud to stand here and talk about B.C.'s positive economic outlook.

The budget deficit has been determined to be virtually gone in a year as the economic recovery progresses. We have expected gradual improvements in commodity prices and markets over key exports over the next few years, including gas, lumber and electricity.

I'd like to take a few minutes just to talk about the B.C. prosperity fund. Overall — and this is mentioned in the throne speech, as well, from the Premier — this is about helping families with jobs and the firm conviction that we can secure a brighter future today by growing the size of the economy, not the size of government.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for British Columbians to share the benefits of cleaner energy that belong to all of us, particularly the LNG. We have a solid, stable fiscal foundation on which this opportunity can grow — low taxes, balanced budget, clear industry rules and in a timely process, and one-window service that eliminates bureaucratic runaround. I can tell you we hear about that a lot. What our government has done to reduce bureaucratic runaround has been significant. It's crucial. It creates confidence in working with us.

It's real. Companies are hiring people and investing billions of dollars to bring home this opportunity to our province. Investments are over $6 billion, which have been made to acquire upstream natural gas assets and executive strategic corporate acquisitions. By the way, our first LNG plant should be ready by 2015-2017 and the rest by about 2020.

With this budget, there are significant tax measures. Really, for a balanced budget…. It's balanced in several ways, not just balanced in that we're offering a balanced budget to the economy but also balanced in that everybody has to give up a little while everybody gets to gain a little. We're asking those individuals who have a little more to contribute a little more. So starting next January, we will enact a temporary increase in the personal income tax rate on incomes over $150,000. Even with this increase, B.C.'s top marginal tax rate will still be competitive.

[1445]

We are also asking businesses to help, consistent with the plan we put forward years ago, by increasing the general corporate income tax. However, the small business corporate income tax rate will remain unchanged. So even with this change taking place in April, the general corporate income tax rate will still be 33 percent lower than it was in 2001 when we became government.

What about individuals? B.C. families generally have one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada when we combine all taxes. This includes income taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, health care premiums and payroll taxes. B.C. currently has the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $122,000, and we've reduced provincial personal income taxes for most taxpayers by 37 percent or more since 2001.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say a thank-you out to our public sector unions, because I know they've been working very hard in the last few months. They have all, through their hard work, their good faith and creativity, affected and worked positively to help us with the balanced budget. The majority of unions in the 2010 round of contract talks accepted two-year agreements with net zero wage increases.

Had the government ignored the economic reality and allowed the annual raises of 2 percent under the 2010 net zero mandate, without offset savings we could be facing more than $4.3 billion in additional costs by 2016. Under the current 2012 cooperative gains mandate, we have reached agreements with about two-thirds of the public sector workers, and we thank you.

In addition, there have been frozen salaries for all senior managers, we're aggressively auditing all the Crowns, and we're continuing to cut discretionary spending in
[ Page 12997 ]
areas such as travel and administration.

I'd like to mention something about health care, because health care has been mentioned by the members opposite as well. Health care has historically accounted for the largest share of any budget, and it is unlikely to change in the future. But we have the longest life expectancy in Canada. If we compare our rate to those of other countries, only Japan has a longer life expectancy than B.C.

We have the best survival rate for heart disease in Canada, the lowest incidence of cancer and, among those who do get cancer, the very best survival rates. We basically have the healthiest people anywhere, not just in Canada but in the whole world.

Over the term of this fiscal plan, the Ministry of Health — health care — will receive a total of $2.4 billion in additional funding. That's a lot of money. It's not a cut. But through technology, innovation, creativity and education, we're spending that money smarter to be more efficient and be more effective.

I've got some stats here just to prove that. This is according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2012, and Stats Canada. I found this fascinating. British Columbia spends the second lowest per capita on health care, but we have the highest life expectancy, the second-lowest infant mortality rate, the lowest cancer mortality rate and the lowest of heart disease in the country. So we're very, very efficient with those tax dollars.

To summarize, B.C. has the overall best cancer survival rates in Canada, the lowest overall mortality rate for all cancers in Canada, the lowest overall incident rate of cancer in the country and the lowest incidence rate for lung and colorectal cancer. We have the longest life expectancy.

In addition, we've had thousands and thousands more surgeries. I do have a list here of all the surgeries, but I thought that instead of listing them all, I'd just announce and remind folks of a press release that just went out this morning, actually, on a milestone that was reached in cardiac surgery in Kelowna.

[1450]

They just completed their 100th open-heart surgery in Kelowna General Hospital. Cardiac surgery was previously performed at only four hospitals in B.C. — Royal Columbian, Royal Jubilee, St. Paul's and Vancouver General — and now we have it in Kelowna. As my colleague next to me, the Jobs Minister, said earlier: "We have all of these services all across the province — education and health." And I'm quite pleased about that.

In addition, we have the best HIV/AIDS care in the country. B.C. is the only province in Canada showing a consistent decline in new HIV diagnoses. Our deaths have decreased by more than 90 percent since 1996. This is significant. Thousands more doctors have been hired; thousands more nurses have been hired. We've doubled the medical school seats by adding 160 first-year medical student seats since 2002 and 2003. We've increased the number of practising nurses to over 50,000.

We have more nurse practitioners. In fact, there was an announcement made at the beginning of this year: 45 more nurse practitioners, courtesy of a $2.2 million initiative, which will be up to 190 more nurse practitioners over the next three years. This is another example of making efficient use of tax dollars. Nurse practitioners are very highly qualified individuals who can do a lot of work that may have been in the past covered just by physicians, and it's much more efficient.

As a former dietitian, I'm very, very pleased to also talk again about the HealthLink program that we have — free 24-7 phone call-in where you can get free advice. Anybody can. Just call 811 and get free dietetic advice from a registered dietitian from HealthLink. That, again, shows our commitment not just to health care but to preventive health care, because we all know that prevention is keeping people out of hospitals to begin with, as opposed to curing them once they get in.

In addition to the services that I've just spoken about with regard to health care, we've also done a really significant job on infrastructure in health care, building hospitals. We've got new hospitals that have just been announced — $8 billion invested in health capital over the last ten years; $2.3 billion over the next three; and the new hospitals and seniors centres are happening, again, all across the province: Abbotsford, Vancouver, Victoria, Fort St. John, Surrey, Prince George, Nanaimo and Haida Gwaii.

The one I want to talk about now is in North Van. We just had a groundbreaking ceremony on October of last year, which all the North Shore MLAs were really, really proud to attend. We're that much closer to the $62.2 million acute mental health facility which is now underway in the city of North Vancouver. It is called the Greta and Robert Ho centre for psychiatry and education, otherwise known as the HOpe centre at Lions Gate.

This state-of-the-art treatment facility will help people struggling with mental health and substance use challenges. The HOpe centre will provide seamless integrated services for clients who require hospital care, out-patient services or both. The new HOpe centre will also contain space for the expansion of the UBC medical school and provide a permanent home for the B.C. Ambulance Service on the North Shore. Construction is now ongoing, and we're apparently going to move in early in 2014 — hopefully, less than a year. That'll be very exciting, and I'll be there cheering that one on.

What about education? It's something near and dear to my heart, given the fact that I'm the Parliamentary Secretary for Student Support and Parent Engagement, and I was on the school board of North Vancouver and the chair of the North Vancouver school board since 2005 to 2009.

What about capital funding in schools? I'm just going to focus on North Van, even though a lot has happened
[ Page 12998 ]
provincewide. The member opposite just mentioned earlier the magnificent stuff that has been going on in Revelstoke, and I do want to come and visit Revelstoke before the next election.

[1455]

Since 2001, 16 capital and seismic projects worth more than $87.7 million have been completed in the North Vancouver school district alone. In addition, the province has invested $195,000 for 13 classroom conversions for full-day kindergarten. Full-day kindergarten is a huge success story, just like StrongStart. Everyone is raving about them. They love it, and we're very, very fortunate in North Van.

The other thing we're really, really fortunate about in North Van is that we've got a whole bunch of new buildings. Just since I was a school trustee…. We're not going very far here — 2005. Windsor Secondary, my own child's school, had a significant seismic upgrade, and then subsequently, while I have been an MLA, we've got a brand-new artificial turf and a brand-new soccer bubble. That is indicative of a great partnership between not just the school board and the Ministry of Education but also the….

Interjection.

J. Thornthwaite: What was that? I'm not finished yet. I'm just getting started with regards to North Van.

I'm very, very pleased about Windsor. But let's talk about closer on — 2007. Brand-new schools. Sutherland, with a brand-new artificial turf as well; Westview — brand-new school, 2007. How about Highlands? Brand-new school, 2009. How about Lynn Valley? Brand-new school, 2004. I'm still not finished.

There was seismic completion in Carisbrooke and Canyon Heights in 2009. Then what's going on right now. We just moved into the brand-new Carson Graham, again with an artificial turf, just last fall. Then Ridgeway — the kids just moved in. And Queen Mary — we're all going to get a grand opening of that at the end of this year.

There has been a significant amount of brand-new schools happening in just North Vancouver alone, and I'm very, very proud to brag about it. There has been a lot of construction. There are a lot of jobs and construction jobs happening in North Vancouver just by schools alone.

What about what happens inside the schools? One of the things that I am really, really proud of is this learning improvement fund. Because of my work that I did last year with the special needs round tables in North Vancouver, which prompted my interest in my parliamentary secretary position, I'm going around to many, many school districts in the province talking to students and parents and getting their ideas on how we can improve parent engagement.

With regards to the learning improvement fund, we just sent out a notice last week that the learning improvement fund gets an A. There are more than 500 new teachers that have been hired, over 400 new special education assistants, smaller class sizes. All are a direct result of the new learning fund getting high marks from educators in British Columbia — $195 million learning improvement fund.

The exact use of the LIF fund is determined through consultations between school districts, principals and classroom teachers. This allows the schools to tailor the supports to the unique needs of each classroom. What I did is contacted our superintendent in North Vancouver and decided to find out what exactly that meant in the classroom. The average person doesn't know what $195 million means.

Well, in North Vancouver, in my riding — of course, North Vancouver school district encompasses three ridings — we got new education assistant time at Blueridge, new learning assistant time at Carisbrooke and Cove Cliff, new education assistant time in Dorothy Lynus, new education assistant time at Eastview, an additional division in Lynnmour, counselling services at Lynnmour, an additional division at Seymour Heights, counselling in Sherwood Park, counselling in Upper Lynn, in Argyle more education assistant time, and at Seycove more education assistant time.

We've got a lot here that I've just picked off the sheet of specific increased teacher time or learning assistant time or counselling time or even blocks added because of the learning improvement fund that we announced last year.

[1500]

Now I want to talk about investment in families and a little bit about savings, because this is something that is very key to my heart, having one child in university at UBC, which is very expensive, one that wants to go to Capilano University in the fall, and then my little one, who is actually 14, in grade 9 at Windsor Secondary. I would very much expect that she wants post-secondary too. RESPs are really, really important for Jane in the household of me.

In either case, since January of 2007 the province of British Columbia has been investing $1,000 for every child born in the province. But nobody knows about it. I didn't know about it. Today, because that money has been sitting there gaining interest, that amount has grown to $1,200. So, effective immediately, announced in this year's budget, every family with a child under seven who meets some basic residency rules will qualify for a one-time B.C. training and education savings grant.

Once the child turns six and enters into an elementary school, we will transfer $1,200 to the family to help with the cost of studies or skills training after high school. The new B.C. training and education savings grant will give your child a boost. Families with a registered savings plan can also qualify for additional federal grants.

That's huge. I think somebody said that by the time that child would reach post-secondary, they would get up
[ Page 12999 ]
to about $5,000. That's significant to assist. Free money for parents.

In addition to the announcement that the Premier announced — I think it was yesterday — with regards to child care and early learning initiatives, we're making significant investments over the next three years, $76 million, to improve families' access to quality early learning and child care supports. Some $32 million will support the creation of new child care spaces, $37 million is targeted to improving the quality of child care and early learning services, and another $7 million will be invested to improve coordination of early childhood development programs. These investments build on the $1 billion a year the province currently spends on early learning, childhood development and childhood services.

I know I'm having to…. How much time do I have?

Interjections.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you. Great — five more minutes of great announcements to announce.

One of the things that I was interested in, as well, and was mentioned in the budget, was the addicted gambling initiatives. The government has actually provided $9 million this year for responsible gambling programs and services. This strategy was created in 2003 and addresses problem gambling.

As part of the strategy, the responsible gambling program provides awareness and education activities, a 24-hour toll-free multilingual help line and free no-wait-list preventive clinical counselling. Last year the help line received more than 4,000 calls, and more than 2,300 people received counselling. That's significant, and it's significant prevention.

I was also very pleased to hear about the seniors advocate position. My colleague the Minister of State for Seniors announced that we will have, as part of the seniors action plan, services that will help seniors — program services, systems of support in relation to health care, personal care, housing, transportation, and income support for seniors. In addition, I was very pleased to be part of the $15 million United Way program that we gave the United Way organization on the Better at Home initiative, to try to find ways that we can help seniors stay at home longer — in other words, out of hospitals and facilities.

In summary, I would like to just reiterate what I said. I'm very, very pleased to be able to support this credible, responsible, looking-forward balanced budget on behalf of the province of British Columbia: the tax measures that are helping families and helping children; the ability of the investment funds to encourage investment, to boost jobs; and at the same time, maintain the vital services of health care, education, social services and the others — all of the services that British Columbians rely on every day.

[1505]

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to take my place and join in the budget debate for 2013.

As we all know, this will be our last session before we head to the election in May, and for a number of members here on both sides who have chosen to leave, this will be their last session. I'd like to wish all the members who are choosing to retire well and hopefully a healthy and long retirement and maybe a number of new adventures and other adventures along the way — members on both sides. I do know that for all the back-and-forth here, the members do, I believe, on both sides, make genuine efforts to do the best job they can to represent their constituents in this place.

For those members who may not come back, not necessarily of their own choice, I'd wish them all well, too, in whatever they choose to do in the future.

A comment just about my constituency before I focus on the budget here. I do want to thank the people of Vancouver-Hastings for the last better part of four years, the opportunity to be here and, of course, look forward…. I hope that they'll see fit to have me come back for another four years, but that will be their choice to make on May 14.

I do certainly want to thank the people who have been very active, particularly, in supporting me in my constituency. There are my staff who work in my office in Vancouver — Brenda and Rachel and Heidi — and, of course, Susan and all the people who are supportive of me here in Victoria and then, of course, Cate and Shayla, my family. I'm sure we all know that we owe our families a great debt to give us the opportunity to come here and to be here.

