2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 42, Number 7

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: I look behind me and find a friend that I have come to know over the years — Doug McKay, who is a leader within the IBEW and commits himself to working on behalf of the women and men that are accounted among his members. It is great for me to see Doug here. I know all members will make him feel very welcome today.

M. Farnworth: We're in politics. Politics is about elections every now and then. We have our own on the 14th of May. But in the run-up to that monumental contest, another election has taken place — a very, very important election — and that is for who will head up the press gallery for the next several years.

I am pleased to tell the House that, beating back a strong challenge, Tom Fletcher has won his fourth term, showing that it can be done. But I'm also reminded, for my friends across the way, that lightning rarely strikes twice.

Hon. P. Bell: It was my honour today to host Donald McInnes down in the dining room and to present him with his Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. Many of the members in this Legislature will know Donald from the good work that he has done over the years. Donald, of course, is the executive vice-chairman of Alterra Power Corp. and the founder and former CEO of Plutonic energy.

I also got to know Donald in my role as Minister of State for Mining about nine years ago. He did a tremendous amount of work on the Highway 37 power line. I would argue strongly that that came to fruition as a result of his hard work, along with many, many other projects.

Donald's most recent endeavour has been in the aquaculture industry with the founding of a facility up the coast targeting shellfish, which I think will be helpful for First Nations. That has been a trademark in Donald's life, working collaboratively with First Nations across the province of British Columbia. I know many in the First Nations community call Donald a very, very good friend.

Finally, Donald has focused his life on prostate cancer. I know many people in this Legislature have been provided with the wonderful trademark blue tie that Donald is wearing again today. He tells me that he is going to continue to wear it until he is no longer the president of the board of Prostate Cancer Canada, which will be some time.

We very much appreciate all the work that Donald has done. He's joined today by his wife, Amy, and his three children, Angus, Charlotte and Finley. We had a wonderful lunch today. Congratulations to the entire McInnes family.

Donald, thank you so much for everything that you do.

Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

R. Chouhan: There are a couple of friends in the gallery today — Mike Flynn, the business manager of IBEW 213, and Doug McKay, business manager of IBEW 258. Please join me to give them a warm welcome.

L. Reid: My daughter's grade 7 class — you'll remember, many of you, Olivia when she spent her early years here — is with us today. They're in the gallery. Their teacher is Mrs. Blumel. They have three parents with them — Ms. Bhandal, Mrs. Chhibbar and Mrs. Wen. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

[1340]

G. Coons: In the gallery today are two friends, two constituents — Nelson Kinney and Jennifer Rice. They are both city councillors from Prince Rupert. I do have to add that Jennifer last month won the nomination as the NDP candidate for North Coast. If things fall where they should, Jennifer will be the next North Coast MLA. Would you please make them welcome.

R. Hawes: This morning members of our caucus met with the B.C. and Yukon Catholic Women's League. In the gallery today are the four women that came and presented a number of resolutions to us. There is President Doreen Gowans, President-elect Pat Deppiesse, legislation chair Agnes Geiger and resolutions chair Gisela Montague. Could the House please make these hard-working women welcome.

V. Huntington: I notice that we're graced in the House today by Dr. Paddy Smith, who is known so well to so many of us and who is a very active participant in the legislative intern program. Please make him welcome.

N. Simons: What a surprise. Today I would like to introduce to the House a couple of constituents from Roberts Creek — Caitlin Hicks, a writer and artist, and her husband, Gordon Halloran, best known as the "Iceman," the creator of the Ice Gate for the Olympics. They've joined us here in the House today, and I would ask my colleagues from both sides to make them most welcome.
[ Page 13122 ]

M. Dalton: In the gallery today is the love of my life — my beautiful wife, Marlene. We've been married coming on 28 years. She's accompanied by Grace Dunn, a very good friend of ours. We've spent many a vacation together at Thetis Island or on Christmas Eves, along with her husband, Kevin, and sons Paul and Adam. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Trasolini: It's my pleasure today to introduce a couple of visitors — Paul Harris, who is the president of the Port Moody–Coquitlam NDP Riding Association executive, and his wife, Yvonne Harris, who is the secretary of the executive. Yvonne is a very accomplished author of several books for adults and children. She's also a marathon canoeist and enjoys the waterfront community of Port Moody very much.

I'd like to thank Paul and Yvonne for their hard work and dedication. They are community leaders. Can the House please join me in making them welcome.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will make welcome two constituents of mine — Mark Zimmerman and Kathryn Manry, who've come down from Quadra Island for a visit. Mark and Kathryn were the successful bidders on a lunch here at the Legislature in the dining room. We had a pleasant lunch that I offered at a fundraiser for Save the Heart of Quadra Parks.

I mentioned this to the House before — Save the Heart of Quadra Parks bringing people from across the community together to raise the money that the province couldn't put forward for completing a provincial park. I hope the House will make both Mark and Kathryn very welcome.

I'd like to join my colleague across the House who welcomed the members from the Catholic Women's League, who addressed the opposition yesterday. We had a very good discussion. I'd also like to thank them for their hard work and for the information they shared with us.

N. Simons: I'm not sure if they're here. They might be in sound check. But the Abbie Hoffman Society is in Victoria playing tonight at Club 9one9. They're a Powell River band featuring Meg Hoffman, Jennye Hoffman, Laura Hoffman, Lisa Hoffman and Suzy Hoffman. They're accompanied by none other than Tony Colton, a roadie extraordinaire and spiritual adviser, as well as "Bad" Karen Skadsheim, a part-owner of Townsite brewery.

They're playing in Nanaimo tomorrow and at the Waverley on Saturday. So would the House please — whether they're here or not — go see them tonight or make them welcome today.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey-Cloverdale. I think you have an announcement to make.

[1345]

K. Falcon: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had an opportunity to answer a question, and I got very excited there. [Laughter.] But no, Mr. Speaker, I do….

I am really honoured to be here today and be back with all my colleagues on both sides of the House and to be able to announce that my wife and I…. My wife, actually. I had very little to do with it, I can assure you. But my wife had a beautiful baby girl, Jacqueline Rose, who was born a week ago Tuesday — on budget day, actually. We're just thrilled to be able to announce our latest addition. She joins our three-year-old, Josephine, and they wish all of you in the House their very best.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — SENATE NOMINEE ELECTION ACT

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Senate Nominee Election Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased to introduce the Senate Nominee Election Act. Our government made a commitment to bring forward Senate nominee election legislation, and that is what this bill represents. It would create a statutory framework for British Columbians to elect nominees to fill vacancies for our province in the Senate of Canada.

The bill provides for Senate nominee elections to be held either in conjunction with provincial elections or as stand-alone events. Nominee elections would be administered by Elections B.C. The bill includes a number of stand-alone provisions and applies relevant sections of the Election Act.

I want to advise the House that it is government's intention to bring this bill forward as an exposure bill. We do not intend pass the bill during the current session. Instead, the purpose in bringing it forward today is to help generate debate and discussion about Senate reform and, in particular, to show in detailed legislation how Senate nominee elections would be conducted in our province.

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.
[ Page 13123 ]

Bill 17, Senate Nominee Election 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)

PREVENTION OF BULLYING

D. Barnett: Today is B.C.'s sixth bullying awareness day, coinciding with Pink Shirt Day. As we proudly wear pink shirts to represent our stance against bullying, we are also standing in solidarity with those who get bullied. Many of them suffer in silence, regardless of age, profession or gender.

That being said, bullying affects our children the most, since they are still figuring out who they are, and words can be very harmful. As a community, we need to reach out to our children and young people and remind them that they are not alone and encourage them to reach out to parents, teachers or other adults around them. After all, adults have also experienced bullying and can talk to them about this issue.

Although bullying can occur anywhere, we have to pay extra attention to our schools. For that reason, our government launched the ERASE Bullying strategy. ERASE brings awareness to bullying, but it also provides tools, for adults and youth alike, to handle difficult situations and recognize bullying when it happens, especially at school.

All children deserve to get an education in a place that is safe for them to learn and grow. That is why the strategy is a step in the right direction to stop bullying and keep our children safe. Be it Pink Shirt Day or not, all of us together need to continue to stand up against bullying.

PREVENTION OF BULLYING
AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

S. Chandra Herbert: Jeering, sneering, calling each other names, personal attacks — all are behaviours that take place in school yards and workplaces and, I'm sorry to say, sometimes in this House.

[1350]

Today is the Day of Pink, a day where British Columbians take a stand against bullying, where we stand as leaders in our communities to say: "Bullying stops here." We encourage everyone to do more to make welcoming communities.

The Day of Pink, of course, started when two young men stood up for another, who had been bullied for wearing a pink shirt. The next day they came to school and, in solidarity, brought pink shirts for everyone. They were standing against homophobia and for the right of their classmate to be who he wanted to be. They put action behind their values.

Like them, we stand in this House wearing pink. We speak words against bullying, too, but if we are to be true to the day and true elected leaders, we must do more than mouth the words and wear the shirts. The recent U.S. presidential election should give us pause. Upwards of $1 billion was spent on TV ads that were 90 percent negative and largely used to try and destroy the other person's character.

Is that how we create a healthy democracy? I think not. I know that we all care passionately about our communities. We may differ somehow on ways that we can grow a better province, but we all want what's best for B.C. We must create a more positive culture in our democracy so people want to get involved, if we want to be true to this day.

The election campaign is approaching closer. I know sometimes anger can get the better of us, but when those moments happen, please think of today and the words that we've said. Let's make "Bullying stops here" more than just a slogan. Let's make it a way of life.

ROTARY INTERNATIONAL

M. Dalton: I rise today to pay tribute to one of the world's most successful philanthropic organizations — Rotary International. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Rotary in British Columbia. Rotary club members are a global network of community volunteers. They are business, professional and community leaders who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards and help deal with goodwill and peace everywhere.

More than 34,000 clubs and 1.2 million members conduct projects to address today's challenges, including illiteracy, disease, hunger, poverty, lack of clean water and environmental concerns.

A great example of the positive work Rotarians do on an international level is their project to eradicate polio from the face of the earth. Since 1988 polio cases have been reduced 99 percent worldwide, from 350,000 cases to less than 2,000. An estimated five million children have been spared disability, and over a quarter of a million deaths have been averted.

In my constituency four Rotary clubs hold weekly meetings — Meadow Ridge Rotary Club, Rotary Club of Haney, Rotary Club of Mission Midday and Rotary Club of Mission Sunrise. They take on many projects. In Mission these include the Rotary heritage park walk, the seniors busy bus and the wetlands project.

In Maple Ridge their work has included all-weather sports fields, community playgrounds and the ShelterBox project for disaster relief. All four of these Rotary clubs have made a lasting impact in both communities.

Rotarians judge themselves by the four-way test: (1) Is it the truth? (2) Is it fair to all concerned? (3) Will it build goodwill and better friendships? (4) Will it be beneficial for all concerned? British Columbia — indeed, the whole world — is a better place because of Rotary.
[ Page 13124 ]

BULLYING PREVENTION INITIATIVE
AT SENATOR REID SCHOOL

S. Hammell: We in this chamber are very aware that today is Pink Shirt Day. All of us know concerns about bullying should not be limited to one particular day but deserve attention daily. We see bullying in schools, at home, in the workplace and in the media.

Occasionally I hear my CA playing songs of Lady Gaga in the office, and in one she says: "No matter gay, straight or bi, no matter black, white or beige." Ending bullying starts by loving who you are and by being kind to those around you.

I recently met with Faizel Rawji, a principal in my constituency at Senator Reid Elementary School. In the fall the school launched a program called Three Things. To quote Mr. Rawji: "The program is the antithesis of bullying programs in that it promotes positive behaviours and a new norm in the school. It has taught the students to be three things: kind to themselves, kind to the environment and kind to each other."

[1355]

Last year the school had 480 referrals to the office, and as of today, after the school embraced Three Things, there have been 11 referrals. Amazing. Why? Because Senator Reid has become a school of kindness. Once the students have documented their three acts of kindness, they become part of the Three Things club and receive a purple T-shirt. If the student continues to do three acts of kindness, they wear their purple shirts on Three Things Thursday. Students are proud to share their acts of kindness, and on Thursdays there is a sea of purple T-shirts.

If we remember to govern ourselves by these three things here in the Legislature, I know we will create change for the better, three practical steps at a time.

B.C. CREATIVE FUTURES

J. Thornthwaite: B.C. is richly blessed with natural resources, but the one I want to talk about today is the creativity of our people. Creativity — it's human, social, powerful, but it's also economic. The creative industries in B.C. employ an estimated 85,000 people, the second highest amongst B.C.'s industries. Recently the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development announced the creation of B.C. Creative Futures strategy, which includes six new and expanded programs for youth to engage in creativity.

Artists in the Classroom is a program for artist residencies, providing funding to support hands-on projects for over 8,000 students.

The after-school sport and arts initiative is a youth-at-risk program of activities, including dancing, singing and music, story writing, acting, playwriting, painting, drawing and sculpture activities. It reaches 65 schools and 1,300 students.

Artists in education is a program that supports school districts in presenting professional touring artists and groups in B.C. schools, reaching 600,000 students each year. The scholarship program supports post-secondary school students, and the co-op placement program assists arts and culture organizations in hiring students in the creative sector.

Lastly, the creative youth initiatives supports new and innovative approaches to youth engagement in the arts.

These programs will be delivered by the B.C. Arts Council through $6.25 million in new funding, giving the B.C. Arts Council over $24 million, the highest level of funding in its history.

In addition, non-profit organizations like the Seymour Art Gallery, which shares fantastic works of art with members of the community on the North Shore, has received almost $400,000 in gaming grants over the last decade.

I'm confident that the B.C. Creative Futures strategy and the record levels of provincial support for the B.C. Arts Council will help ensure the success of creative British Columbians and the creative industries.

ENERGY CONSERVATION INITIATIVES
IN COLWOOD

M. Karagianis: Colwood is a city with a lot of bright thinking, and I'm proud to say that now all of Canada knows it. Colwood was recently named an official Canadian solar city by the Canadian Solar Cities project. Not only that, but it has been selected as one of 17 cities worldwide as a finalist in the Earth Hour city challenge. I encourage everyone to vote for Colwood at ehcitychallenge.org before March 15 so that they can win.

Colwood is a forward-thinking city that is harnessing the power of the sun and renewable energy technologies. More residents are becoming energy champions by investing in home improvements, including solar hot water panels and heat pumps. The city has put into service its first electric public works truck, and that saves more than $3,500 a year in fuel.

Colwood now has an electric vehicle charging station at the park-and-ride area near the city library and at city hall. The Colwood fire hall has installed solar hot water and electric panels as well. It's all been made possible through the Solar Colwood program, which works to raise awareness about clean energy options. The program was utilized by using funding from the Natural Resources Canada project and support from partners, including B.C. Hydro, to make it easier for residents and business to benefit from energy savings.

Last Saturday Colwood hosted its Here Comes the Sun event, a fun and interactive community gathering to celebrate the official Canadian Solar Cities designation. Residents checked out how the electric vehicle charging stations work and got more information on solar instal-
[ Page 13125 ]
lations for their homes.

[1400]

Colwood has seen the light. Here's hoping that other communities will too. Congratulations to Colwood on the award, and thank you to those community leaders who are showing the way forward to a cleaner, better energy future.

Oral Questions

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH
STRATEGY AND PARTISAN ACTIVITIES
BY GOVERNMENT STAFF

J. Horgan: A new round of partisan ads began last night — taxpayer-funded ads to promote the government's bogus budget and to address the government's credibility gap, which was identified in a leaked document not long ago. Another leaked document last fall highlighted the political manipulation of the Burnaby Hospital consultation process — again, supported by taxpayers dollars.

Today another leaked Liberal document details a plan to target ethnic voters across British Columbia, blurring the line between partisan activity and public service. The document demonstrates the folding together of government services and resources into the election machinery of the B.C. Liberal Party. A central objective of the plan is "making sure that government, caucus and the party are all working together…in a coordinated…manner."

Can I put this question to the Minister for Multiculturalism? How does he justify using public resources to advance his partisan political purposes?

Hon. J. Yap: Multiculturalism is a bedrock of British Columbia. This government…. I'm sure all members of the House support multiculturalism. We have a robust program that includes outreach to multicultural communities, including a great program called EmbraceBC, where we reach out to communities throughout British Columbia, providing support for multicultural communities. It's important as a province to continue to support multiculturalism, and that's what we will do.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a supplementary.

J. Horgan: Certainly, this side of the House supports multiculturalism in British Columbia. What we don't support, however, is the blurring of lines between partisan activity and public service.

Again referring to the document that was leaked today, it's a document that's sent out by the Premier's deputy chief of staff, and it states on seven separate occasions that the objective of the plan is to facilitate coordination between the party, government and caucus — the party, government and caucus, hon. Speaker — ministerial staff, minister's office staff working outside of the public service to a particular partisan end.

It goes on to say, further, that the plan will break down government silos in sharing information with the party. Another quote: "…creating a contact database…via coordination between constituency assistants, the party, the ministry of state for multiculturalism, Intergovernmental Relations Secretariat and GCPE."

My question is to the Minister for Multiculturalism. Again, how do you justify taking your partisan political ends and trumping public service in British Columbia? How does that do any service to the multicultural community in this province?