In regard to the budget itself, the real debate and the debate that will be had…. It's ongoing now, and I believe it will be a significant part of the debate that will lead right up through to the election. That debate will be: is the budget credible? And the debate will be: is the budget credible in a number of ways?

There will be, of course, the issue of: is the budget credible in terms of the claims of government that it's balanced? We're going from a situation where, at the end of this fiscal year, we know that the government's looking at a deficit of about $1.2 billion, claiming to go to a pretty razor-thin surplus of a couple of hundred million dollars next year. That's a $1.4 billion dollar shift, and the issue for British Columbians will be: is that credible? Is it real?

What heightens that issue, quite honestly, for British Columbians is that they will reflect back to the last pre-election budget that the B.C. Liberals put in front of British Columbians. Members might recall that Premier Campbell, on that day, made the commitment…. And we all know that it was a difficult time, the 2008 economic challenges that faced the world. Across the world people were facing tough times, and nobody expected it to be
[ Page 13000 ]
any different here. But Premier Campbell at that time told the people — and committed to the people of this province — $495 million maximum for the deficit coming out of that year.

We, of course, all know that we had a deficit that was billions of dollars greater than that amount at the end of the day. Of course, as a side to that…. It probably has been one of the most remarkable political decisions, and it will go down in the history books as a political decision by a government — to then advance the HST, the harmonized sales tax, as a way to generate $1.6 billion to offset that. We all know the four years that have ensued since then, leading up to an issue that still continues to not be resolved until we presumably pass this piece of legislation sometime later in this session that will reintroduce the PST.

[1510]

That's the problem here, and it's the problem for 2013. The people of British Columbia felt badly, badly betrayed by that budget. They felt badly betrayed by the budget because there was such a firm claim, a claim that obviously was not within the realm of reality when it came to the actual impasse. People were hard-pressed to believe in any way, shape or form that the government did not know before election day in 2009 that the $495 million, maximum, was not a real number. It wasn't a real number, and I believe that people were well aware of that. I think that's what created anger.

Then, of course, the anger that followed that was the whole process around the HST and how it came to be — in the commitments that were made before and then the realities afterwards. We all know the story that unfolded after that. It was one of the most remarkable backlashes against a decision by a government by a population and electorate that felt absolutely betrayed by their government — absolutely betrayed. That created the problem.

What that has done now, of course, is created the situation that we have today where the government has presented a budget, wants people to believe that it will achieve a razor-thin balance and is doing this with numbers that folks aren't too sure about on both sides, both on the expenditures and on the revenue side. We'll talk about that in a minute. Because of that, the confidence that British Columbians have that we aren't going to see the fifth deficit budget in a row by this government — the fifth one in a row…. They're not at all convinced that this is a real deal — not at all convinced.

You know, this is the government that has run seven deficit budgets in its time. It's had more deficit budgets in its time — $4 billion of deficit over the last four years. Pretty remarkable for a government that's supposed to be fiscal whizzes.

The reality is this. Let's look at the budget, and let's look at the concerns that people have. Let's start with issues related to the revenue side. I'm sure all those members will get a chance to get up and speak to the budget when their time comes.

First of all, I heard one of the previous speakers talk about Mr. O'Neill, who came and did some work for the government. Mr. O'Neill is a very, very well-respected economist, and there's no question about that and about his credentials and his ability to look at these kinds of things.

Mr. O'Neill was also pretty clear when he looked at the numbers. First of all, of course, he only looked at the revenue side. Second, he didn't look at the Crowns and at the issues related to the Crowns. It would have been extremely difficult for him to have made any firm assessment about this asset dump that the government is engaged in to generate some $800 million of revenue.

To just give a sense about that, we'll talk about another really accomplished economist in this country, Don Drummond, who did extensive work for the government of Ontario. One of the pieces of advice that Mr. Drummond provided to the government of Ontario was not to say — and nobody is saying you don't sell…. Governments buy and sell assets all the time, and that's a totally appropriate thing to do. But what he said was: "Don't count your chickens before they're hatched." What Mr. Drummond said is that you don't look to be booking assets before you in fact know what you're getting for them.

I would think this government would have had a pretty good experience with that. The Little Mountain project, that piece of property, has been booked one, two…. This will be the third year that the Little Mountain property has been booked as a sale, and this year it might actually happen, as I understand. The sale might actually go through this year, but it's been booked three years in a row.

[1515]

The question is when you book…. You've got 100 properties of some sort. Some of them obviously will sell, and that's fine. You're claiming upwards of $800 million of potential asset here and booking it in as the best way to balance the budget.

Mr. Drummond quite rightly said: "Don't book that stuff before you actually sell it and put the money in the bank." Not a bad piece of advice. But that's not what we're doing here, because there is a desperate need to balance this budget at this time.

There are a number of areas. One of the other areas that's kind of interesting…. This is an area where Mr. O'Neill didn't look, because it wasn't part of his mandate. Of course, the other thing he said in his mandate is he had a very brief period of time to do this work. So in some areas the look, I think, was…. You know, he was being careful when he released his information because it was a bit cursory. I don't doubt he did a good job, but it was a bit cursory.

What did he say? He talked…. What he didn't say…. One of the things that we know is also an issue here, of
[ Page 13001 ]
course, is where the dividends come from. We know in this case, of course, that the government has booked a $245 million dividend from B.C. Hydro as part of the revenue stream here.

Now, this is at a time when we know that B.C. Hydro is sitting on about $18 billion or so of debt. That's debt in the deferral accounts. It's debt in commitments that have been made. It's an entity, a Crown, that has been put in a very challenging and difficult situation.

Yet because of the use of deferral accounts and the magic that the Liberals have created around deferral accounts, they're still claiming here, for a company that is in that financial situation, that they will claim about $750 million over the next three years of dividend without at all addressing the issue of deferral accounts, without addressing that question at all in a way that would make any of that dividend credible.

So you've got $1 billion plus sitting out there just on those two items alone that are suspect at best and $197 million surplus. That's why you're hearing from this side and from others that this budget is simply bogus. It is simply bogus.

The other issues that relate to this also relate to the question of expenditure and expenditure control and how that really looks. The government here has said that they will control expenditures down to 1½ percent. That is the claim. Now, we haven't seen 1½ percent over the life of this government, pretty much. That kind of claim. Yet they're claiming they can do 1½ percent this year. They're claiming that they can cut….

In last year's budget the projection for growth in health care was about 3.8 or 3.9 percent. The claim this year is it will be…. That has been adjusted. That was the claim, that for this upcoming year, in the three-year outlook, it would be 3.8 or 3.9 percent. Now, of course, we're seeing the government claim it at about 2.6. That's a pretty tough thing to do, if you look back over the history of expenditures in health care.

If the government is going to claim that number, then I think it's incumbent on the government to be pretty straight with people about what the impacts of that are on service delivery. Nobody believes you are going to reduce the growth of costs there without having a real and material impact on services. Yet the government is not prepared to be forthright with people about what that will be. That's a problem.

Two other areas where we see the same issue. In question period today we discussed forestry issues. The issue here is forest health. We know, of course, that we're seeing a pickup in demand in the United States as the housing industry starts to improve. We're going to see, hopefully, some improvements and growing improvements in our forest sector and better opportunities there.

Well, to take advantage of those opportunities, not just in this coming year but in the years to come, it becomes really incumbent that we deal with those forest health issues that we hear about time and time again.

[1520]

There are issues around inventory. There are issues around a long-term plan. Yet what the government did here is took $35 million out of the budget to essentially start to address those issues. They're not cheap issues to address, but that money has been removed. It has to raise a question about whether, in fact, we are doing what's necessary.

This isn't so much expenditure. This is investment. We know that the forests…. If we continue to see a rebound in the U.S., along with opportunities in Asia, there is a growing opportunity for our forest sector. But that will not be realized if we don't invest to ensure the health of that sector long term.

We're not seeing that investment today in a way that's meaningful, and this budget says that we certainly won't see any progress in the next year, if this budget is to be believed. So in an area where we can invest in economic opportunity, it's not there.

Of course, probably the single biggest area…. When we talk about the creation of economic opportunity in this province, there is a consensus, I believe — whether it's in the business community, in labour, in academia — that what we need to do is make sure we have the best-trained, best-skilled workforce we can have, whether it's in health care or in the trades.

That more than anything will generate investment and bring people to the province with their money, if they know the workers are here that can in fact meet their needs. That's a really important thing.

Clearly, we continue to talk about it. The government has spent $16 million trying to convince people they're dealing with it, through an ad campaign.

What do we actually see in this budget? What we see is a situation where the government simply hasn't addressed this issue.

What we know. The labour market opinion tells us: a million jobs in the next decade in British Columbia — maybe a million jobs. Across the board, we need training. Yet this budget talks about $46 million less in Advanced Education and the Industry Training Authority flatlined — 6,000 student spaces gone, based on the budget's own projection.

Yet what we know, of course, as these spaces disappeared, is we had increased demand last year. Somehow last year's increased demand is going to evaporate. If the Minister of Advanced Education, who spoke earlier today, is to be believed, if the Minister of Jobs is to be believed, we're going to be fine, even with 6,000 less spaces — a serious question about the credibility of this budget in terms of meeting cornerstone needs of British Columbians.

This issue of skilled tradesworkers. What we do know, of course, is…. Of that million jobs that are coming over the next decade or so, we're told about 150,000 of those will be skilled trades. We have seen this government en-
[ Page 13002 ]
gage in a process and be happy to be part of a process using temporary foreign workers to fill that need.

Just to give you a sense, in British Columbia we have 12 percent, 13 percent of the population of the country. We have 25 percent of the temporary foreign workers in Canada here, about double our per capita in our population.

Temporary foreign workers. Some of them work in skilled trades. Lots of them are in agriculture, obviously. That's a key area and an area where, obviously, those workers are needed. But we've also got these workers in Tim Hortons and Wendy's as well — remarkable.

What that raises is a serious question. When we're sitting on 25 percent of the temporary foreign workers, about double our percentage share of the population, it starts to raise questions about whether this program is being used to in fact offset the lack of effort and initiative on the part of the B.C. Liberals to train people up to take advantage of the jobs that are available here. A significant issue that clearly hasn't been addressed.

[1525]

We know, of course, that…. We have heard from the representative for children and families, who has raised her concerns about the support for vulnerable children, about the support for children with disabilities and challenges. She has raised concerns about this budget and whether this budget will meet those needs.

She clearly is an authority on this. I would simply say to people who are watching this debate to go and read her comments. Listen to what her commentary is on this. She can clearly say it much better than I can as to what these challenges are, and they are challenges that need to be met.

What's the situation that we have here? We have a situation where you have a government heading into an election, a government that has significant credibility issues. We know that. Last week we released the Liberal caucus document on advertising where they clearly…. The document laid out the objective, which was to improve the waning credibility of the government and to invest $16 million to deal with that waning credibility.

We have a government that knows that it's in trouble, that it has a serious credibility issue. This government now has made the decision that they need to convince British Columbians, in fact, that this budget is balanced, yet the numbers don't make sense for a balanced budget. The projections around expenditures don't make sense in terms of being able to keep those numbers, of being able to achieve those kinds of numbers.

It is a budget that is simply bogus in terms of its ability to balance, and increasingly, British Columbians know that. It would be the fifth year in a row, I believe, that this government had not balanced its budget.

It erodes key economic initiatives. The budget does nothing to support key economic initiatives in this province. It does nothing to effectively support skills training. It does nothing to invest in skills training to ensure that we are giving young people, people in outlying communities, the opportunities to, in fact, get at some of those good-paying jobs that we all know are coming, that we're all hopeful are coming. It needs to start now, and it's simply not here in this budget.

We know that our forest sector — which has the opportunity to rebound and is starting to get its legs under it again — needs investment in forest health to ensure that it is as vibrant as it can be in the decades to come. We're not seeing the investment in that, and that is an investment in jobs and an investment in the future.

It ignores the reality of the cost pressures of health care, I believe. I think the result of that will simply be that those targets, the 2.6 percent, simply will not be met. Those numbers won't be met. The government would not be able to maintain to meet those numbers. We'd all like to see 2.6, but it's a hard, hard number to meet. I just don't believe that those numbers will be met without huge demand and criticism of government for the services that will disappear in order to get to that number.

We've talked about children with disabilities and children who are vulnerable. Their needs aren't going to be met either.

It's a budget that was designed and written with one objective in place, which was to try to shore up the failing support for the B.C. Liberal Party — no other reason. The budget was crafted to try to do that. We saw how well the throne speech went in shoring up the party. The throne speech was laughed out of British Columbia. It just was not credible in anybody's mind. We now have a budget that isn't doing much better.

[1530]

I look forward as we move into the coming months — and we'll get through this session and the next couple of months — to debating the visions that will be in front of British Columbians: this budget and the vision that we will put in front of British Columbians.

When that happens, I'm very confident that British Columbians will look at them. They will look at ours. They will look at a positive move forward, they will look at the practical approach that we are going to take to accomplish prosperity in this province, and the people of British Columbia will make the decision.

When that decision is made, there will be a new future for British Columbia after May 14, because there will be a new government sitting on that side. That government will put British Columbians first — something for the first time in a decade.

Hon. S. Cadieux: It is my pleasure to take my place in the budget debate today.

We have all worked very hard to support our province's economy and our economic recovery after what has been, worldwide, a very difficult number of years. We're doing that this year by balancing our budget and continuing
[ Page 13003 ]
to deliver on the services that British Columbians rely on every day.

Given the current fiscal environment, jurisdictions across Canada and across the world are being challenged to deliver services more efficiently while still continuing to deliver to meet the demands of their customers and their clients, their citizens.

Budget 2013 sets out a sensible, pragmatic and realistic plan to guide British Columbia through the next three years. It moves us from deficit to surplus and protects and strengthens our public services while, at the same time, supporting a competitive economy — which, of course, we all know is absolutely essential if we want to be able to pay for those vital services. It allows us to invest in British Columbia's children without placing them under an increased burden of debt.

It's tough to be fiscally responsible, but we are building a firm foundation for the future of this province. Certainly, I understand the importance of supporting future generations by developing individuals who can thrive in our society and drive our economy to new heights.

We understand the challenges faced by young parents who are struggling to balance raising a family and pursuing their work or training opportunities. Access to quality early-years services and child care is an important part of finding that balance. Innovation and teamwork need to be applied to the ongoing development of family-friendly policies and services in British Columbia — not the least of which, of course, is child care.

Yesterday the Premier announced the launch of our early-years strategy for British Columbia. It's an eight-year commitment to support early childhood development and to help families with child care as we move forward.

To carry out that strategy, this budget is adding $76 million over the first three years to the Ministry of Children and Family Development to support the creation of new child care spaces, to improve the overall quality of services and to strengthen the coordination of all of the programs that are delivered under the early childhood banner.

[D. Black in the chair.]

We recognize the challenges that families are facing in finding and accessing quality affordable child care. It's not easy. It's difficult around the province for families to find the right balance.

The foundation of the plan is building on what the sector and our conversations with communities have told us — that we need better coordination. So first we'll establish the provincial office for early years to ensure that across government our services are working together and that they're coordinated and effective.

The office will work with the communities to coordinate the implementation of a community-based network of early-years centres where parents and families have one-stop and convenient access to practical advice, supports and services. These are things we know work in communities, and communities have asked us to help them in delivering that.

We're going to create 2,000 new licensed child care spaces, with a goal of 13,000 over the next eight years. It's a start to improving the availability of child care.

[1535]

It's of course going to focus on underserved areas, areas where families are particularly challenged in accessing this type of care. We're going to focus on finding ways to deliver that on school grounds so that children can transition easily from early-years programs to education and to after-school care after that — because for families, that convenience is also a factor.

We'll also develop a registry so that we can offer better information about the spaces that are available to parents where they need them. With an eye on ensuring that what families are receiving in services are quality services, we're going to work with the sector to improve early childhood educator and care provider training to support richer experiences for children.

I was at the announcement yesterday of the strategy at an absolutely fabulous centre in Vancouver, with some brilliant young faces — very, very happy young folks. The quality of the folks that work in this sector are absolutely stellar. They are caring people. They are there because they really want to see success for children in our province. I salute them and support them greatly.

We are going to work towards providing families with some assistance in terms of the cost of child care by providing the early childhood tax benefit, which will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with young children. Would we like to do it sooner? Absolutely we would, but we can't afford to do that right now. Just like families have to balance their budgets and can't spend more than they receive, neither can we — not responsibly.

So when we can, in 2015, the new tax benefit will provide $660 a year per child for families with children under six. We know that every bit will help towards providing more and better access for families.

Over the last three years we took a big step with the implementation of full-day kindergarten for five-year-olds. The early-years strategy is the next big step in ensuring that we are really giving young British Columbians the best possible start in life.

There's a significant investment that government makes in young children. We spend more than $1 billion a year on child care, early learning, early development programs and special needs supports for young children. This strategy is going to help us to bring better links towards all of those services in all those areas.

We have to enhance the natural ties that exist between
[ Page 13004 ]
child care and early learning — StrongStart centres, Ready, Set, Learn programs — early childhood mental health and special needs programs that focus on early interventions, because we know those first six years are vital.

That same type of coordinated approach is something that we are looking at in other areas of the ministry. It's working together better and making sure that our services are talking to each other better. The coordinated approach that we are going to continue to look at will change the way we look at how we deliver services to children and youth in government care as well.

We're working with our partners to improve outcomes for those children. We have conducted and consulted with more than 1,400 participants, including foster parents, including children in care to review the system — what works, what doesn't work, what needs to be better.

Those consultations have provided a strong set of recommendations as we move forward on our three-year action plan for redesigning how we offer services to children in care and how we improve the way we address sometimes very complex needs. Part of that work involves designing a hub model, where networks of foster homes are organized around hubs to provide respite and peer support and training for those very, very vital foster parents.

We're also looking at the way that residential group care is designed. We want to strengthen clinical support and oversight for kids with highly complex needs and challenging behaviours, because clearly, there's a gap. It's my job as minister to ensure that as we have continued, with this budget, to protect the investments that we make in the ministry, that we do that and that we address the gaps that are there.

In the coming months we're going to make improvements to family services, increase the focus on placing children with extended family and strengthen safe living options and life skills education for youth in care who are transitioning to adulthood. Life doesn't stop at 18; it's only starting.

[1540]

In the child and youth mental health system we're also on a path to implement substantial improvements. We're looking at a system that invests more than $94 million a year in community mental health for children and youth. Combined with our foster care system and our residential redesign, through that process we're going to be able to open six beds at the Maples Treatment Centre to meet the needs of those children with highly complex needs who definitely deserve our special attention.

We're focused on addressing key issues in mental health to make sure that families can access those services when they need them for their children and that we can intervene at the earliest possible moment.

Our priorities this year are going to be to improve access and manage our wait-lists to provide greater support to families as they navigate the system, because it can be very complex, and to ensure that a consistent cross-government approach is there. If a child does have a need to access medical supports for a mental health issue, we want to make sure that the Ministry of Health supports, combined with our supports, work seamlessly.

I'm pleased that after a lot of hard work in our ministry, after the continued efforts of a very dedicated staff, we've been able to protect all of our front-line services. In fact, our budget is actually increasing slightly this year to $1.345 billion a year. It's a crucial support for a ministry that touches the lives of 155,000 children, youth and families in our province every year. Some of those people, some of those children and families, are our most vulnerable, and we need to support them.

Now I'd like to talk a little bit, shifting gears, about Surrey and what's going on in the city in which I live and how the budget will impact Surrey.

Surrey's got a population that's growing. We're in an enviable position. Our population has increased by about 28 percent. A third of our population is under the age of 20. Nowhere in the province does the Ministry of Children and Family Development have more interest than in a community with a third of the population under the age of 20. We have the highest birth rate in British Columbia and the largest school district, with over 70,000 students. So it's certain that the city and the representatives for the city — myself, one of eight — are very concerned and committed to ensuring that we are continuing to move forward.

One of the things that the city of Surrey has been a great advocate of is the initiative focused on early childhood development. I was excited to hear about their plan and their goals for a centre of excellence around early childhood development, which they embarked upon with some help from IBM and the smarter cities challenge, a first to focus on something in the social sector.

I think that it's fantastic that in a city like Surrey a community can come together with providers of services, the municipality itself and the Ministry of Children and Families to look at how best we deliver those services moving forward. It's a similar endeavour to what we are now going to launch provincewide in terms of network hubs and really looking at how we best support the sector.

As well, we have a board of trade who is very forward-thinking and is very much influenced by the population in Surrey, recognizing that we have a new challenge as a society to help families be successful in those years when their children are young, with both parents working in many cases. We want to make sure that we're providing options for those families, and the board of trade certainly wants to be a part of that conversation. I think that's fantastic.

There are a number of things in the budget that are not related directly to my ministry that I'm also very proud of. I'm very proud of the investments we're making in arts
[ Page 13005 ]
and culture. I'm an advocate of arts and culture. I love it myself, a patron of many things. I'm excited that the Arts Council is going to have an all-time-high budget of $24 million this year.

[1545]

Many of the focuses in the additional dollars are for youth — again, something I'm passionate about, not just because of the ministry but because in Surrey we have such a vibrant arts community of young people.

One of the things that was supported by the arts legacy program is a youth arts program out of one of the high schools in my riding. They're putting together a project for young women of South Asian descent to express their culture in a new way and share it through art and through conversation. It's an absolutely fantastic project. I can't wait to see the outcome of that project. It is about engaging youth in allowing them to experience and develop a love of art but also to help shape our culture and our communities moving forward. I'm very pleased to see that investment.

I'm also thrilled, having a background in financial planning, to see the investments we're going to make in children and their futures through the RESP contributions we're going to make for children. Saving is difficult. Budgeting is difficult. A balanced budget is difficult. Tough decisions have to be made, and in this case a decision was made to make an investment in our kids and to help families save for what is one of the most important investments a person can make in their future. That's post-secondary education.

It is amazing what the power of compound interest can do and what a very little investment can grow to, over 18 years. I am thrilled that we will be investing $1,200 into the RESP accounts of all children born after January 1, 2007, whose parents wish to take us up on that offer. Certainly, through my ministry, I'll make sure that the children in the care of government take advantage of that offer.

Lastly, coming from a community growing at the rate that ours is, we have a challenge. We have a challenge in finding places for those kids to go to school. I am very, very proud that since 2001 this government has spent more than $2.4 billion on capital projects and education.

Many, many of those projects in the last four years, since my time began in government, have been in my riding and the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale next door. That's because those are some of the fastest-growing areas in Surrey. In fact, I think the investment, give or take, for the two ridings is approximately $80 million over the last number of years. We've got new elementary schools. We've got new high schools. A new high school was just announced as late as last week. It's going to be a very welcome addition in Cloverdale.

We've worked hard to balance this budget. It's not simple. It would be much easier to spend more money. It would be much easier to put it on a Visa card and pay for it later. But you know what? That's not fair. That's not fair to the young people that my ministry is here to represent. That's not fair to the people who are working hard today to balance their own budgets at home.

We made tough decisions to make sure we are investing in those services that are most important to British Columbians to ensure that the things that people need will be provided by this government. I am absolutely proud to be part of a government that is delivering a balanced budget in very tough times.

J. van Dongen: I'm very pleased to rise in this House to make my comments about Budget 2013. When I think about the spectacle in this House that was pre-election Budget 2013, I wonder if the public realizes that it is a financial document that in its most basic form was an act of political theatre.

[1550]

As the literary giant Shakespeare once said: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women are merely players. They have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts."

Some players and political parties are hardy weeds in the garden of theatre here in the Legislature as they passionately proclaim that it is government's role not to spend more money than it takes in. But if that doesn't work, then the answer, it seems, is to simply raise taxes and fees so that the government's proclamations of balanced budgets — in particular the pre-election budget revealed to us on Tuesday — technically ring true even when they are not.

Madam Speaker, think for a moment of the apparent sleight of hand that occurred Tuesday. Did we loot the treasury as may have happened in Shakespearean days? Did we rob Peter to pay Paul? Or did we bank on selling millions of dollars in taxpayer assets and depend on reaching deeper into the pockets of families and business people as government spending on advertising itself continues to escalate?

I've been asking questions about the spending of millions of dollars by government, missed revenue opportunities and missed investment opportunities, and my search for the most basic answers has been blocked at every turn. I probably don't have to tell you what those questions are, Madam Speaker, but I can tell you my efforts to pursue those answers have led me to a continued search for good government.

Aside from that, let me say that Tuesday's budget politically, from the government's point of view, had to appear balanced. Let me specifically say balanced at any cost. This budget is a pre-election document that can change quickly after the votes are counted on May 14. The budget faces none of the normal scrutiny of this Legislature, which again emphasizes the need to move to a fixed fall election date to remove the obvious politicizing, regardless of political party, of election year budgets.
[ Page 13006 ]

I have always strongly agreed with the objective of a real balanced budget, but I do not believe it is achievable in this fiscal year based on current economic conditions and the measures presented on Tuesday by the Minister of Finance.

In my view, if the government was serious about its vision of creating a stable investment climate, it would have started its budgeting process by eliminating the carbon tax and the Pacific Carbon Trust, a mechanism which requires schools, hospitals, universities and other government entities to reach a carbon-neutral state by purchasing over $14 million in carbon offsets. Personal fuel costs are costing everyone seven cents more per litre because of the additional carbon tax charged at the pump.

To be effective, a budget must foster a climate of investment stability in British Columbia. But government needs to create an attractive business climate that will motivate investors to put down their hard-earned dollars in British Columbia. In this budget, businesses and individuals are facing an increase in taxation and fees in times of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately, this approach does not foster a positive environment for business investment and jobs and is the opposite of the original premise on which B.C. Liberals were elected in 2001.

Let me state that this budget was designed to look balanced and a healthy but bitter pill for voters to swallow as the government, through its millions of dollars in messaging, walks onto the public stage and performs the well-known soliloquy: "We know best. Trust us."

We hear so much about form over substance in describing this government. The players, looking all the part of wise ambassadors strutting oh so confidently in their costumes, don't fool me, and they don't necessarily fool British Columbians as to whether this budget is actually truly balanced.

[1555]

Let's bring the spotlight a little closer. That's the true test. I want to review in more detail some of the issues in this budget. The budget does acknowledge the pressures on the greenhouse industry and the rising costs due to a prohibitive carbon tax and, definitely, other factors that should be eliminated at the soonest possible opportunity.

If the carbon tax is indeed revenue-neutral, then why are we penalizing industry with it on an ongoing basis? It makes no sense to collect a tax and then go through another process to refund the tax that was collected. All of agriculture — whether it is blueberry farms, mushroom farms, greenhouse operations, the ranching sector, dairy or poultry farms — would be pleased with a carbon tax rebate. However, while some relief on carbon tax is welcomed by agriculture, the band-aid approach presented by the government is another ad hoc solution for a bigger problem.

The effects of carbon tax are not just about agriculture. All of industry and commerce in B.C. is being improperly penalized by the carbon tax relative to all of their North American and offshore competition that does not have a carbon tax creating inequitable upfront costs. Carbon tax is a first charge on everything we do, every product we buy — every person, every business. The carbon tax behaves economically like a corporate capital tax.

We know how fond the government is of the corporate capital tax — and, in my view, with good reason. The impact of carbon tax is only incremental, so the government's argument goes, just like the impact of another statutory holiday is only incremental. Just like the arbitrary rejection of the Morrison copper- and goldmine project is only incremental. Just like the sudden cancellation of the B.C. Place signage deal with Telus was only incremental. Just like subsequent additional costs of Telus-installed services in B.C. Place were only incremental.

To hear the government tell it, all of these impacts don't amount to much and are, therefore, acceptable economics and fiscal management decisions. In any successful balanced budget, there is an urgent and pressing need for a strong revenue stream over time for the government to be able to fund all of the services people need. That being the case, I do not understand how the government can rationalize keeping the carbon tax in these economic times.

The government missed a prime opportunity to clear the decks of the carbon tax so that the business community at least had something to celebrate as they struggled through the repatriation of the PST. A simple reversal of the government's decision five years ago, when carbon tax was implemented, would put all B.C. consumers and business people on a level playing field with everyone in North America.

Similarly, the retention of the Pacific Carbon Trust defies economic logic. Why would any government maintain a law that requires schools, hospitals, universities and other government entities to pay out scarce dollars from their budget to the Pacific Carbon Trust?