Hon. J. Yap: This side of the House doesn't have to take advice from the NDP on partisan advertising. Perhaps the House Leader for the NDP should talk to the member for Fraser-Nicola about partisan advertising, where the member admitted to using constituency funds for partisan advertising. The NDP should reflect on what they're doing, as mentioned — the member for Fraser-Nicola and what he had done.

Mr. Speaker: The Opposition House Leader has a further supplemental.

J. Horgan: With respect to the member for Fraser-Nicola, the political party he's a member of, the NDP, paid for those ads. I'm wanting to know now if the Minister for Multiculturalism is going to start paying back the taxpayers for the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been put into this coordinated effort to bridge government work with party work.

[1405]

The minister will know…. The Public Service Act is quite clear. Political staff may not "engage in political activities during working hours or use government facilities, equipment or resources to support…these activities." Yet Brian Bonney, the same Liberal operative involved in the Burnaby Hospital affair, was directly involved in coordinating the activities of party hacks, political operatives and public servants.

Again, my question is to the Minister for Multiculturalism. How can he possibly justify using public resources, the people of British Columbia's resources, for pure partisan political purposes? How do you justify that?

Hon. J. Yap: Well, I'll tell you what we're not doing. We're not placing partisan ads using taxpayers' funds, as the member for Fraser-Nicola has admitted to. I'll tell you what we're doing to support multiculturalism.

We've supported, funded, 85 community groups, engaging more than 12,000 participants around British Columbia — nearly $1.3 million to 34 organizations to
[ Page 13126 ]
support projects that celebrate diversity, address racism and help build inclusive communities. We also delivered the Safe Harbour: Respect for All program to over 900 locations across British Columbia. This is an award-winning program that supports people from the multicultural communities who may need support throughout British Columbia. We have a great multicultural program, one that we continue to invest in.

C. James: This is a very serious issue. These documents show that an entire strategy was developed by the B.C. Liberals based on using taxpayer dollars for their own partisan purposes. The then communication director for multiculturalism was assigned to develop comprehensive lists that would help the B.C. Liberal Party — and I quote from the document — "bypass the media to get our message out. Be very well prepared when the writ is dropped."

This is a clear violation of the rules, and according to this leaked Liberal document, the Minister for Multiculturalism has full responsibility for implementation of this plan. So my question is to the minister. Will the minister tell us how many names of individuals and organizations have been passed on by government staff directly to the Liberal Party to feed into its election database?

Hon. J. Yap: I'll tell the member and members of the House what we are doing in multiculturalism. We hosted, this past fall, the most successful fourth annual provincial Nesika multiculturalism awards. A record number, 165 nominees from throughout the province, were nominated for the provincial Nesika multiculturalism awards, and over 400 attendees came to attend this awards ceremony.

We also had 2,700 people who participated in the 2012 Celebrate Your Roots interactive campaign, which was held to celebrate multiculturalism during Multiculturalism Week in November last year. It was a great success. This side of the House continues to support multiculturalism in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: I'd like to say to the minister that what the public is concerned about is once again the B.C. Liberals using taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes. That is the issue here.

This scheme also outlines clearly hiring partisan outreach staff with public dollars. Mr. Bonney, the former director of communications for multiculturalism, wrote the job descriptions. Mr. Bonney directed who would be hired. Mr. Bonney directed those individuals to do partisan work. All this was done using taxpayer dollars — 100,000 taxpayer dollars.

[1410]

So my question is again to the Minister for Multiculturalism. How can he justify this direct use of taxpayer dollars for partisan activities?

Hon. J. Yap: One of the programs we're very proud of that we implemented as part of our multicultural program is our multiculturalism grants program. Over $324,000 was granted to 40 different community organizations in the first phase of the multiculturalism grant program.

Let me share with members of the House which community groups received these funds, these multiculturalism grants. We have the African Canadian Soccer and Cultural Association, located in the riding of Burnaby–Deer Lake. We also saw a grant go to DIVERSEcity Community Resources Society, located in the riding of Surrey-Newton; and a whole bunch in the riding of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, including Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia, Canadian Club of Vancouver and NEC, Native Education College.

We have a great program in multiculturalism, supporting communities around the province.

J. Kwan: What we are talking about is the Liberal government's program using taxpayers' money to do partisan work. The Liberals are consumed with any and all activities that they perceive to be able to enhance their political fortunes. We saw it in the $17 million taxpayer-supported advertising plan that was just recently leaked. We now have it again — another Liberal leaked document.

On page 3 of that document it says: "Quick wins." Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how dismayed I was when I read it. It involves the Premier's office staff defining apologies for wrongful treatment based on race as "quick wins."

Eleven weeks to an election, and the B.C. Liberal government is now attempting an apology to the Chinese community for historical wrongs.

To the minister again: why is the Liberal government using apologies for historical injustices experienced by the ethnic community as quick wins for political gain?

Hon. J. Yap: I hope she is not suggesting that this House should not consider making an historic apology to a community in our province, in our country, that was wronged 100 years ago, during the early years of the province of British Columbia. I hope that's not what the member is suggesting — that we should not work towards reaching out and apologizing to a community that was discriminated against.

Let me tell you what we are doing in multiculturalism, for the benefit of all members. We hosted the first-ever Embracing Difference, Engaging Community Symposium, with 25 diverse sessions held in the Lower Mainland, encouraging multiculturalism, challenging racism. It was attended by over 230 delegates — a great success.
[ Page 13127 ]

We also, as I mentioned, have a great program of multiculturalism grants that are provided to communities throughout the province, throughout British Columbia. Again, for the benefit of the member, we provided grants to the NEC, Native Education College; Association of Neighbourhood Houses, Mount Pleasant; Chinese Cultural Centre, greater Vancouver. The list goes on — all of these located in that member's riding, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: What I'm suggesting is that the acknowledgment of historical wrongs for the Chinese community or any other community should be done because it's the right thing to do, not because it's politically expedient.

[1415]

This leaked document — and I refer the minister to it — lays out very clearly that the real motivation for why the Liberals are now talking about issuing an apology to the Chinese community, after 11 years in office, is because it is a "quick win" for election purposes. It is not about acknowledging historical wrongs.

Again, my question to the minister is this. Why is the minister allowing his government to use partisan political opportunism, trump significant historical injustice issues, for a quick political win? Why is he doing that?

Hon. J. Yap: Again, we should not take advice from the NDP on that side of the House. I've just been handed a publication, what appears to be a Korean-Canadian community publication, where no less than the Leader of the Opposition has placed a full-colour ad where he talks about the New Democrat official opposition change for the better, etc.

The Leader of the Opposition in this partisan ad lists, as the address, the address here, in Room 201, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia. We should not take advice from that side of the House.

What we will continue to do is support multicultural communities through programs like the multiculturalism grant. I can go on and on talking about what great community groups have received these multiculturalism grants, including la Société francophone de Victoria in Victoria–Beacon Hill; Kaleidoscope Theatre Productions Society, Victoria–Swan Lake; Nikkei National Museum and Cultural Centre, Burnaby-Edmonds. The list goes on and on — great support for multicultural groups.

WASTE INCINERATOR PROPOSAL
FOR FRASER VALLEY

J. van Dongen: In July 2011 the Minister of Environment made a very controversial decision when he approved a solid waste management plan that opened the door for a large garbage-burning incinerator in the Lower Mainland. The minister approved this controversial plan over the strong objections of the citizens in the Fraser Valley; the objections of local and regional representatives; the objections of MLAs such as myself; and even the objections of the member for Chilliwack, the minister's own colleague, when that member correctly said: "The minister's approval is regrettable and wrong."

Despite the minister's naive assurances, it is abundantly clear that Metro Vancouver is thumbing its nose at everyone, from the minister on down. When is the minister going to face the fact that Metro Vancouver has absolutely no intention of living up to his conditions, especially the requirement for real and meaningful consultation with the FVRD, the Fraser Valley regional district, as the minister promised during the desperate days of the Chilliwack-Hope by-election?

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the minister, I want to remind members not to be using BlackBerrys during question period.

Hon. T. Lake: First of all, I have to say that the member is absolutely wrong. I did not approve any incinerator waste-to-energy proposal in Metro Vancouver.

We were abundantly clear when we approved the solid waste management plan for Metro Vancouver. They were instructed that if they were to consider in-region waste-to-energy, they would have to consult fully with the Fraser Valley regional district.

The Premier and I made a commitment, too, that if such a proposal was put forward, it would be subject to a full environmental assessment review.

[1420]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. van Dongen: I repeat what I stated. The minister approved a solid waste management plan with an option for a large incinerator. The facts are that Metro Vancouver has repeatedly defied the minister's stated requirements, and they have dismissed democratically elected representatives, such as Mayor Sharon Gaetz and Coun. Patricia Ross.