The Pacific Carbon Trust then takes this scarce taxpayer money and buys carbon credits from companies, generally in the petroleum sector, that claim to have reduced emissions equal to the value of those credits. Everything I see and hear about the Pacific Carbon Trust is disconcerting, to say the least. Once again the government is prepared to sacrifice good economic leadership in favour of a questionable program that no one in North America has seen fit to follow.

The government is stating their 2013-2014 budget is balanced. But it is solely on the basis of $725 million in gains realized from one-time asset sales. An estimated $300 million of this is from the sale of the Little Mountain property, and $425 million is from other surplus asset sales. This style of budget balancing is short term and cannot go on forever.

[1600]

Selling assets is not how B.C. households balance their books. This budget-balancing methodology is a concern. The timing and realization of sales of assets such as property is highly variable. In fairness, governments, by definition, face unusual difficulties and potential pitfalls in actually executing sales of property.

With the Little Mountain property, the government deferred the $300 million in revenue from the previous budget to this year to create the optics of a balanced budget. Without this one accounting change alone, the $197 million surplus evaporates and would be replaced by a $103 million deficit — a fine piece of fiscal management to meet election year political requirements, moving revenue from last year to this year so that this year's budget appears balanced.

A similar piece of accounting management was used to move program spending out of the next fiscal year into the last fiscal year, which is in deficit anyway. So the minister was able to achieve a modest sleight of hand that artificially added $150 million to the 2013-2014 so-called surplus.

I am disappointed that the government's solution to enticing investment and jobs to British Columbia involves raising personal and corporate taxes on those that will bring those jobs to the province. How can the government attract investment when would-be job creators are facing increased taxes and a higher-cost environment?

Raising taxes is clearly contrary to the B.C. Liberals' stated and often repeated economic principles. But such is the measure of political expediency that higher taxes have been integrated into this 2013 budget, and the government found it necessary to depart from long-held beliefs about what is right for the economy.

Health spending continues to be the largest dollar increase in the budget, and while I am pleased to see there is a focus on cost efficiencies, I wonder whether the projected spending increase of 2½ percent proclaimed in the minister's speech will be realized in light of the aging population and increasing demand on health services.

Indeed, the actual increase in year 1 of the budget over the updated forecast for the previous year is 3.9 percent, followed by 2.4 percent and 2.7 percent in subsequent years for a three-year average increase of 3.1 percent — not the 2½ percent stated in the budget speech.

However, I am concerned that the history of funding decisions by government does not adequately fund the Fraser Health Authority in the face of the region's high population growth, including some of the highest and most consistent population increases in Canada. If you observe the data on health funding in the January 2013 report issued by the Office of the Auditor General, you can see the Fraser Health Authority, the fastest-growing health region in B.C., is not equitably funded, given their history of the real pressures of a growing population.

The Fraser Health Authority reports that the general population it serves is expected to grow by 21 percent by 2020. Fraser Health delivers health services to 1.64 million people, just over a third of B.C.'s population. Abbottsford city councillor John Smith has done an excellent analysis of the numbers. All of the other regional health authorities are receiving $800 to $1,400 higher per-capita funding than Fraser Health. On a base of about $1,600 per capita, that is a very significant difference.

[1605]

In the area of mental health and addictions, the numbers are really alarming, with Fraser Health budgeting for only one half of the B.C. average. No wonder that there is an uneasy recognition by the citizens in my community that the funding capacity and effectiveness of Fraser Health Authority mental health and addictions programs is inadequate and not acceptable.

The report tabled by the Auditor General entitled Health Funding Explained references the population needs–based funding model. The report explains that this formula is used by Ministry of Health staff as a guideline, but funding decisions by government are not necessarily based on that formula. It is clear from the comments in the report that a lot more discussion will be required on the issues of equitable funding for the Fraser Health Authority. Imagine what the Fraser Health Authority could do for mental health and addictions with a more equitable allocation of the current budget. The disparity in funding is so large that a full and fair analysis of these differences is warranted, and I have approached the Minister of Health on this issue.

When I think about the programs the government proposed in this budget, such as the B.C. training and education saving program…. I wonder if it will exist after the election. They are, in fact, pre-election trinkets that are of lesser real value when the full extent of the application process and all of the exceptions are truly understood. So I caution all British Columbia families with young children that these pre-election budget promises are purely politically motivated and may not be kept in the future.

We have to remember this is a pre-election budget — admittedly, not the classic pre-election budget full of goodies designed to foster warm and fuzzy feelings about the government. This pre-election budget has been twisted and weaved to establish an artificially balanced budget. If only it was that simple, but as we know, saying and doing are two different things.

I remember during my first election, a by-election, it was driven home to me by the more politically experienced members of the team that the only thing that mattered was perceptions, not the facts. No, the facts were irrelevant. It was only public perception that mattered, as I was told. Well, I believe that both matter. Facts matter, and perceptions matter. But down on the farm where I was raised, we could not operate solely on perceptions. We couldn't sell the perception that a full bulk tank of
[ Page 13008 ]
milk existed in order to generate revenue. The full bulk tank of milk had to be real, not imaginary.

This so-called balanced budget is designed to manage and manipulate perceptions. As such, it is imaginary, a mirage, a facsimile of the real thing. The facts don't back up the perceptions being left with the public in saying that this is a balanced budget.

It is also not factual for the government to proclaim that British Columbians pay the lowest personal income taxes in Canada, when at the same time it is reaching out with its other hand asking for more in fees — $66 per year per family for MSP premiums. Quebec is the only other province in Canada that imposes MSP premiums on its residents. No other provinces apply a carbon tax to citizens personally on all of their gasoline and petroleum products. So it is misleading and disingenuous to say that B.C. has some of the lowest personal income taxes in Canada.

Despite what we heard here Tuesday amid the theatre of politics around the pre-election budget of 2013, I am concerned that it will not create the necessary certainty we need for enthusiastic investors to come forward. Tax increases, MSP increases and one-time asset sales in a soft real estate market undermine the government's claim of a truly balanced budget in this election year.

Madam Speaker, remember that earlier in my speech, I clearly stated that I agree with the objective of a real, balanced budget. This is one of the most fundamental public policy positions that anyone can have. However, by "real," I mean not one that is a hall of mirrors that you would find in an amusement park.

[1610]

As we all know, there are lots of risks and uncertainties that are associated with budgeting in an entity as large and diverse as the provincial government. In doing so, however, all the more reason that we should expect our government to be focused on a bona fide, accurate and less politicized representation of true budget realities.

Having said that, and subject to the reservations I have stated, I wish the government every success in achieving the goals that it has set for all British Columbians.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to comment on the government's 2013 budget.

J. Rustad: It's with pleasure I rise today in support of the budget and to share a few words.

I'd like to start, first of all, by saying thank you to the people of Nechako Lakes for the honour and privilege of serving them over the last eight years. I look forward to going to the polls, to talking to my constituents, as I do on a regular basis, and to asking them for a further mandate. There is much yet to be done for my riding of Nechako Lakes, and I look forward to furthering their cause in this Legislature.

Also, as so many others have, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank my constituent assistants, without which the work that we do really could not go on. It's amazing the amount of work that they put in for the constituents in my riding, the amount of issues that they're able to resolve.

I'd like to thank Judy King, who's been with me now for more than six years; Barb Gale, who has also been with me for almost four years; and Sharon Smith, who has also been with me through almost four years, in Houston. Judy and Barb are in my Vanderhoof office.

My riding is a very large riding that extends almost 300 kilometres of Highway 16. As you can imagine, there are all kinds of challenges around that, so it's important to be able to get out. It's also important that my constituent assistants are able to get out and about and through my riding.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank my staff here in Victoria: Sarah O'Connor, who is my constituent assistant; as well as Raz Diacu, who is my communications staff; and all of the other staff that are down here. The day-to-day work of an MLA can be very challenging, and I really want to thank them for the work and efforts that they do over time.

Finally, I also want to send a big thank-you to my wife, Kim. All of us, with our spouses or significant others…. We're away a lot from our spouses. We're away a lot from our homes, from our families, as part of the work of an MLA, and it's very difficult, very challenging for them. My wife has been very understanding and very supportive.

I just want to say I love you, Kim. Thank you very much for your support.

Budget 2013 truly brings, I believe, hope to the people of British Columbia — hope because we are back in a balanced situation. We're able to go forward and say that we are living within our means. We're being able to spend that which we are taking in.

It also brings hope to communities — hope in the sense that there are many infrastructure needs throughout our communities across the province. Budget 2013 allows us to still be able to do those investments that are so critical in our communities in terms of infrastructure.

It also brings hope for our resource sector. Our resource sector is critical to the prosperity of this province, to our economy. It brings hope from the perspective of keeping a stable environment; keeping our triple-A credit rating; being balanced; attracting the kind of investment we need to see; doing targeted investments within the sectors, including forestry and others; as well as, of course, reducing red tape and trying to keep business flowing as much as possible.

Budget 2013 also brings hope to the citizens that our health and education expenditures will continue to rise and that our focus on excellence and outcomes will continue to lead the country while remaining affordable. That's critical, because if you start getting your spending ahead of yourself, if you get too far down the road, then
[ Page 13009 ]
what ends up happening is it becomes unsustainable. You're in a situation at that point where you have to go through contraction.

[1615]

It's critical that you have consistent and predictable funding throughout a mandate within government. But more importantly, it's also critical that you provide the best services possible. In British Columbia we have the best outcomes in health across Canada because of what we've been able to do over the years.

Budget '13 also includes some additional money for the arts, a new child care credit and an opportunity for B.C.'s education and training grant, now $1,200 per person, to be able to be transferred to parents when they create a registered education savings plan. It invests in skills training.

It does strategic capital investments — things like another $100 million for the Cariboo connector, another $92 million for roads impacted by the pine beetle. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, for my area, where I come from, roads impacted by the pine beetle are very significant, and so those continued capital investments are critical.

The real hope, I think, though, from this budget is the stark contrast it brings between what we are bringing forward in terms of a balanced budget, in terms of a reasonable way of going forward and living within our means, and the promises that have come forward from the opposition. It would be great to compare our budgets to be able to show just what is in place, but unfortunately, our opposition have decided to keep theirs under wraps yet.

However, they have had a few little leaks of information that they've had come out to us, and I find it interesting. I just want to do a couple of brief comparisons.

Budget 2013 eliminates the carbon tax on coloured fuel. For me, in Nechako Lakes, for my riding, this is very significant. Ranching, agriculture, is an important component within my riding. The carbon tax break on this will be very, very important for my ranchers.

As a matter of fact, I was at a Nechako Valley cattlemen's AGM just last Saturday, and I was speaking with them. They said that there was only one thing that they really wanted to see, and that is relief from the carbon tax. Maybe there was one other thing they wanted to see. They'd love to see some way to keep the HST.

Let's compare this now with what the opposition have said. What the opposition have said is, first of all, they don't worry about the carbon tax for the agriculture sector. As a matter of fact, they want to raise the carbon tax. Furthermore, they don't want to have the carbon tax as revenue-neutral. They want to take it and spend it on transit in the Lower Mainland.

Well, there is no transit in my riding, but I'll tell what you we do have in my riding. We have 12 forestry operations, including two of the largest forestry operations in the world. We've got one of the largest pellet plants in Canada in my riding — secondary manufacturing in forestry, really, throughout the riding in terms of activities in forestry.

We've got two active mines. We've got one other mine that's not in my riding but just beside my riding that our riding services and has a lot of impact and activity. We've got new potential mines in terms of New Gold and other projects throughout the riding.

In agriculture, we have a large herd that is throughout the area and a cow-calf operation as well as some finishing. We've got some dairy. But we also now have two new operations that are starting up to compress hay for export, and that will create a tremendous opportunity throughout my riding.

We also have tourism, guide-outfitting, hunting, etc. A lot of work in trades. All of those things require that fuel. You use fuel for work, whether it's going back and forth to work, whether it's part of your industrial operations.

Now, when we set up the carbon tax, we said it would be revenue-neutral. We used the carbon tax to offset personal income taxes. We have a $200 homeowner grant increase that's been put in place for the people up in my riding. We have some corporate tax reductions that are in place. We have tried to balance it so that if you can save money on your fuel, you would actually save taxes as opposed to the other way it's going.

The stark contrast from the opposition is that they don't believe in that. They believe they should take that and spend it on transit. So for a riding like mine, it basically means you're asking the industrial base, the industrial heartland of the province, to pay more to pay for pet projects in the Lower Mainland.

We don't mind contributing to our taxes. We don't mind contributing to the society of B.C. But that kind of expenditure would truly be an unfair hit directly on the residents of rural B.C., especially for my riding of Nechako Lakes.

[1620]

Let's take another look at a difference. Budget 2013 brings forward a balanced budget. We've heard from the opposition many comments that, you know, it is balanced only because of asset sales. Well, if you take the forecast allowance and you take the contingencies that are in the budget, plus the surplus, those three things add up to more than what could possibly be raised from asset sales. Even if asset sales were not able to be reached, we would still be in a balanced situation.

Plus our projections of GDP growth of only 1.6 percent in B.C. are well below what other estimates are for our province. Our estimates of natural gas are only around $1.80 to $1.90. Current prices today are around $3.30, well below what is currently estimated and what other projections are for natural gas prices.

There is much prudence that's built into this budget. It is credible from that perspective to be able to bring forward and be balanced, even if we hit some hiccups along the way throughout this year in terms of the economy.
[ Page 13010 ]

The contrast from the opposition, when we asked about them balancing the budget: well, maybe in the next four or five years they'll think about it. That is not fiscal management. That is not the way we need to be able to manage the province of British Columbia for our children, for the future. It's not how you attract investment, and attracting investment is critical, in my opinion, in terms of where we need to go with this province, especially across northern B.C.

The opportunity for liquid natural gas, the opportunity to expand our natural gas production through continued fracking and the ability to extract those resources; the opportunity for mines; the expansion of the plant in Kitimat; and the other types of activity that we are seeing across the north are going to drive economic activity. It's that activity that is going to continue to help fund the programs that we want to see in the province.

More than that, through our commitment with the B.C. prosperity fund, it also creates the opportunity for us as a province to leave a legacy for our children, to get to a point where we could potentially be debt free, to get to a point where we now could make some broad-based decisions to truly be able to change the fabric within the province.