Metro Vancouver recently denied a Fraser Valley regional district seat on a third-party expert review panel that is supposed to discuss scientific and technical issues. Last month the chair of the Metro Vancouver waste committee, Malcolm Brodie, summed it up this way, "Whether people like it or not, the decision has been made" — referring to the incinerator proposal.

Again, Metro Vancouver shows no respect for the citizens of the Fraser Valley and no respect for the conditions in the minister's letter of August 2011.

When will the minister act decisively on this serious threat to air quality in the Fraser Valley and just say no to a $400 million garbage-burning incinerator by remov-
[ Page 13128 ]
ing that option from Metro Vancouver's solid waste management plan on the basis of their non-performance on consultation with the FVRD?

Hon. T. Lake: I'm surprised that the member has adopted the NDP method of environmental assessment, which is just say no before any process occurs at all.

We've made it very clear that if an in-region waste-to-energy facility is considered by Metro Vancouver, it will undergo a full B.C. environmental assessment process and full consultation with the Fraser Valley regional district.

MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH
STRATEGY AND PARTISAN ACTIVITIES
BY GOVERNMENT STAFF

M. Farnworth: I listened intently to the non-answers from the Minister for Multiculturalism. I felt…. You know what? We really have to go back and ask some more questions. I think it is really important, because I've come to understand why the minister doesn't get what has been going on in his own ministry: because it was run out of the Premier's office.

The tenth of January, 2012. The Premier's deputy chief of staff, Kim Haakstad, sends a draft version of the multicultural strategic outreach plan to Liberal staffers in the Office of the Premier, to the minister of state for multiculturalism, to the caucus and to the B.C. Liberal Party. What becomes clear when you go through the documents is an effort to subvert the public service and make it a wing of the B.C. Liberal Party for its own partisan political purposes. The problem is that we've seen this before. They keep getting caught, and they still don't learn.

Just think back to the smear attack website against the Leader of the Opposition that was developed by taxpayer-funded staffers, launched by the Liberal Party, in this very building.

Who can forget the Burnaby Hospital — their so-called community consultation committee, led by the members for Burnaby-Lougheed and Burnaby North, a committee which used good-minded people who thought they were doing the right job. They were used by this government for their own partisan political aims.

Again, to the Minister for Multiculturalism: does he not understand that telling people to forward names to list for the Liberal Party is not the role of a public servant — that subverting the public service is wrong? Will he stand and at least acknowledge that?

Hon. J. Yap: This question from the NDP, whose leader was recently called out by the Vancouver school board for handing out partisan red-packet lucky money to students in Vancouver….

[1425]

As I have said, we have a great program in multiculturalism. We are supporting multiculturalism.

The member talks about: what are we doing to support multiculturalism in different communities? Well, let me share once again what we are doing. Through the B.C. multiculturalism grant program, we are continuing to provide support to societies like the Visible Art Society in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant; the W2 Community Media Arts Society, also Vancouver–Mount Pleasant; the Belfry Theatre Society, Victoria–Beacon Hill; and also the Kaleidoscope Theatre Productions Society in Victoria–Swan Lake.

We continue to support multiculturalism. It's very important to promote multiculturalism. This side of the House will continue to do this, providing support to community groups to fight racism, to encourage inclusiveness and to promote multiculturalism in the province of B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Everybody in this House, in this province, supports multiculturalism. What they don't support is a government that uses public taxpayer dollars to pursue a private partisan agenda by the Liberal government of this province and using the public service to do it.

So my question to the minister is this. What part of using the public service to pursue their political agenda doesn't he get? Does he not understand that that is wrong?

Hon. J. Yap: Once again, the member should ask his own colleague, the member for Fraser-Nicola, why he placed partisan attack ads using taxpayers' funds. That's what he should do.

H. Bains: Nine questions have been put to this minister today by the opposition about government breaking the rules, using taxpayer dollars for political personal uses. Not a single answer is coming from their side.

The leaked document clearly shows that the Liberals are breaking the rules meant to ensure that taxpayer money isn't being used for political partisan reasons. In fact, the document sets out rule-breaking as a primary goal. Crossing the lines between government, caucus and the party is mentioned seven times in this document. For example, on page 3: "Explain and break down government silos, and share info with the party."

How does this minister justify just blatant instructions to break the rules by instructing staff to use taxpayers' resources for political partisan purposes?

Hon. J. Yap: I appreciate this opportunity to continue to talk about the great work we're doing in supporting multiculturalism. EmbraceBC, the signature program of the government of British Columbia, as I said, funded over 85 community projects, engaging more than 12,000 participants throughout the province of B.C. It's import-
[ Page 13129 ]
ant to promote multiculturalism, and this side of the House will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

H. Bains: Let's look at the pattern of behaviour of this Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, $17 million in taxpayer-funded partisan pre-election ads in the lead-up to the election, a new set of taxpayer-supported ads that started yesterday and will ramp up as we get close to the election, an $11 million taxpayer-supported awards show to give Liberals more photo ops before the election, Liberal operatives…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

H. Bains: …gaming the Burnaby Hospital consultation process for political gain and a multicultural outreach strategy with the express purpose of breaking the rules to spend taxpayer money for partisan political gain.

[1430]

The Liberals have no shame. That's clearly what is shown in their….

Interjections.

H. Bains: Can the minister offer any justification for so blatantly spending taxpayer resources on their election campaign?

Hon. J. Yap: Once again, through to the member. I'll tell you what we are doing, Member. We are supporting programs like the B.C. Hate Crimes Team and organizing against racism and hate, and the Safe Harbour: Respect for All programs. These were all recognized by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Award of Excellence in 2012.

We also will be soon publishing the annual report on multiculturalism, which will show the great programs throughout the province, including the public sector, in supporting multiculturalism.

[End of question period.]

Hon. R. Sultan: I would like to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

Hon. R. Sultan: I am pleased to present to this House a petition signed by 100 North Shore seniors asking the government to revisit the SAFER rental subsidy program.

Tabling Documents

Hon. S. Bond: I have the honour to present the following reports: the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report 2011-2012 and the B.C. Ferry Commission Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2012.

Hon. D. McRae: I seek leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statements

PINK SHIRT DAY AND
PREVENTION OF BULLYING IN SCHOOLS

Hon. D. McRae: Today is Bullying Awareness Day in British Columbia, or as you can see from the fashion choices on both sides of the House, it is also known as Pink Shirt Day. It's a day for all of us to get together and take a stand together to erase bullying for good. It's a day to teach our children about how they can prevent bullying and how they can help others from being bullied.

Today, as we recognize Pink Shirt Day, we're also encouraging youth to stand up against all kinds of bullying, including cyberbullying. We've seen all too clearly that bullying can happen anywhere, whether it's on line, at school or at the mall.

Over lunch hour today I was joined by the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. We visited Hillside Mall, with mall employees and construction workers who wore pink shirts. Middle school students from Lansdowne Middle School also joined us.

The message we heard loud and clear from everyone was that to stop bullying in its tracks, we need to involve the whole community. It's the kind of message that is getting through to people in towns and cities across British Columbia — that we're all in this together.

Bullying is an issue that has been close to the Premier's heart for a long period of time. In fact, for six years Pink Shirt Day has successfully raised awareness about bullying in schools and homes and on line, and this year is no exception. Last year the Premier announced the ERASE Bullying strategy and is putting tools in the hands of educators, parents and students to help make schools safer and a more positive place to learn.

As a teacher and as a parent, I can tell you emphatically that bullying has no place in our schools, and parents deserve to know that their children are safe when they go off to class.

That's why we're working hard to encourage students to be helpful bystanders and to intervene or speak out when they see bullying happening. It is one of the keys to creating safe learning environments, because there is a
[ Page 13130 ]
strong connection between feelings of safety and belonging and student learning.

I want to thank everyone in the House today and everyone across B.C. for wearing pink today. Thank you for your efforts to raise awareness. We're all in this together. We need to send the message together that bullying will not be tolerated.

R. Austin: Following on the remarks by the Minister of Education, I would like to say that on this day we all make great efforts to raise awareness of bullying in our school system. This year in particular we have witnessed immense tragedies that have taken their course in the public realm via social media, which in turn, of course, has brought even greater attention to the scourge of bullying.

So awareness of bullying is perhaps less of an issue. We must now, as legislators and leaders in our communities, all try our utmost to take us beyond the stage of awareness of a social ill and ramp up to direct actions — including legislation, if that will help to address this problem.

Some must be watching this event each year and asking themselves why we seem unable to raise our kids to simply treat one another with respect, and there's no easy answer or single solution.

[1435]

Certainly, one area that must be addressed is the recognition that we are still failing kids who are dealing with their own sexual orientation and the way in which kids treat this at an adolescent stage of development.