Those are things that are worthy of going after. In contrast, there are things that the opposition seems to think are just…. It's out there, and you shouldn't even really be thinking about it. Madam Speaker, unless you plan for tomorrow, it will never happen. Planning for tomorrow starts today, not tomorrow. You need to be able to put things in place in order to be able to build that kind of an opportunity.

I'd like to take a few moments, also, to talk about some of the projects and things that we've been able to achieve in my riding of Nechako Lakes. I'd like to talk about these not just because you get out, you cut ribbon, and it's great to see, but it makes a difference, a true difference to the fabric of life in my riding of Nechako Lakes.

For example, in road infrastructure, in transportation, over the last decade or more we've now spent more than $165 million on new projects just in my riding alone. New passing lanes, like the new passing lane that's going to be built on Highway 16 right near Mapes — a contract is out. Construction starts next spring.

The new passing lane just south of Fort St. James on the way to Vanderhoof is critical in terms of the wood flow that's moving and being able to make sure that the traffic can flow safely down that corridor. The strengthening of the North Road north of Fort St. James and the work that that will do for not just our resource industry but also for tourism and for the people that are up in that area….

The additional work that we've done throughout the highway — passing lanes, repaving, adding new left-hand turning lanes, adding lights in — is adding all kinds of improvements up and down the corridor throughout my riding.

In contrast, I think it was the year 1997-1998 budget that the total expenditures from the Alberta border to Burns Lake — so just half of my riding plus the riding of Prince George–Valemount — by the NDP during that time on road improvements was $1 million. We've been spending over $15 million a year on road improvements in my riding of Nechako Lakes.

[1625]

Improvements in health care. We have new long-term care beds in Houston, in Vanderhoof, in Fort St. James. Throughout my riding we've done those improvements. We've improved health care facilities across my riding, and we've got planning dollars in place.

Ultimately, I'm working towards trying to get a replacement hospital in Fort St. James. We're going to need another replacement hospital shortly thereafter in Vanderhoof, and we're replacing the hospital in Burns Lake. These are all incredible investments that we've been able to deliver on because we have a strong economy, because we have a balanced approach and are able to keep our debt-to-GDP ratio low.

In education, right across my riding there have been improvements, whether it's been playgrounds, whether it's been new buses for the school districts, whether it has been the new music room and expansion in Vanderhoof, whether it has been other types of improvements on schools for air-conditioning and for air circulation and heating units and other types of things. All across the riding there have been improvements in education.

I went and tried to look and find a list of those improvements from the 1990s, because those are the types of things that you need to be investing in. Unfortunately, my riding didn't come up with anything — anything I could find.

That's not the way you need to grow your economy. That's especially not the way you need to grow rural B.C. You need to do those strategic investments. Quite frankly, my fear, should there be a change in government, is that there would be a change in those kinds of priorities and that we would not see the kind of investments we need in rural B.C., which is the economic heartland and the driver of opportunity for the province of British Columbia.

Other types of investments — improvements in skilled-trades training and improvements in the college at Fort St. James. There have been some improvements in Vanderhoof and in Burns Lake, other training opportunities. We've put mobile training units in place.

Of course, just outside of my riding we've done significant investments in Prince George in training, all of that not just on the skills side but also for health trades — extra training of nurses, extra training of doctors. All of those things help to support the people that live in my riding and help to support us as a province in being able to attract professionals here and being able to provide what we would like for our people.

One other thing I want to say is a stark contrast be-
[ Page 13011 ]
tween what we've done and what they have done in the past. It was back in the early '90s when Prince George was going after a cancer clinic. There was a lot of debate. There was a big movement within the community and within the region to be able to move the cancer clinic forward. The decision was to move the clinic somewhere else. There wasn't an opportunity to build a cancer clinic in northern B.C. That was a decision made by the NDP government of the day.

I'm proud to say that we now have a cancer clinic up and running in Prince George, and not just a clinic in Prince George but an entire northern cancer strategy that has seen improvements right across the north, in my riding and so many other ridings, for helping people through what can be a very, very challenging time.

I have some personal experience with this, as my wife had cancer in 2000. We had to travel to Vancouver for her treatment for it, and we stayed in the lodge in Vancouver. It was great to be able to have that lodge and those opportunities and facilities there. But it's so, so hard on people when they're away from their loved ones, when they're away from their friends. Being able to have that up in the north and being able it provide those services, through that strategy, across the area is a major achievement that we have been able to deliver for the people of northern B.C.

In addition, I want to take a few minutes to now go on to another topic. I talked earlier about the dependency on forestry in my riding. Forestry is about 43 percent of the economic activity. Mining and agriculture make up the balance, with small business and other activities and tourism throughout the area. But forest policy is something, obviously, near and dear to my heart.

As Parliamentary Secretary for Forestry I find it critical that we make sure that we have a good, solid plan for our forests going forward. We need to be able to deal with the mid-term fibre supply issue that we've got.

The solution from the NDP was to wait for cold weather, and it helped to create just a tremendous problem that we now are grappling with called the mountain pine beetle epidemic. It has destroyed much of our pine forests throughout the area and significantly reduced the amount of volume that we will have available throughout our mid-term.

This past year our government set out to have a mid-term timber supply committee to bring forward some ideas and some solutions as to how we might be able to deal with mid-term fibre supply. We worked with the members opposite on a non-partisan committee, and we were able to actually come forward with some great ideas.

[1630]

The reason why I'm mentioning this is that our government has now put in place some tools to be able to move this forward. In particular, moving forward with the idea of area-based management will create a tremendous potential within my riding of Nechako Lakes, as well as within the entire province, to be able to improve forestry, improve the kind of investment that we want to see and ultimately drive higher yields, which is what we need within the mid-term fibre supply.

On top of that, we've committed to a strategy to re-inventory across the impacted pine beetle area. We've put money in place to do that. That's the first critical step that's needed in terms of the reinvestments that are needed on the land base.

I'll just contrast that to the members opposite who said we should have been inventorying all through there. When you're in the middle of an epidemic and the landscape is changing dramatically year after year, why would you waste money doing a new inventory, rather than just doing the updates that we have been doing, when it would be obsolete the next year? You wait for the epidemic to run its course.

Now we're doing the reinvestment that's needed. This is the right way to be able to manage on the land base.

In addition, we're making strategic investments in silviculture. We're going to be almost doubling the number of trees that we're planting, both this year and next year, because we've been able to build up an inventory of sites available to be able to do that type of replanting through other investments that we're doing. We have a long-term strategy as to how this will go.

Actually, I really look forward to going out and debating the members opposite in the upcoming campaign, as well as others in my riding, around forest policy. I believe we're on the cusp of some very significant changes that could see some very good improvements for our forest base and where it can go.

I want to give you an example of that. I met with a company just last week. It's a company that's not in my riding, but it's in a riding down in the southeast of our province. They are developing strategies around grapple harvesting — in other words, instead of processing individual trees, being able to process a grapple full of trees at once. What that allows them to do is significantly reduce their cost in handling very small-diameter wood and, at the same time, being able to increase the amount of fibre that they can access.

In our marginal economic stands this has enormous potential not only to be able to access that small-diameter fibre, in terms of for pulp or pellets or power or other types of opportunities; but it also frees the opportunity to be able to take sawlog out and move that into other processing facilities. It's these kinds of innovations that really have me encouraged for the future of our forest industry in terms of being able to meet our mid-term fibre supply.

In addition, there are all kinds of technological advancements in forestry. Whether it is cellulistic fibres or whether it's nanocrystallized cellulose, there are all kinds of technologies being developed that will change the face of our forest industry in the coming years.

On our side, we have been supporting that. We've been
[ Page 13012 ]
helping to fund the research. We've been working with the Canadian government and with industry as part of that, and it's very exciting, some of the things we're doing.

For example, CF has an opportunity to be added as a strengthening agent to polymers as well as potentially into a host of other products that would significantly expand what we're currently utilizing our forest products for. It's those types of innovations, I think, that are very, very exciting for our forest industry.

As well, of course, we have the pellet industry that is growing. In my riding I've now got — let me see — three or four different pellet production facilities. Most of that is to export, but some it is for local North American markets as well. It's a great opportunity to be able to use the fibre.

One of the big things we also heard of on the Timber Supply Committee was the slash that's left behind. Nobody likes to see the slash that's left in the woods, whether it has to be burnt or whether it's there just to waste. One of the pieces of legislation that we just brought in creates a new licence called a supplemental forest licence, and it's designed specifically for being able to create that access opportunity to the slash.

We've had a number of companies that have come forward. Whether it's companies that want to create poles, whether it's companies that want to use that for chips for a pulp system or whether they want to be able to take that for pellets or other types of activities, this licence now will help to free that up and will help to significantly reduce the amount of slash that we're seeing in the forests.

[1635]

Budget 2013 really helps to build on what we have done in the past. It builds on the record we have within the province in terms of creating economic activity and growth. During the 1990s we were consistently under the Canadian average for GDP growth. During our term we've been consistently over. That's not by accident. That's because of strategic investments. That's because of bringing taxes down. That's because of setting the right framework so that we can see prosperous opportunities within British Columbia.

You know, to get to balance, we had to do a couple of things this year that I wasn't really happy about. We had to raise corporate taxes by 1 percent, and we had to raise taxes on those over $150,000 by 2.1 percent, but for a limited time frame, to help us to get through this period of time.

I'm not happy about that, because after some 115-plus tax reductions it's not great to be able to say: "Yes, we've had to raise taxes." However, it is what's necessary if we want to be able to bring forward a balanced budget and to make sure that we do not rely on borrowing from our children to be able to move forward with our day-to-day operations.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

One of the other things I want to just touch on briefly with Budget 2013 is also the tax credit that we have put in place for child care. Child care certainly is a challenge for many parents. One of my constituency assistants from 2005 to 2009 had children and had to get daycare, and it was a significant expense. It was a significant cost for her and for her family. So any amount that we can do to help on that front, I think, is a great thing to be able to do.

We often take a lot of flak from the opposition around things like child poverty, and they say we haven't done enough around child poverty. The numbers do not balance with what the opposition says. We have seen the greatest reduction in child poverty since 2003 that we've ever seen in the province of British Columbia. We're at levels today that have only been lower once in the past 30 years — and this, Madam Speaker, after we saw a 38 percent increase in child poverty in the '80s and a 42 percent increase in child poverty in the '90s.

The work that we have done in the province of British Columbia to be able to create jobs, to create economic growth and to keep unemployment down has paid off tremendously in terms of improving the quality of life for the people in the province.

I was listening to the Minister of Jobs just the other day. He said that our unemployment rate up in the Prince George area is now around 4½ percent. Our unemployment in the province is lower today than it was during the 1990s, during the NDP's period — and this after we've gone through one of the most significant economic downturns in the world's history, short of the Great Depression.

When you look at British Columbia and you compare it to other jurisdictions…. Our next-door neighbour — what happened to them? They ran into some challenges. They had some challenges with resource prices. Their solution: spend more, and create a $4 billion deficit, and this is at a time when we're actually seeing economic growth.

You look at the budget in Ontario. Look at the budget in Quebec. Look at the budget and what's happening over in Europe — policies that do not take prudent measures, policies that do not manage their debt-to-GDP but policies that are policies of expedience to help meet one political whim or one political ideal over another. Those kinds of things lead to disaster. We've seen it in Europe. We're seeing it in other jurisdictions. And in British Columbia we have taken the right approach.

We've taken a balanced approach. We've got a balanced budget. We're back at balance. We're keeping our debt-to-GDP level low. We're making the strategic investments. That is the right course for British Columbia, and it is the course that we need to continue on. Thank you for this opportunity.

[1640]

K. Conroy: I'm happy to take my place to speak to this
[ Page 13013 ]
budget presented in the House. There are a number of issues I'd like to touch on, but first, as this may be my last opportunity in this very short session, I would like thank a number of people who have been there for me since I was first elected in 2005 and again in 2009.

To the constituents of Kootenay West: I want to thank you for giving me the honour of representing you these past four years.

I have such a diverse constituency in many ways — diverse in geography and in the makeup of the many different communities I serve. There are three different regional districts, representing seven areas with seven directors and, with those seven areas, 53 very separate communities, and also three cities, seven villages and three different school boards.

As I only have 30 minutes, as much as I would like to, I just can't name off every community in the constituency, but they were all equally important to me. Needless to say, there's a lot of travelling to be done in order to meet with everyone, but it is well worth it.

I also want to thank my executive, some who have been with me since 2005. Your support and input is very much appreciated.

To my constituency assistants, Elaine Whitehead and Edena Brown, who have both been there with me since 2005: thank you just doesn't quite seem sufficient for everything you do to support me to do my job but also all the work you do for the constituents of Kootenay West and people from across the province who regularly contact my office for help.

To everyone here in Victoria — my legislative assistant, Joleen Badger, and staff in research and communications who are all such wonderful support for all of us when we are here: thank you.

Last but certainly not least, my family. In deciding to run again, I thought about a lot of things. One was the fact that our family has been involved in provincial politics for over 20 years. If elected, I will add another four.

All of us know this job can certainly have its moments, but it also can be a strain on our families. So to all of you, I say thank you.

Yes, Dara, Alexia, Eric, Ryan and Aiden, who is home sick today, I promised to mention you and acknowledge all you do to help Granny Kat with her job. Thank you.

Finally, to Ed, who has been a rock, a wonderful support and is willing to stand by me when we do it all once again. I am a very fortunate MLA. Not too many of us have spouses who really understand this job. He does so without complaint — well, the rare complaint. But I want to put it on the record how much it means to me.

I also want to take a moment to thank everyone on both sides of the House who has decided to retire. As I said, this job has its rewarding moments, but it can take a toll on a member and one's family. So thank you to you, your families and the people who have worked with you in your constituencies for your years of service.

Now to the budget, this bogus budget the people of B.C. have been presented with. One hardly knows where to start. We are all reminded of the bogus budget that was presented prior to the 2009 election. What was that number? It was a $495 million deficit and "not a penny more," to quote the former Premier. We all know that that actual deficit grew to four times that, at $1.2 billion. How does that Liberal math work for people in this province? Well, not so well.

You can't blame people, who are still smarting from the HST debacle, for being somewhat suspicious. Bogus budget 2013 relies on one-time asset sales, accounting tricks and unsustainable cuts to vital services. It portrays a budget that is balanced on paper but hides a large deficit in reality. It's bogus budget 2009 all over again, hiding the true state of the province's finances in an election year.

I've heard a number of members opposite talk about the lessons they learned from their mothers. Well, I learned one too. Mom would say: "Just because you have cheques in the chequebook, it doesn't mean you have money in the credit union." The Liberals are doing just that — cashing cheques on an $800 million, one-time fire sale of assets before the vast majority of those sales have even been made.

The budget also shows a $545 million profit from B.C. Hydro while continuing to hide Hydro's growing debt in deferral accounts. The Auditor General has objected to this practice, saying it creates the appearance of profitability where none actually existed. The government has saddled our children and grandchildren with agreements with independent power projects — $59 billion in contractual obligations and 5,200 gigawatt hours of energy we don't need in the coming fiscal year.

[1645]

At no time in the past five years has the price of energy gone above $50 a megawatt hour. Despite that, B.C. Hydro has been directed to purchase power at above $125 a megawatt hour going forward 20, 30, 40 years and, in one instance, 60 years. Jeez, little Aiden will be 66 years old and still paying for this government's mistakes.

To me, it smacks of selling off our resources, something this government is very good at — selling our water, trees and logs for the short-time benefit of a very small few. It seems to me and many people I talk to that this government has given up on the job of being stewards of the land. This budget confirms just that.

In the Kootenays we are a very resource-based area. Forestry and mining are priorities. Do we see any investment in these ministries? No, we see cuts — a $35 million cut to forest health. The budgets for Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and Energy and Mines are cut overall. All of the programs within the two ministries that deal with resource permitting have been cut.

In fact, we see that the government has totally ignored the recommendations from the much-touted Timber Supply Committee, a committee with members from
[ Page 13014 ]
both sides of the House that spent thousands of dollars travelling around the province and meeting with people who have genuine concerns about the forest industry. What was the response? Absolutely nothing. No commitment to reforestation, inventory or anything recommended.

The environment has been ignored. In fact, they have cancelled the LiveSmart program, a program that supported an initiative like the energy diet in Rossland, where hundreds of residents have participated. LiveSmart B.C. estimates that for every dollar spent by utilities and/or government agencies in rebates for energy-efficient upgrades, $9 to $10 are spent by the homeowners and invested in the local economy. For every million dollars spent, ten to 15 jobs are created.

That means that the residents of the little community of Rossland invested $1.6 million and created 20 to 30 jobs just in a six-month period with their energy diet. Imagine if this was duplicated in every community across the province. Imagine the savings and the investment that would be created, the benefit to our environment. Instead, we have a shortsighted view, one that cuts a program like this.

I'm also really concerned about the cuts to adults with disabilities. In fact, how can anyone justify cuts to this vulnerable group of individuals and yet spend millions on partisan advertising?

The so-called investment in early childhood spending? Talk about out of touch. If the Minister of Finance thinks that $55 a month is going to help a parent to access affordable child care — and this won't take place until 2015-2016 — he is really out of touch.

Despite the assurances from the Minister of Children and Families just last week in this very chamber that they were going to do something to support children like Trinity and Joseph from Grand Forks, there is, in fact, no evidence to ensure much-needed services are accessed as soon as possible for vulnerable children like Trinity.

We are facing real issues with funding in rural school districts, but this government has chosen to ignore the problem. School districts are struggling. All three of my districts have sent letters to the ministers saying they cannot meet the budget, and there's no help from this government.

I take such exception to the nonsense from the members on the other side about the migration issues in the '90s. Here are the real facts. Between 2001 and 2010 an average net of 6,700 people per year moved to B.C. from other provinces. This compares to an average net of 13,000 people per year, almost double, between '91 and 2001 — almost double. While the overall B.C. population has increased somewhat slightly in this last decade, people are leaving many rural communities and small towns because those economies have suffered.

Here are more stats. These are stats. Many regions have had their populations outright decline — Bulkley-Nechako, the Cariboo, the central coast, Fraser–Fort George. Many more have just grown much slower than the rest of the province — the Alberni-Clayoquot, the Kootenays, Okanagan-Similkameen, Powell River, Strathcona and Thompson-Nicola.

In our family we are well aware of the migration to Alberta — and no, not in the '90s, now, in the past decade. As I've said before, our youngest son left this province in 2002 for Alberta, where he finished his apprenticeship and is a fully qualified Red Seal millwright and doing very well. Two of our nephews have joined him, both working as millwright apprentices, as well as numerous friends and our son-in-law.

[1650]

Now, imagine this for families. Dad works away two weeks on and then two weeks back home. That's what three of our grandchildren are living with. Our daughter is a single mom every two weeks. She is also going to school. Our son-in-law — well, he is a dad that misses a goal at hockey tournaments, the first performance at the skating show, the school concerts, teacher meetings, dinnertimes together, the bedtime story every two weeks.

How does that help bring families together? How is that job plan working out for young people in this province? How does that put families first?

This week in our area we got notice that 5N Plus, a high-tech company, is closing its doors in Trail — 75 people losing their jobs. And why? The company spokesman said it was a lack of qualified people, a lack of skilled labour.

Now, this was a real success story in our area, founded in 1999 as Firebird Industries by former tech workers. The company grew and prospered in the '90s, and they decided to sell it in 2009. Now it's closing. This is a real blow to the region and to the workers. Some have been offered positions, but the company is moving its operations to Utah and Montreal, where they say they have existing plants and skilled workers.

I spoke with Sandy Santori — some of you might remember him from his time in the House — who is now the executive director for the Lower Columbia Community Development Team, and he is incredibly disappointed with the news.

The plant grew high-quality indium antimonide crystal that is sold as wafers and further refined into components for highly sensitive heat cameras, infrared windows and even infrared missile systems. They have a great contract with Teck for germanium. So it was a great fit for the area, but a lack of skilled workers, shortsightedness on behalf of this government. Now we are losing the plant. We are losing 75 workers.

There is actually one project in our region, though, that is working and also providing good-paying jobs and benefits for a few more years, but this government can't take credit for this project. The Waneta dam project is happening because of the foresight and commitment the
[ Page 13015 ]
NDP had to our region in the 1990s.

The creation of the Columbia Basin Trust and the Columbia Power Corp has provided nearly two decades of work and investment in and to the Columbia Basin. I want to thank those former MLAs — like Anne Edwards, Corky Evans and Ed Conroy — and Premiers like Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark, with staff like our leader, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the member for Juan de Fuca, who all had the courage to invest in our region, to make a trust that is generating money, jobs and security in our region.

It all started from a dream in the basin and money in a budget — actual dollars into a fund that has created prosperity in the region. But they had the courage to put the money into the budget, to be upfront about it, and it has returned dividends far beyond anyone's expectations.

On behalf of all of the residents of the basin, I say thank you to all of you who had the courage to carry through on an example of a real prosperity fund. Thank you from all of us.

Seniors issues. Well, we finally, after six long years, might be a step closer to a voice for seniors in this province. There isn't any money identified in the budget. It will arrive somehow from miraculous savings that all the other programs are also going to be funded by. The position will be at the whim of the Minister of Health and cabinet, but finally, after six years, seniors and their families could have something to celebrate, eventually, soon, once the legislation is passed, the savings are found, the person is hired — eventually.

Forgive my skepticism, but after everything we have seen and heard from this government in the past eight years, I'm not holding my breath on this one. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity for a more fulsome debate during this very short session.

I do have a dream — a dream about seniors care, a dream just like Martin Luther King did. They recently celebrated his birthday in the U.S., on the very same day as the inauguration of President Obama — a day all progressive people could be very happy about, certainly those of us on this side of the House.

He understands what it is like to have to clean up the regressive policies of right-wing governments who don't seem to understand that austerity budgets just don't work. Thank goodness our neighbours to the south recognize this and the president has another four years to get that country back on course.

[1655]

Back to my dream. I have a dream that one day in this province seniors, regardless of where they choose to live — whether supportive housing, independent or assisted living or residential long-term care, no matter where — there will be consistent regulations to ensure the dignity and care our seniors deserve. They're seniors who have built this province, seniors who have sacrificed to give us what we have today.

Families of seniors need to know they can rest assured that regardless of the housing situation of their mom, dad, spouse, granny or grandpa, they will have good care. Do we have that today? Unfortunately, no.

Don't get me wrong. We have hundreds of really well-run facilities that provide excellent care to seniors. I have toured many.

But we also have other situations — issues like what the Bonaldi family faced with their parents at Summerland Seniors Village last year. In August their mom, Maria Luisa Bonaldi, suffered from a broken femur that went undiagnosed for seven days before an X-ray was done. Doctors said she needed immediate surgery, but she didn't recover from the surgery, and Maria Luisa died just a few days later.

Then just months later Mr. Bonaldi didn't make it for his meals three days in a row and, when he finally was found, was found in grave condition in his bed. He was rushed to the hospital suffering from renal failure, a staph infection, blood poisoning and possibly salmonella. He hung on for a few days but died a few days later. His daughter asked me: "What is wrong with the system? How could this happen?" I'm asking the same questions.

Yes, the IHA has brought in a monitor, an administrator, and they will maintain clinical oversight. But why does someone have to be hurt or die before proper procedures are enacted? Let's be proactive. Let's work together to ensure the regulations are in place, to make sure it doesn't happen again. For Maria Luisa and Alfredo Bonaldi and their families and their parents' memory, we have to.

I think: "What can we do?" Do we bring in regulations that all facilities have to abide by, when many are already practising them, because it is the right thing to do? Or perhaps when there is negligence on behalf of a facility, they should have to pay the cost to the acute care system, which inevitably has to step in.

As one of the Bonaldis' daughters said to me: "The time mom and dad had to spend in the hospital getting surgery, dad on dialysis, and in the end, it didn't help. All that time in acute care for things that could have been prevented if they were being properly cared for."

Should we implement a system where, when negligence is proven, it is up to the facility to cover the costs of the acute care or, as some other providers of care have said it me, revoke the licences? "Don't allow care providers who can't provide adequate care to continue to offer services to seniors."

I believe the Ombudsperson's report was rather clear on these issues. We do need consistency, regulations and consequences. It's the right thing to do for seniors, their families and caregivers who work in those facilities.

Is there anywhere in this budget that talked about seniors, that acknowledged we have a problem? Nowhere. That is this government's commitment to seniors in this province.
[ Page 13016 ]

Now, the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, the new Minister of State for Seniors, likes to talk about how he understands seniors — in fact, he says at events he goes to that I'm also at, it's because he is one — and how seniors don't like taxes.

Well, I can tell the minister of state they also don't like hidden taxes or bogus budgets that aren't transparent about the real costs to them and this province — seniors struggling to make ends meet, seniors wanting to stay in their own homes as long as possible.

Again, the Ombudsperson's report lists off 143 findings and 167 recommendations to make lives better for seniors in this province. I don't see this budget helping or even beginning to deal with the numerous recommendations.

I, too, have talked to a lot of seniors and many seniors groups — groups such as COSCO, the Council of Senior Citizens Organizations; CARP — "A new vision of aging for Canada"; the B.C. Old Age Pensioners Organization; numerous local seniors citizens groups; residents and family councils at facilities; the B.C. Retired Teachers Association; the B.C. Association of Community Response Networks. And it goes on. I probably shouldn't have started naming them all, because I just can't name everybody.

I also started touring a lot of facilities, and it's interesting when you go into facilities. You can get a pretty good sense of the kind of care that's happening in that facility when you start to talk to the seniors and just walk through.

One story I have to tell is about my nephew Thor Higgins. Thor has a developmental disability. He lives on his own in a co-op, the same one his mom lives in, but he has his own place, and he has a very strict schedule.

[1700]

You see, he volunteers at various places to earn the $100 he was getting. He probably ends up making maybe $2 an hour for all the work he does.

I want to tell you about his senior volunteer work. We went to Haro Place, a lovely residence in the West End. Thor took me around and gave me an unofficial tour while we waited for the official one. He got greetings from seniors and staff, and when introducing me, I could see the pride in him that he knew everyone's name, the sadness when he saw an old friend had died, the respect and fun that he had with his supervisor, and just how loved he was there.

Then we ended up on an official tour with a son and his mother who was potentially looking for care. The administrator who toured us admitted that Thor probably knew more than her. He is one of their longest-serving volunteers. He's been there since the late '90s. Every week he goes and helps with the music program, the indoor bowling, a once-a-month birthday and a once-a-month memorial service when required, and anything else that is needed. He gave the woman considering moving in some advice. She said to him after the tour, "So you come here every week?" and when he said, "Yes," she said: "Good. I will know someone nice."

It made me so proud to see how well he has done at Haro, and I only hope this government can see its way to ensure that people like Thor are not penalized by taking away that tiny amount that supplements their pension. As a society we are getting very good value, not just financially but emotionally, too, in many ways, for people like Thor and for the seniors and others he works with.

Another dream I have is that seniors will have the type of home support they need to keep them in their homes for as long as it is a good situation for everyone. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Not too many seniors say to me: "I just can't wait to get into that long-term-care seniors facility." Now, most seniors want to stay in their homes as long as they can and sometimes just need that extra support to ensure that. Whether the home is the one they have owned most of their lives or the condo they have downsized to and moved into, I think seniors' wishes should be considered and accommodated as much as possible.

One of the sadder stories I was told…. And believe me, I hear a lot of sad stories. It is really difficult to have 70-year-old children coming into your office and meeting with you and crying about the situation of their 90-year-old parents. However, one that stays with me was a gentleman, well-spoken. He was living at home. His wife had passed away, but he was doing okay, all things considered. It was suggested that he needed some support, so they had an assessor come in to talk to him about his needs. He was okay with getting around, slowly. He could get meals together, somewhat, remember to take his pills, and take care of his hygiene alone.

Well, it was decided that all they could offer him was help with a bath. Now, this was a proud man. He didn't want any strangers washing him, and he could do it just fine on his own. What he needed help with was cleaning the bathtub so that he could bathe in a clean tub, a bit of help straightening the bathroom, some help with better nutritional meals. But no, all he was getting was a bath, which he said no to. He was not in a financial position to hire someone, and so he had a dilemma. In the end, he said no. He had to maintain his dignity somehow, and there were limits.

It's for people like that that we need to relook at how home support is being offered in this province — home support, real home support, that is nowhere to be found in this budget. Now, I know the government has invested in the CASI program, giving substantial dollars to the United Way to distribute to organizations across the province for non-medical home support. The minister has been running around and handing out cheques, almost, you'd think, like there was an election coming up, but to what end?