I hope that the measures the government has taken this year with the ERASE Bullying program alleviate this scourge, but I suspect that we all have a lot more to do in the coming months and years ahead to make our schools a truly safe and welcoming environment.

Orders of the Day

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

Mr. Speaker: If members could attend to their other duties so we can get on with the budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

Hon. I. Chong: I will take what few moments remaining I have with respect to the budget speech to offer some closing remarks.

I want to begin by saying what I mentioned yesterday about how budgets are composed or how they are arrived at, and that is to take a look at revenues, to take a look at expenditures.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

On the expenditures side, we know that we have a good track record of controlling spending. The revenue side is a little more difficult, because it can fluctuate. You do depend on what you believe are going to be market prices, your ability to export, the trade opportunities that are out there. So it's not easy always to determine what those are.

This year more than any year, though, it was important to ensure that the forecast assumptions for revenue were going to be accurate, were going to be credible, and for that, they needed validation. For that, we were able to ask a very well-respected economist, Dr. Tim O'Neill, to provide that information.

Dr. Tim O'Neill, a highly regarded Canadian economist, reviewed the Ministry of Finance process for forecasting provincial revenues. He concluded — this is coming from a well-regarded, highly regarded economist — that overall, the ministry's methodologies and assumptions are transparent and well founded.

So I find it interesting that the NDP opposition are making assertions that the revenue forecasts are inaccurate. I'd like to know where they're getting their information from. I'd like to know who it is that is providing them this data. Who are their validators?

Every credible person or organization that has looked at our budget, as boring as it is…. It was not meant to be an election-year budget. It was meant to be a balanced budget, as we promised we would deliver on. Every credible organization or person has validated what is in that budget, in that the revenue forecasts are believable, they are truthful, and they are conservative.

With that, a number of areas and characteristics were provided for three levels of prudence, Madam Speaker. An economic forecast based on a panel of forecasters, where we did at the end of the day take the lowest, not even the average, wanting to make sure that we were being as conservative as possible.

Another level of prudence, and that is to provide for contingencies. It would have been very easy not to have contingencies, but these are the dollar amounts that are provided for each and every year. So we had to ensure that the amount for contingency was real and was similar and consistent with past years.

Another level of prudence, and that is the forecast allowance. That, too, had to be in place because of past, historical records showing that a forecast allowance was provided for.

[1440]

What is clear is that our economy indeed will grow. It will not grow as much as we would like it to grow, because it is still very fragile out there. There is still instability in the global marketplace. But it has been recognized by everyone that our economy will indeed grow — not a large amount.

What we have done to ensure that we have a budget that is credible is we have said we will maintain our
[ Page 13131 ]
spending at lower levels or at the same levels, finding savings where we can. We will ensure that we do not spend more than what we will be bringing in. That is what contributes to a balanced budget.

I want to say that the Premier and the Minister of Finance deserve praise for this budget. It is a sober budget. It doesn't attempt to buy voters with their money. What it does is provide a very real budget, a balanced budget.

The numbers in this budget appear to be solid, as was quoted by the Vancouver Board of Trade. They found the $1.1 billion savings in government departments to be plausible. They also found — and this is the board of trade — that projected natural gas revenues were revised downward by $379 million, at the insistence or advice of that independent economist, Dr. Tim O'Neill.

With that, as I say, I would like to challenge the NDP to tell us where they're getting their figures from. They say they're going to reveal their budget. Well, I find that hard to believe, because all they're talking about is more and more spending.

I've done some quick calculations. From what I've heard so far, the additional spending that the NDP propose is anywhere from $6 billion to $8 billion. We currently have a spending budget of around $40 billion. So $6 billion to $8 billion represents anywhere from a 15 to 20 percent increase in spending. So my question to the NDP, and I'd like one of them to get up and answer this: are they going to raise taxes by 15 to 20 percent? Taxpayers deserve to know.

Now, if they don't raise taxes, where else are they going to find these dollars? My understanding is that, at last count, the provincial sales tax brings in roughly about $500 million to $550 million. But let's say, for the sake of argument, $600 million, because things have changed over the course of the last number of years.

If we were to take a look at that, and we need to bridge that $6 billion gap of extra spending, it means you would have to raise the provincial sales tax by 10 points. Is that what we're going to see? You're going to have to tell us. The NDP opposition, you're going to have to tell us where you're getting these revenues, because you seem to not want to look at the liquefied natural gas revenues. You seem not to be wanting to take a look at that generational opportunity, because your policies that we've heard thus far are about delaying that opportunity.

So we know the spending is there — unless you're going to cut spending. We've already said we're protecting spending in a variety of ministries — in fact, increasing spending still in health care.

With that, I encourage the NDP to tell us where they're going to find the money.

D. Routley: I'm continuing my response to the speech, the budget speech of 2013. I'm going to return to the beginning of my speech.

I think that after this budget speech, and should there be a change in government, one of the most difficult things facing any new government would be what to do with all of the acrobats and gymnasts and magicians that must be employed in the government at the current moment.

Of course, it takes an enormous acrobatic flexibility and considerable gymnastic skill to be able to interpret what has happened in this province this year as a balanced budget. In fact, I was reassured by the news from the member from Cloverdale that something real was delivered on budget day, and that was a baby. Certainly, the budget speech was something less than real.

[1445]

What the budget speech was, in fact, was not a budget, but it was a political narrative. It is indeed an election budget in that it is a political narrative. It seeks to allow an escape for the B.C. Liberal government from its past. Its past is one of seven out of 12 years being deficit — the two largest deficits in the history of British Columbia. In fact, in the past four years, the term of this current Liberal government, all of their budgets have been deficits.

In 2009-2010 the budget deficit was $495 million. Oh no, that's what we were told. We were told that it would be $495 million before the 2009 election.

H. Bains: Maximum.

D. Routley: Yes, maximum — not a penny more. But in fact, the deficit in 2009-2010 was $1.8 billion, from a government that would seek through this budget to create a narrative that would tell the people of British Columbia that no, they don't spend more than the government takes in. They're so prudent. They're so prudent that they had a $1.8 billion deficit in 2009-2010 after promising repeatedly in this House and throughout this province and on the campaign trail that they would have no greater than a $495 million deficit.

They were told throughout the province by everyone who had any notion of what was happening in the world that it would be a bigger deficit than $495 million. But no, they promised the voters going to an election that they would have a $495 million deficit. They knew better, and yet they told the voters that that was the case. They knew better, and that was not the truth.

Well, what happened the next year, 2010-2011? Surprise — another deficit. So each time there's a deficit under their much-vaunted anti-deficit legislation, their balanced-budget legislation, we as members representing the province are trotted in to this place. This facade is ripped down and ripped apart, as we are asked to amend that balanced-budget legislation year in and year out, coming in here in a farce, really, to allow this government its deficit.

In 2010-2011 that happened again, and it was $300 million — $300 million in that year. In 2011-2012, the
[ Page 13132 ]
third year of this current government's mandate, what happened? What was the surplus that year? It was zero. In fact, it was negative $1.8 billion again.

So in 2010-2011 it was $300 million. In 2011-2012 it was $1.8 billion in deficit. Surely the next year from this government, with its narrative that tells the province that, no, they're prudent money managers…. They're so opposed to deficits, in fact, that they've ruled them out by law, and they're telling us in this current election narrative that they've balanced a budget.

Well, what happened? What happened? In 2012-2013, the Minister of Environment will cheer that it was a $1.4 billion deficit — $400 million less than the year before. That is worth cheering, of course, because it is a bit of an improvement.

But over those four years this enormously competent government, the B.C. Liberal government, had a cumulative deficit of $5.3 billion — over those four years. Now they lurch towards an election, bleeding all the way to the finish line and telling the people of the province that they've balanced the budget.

How did they do that? Well, for the third year in a row they've claimed the benefit of the sale of the Little Mountain lands — $300 million brought forward from last year. What else do they plan? They plan to sell $600 million, roughly, of public assets, and they've booked in this year $475 million of that money.

Now, those assets aren't sold — so counting the chickens before they're hatched. So $300 million was booked last year. Now it's being brought forward to this year. That $475 million is being counted that hasn't even been sold yet.

[1450]

When Don Drummond, noted economist, made recommendations to the Ontario government about how to balance its books, he said, "Don't do two things. Don't cut from skills training" — skills and apprenticeships, which the government just did. He said: "If you're counting on asset sales to help balance the books, don't count your chickens before they're hatched." That's what this government has done. That's, together, $775 million that really has nothing to do with the government's income this year. So much for a balanced budget.

This government now prides itself as being so valiantly opposed to deficits — which it has created seven out of the past 12 years — and constantly criticizes the years of governance of the NDP as having been a time of a have-not province. Well, Madam Speaker, let's look at that claim.