I have been to communities that expressed real con-
[ Page 13017 ]
cern about this program, asking questions like: "Who pays for the liability issues?" and "What if there is a problem with inappropriate situations with the volunteer?" "What if you can't get enough seniors or anyone to volunteer to provide services?" "How much administration costs will be consumed by the various levels of services?"

The bottom line is they aren't getting the answers, and this is a worry. A program that is not well-thought-out, that is taking away dollars from existing home support programs — all concerns for seniors and the possible service provider.

In Kamloops, the Centre for Seniors Information activity centre…. Now, they had a great program to help out seniors with non-medical supports. They hired people who were looking for work, many on unemployment benefits, and helped to train them and provide services to many seniors in their community. Some of those people actually went on to get trades, and everyone was very happy with the program. Everyone but the B.C. Liberals, who cut it.

It's unfortunate that an existing program like this couldn't be funded. The organization still has the tools they require to do all the necessary jobs. They still have seniors calling them, asking them for help, but they can't provide that service anymore.

[1705]

My other concern is that the Liberals have deliberately underestimated the cost of many, many programs in order to make this bogus budget balance.

When the money runs out, just as it happened in 2009, we will see cuts to front-line services for some of our most vulnerable citizens, including children in care and adults with developmental disabilities. The Health budget increase is $233 million less than projected in the previous budget. This will result in cuts across the system, cuts to a system that is struggling to make ends meet now.

People in this province deserve better. They deserve a government that's going to be transparent and accountable and one that's going to present a real budget, a budget that takes care of the needs of the people, the land and ensures economic vitality and growth. That's what they will get from a budget from members on this side of the House.

Hon. B. Bennett: I couldn't help but think to myself as I listened to the previous speaker, who is from the same region as I am and who I quite like, how different some perspectives are on what's happening in the province, what has happened in the province.

Everyone, of course, is entitled to their own opinion, and everyone is entitled to wake up in the morning and think that their glass is either half full or half empty. I tend to wake up in the morning and think that my glass is half full. That's kind of the way I was raised, and that's just the way I get up in the morning.

So it really jars me when I hear this incessant, constant negativity from the opposition. One would think that at some point somebody on the opposition benches would stand up and actually say…. Okay. Well, if you can't say anything positive about the government — I get that — then at least stand up and say something positive about yourself, about your party, about what you plan to do, about your plan. Instead of constantly harping and criticizing and, "Oh, woe is me," tell us what you would do if you were in government. I guess we're going to have to wait for that.

I do get a particular charge out of this attempt by the opposition to revise history. I first started to notice it from the opposition leader. I heard the opposition leader back in the early fall actually trying to persuade people that the 1990s was a glorious time in British Columbia. Now I hear it regularly. I suppose it's a tactic. It's a tactic.

If you can persuade people that you were really skookum when you were in government…. If the NDP can persuade people that they did a fine job of governing the province of British Columbia in the 1990s, then perhaps people will give them a chance going forward. I guess that's the tactic. It's a tactic, as they say.

I actually moved to the province in 1992. I haven't been here that many years, about 20 years.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Bennett: Thank you. The Finance critic appreciates that.

I moved here to escape the NDP in Ontario. I got here and located in small-town British Columbia. What did I discover? Oh, it was a mess.

Honestly, I would not be standing here today but for the NDP's performance in the 1990s. They drove me to politics. They drove me to this. I'm still here, and I'm going to get elected again. I'm going to get elected again because we can't allow the province to go back to the way it was in the 1990s.

I need to say just a couple of things about the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. I think most of the ministers are doing that, and I really want to do that. It's a wonderful ministry. I've had it twice now in my career. They're good people, wonderful public servants. I have great people in my office here as well.

It's a very interesting ministry. I enjoy the legal elements of the local government side of the ministry. I enjoy the arts and culture and, of course, the sport.

[1710]

We did our part in this ministry to help balance the budget. We did take some reduction in our funding, and we were proud to do that. That is what it takes.

We did get wonderful news, however, in this budget for arts and sports. The sport and arts legacy fund, a $20 million fund — $10 million for arts, $10 million for sports — was scheduled to end this year. If you look at last year's budget, you'll see it ends. We were able to find some
[ Page 13018 ]
money within the ministry, and we got some help from the Finance Minister and from the Premier. We came up with the $10 million for sport and the $10 million for arts, so the sport and arts legacy fund, I'm pleased to note, will carry on. I think that's important for both sport and arts.

Even on top of that, we were able to come up…. I say "we." I give all the credit to the Premier and to the Finance Minister. They came up with another $6¼ million dollars for a new program called Creative Futures.

It's a program that has six different parts to it. It's all based on assisting, encouraging and facilitating young people in the province to think creatively, to get them involved directly with artists, to take artists all across the province — not just the Lower Mainland but across the province and all the regions — and expose students to these artists, have artists-in-residence at some of the schools, to take performing artists out to various communities. It'll be a great program — $6¼ million a year for the next three years. That's new money.

At a time like this, when government is struggling so hard to balance the budget and we've got such few choices, the fact that we recognize the importance of arts and culture in our communities says something about this government, which the previous speaker referred to as a right-wing government. I take issue with that characterization, because we have done far more than the opposition ever did for arts and culture when they were in government.

On the local government side, the budget will show a drop, certainly — a significant drop, actually — this year from last year. That is actually not due to a budget cut. It's due to the fact that we prepaid some expenses. We prepaid to local government, these past two years, the small community grant program. We prepaid the FairShare program moneys to the northeast, and we've prepaid traffic-fine revenue. So although it does show a significant drop on paper, local government is receiving every single penny that it expects to receive. That's obviously important.

I was grateful to hear the Finance Minister refer to the challenges of the film and TV industries and the fact that our government is not positioned to add to the tax credits that film and TV qualify for. We do appreciate the value of the industry. The Finance Minister said that. The Finance Minister also said that we'll continue to work towards some kind of assistance to help with this competitiveness issue that the industry is dealing with.

I have to say again: wouldn't it be nice if we had some idea what the NDP's platform was with regard to film and TV? Unfortunately, we know nothing. They criticize. They won't tell us what they would do.

There's no question — and I agree with the opposition on this point — that credibility will be a huge factor going into the next election, and the credibility of this budget. We missed a budget target by a wide margin in 2008-09.

Of course, the opposition wants to talk about that. I don't blame them. They're the opposition. That's what they're going to do — even though I would point out that not only British Columbia missed its budget target in 2008-2009. I would defy anyone on the opposition benches or even the government benches to identify one jurisdiction that actually got it right. Nobody. Investment counsellors, banks, governments — nobody predicted what happened in 2008-09.

Fair enough. We obviously misjudged the extent of the downturn in the global economy, and that's what happens sometimes. But importantly, we've met all of the rest of our budget targets leading up to 2008-09.

[1715]

When you look at the performance of this government in terms of budgets, yes, it's important to balance the budget. But what seems to be of at least as much importance is that governments can actually predict accurately what's going to happen over the course of the year. Nine years out of ten years this government has accurately predicted what was going to happen at the end of the year. That's a pretty good record, and I suspect you will not hear from the NDP about those nine of ten years.

We've also, since the Great Recession that we experienced in the world, met or exceeded all of our expense targets. That's important. We have a pretty darned good record in this government of meeting our expense targets. Frankly, the fact that we do meet our expense targets and the fact that we have met nine of ten budget targets is the reason why British Columbia has a triple-A credit rating.

I don't hear the opposition talk about credit ratings. I suspect maybe when they talk about them under their breaths or privately, they probably say: "Oh, big deal. What's a triple-A credit rating mean anyways?" I would assume they're about as impressed by a triple-A credit rating as they seem to be impressed by balanced-budget legislation.

Their leader has indicated: "We don't need balanced-budget legislation. Don't worry about it." The Finance critic apparently — I didn't hear him — said something to the effect that they may wait four or five years before they balance the budget. That's their right to have that point of view.

There is a real-life, concrete implication from earning and then managing to retain the highest credit rating possible. It's very simple. Most taxpayers are not aware of this, but they should be aware of this. The higher the credit rating that a province has, the lower the rate of interest we pay on the provincial debt.

What's that mean to the taxpayer? Well, if you look at Ontario's credit rating, for example, if we had Ontario's credit rating here in British Columbia, our taxpayers would pay $2 billion a year more in interest on the provincial debt — $2 billion more on interest.

Given the NDP's penchant for not balancing budgets and given that, in the 1990s, that glorious period of time when B.C. flourished, they actually had seven consecu-
[ Page 13019 ]
tive credit downgrades, if they were to be elected, heaven forbid, they would be downgraded probably five, six, seven times. They would end up with a credit rating probably lower than Ontario's. And the taxpayers of the province would be spending $2 billion more on debt service — not on public services but on debt service.

The all-important measurement in determining the health of an economy is, of course, the debt-to-GDP ratio. Our debt-to-GDP ratio here in B.C. will peak at 18.3 percent in a couple of years, and then it will start to decline. By way of comparison, the province that I just mentioned, Ontario, where I grew up…. Ontario's debt-to-GDP ratio is 37 percent. Ours is going to peak at 18.3 percent. Theirs right now is at 37 percent. Frankly, it's no wonder that they have had their credit rating downgraded.

Our neighbours to the south…. The hon. speaker prior to me getting up was talking about how the U.S. seems to be doing better and better. Well, our neighbours to the south have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 92 percent. I wouldn't say that they're exactly doing better.

British Columbia should have some comfort that our economy is relatively strong. No one likes to say that it's perfect. There are always situations in the province that can be better. There are regions, there are industries, but generally speaking, British Columbia should be pretty darned proud of our economic performance.

Generally, when you look at a budget and you try and determine whether the budget has credibility or not, you really have to dig into the expenses and the revenue for that budget. The Finance Minister wanted the budget, obviously, to have as much credibility as possible, so he brought in the Bank of Montreal retired chief economist, Dr. Tim O'Neill, who looked studiously at revenue projections.

[1720]

Dr. O'Neill approved all the revenue projections except for the natural gas royalty projections, which he said were a little high. In response to that, the Finance Minister reduced those natural gas royalty estimates and made up for it by reducing the surplus and commencing our corporate income tax increase on April 1 as opposed to later.

Now, of course, we often forget when we're looking at the revenue side of budgets that economies, in most years, grow. They tend to grow. The economy this year will definitely grow in British Columbia. But the Finance Minister actually used a rate for that economic growth, in terms of what he's predicting for economic growth, that is a half-percent lower than the professional Economic Forecast Council. And that's the professional Economic Forecast Council's most conservative estimate. So I think, again, he has built in some important prudence, and I think that leads, obviously, to more credibility for the budget.

The Finance Minister has also suggested a sale of some surplus assets, which the opposition seems to think is a bad thing despite the fact that they did a lot of it themselves. I don't quite understand why it's important for the province to hang on to parking lots and vacant land.

I suspect that what the NDP don't understand is that when that land is in public hands, sitting there growing weeds, it does nothing to generate economic activity. It does nothing to generate jobs. It does nothing to generate investments. It is far wiser for a government to take land it does not need and will not need and put it into the private sector where it can generate some activity.

Still under the revenue side of the budget, we did increase taxes in a very modest kind of way. We increased the corporate income tax by 1 percent. We said that we were going to do that, but we did it sooner than we said we were going to do it. But it's important to note and it's important for the business community to remember that even with that 1 percent corporate income tax increase, we are still 33 percent lower than we were in 2001.

We are also raising personal income taxes for those earning $150,000 and more — from 14.7 percent to 16.8 percent. That increase is sunsetted after two years, so that increase will go away after two years.

Of course, we're also adding $2 per carton of cigarettes to try and raise some revenues there. We're doing that as of October 1, 2013, to allow people who smoke the opportunity to avail themselves of the government's smoking cessation program.

I have two sons. I never smoked cigarettes, but I had the odd cigar. Apparently, that set the wrong example for them, because they both smoked cigarettes. They both quit, but my youngest son actually quit smoking because of the government's smoking cessation program. So I'm a big fan of that program.

On the expense side, spending has been under our annual estimates since 2008-09, and that's important. That means that every spring when the Finance Minister of British Columbia — since 2008-09 — looks at the projected expenditures and puts those projected expenditures into a budget, we have done better than what he projected. That's a pretty good record. I think, again, that's part of the reason that the international financial community has the level of faith that they do in this government.

The Finance Minister also built in some additional prudence: a $200 million forecast allowance and a $225 million contingency fund. That's on an annual basis. That will help.

In terms of health care…. I need to mention health care on the expense side, because obviously, that's the biggest share of any provincial budget across the country. We've said that we're going to limit health care spending to 2.6 percent. Everyone knows that won't be easy, but we also know that it's possible.

I think what's interesting is that when you say you're going to limit health spending to 2.6 percent, it still means that we're going to spend $2.4 billion of taxpayer money over the next three years that's new money. It's
[ Page 13020 ]
going to grow. The budget will grow by $2.4 billion over the next three years.

[1725]

Honestly, the only way that provinces can balance their budgets — and interestingly, there are only two this year that will balance their budgets; there's us, and I believe the other one is Saskatchewan — is to continue to somehow manage health increases. You can't freeze health budgets. Everyone knows that. The cost of technology, pharmaceuticals, the cost of labour, the cost of capital — it's going to drive the health care budget. But the only way that provinces are going to be able to manage their budgets and balance them often enough is to control the largest component of the provincial budget, and that's health care.

We have worked very, very hard at that over the past 12 years. We've invested billions in capital, and we've allowed the health care budget to go up every year. We're continuing to do that, but somehow, I think through hard work and innovation, I must say we have — not so much the government but the people who work within the health system — managed to keep our cost per taxpayer to a reasonable level and yet end up coming up with the best health outcomes in the country. Certainly, in the 1990s the government of the day couldn't claim anything even close to that.

I do want to say in relation to health care that the Finance Minister included a reference to "projects" at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital. Our regional health care in the East Kootenay is a real success story. It's a poster child for the benefits that come from a properly organized and managed regional health care system.

I believe that of all the good things our government has done for my region in the East Kootenay, by far the most important thing we've done is to actually create a fully funded and functional regional hospital. These projects at the East Kootenay Regional Hospital that the Finance Minister made reference to, I believe, will include a new ICU. It's the last piece of our regional services that really needs to be replaced. So I'm very grateful for that.

I wanted to mention family farms or ranches, hon. Speaker. You've been up to the East Kootenay. You know we've got lots of cowboys and cowgirls up there, and there are a lot of cattle, so it was really wonderful to hear the Finance Minister talk about a reduction of the cost for coloured gas for ranchers. You know, these are folks that work harder than anybody. I don't know anybody who works harder than a farmer. They're good with money. This is not going to turn out to be thousands and thousands of dollars, but they're going to appreciate this. This is going to add to the bottom line.

We're also putting roughly $4 million of new money into the Agricultural Land Commission. I'm very pleased about that. The commission does good work around the province. I believe in the agricultural land reserve.

There are parts of the province, in particular where I live, where there's a lot of land within the reserve that never should have been in the reserve in the first place. It's kind of a shame that we require people to go cap in hand and apply to take that land out when it shouldn't have been there in the first place. I believe that some of this money will be used to have a look at those boundaries and rationalize those boundaries for the benefit of the taxpayers in my region of the province.

The final thing we did for farmers and ranchers in B.C. is that we are taking the property transfer tax off a transfer of family farms — which is about time. I think that's a great move by the Finance Minister.

Families. Honestly, the best thing that any government can do for families is jobs. Jobs are the most important thing to a family, and with the work that we've done on the economy in balancing this budget and investing in trades training, I think families are going to benefit from that by the fact that they have the job that they're looking for.

There are a number of great things in the budget, like the B.C. training and education savings grant, which I think is a very novel approach and has an ancillary benefit. In addition to having money there for the family to help pay for that first year of post-secondary education, it actually also, I think, encourages British Columbians to save. Of course, our national bank governor and others have said that we Canadians are challenged with saving in these last 20 years or so. I think just the idea of getting people to save a bit more is a positive thing for our government to do.

There were some excellent initiatives in the budget around child care funding, some immediate improvements, $76 million over three years and then, starting in 2015, another $146 million for a new provincial tax credit. Great stuff.

[1730]

I think it is now time that British Columbians compare the records and compare the visions for the future between the B.C. Liberal government and the opposition.

I do want to say one vision that I believe holds unparalleled opportunity for British Columbia is the LNG, liquefied natural gas, opportunity. I thought I should say just a couple of words about it, because the opposition has referred to this opportunity as a fantasy. I've heard them say it several times. They think this is a fantasy. They actually make fun of it.

I remember in 2003 when we sent a minister to China to try to sell some wood to China. They made fun of that too. They said that was a fantasy. "That's a fantasy, spending money to send somebody to China to sell lumber. Well, they don't build out of lumber over there," the NDP said. "How foolish."

Well, interesting. In the past ten years we've gone from almost total reliance on the U.S., with 69 percent of our wood products that went to the U.S. In this year that we just ended, 2012, 45 percent of our wood went to the U.S.
[ Page 13021 ]
Asia now buys 42 percent of our exports here in British Columbia. Again, nobody believed in 2003 that that could happen. Particularly, the opposition didn't believe it. They were negative then. They're negative now.

It's the same principle applying to the liquefied natural gas opportunity. We have enough clean natural gas in the northeastern part of our province to supply the world, literally, for hundreds of years — not for a decade, not for 100 years, but for multiple hundreds of years. We have that much natural gas parked in the northeastern part of our province.

The problem is that we really only have one customer, and that's the U.S. The U.S. being the U.S., good business people, they know that we only have one customer. They don't pay the world price. So what that means, obviously, for the companies and the shareholders is that they don't get the world price.

More importantly, what it means to the taxpayer in British Columbia is that our royalties — their royalties, the taxpayers' royalties…. Money doesn't come to government. It goes to the taxpayers. So the royalties on that natural gas that's produced in the northeast are much lower because we don't get the world price for that gas.

It's pretty straightforward. All we have to do is build some pipelines from the northeast to the west coast for gas and ship that gas once we liquefy it. You just cool it. You liquefy it. You put it on a refrigerated ship, and you ship it to Asia, where you get multiples of the price that we're getting for that gas today.

Again, that's good for jobs. Companies like that. Companies like making more money. That's the way the free enterprise system works. They'll put that investment in there knowing that they're going to get more money for the gas.

What that means for government and for the taxpayer is that the royalties will be based on those higher prices. In addition to that, there's also an opportunity for a processing royalty, which government is working on directly with the gas industry. So there are two different ways that royalties can flow from that opportunity.

When this opportunity actually shows up in the form of processing plants and we have ships that are loading this liquefied natural gas, there is an opportunity for British Columbia to get to the same sort of place that Alberta has been in with their oil and their gas.

We will get to a point…. It will come incrementally. It won't come all at once. It'll start with construction of pipelines. It'll start with construction of liquefied natural gas plants. It'll start with more production in the northeast, and that will ramp up over the next number of years.

Then, when we get to the point where we have three or four or five or six liquefied natural gas plants on the west coast, we will have choices. That's what's so exciting about the opportunity, because the choices for the British Columbia taxpayer — I won't be here; I'm sure I'll be gone — will be: how do we use all that royalty money?

We could actually get rid of the provincial sales tax. We could eliminate the property purchase tax. We could pay off the provincial debt. We could put more into health and education. I'm sure we would do that. We could even invest in a provincial, comprehensive daycare program, because we would have the funds to do those kinds of things.

[1735]

One gas pipeline has been approved. Others are in the planning stages. Government is currently negotiating with 12 large international conglomerates on the terms of these new LNG plants in the northwest.

I will say that it's important for the public to know that if we don't embrace this opportunity, it means that we'll squander it. We'll lose the opportunity. We have to embrace the opportunity. We have to act quickly, and we have to act decisively. It's our ethical responsibility to our children and to our grandchildren to go after this opportunity with all our might.

It is there for British Columbia. It is not a fantasy. It's important for the people of the province to believe that, because this is an opportunity that this province has never had in its history. This is not a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This is not a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It's an opportunity that most jurisdictions in the world never have. They'll never have it. They don't have gas. Hundreds of years of gas here and the west coast there within pretty easy access.

It's been a great pleasure to talk about the budget.

D. Routley: It's my pleasure to rise to speak to the budget, but I kind of expect some sawdust on the floor and several rings, as in a three-ring circus. It's little bit of the Cirque du Soleil version of budgeting and version of the world. "Cirque du Folie," "Cirque des Menteurs" is what we have here.

In fact, I think, if we're fortunate enough to be elected on this side of the House in May, we'll have a surplus in magicians and gymnasts in the finance department, because it's only through fabulous exercise in gymnastics and sleight of hand that this could possibly be seen as a balanced budget. I'm going to lay out the reasons — not that they really need to be underlined for the people of B.C. — why that's so.

In fact, what we see is not a budget. We see a narrative. It's a narrative for an election. The narrative is that the B.C. Liberals balance budgets and that the NDP has said: "Well, maybe in four years." In fact, what the NDP has proposed is that over the four-year cycle the budget should be balanced in total.

Let's look at the four-year cycle of these fabulous Cirque du Soleil artists of finance, the B.C. Liberals. Well, in 2009-2010 they had a $495 million deficit. Oh no, sorry, I'm wrong. That's what they told us for months and months before the election: that they would have a $495 million deficit. That was repeated over and over and
[ Page 13022 ]
over again, just like the repetitive nature of this balanced budget, balanced budget, balanced budget.

So "$495 million — not a penny more." What did it turn out to be? Well, British Columbians know now, and they knew soon after the election, that in fact it was $1.8 billion. That's year 1 of this last mandate. Year 2 — 2010-2011 — it was $300 million, not surplus but deficit. Year 3 — 2011-2012 — the deficit was $1.8 billion. So $1.8 billion in their third year. This past year, the fourth year of their mandate, their deficit was $1.4 billion.

In their four years they had the spectacular record of a surplus totalling zero and deficits totalling $5.3 billion. But not just that, in year 1 they added $5.7 billion to the debt; year 2, $5.4 billion; year 3, $3.6 billion; year 4, $2.1 billion.

So in those four years they added $16.8 billion to the debt. When they took government in 2001, they took over a surplus. Since then, in these 12 years, seven of those 12 have been in deficit, while they had a balanced-budget law.

[1740]

They trotted us all in here, all of the representatives of the people of B.C., to adjust their balanced-budget legislation every year. A farce, Madam Speaker, a circus. Send in the clowns.

It was a joke. That's why this government has no credibility with the people of B.C. That's why they're languishing in the polls. That's why the people can't wait for May 14 to tell them what they think of such utter nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Not only did they add $5.3 billion worth of deficits and $16.8 billion to the debt, they also, in terms of contractual obligations in the past six years, have increased those by 183 percent — 183 percent, to $62 billion on top of the debt.

The Auditor General, who they are so respectful of, has pointed out that so much of this contractual obligation ought to be considered debt, because we, the people of B.C., will have to pay it regardless and some of it is in excess of services we would normally have to pay for. IPPs for B.C. Hydro alone are $41.5 billion. Outrageous.

That's what makes this an absolute bogus budget. Actually, it really explains to the people of B.C. why they are receiving in this election year not a budget but a narrative — a narrative that this tired government, which has run out of ideas, hopes will suffice to pull the wool over the eyes of a public that they hope isn't paying attention. But it's clear that people are paying attention.

Why is it a bogus budget? Well, it's a bogus budget because it is. It is a claim to a balanced budget when the government knows that it's in deficit. The people know they're in deficit. It's a deficit budget because this government cannot be honest with the people about the province's finances without facing absolute ruin in May. That's the fact.

It's a bogus budget because it claims, for one thing, $245 million of profit from B.C. Hydro. That is borrowed money. They took over the governance of B.C. Hydro when it had one deferral account. It now has several, with a total of $14 billion put away. No, the total debt of B.C. Hydro is $14 billion.

They're taking $226 million from ICBC. They're taking $300 million from last year's budget and moving it to this year. That alone would wipe out their supposed surplus and leave a deficit by itself of over $100 million. They're claiming $475 million in asset sales that haven't occurred yet. Those four items together, by themselves, equal $1.246 billion that should not be considered income in this budget, that should be deficit if only this government could be straight up with the people of British Columbia. That's a fact.

People have to ask themselves…. You know, we look around and we see one of the booming commodities in the province. Natural gas prices are down, but cynicism is way up. Cynicism is a booming commodity. People have become cynical because everything they've been told by their B.C. Liberal government has been false.

"We won't introduce the HST." False. "I'm going to put my B.C. Rail pen in my pocket now. I don't think I need my B.C. Rail pen right now." But that was false too — a promise not to sell B.C. Rail. False.

Everything they've been told has indeed been false. It's just really tragic that we come to this place with the onerous responsibility of representing, most of us, about 80,000 people, 50,000 voters each. That's an onerous responsibility. How is that treated by the government? Well, they hand those people not a budget but a narrative to save their skins in May, which is absolutely tragic.

[1745]

Take away all these phony incomes that they're claiming — asset sales that haven't been made yet, $300 million from the Little Mountain sale last year, $245 million of false profit from Hydro, $226 million from the ratepayers of ICBC — and you've got a $1.25 billion deficit. That is what the truth is, and that's really what this government should be telling the people of B.C. They should have the courage to tell the people of B.C. the truth about the finances of this province.

Added to the fact that so much of what they're claiming as income in this budget is really imaginary is the fact that they're telling us they're going to cut $250 million out of the increase they predicted last year in health care.

I'm deputy Health critic. I've been travelling the province speaking to people and stakeholders throughout about the challenges they face currently. They talk about the creative innovations that they can offer to the system. They're all pulling on the rope as hard as they can to make it work for British Columbians, but now they're going to be told that they have to make more service cuts.

Before the last election this government said they would protect health care and education from cuts. In fact, what we saw afterwards were huge increases in wait-
[ Page 13023 ]
lists, cancelled surgeries. We saw in classrooms a decrease in composition and increase in class sizes throughout the province. We saw more school closures.

What they say before an election hardly equals the reality afterwards. It never has. That's what people have to bear in mind as they view this narrative, this narrative thinly disguised as a budget.

What does an economy need more than anything as we're struggling? It needs to be more competitive and more efficient. How can government play a role in creating a more efficient, competitive, productive economy? They can prepare people through skills training to take up a skills shortage that is identified by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce as the number one challenge for our economy. All the forest companies in B.C. now are now saying that their number one challenge is the skill shortage.

So what do they cut? They cut Advanced Education. They cut from skills training.

When the Ontario government was digging itself out of its hole, it asked noted economist Don Drummond to recommend how they might make changes, restrict spending and increase revenue.

He said, basically: "Don't do two things. Don't cut from skills training, and in fact invest more" — well, our B.C. Liberal government has cut from skills training, failing to invest more — "and if you are going to depend in any way on asset sales in order to balance a budget, do not count your chickens before they're hatched." A rather simple lesson that most people learn: don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

This B.C. Liberal government counts $475 million in asset sales before they've been made in order to trot out a false, bogus balanced budget and pull the wool over the people's eyes, they think, just before an election — absolutely, absolutely false.

It is something that at the end of the mandate…. The government is clearly tired. The government has clearly run out of ideas. The throne speech was evidence enough of that — the thin gruel of the throne speech.

What are they left with? A narrative. They can accuse the other side: "Oh, you guys, all you are is negative. You don't dream like we do. We have a dream 20, 30 years out." Well, so do most British Columbians. We're all dreaming 20, 30 years out, but we have some practical considerations two and three months out, 12 and 14 months out, 24 and 36 months out.

[1750]

They're the practical demands of living in this province at a very challenging time for school districts, for health authorities, for parents — parents of special needs children, families supporting special needs adults, who will see their programs cut over the next three years by 50 percent.

Those are practical needs now. They're not going to be excused or glossed over by dream statements of 20 and 30 years out, promises of funds that can eliminate debt, eliminate that pesky PST 20 years from now.

"Have faith." Well, faith is not a booming commodity right now when it comes to the B.C. Liberals. It's clear. Cynicism is the booming commodity that people feel for the B.C. Liberal government. Unfortunately for the people, perhaps fortunately for the opposition, their throne speech and their budget have done absolutely nothing to dissuade people from that cynicism.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In health care last year the government predicted a $604 million increase. That was a 3.7 percent increase. This year they're saying: "No, it's actually going to be $371 million." That's 2.6 percent. Where does that 1 percent come from? Where does the $233 million come from?

Well, the people who have seen their mental health and addictions programs cut, the people who have seen their surgeries cancelled, the people who have seen their wait-lists grow — they know where it will come from.

Noting the hour, I would reserve my place to speak in the debate and move adjournment of debate.

D. Routley moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. I. Chong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 5:52 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