One year under NDP governance the province was considered a have-not province and received transfers on that basis. Under this B.C. Liberal government in the past 12 years, five times this province has been considered have-not. So everything that B.C. Liberals have told the people of British Columbia in the past five years has essentially been untrue — from: "We will not harmonize the sales tax…." Well, that certainly wasn't true. Go further back.

Interjection.

D. Routley: You said that to the restaurant…. In writing, you said: "Oh, it wasn't on the radar."

They said it wasn't on their radar.

Interjection.

D. Routley: Right. Okay, now they didn't say any of that. I suppose the government didn't actually say it wouldn't run deficits, but it did. The government has less of a quarrel with me than with the people of B.C. It's the people of B.C. who have lost faith. It's the people of B.C. who have clearly lost faith and trust in the government. Why should they have any faith when what they've been told has been so patently untrue and so patently not the case?

Not only has the government run all these deficits, but let's look at the debt. The debt in '01-02 was $36 billion. It was 27 percent of GDP, the total debt. The total debt projected for '13-14 will be $62.5 billion, 27 percent of GDP — the same. Yet there's a little wrinkle there, because this government, through its many off–balance sheet agreements — called contractual obligations and pointed to by the Auditor General of this province as, in many cases, constituting debt to the province…. That has increased by over $80 billion — more than the provincial debt, almost double the current debt of the province.

This is what these gymnasts of financial wizardry, these magicians of fiscal prudence, these Cirque du Soleil performers of public policy have managed to accomplish over the last 12 years, the last four years being particularly dismal. Not only has it been dismally incorrect that they should claim that they are currently running a balanced budget, which is patently not the case — 12 percent of British Columbians believe, according to a recent poll, that this budget is balanced, that lack of faith obviously founded well in recent experience — but considerably more tragic is the fact that we're left in a situation where our province, in a broad way, is losing faith in the process, is losing faith in politics.

We know that liquefied natural gas is the future hope of the government. We heard in the papers just today that perhaps it's hit the bottom, the basement price, the lowest price possible. So it's not a booming commodity.

[1455]

There is a booming commodity in British Columbia. The booming commodity in British Columbia is cynicism, and it booms because of promises that have been made to the people that have not been kept. It booms because of a place like this — where we're expected to represent people with dignity, integrity and honour — being so badly mistreated by the performance of a government
[ Page 13133 ]
that has not been faithful to the people who have elected us, all of us, as members.

That is considerably more disastrous than a deficit or a debt because, as British Columbians face the challenges of the coming years, we need to be able to work together, and any government in this province will need to have the faith of the people in order to accomplish anything. So it is with an absolutely heartfelt expectation and desire that I would say to the government, and to everyone who represents people in this province in the democratic process, that we need to do better.

We need to do better than telling the people simply what needs to be heard in order to achieve a seat in the House or a seat at a council. We need to do better by telling people — having the courage to tell people — the truth about what we face. When people do that…. If this government had had the courage to do that over the last four years, they would not be in the place that they are now, so thoroughly discredited in the eyes of British Columbians.

If we are able to, in fact, generate the courage to face people and tell them what the true facts are about the challenges that we face and how we can overcome them and work together — not simply create narratives for elections that we call budgets, but actually face the problems of our communities and our province — then we will be better people, this will be a better place, and we will live in a better province again.

B. Simpson: Before I get into the substance of my comments on the budget, I want to say hello to my mom, who's watching this afternoon, and ask her not to call me this time while I'm standing and speaking. We can chat afterwards. I hope that you're feeling well, and I'm glad that you're watching.

I also want to add my congratulations, personal congratulations, to the member for Surrey-Cloverdale on the birth of his child.

It is a privilege, as the member who spoke before me said, to stand in this place and to give comment on the budget that is before us. But I have to say that I feel that this time…. I mean, I think budget debate in general, throne speech debate in general, is a partisan back-and-forth. In front of an election, it feels much more like shadowboxing in advance of the main event — in this case, on May 14.

I had to laugh as I was reflecting on my response to the budget today. Listening to question period about partisan ads and spending taxpayer money on partisan ads, it feels like pretty much every day in this place. The taxpayers are paying us to engage in partisan debate when we should be engaging in parliamentary debate. We should be engaging in debate about what matters to British Columbians, not what matters to B.C.'s two main political parties.

It is crystal-clear that in advance of an election we do not get a real budget. That's just the fact. That's just what happens because of where the fixed election date is set. It's not a real budget, because we as parliamentarians will never have an opportunity to actually dissect the budget and take it apart ministry by ministry, which is the normal budgetary debate cycle if we were not facing an election on May 14.

We would finish these political speeches, we would say yea to second reading of the budget, and we would go into committee stage of the budget. Then for hours on end over a period of months parliamentarians, legislators in this place — with the exclusion of backbench government members, unless they get special allowance — get to dissect the ministerial estimates and take the budget apart.

[1500]

It's not a real budget, and that's not going to happen, because we don't have enough time in this session. We'll probably rise on March 14, and then we're into an election in May. If there is, in fact, a change of government, this budget completely disappears.

It's not a real budget in the sense that it has to withstand the scrutiny of implementation. So when the government puts a budget together every fourth year with a fixed spring election date, there isn't the discipline to actually put a budget together that you have to live with.

We saw that crystal clear before the 2009 election. The 2008 meltdown had occurred, and yet the fiscal discipline required to address that wasn't driven into the budget because it was in advance of the election and wouldn't have to withstand any scrutiny other than some political speechifying.

The third reason that it's not a real budget and British Columbians shouldn't regard it as a real budget is that the Auditor General and the comptroller general won't get to comment before the government takes us to the polls.

I've stood with the members from Delta South and Abbotsford South, two other independent members in this House, and we have put forward what we believe is a practical series of reforms for this Legislative Assembly, to make this Legislative Assembly work better, to realize what the member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan was saying are some of our obligations in this House.

We've said that the election date must change, not for this election — this election is too close; we should go to the polls on May 14 and let British Columbians decide who is to form government next — but in order to avoid the difficult situation that a government faces in changing the election date after they've got power. Do you put it ahead six months? Do you pull it back six months? Let's make a date change now.

Editorial after editorial, individual after individual, group after group have said we should not have any more spring elections on the fixed election cycle. We should go to the fall. There's a bill in front of the House that would be very simple for the government to take, to put in front
[ Page 13134 ]
of us. The opposition members have already indicated they support moving the fixed election date. The Finance Minister has indicated he thinks it's a good idea. Let's just do it now. Let's be done with it.

I challenge every member of this House to take that back to their caucus, to act as free agents. If you believe that that is the right thing to do, go to your caucuses and demand that we bring a bill, government bill or otherwise, to this House to fix this problem now. It is the most opportune time to do it.

It doesn't advantage or disadvantage any of the political parties. It simply fixes the next election date 4½ years from now — four years and five months, actually — and makes sure that we never repeat this business of bringing in a budget that can be claimed to be false, that will prove to be false and that the electorate of British Columbia doesn't have confidence in, and rightly so.

The other aspects of the reform agenda that we put forth…. We are calling for election finance reform. British Columbians should not have to question whether or not money buys public policy.

British Columbia is one of the few jurisdictions that has absolutely no restrictions — none — on corporate, union and individual donations. We have no restrictions on residency requirements for individual donations or company donations, as we saw recently when the Liberal Party held a fundraiser in Alberta because Albertans want to influence the outcome of the B.C. election. The opposition party's response to that was that they get donations from outside of British Columbia as well.

So we believe that you need to get rid of corporate and union donations. You need to cap individual donations, and you need to institute a residency requirement so that British Columbia's one-person, one-vote principle is supported by only British Columbians giving money to the provincial political parties.

We also believe that it's necessary that there is oversight, public oversight, of the political party leadership process. It's been interesting to watch the push-back and the counter-arguments to that, because the only counter-argument that we've been given on that is that political parties are private entities and there's no business in having public oversight.

[1505]

Well, that's a ridiculous argument because the only purpose of political parties is to gain public power. And because, as we've seen on this occasion and other occasions, the NDP had the same thing happen…. You hold a leadership convention, and the individual who wins the leadership convention from a political party ends up becoming Premier right away.

Because of that, we need the public to feel confident that the members who have a right to vote in those leadership contests and the vote count in those leadership contests are aboveboard and beyond any question so that the individuals who win political party leaderships win them fairly and in a transparent manner, and then win the right to become the Premier of the province.

Quite frankly, the Leader of the Opposition has a great degree of influence in this province too. So two of the key people in this province are elected through that process. Right now that process is not without its problems and, I would say, actually lacks a great deal of integrity.

From a legislative perspective, we have also said that we need to go back to secret ballot votes for the Speaker. The Speaker, according to the standing orders, is supposed to be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly, and yet for some reason, over the last three parliaments we've slid into a habit of a speaker-designate by the Premier when he or she sets their cabinet. That really makes the Speaker a function of the Premier's office and government and not a function of the Legislative Assembly, and for people who do listen to this, that's a vital difference.

The Speaker has to be given his mandate or her mandate by all the members of the House. Every member of the House has a right to stand for nomination. Every member of the House should have the right to vote for the Speaker. By doing it that way, the Speaker becomes a function of the MLAs in this House and, I believe, is then free to make sure that we do some of the reforms that we need in here as well.

Now, that does not — and I've spoken to our current Speaker — have anything to do with how the current Speaker has acted. He has acted above reproach, and I have found him absolutely supportive of us as independents. That's not the issue. The issue is a matter of process, and we need to return to that.

I guess what the independent MLAs are doing is putting both political parties on notice that if there are independent MLAs, if there are Green Party MLAs or, potentially, Conservative MLAs in this House in the next election, we will be making sure that there is a secret ballot held for the Speaker's position. We have the right to do that because you can only change those rules by leave of the House, and we simply won't give that leave. So we can guarantee that that will occur.

The next piece on the legislative front is to move to permanent standing committees. We don't have a good committee structure. In fact, Madam Speaker, you have written on this yourself. We don't have a good committee structure in British Columbia. They are sessional committees. They rise and fall with the sitting of the Legislature. They have to be restruck. They have to be reappointed. In fact, unless they're given a mandate by government, they don't meet at all, and they don't serve a function.

Most jurisdictions have permanent committees. The minute a new parliament is formed after an election, the committees are formed. They have permanent status. They can operate independently of the
[ Page 13135 ]
sitting of the Legislature, and they can operate independently of the government giving them a mandate to act.

Permanent committees will give every MLA in this Legislature a meaningful, productive and constructive role in the governing of the province, and that's what I believe all of us come here to do. We all come here to play a productive and constructive role, and yet our committee structure in British Columbia does not allow us to do that, so we're forced to come into this chamber and play partisan politics instead of being constructive and productive members of the governing of the province.

Finally — and it's a longstanding debate of how you do this; we didn't get into that as independents — we do need to move in the direction of more free votes in this House. It is not necessary for the political parties to whip every vote. It is not necessary for political parties to exercise the degree of discipline that they do over the individual members of their caucus. It is absolutely not necessary. What it does is it diminishes the role of MLAs.

[1510]

The political parties need to figure that out. There are very few votes in this House that are confidence votes. There are many opportunities for us to be able to have more free votes and for caucus MLAs to have more freedom to act in the interest of their constituents and to act in the interests of public policy in British Columbia.

It's not a real budget. It is a pre-election budget. It will be seen to be such. Even if this government gets back into power again, I can guarantee that.

The second point is that it's not a credible budget. Now, the Minister of Aboriginal Relations made the point that it has been vetted and validated by an economist who has a very strong track record. I guess my challenge back is: how often are economists wrong? I would actually argue that if you gave a batting average to economists, they wouldn't get hired by any baseball team.

How many times do we hear in the newspaper and on the radio that the economists are surprised by this month's job numbers, the economists are surprised by how soft the economy went, or the economists are surprised how big the rebound was? Economists seem to be walking around always surprised — caught off-guard by the reality that's out there that their models don't give them.

Economists use models. They look at process. They look at procedure. That's all Dr. O'Neill did. He said that based on current practice, the practices used by this government are, in fact, valid. That's all he said — that it's a valid way to do forecasting. Does that mean the forecast is real? Not at all. Does it mean we will actually achieve the numbers in the budget? Not at all. It's not what Dr. O'Neill was signing off on. He just simply said that there's some prudence in there and that the forecast follows a reasonable process, an accepted process. It doesn't mean the numbers are real.

I also struggle these days with the dependence that we have on third-party auditors. One of my pet peeves is the Pacific Carbon Trust. I think that's a distortion of tax policy, where we claw back operating money from the public sector to benefit private sector agencies for projects that, quite frankly, would have happened without any public money going into them.

The argument I get back from the Pacific Carbon Trust and others, including the Minister of Environment, is: "Well, all the projects are third-party validated." Well, just do a scan of KPMG, Ernst and Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Moody's, all of the banks. How many of them are now in court? How many of them have court challenges against them for not validating in a way that is ethical? These are the same third-party validators that said the Icelandic banks were fine three days prior to the Icelandic banks collapsing and subsequent criminal and civil court cases proceeding against both the banks and the third-party validators.

We have a special obligation as legislators to question third-party validators. An economist signing off only on the revenue projections and only saying, "Yep, that looks like proper process," doesn't give British Columbians any comfort. In fact, the whole exercise was a failure. It was a $25,000 taxpayer failure because the explicit reason for doing that, as articulated by the Finance Minister, was to build confidence in the budget, and the poll that came out afterwards showed that no confidence was built. It was a waste of money. Again, the only way to avoid this truly is not by hiring third-party validators but by changing the election date.

I would suggest that we should revisit the concept of a parliamentary budget officer. That should be something that we should get an exposure bill on, like we saw in the Senate bill today, to float out to British Columbians whether they have enough trust in us to allow us to continue to manage our own books or whether we need a third-party validator, independent of even the Auditor General's office, along the lines of the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[1515]

So change the fixed election date, potentially at least for a short period of time, put in a parliamentary budget officer, and then we can get back to some credibility on the budget.

Then the final point I want to make on this budget, in particular: it's not a balanced budget. That issue has been canvassed. If the government wasn't already living on gaming and lottery money, I'd throw some of my money on the table and guarantee that this budget would not be balanced if the government was forced to actually live by it.

It's just too thin. It does not have a sufficient amount of leeway in it in order to accommodate even a reasonable fire season. That would eat up the contingency all on its own.

We have the nurses, the doctors, the teachers all going to go into contract negotiations. We have a very, very
[ Page 13136 ]
lowball expectation on the expense side that — oh, by the way — the external, independent accountant, economist, did not look at. The independent economist only looked at the revenue side, not the expense side. I'd have liked to have seen what he had to say about the projections for expenses.

It's not a balanced budget, but quite frankly, this is one of the areas that the NDP doesn't have any credibility on. That is, they cannot say that the government's budget is not credible when they have not stood with their own courage, the courage of their convictions, to say what an alternative budget is.

I believe, to be fair, they're in political mode. They're in election mode. They want to hold their powder dry until closer to the election. That's the way elections work. That's the way politics work.

But I think it's maybe time for us to consider mandatory alternative budgets by opposition parties, regardless of who they are — that in order for them to gain credibility year over year with the electorate, that instead of just simply criticizing the government's budget, they should be compelled to table a budget of their own each year so they can build a track record and so they can communicate to the citizens what their intentions would be and how they would govern differently with each year's budget and fiscal situation.

It's interesting that for the NDP, they seem to be of mixed minds on LNG. But on balance, the person who seems to be the one that will be designated to lead that for the NDP buys into the big lie of "LNG is going to save British Columbia."

Again, if I was a betting man, I'd bet that we're not going to get one plant or one pipeline. The numbers are just simply not there. We're too late in the game. But what that means is that we need an alternative strategy. We need an alternative that gives us a sense of what British Columbia's future holds with respect to our natural resources.

There are some interesting and telling aspects to this budget. One of the things I note that is quite intriguing is that the budget projections forward are a budget projection on PST. Now, when we were sold the bill of goods of HST, one of the members of the government said: "If we don't do HST, we'll see investment bleeding away, employment bleeding away, the diminution of municipal and provincial taxes and the consequences there." Another said the PST is "inefficient and job-killing."

What's interesting is — and British Columbians should pay attention to this — the three-year forecast in this budget shows none of that. In fact, the government is out there saying we're going to have 100 million vacancies. Sorry — a million vacancies. I got caught up in the trillion on the LNG and all that stuff, so I'm exaggerating a little.

Okay. So a million potential vacancies in a PST world — that we're going to attract all of this investment to LNG in mines, etc., in a PST world.

One of the problems we have is that political parties use economic fearmongering to justify social or tax policy and yet don't hold themselves accountable when that doesn't prove to be true. We need to stop that. It's not fair to British Columbians to do that.

In a PST world what this budget shows is that we continue to create jobs, we continue to attract investment, and our economy continues to grow GDP.

[1520]

The second thing it shows that's interesting is that the government, even with increases in taxes…. Now, this is a government that has lived on lowest tax regime in the country — getting taxes down, getting regulations down — and that in advance of an election, which the polls do not indicate they win, takes a risk with their base voters — conservatives, former Reformers, Liberals and the business community — by raising business taxes and corporate taxes.

Yet it's not enough. Even with holding expenses as tight as possible, razor-thin, and raising the revenue, it's not enough. The government is still living on MSP increases, tuition and lotteries, and it's not enough. Why? Because the real story is that, like jurisdictions everywhere, we're all living on borrowed money.

The true story of Canada is hidden, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed this out. It's hidden in the fact that we only take the federal debt against the Canadian GDP and we say we're okay. But Canada has only one GDP and multiple layers of debt and deficits. Every province, with the exception of Saskatchewan, is posting a deficit and adding to their debt.

If you roll up the Canadian GDP, it's $1.7 trillion. If you add the provincial debts into the federal debt, it's $1.2 trillion. You need to roll it up because what the federal government does to download to the provinces impacts their debt, and their debt is relative to Canada's GDP. So if we do that — the GDP numbers — the fact that we're living on borrowed money becomes clear. Then if you add into that the municipal infrastructure deficit, which, as of today, in things that must be dealt with just now, is $200 billion. That's an accrued debt.

That takes the debt to $1.4 billion against a $1.7 trillion GDP. You take student debt, which is $22 billion accrued, about $27,000 a student. You take the household debt that the Bank of Canada governor has been warning us about — the average Canadian household debt, $27,500; the average B.C. household debt, $37,200. You add to that financial debt, the social debt, the child poverty, the homelessness.

You add to that the ecological debt that's accruing. We saw last week the Forest Practices Board and the Auditor General saying that we have cumulative impacts on the land base that we don't even understand the implications of. That's the ecological debt that we are accruing and
[ Page 13137 ]
passing on to future generations.

We are living on borrowed money — all across the board. The argument of balanced or not balanced is a moot point. The bottom line is we have an imbalance between revenue and expectations of delivery of public services.

Now, it's interesting to go back to the Drummond report. It's the Ontario budget review process which came into this House prior to this budget. It was in the context of the last budget. One thing that was not reported and under-reported in the Drummond report…. They were given a mandate to try and figure out how to fix the Ontario budget cycle, which just goes deeper and deeper into the hole. But they were told they could not advise raising taxes. They could not advise on the revenue side; they could only advise on the expense side.

What Drummond did…. He said, "I can't advise you on the revenue side," but he did say: "I'm not going to talk to you about whether or not you should raise taxes." The advice he gave to government is that they and all governments need to look at taxes or revenue relative to GDP. Are their taxes and revenue relative to GDP coming up, just as the expenses are?

What he points out is we're so myopically focused on expense-to-GDP. We hear that all the time with health. Health as a percentage of GDP is unsustainable. What Drummond points out and others have pointed out is revenue as a percentage of GDP is unsustainable. Revenue is declining as GDP goes up, and expenses are coming up. That's unsustainable. That's the problem. That's called a structural deficit, and every economy — with maybe the exception of China, although that's a question now — is living in a structural deficit because there's an imbalance between revenue and expense.

[1525]

Drummond pointed out there's not much room on the expense side in Ontario. I would argue the same is the case here. You have to look at the revenue side of the equation. This government did some of that. The next government has a huge problem because they've built up entitlements for fixing some of the health care, education, etc., problems that are out there.

We need to talk about revenue and expense, and I would suggest that what we need is a conversation with British Columbians — a real conversation with British Columbians — on that.

I note that my time is almost up. In closing, what I'd say is that we have a situation here where we're just shadowboxing in front of an election. We need to stop that. We need to change that. Again, I challenge all of the MLAs to stand for something in this session. Let's together change the election date so we don't get into this shadowboxing after the next election.

I would also challenge the political parties to take the choke collars off their MLAs and allow MLAs to become more parliamentarians than politicians.

I think that after this election, whoever forms government, I wish them well because the challenges confronting them are going to be phenomenal. But I think British Columbians are ready for a conversation about balancing revenue with their expectations for public services.

I think we can rebalance that. We can get out of structural deficit. British Columbians need to moderate their expectations of government, but they also need to be willing to pay more if they want more. That's a conversation that's worth having. It's a conversation that would allow us to come into this House and put real budgets forward that actually deliver good public services with the right tax balance.

Hon. B. Stewart: It's a pleasure to rise today and speak in support of the 2013 balanced budget, which I know is supported by members on this side of the House. I strongly support this balanced budget's family-first agenda.

The budget reflects the reality that our province has not been immune to the economic challenges of recent years. But I think it's important to recognize that despite these challenging times, which many of our members and the members opposite have spoken of, this government is still strongly committed to rebuilding a strong economy, creating jobs and providing all families in British Columbia with safe communities, top-quality health care, a solid education and an exceptional standard of living.

This budget fulfils the government's promise to balance the budget in fiscal 2013-2014. The plan contains key elements that will enable the government to move to a surplus of $197 million from a projected deficit of $1.2 billion in fiscal 2012-13.

Revenues are projected to grow by an average of 3 percent per year, while expenses have been contained and are expected to grow at about half that rate, resulting in surpluses, as I mentioned — $197 million in the coming year, $211 million in the following year and $416 million in the fiscal year '15-16.

Prudent debt management. We've got to talk about that for a minute here. One of the benefits that this government in the past 12 years has provided is literally billions of dollars in savings by making certain that they executed and delivered on their expense controls and making certain that we delivered balanced budgets in the times when things were much better than they have been in the last 3½ years.

What has happened is that the government has worked on its restraint program. B.C. government ministries have freed up over a billion dollars, about half of which has been allocated in this coming year or this budget cycle to increase program funding and refundable tax credits for the government's family-first initiative. Over a decade of prudent fiscal management has worked in B.C.'s favour, as I mentioned.
[ Page 13138 ]

I can't help but think about the record of the opposition. When I look back on some of the things that…. You know, eight consecutive deficits. That contributed to a deficit that this government took over in 2001. We are still paying interest. The bottom line is that the government is sitting down, and it's hamstrung by the fact that the interest cost is something that doesn't go into services; it goes into interest and debt-servicing.

[1530]

For the member opposite that's talking about the deficits, I can read them out to him if he'd like to know: $2.3 billion in '91-92; in '92-93, $1.5 billion; in '93-94, $900 million; in '94-95, $230 million; in '95-96, $320 million; in '96-97, $385 million; in '97-98, $170 million; '98-99, $1 billion.

Honestly, the deficit that we are still servicing is some of that overspending. That's really all that this government has tried to do. It has tried to live within its means. An integral part of prudent fiscal management is knowing that we must find ways to find the revenue to pay for the services that we expect as British Columbians. That's why I know that the modest increases to things like the corporate income tax rate and MSP are necessary to keep our economic books balanced.

You know, we talk about MSP. Almost a million British Columbians either have it reduced or pay nothing for their MSP. That's something that this government is responsible for making certain of — that for the people that are least able to afford those premiums, it is not a hardship. So 800,000 of those British Columbians will pay nothing for their MSP premiums.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the economic and revenue projections contained in this budget have received a strong endorsement from a former chief economist at the Bank of Montreal, Dr. Tim O'Neill.

One of the things that I mentioned briefly a minute ago is this government's record on spending. It brought in balanced-budget and accountability legislation to make certain that government was incentified to make certain that ministries not only brought their budgets in on target but, the fact is, were encouraged to deliver savings and return that back to the treasury.

On the revenue side we've seen the volatility. I'll quote in a minute here about some problems that are happening in a neighbouring jurisdiction — about revenue forecasts and some of the challenges they face. But Mr. O'Neill has reviewed the budget and has concluded that it is built on sound processes and the effective use of private sector outlooks and incorporates prudence by adopting a cautious economic forecast that reflects the global uncertainty and risk.

Now, while other jurisdictions are postponing balanced budgets to later years, we are in the enviable position of having a balanced budget and are in a much better place than most to manage the ongoing global volatility and uncertainty.

I mentioned about other jurisdictions, and I read to you from a recent press release put out on budget day in the province of Alberta:

"'Alberta is dealing with rapidly falling resource revenues, and it means we're making some tough decisions,' said President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance Doug Horner. 'Our government is leading by example, with a slimmed-down cabinet, an 8 percent MLA pay cut'" — on their $156,000 that they currently get paid, slightly more than in B.C., by a third — "'and a pay freeze for MLAs. Today we are taking action on management salaries.'

"The management salary freeze covers opted and excluded government employees. In addition, the province has identified nearly $600 million in savings across ministries. The Redford government has also accelerated the results-based budgeting process, which challenges every dollar government spends."

Alberta is now forecasting, for its deficit in 2012-2013, between $3.5 billion and $4 billion. Now, that's a province that…. We talk about the blue-eyed sheiks in Alberta. I think about the fact that they have a lot of resources. They certainly have a number of problems — high growth rates and things like that. But these things that I mentioned here, which the minister has only brought to light in the last two weeks, are things that this government has been practising for a decade.

The reality is that this government has shown leadership where other governments haven't. That's the reason that we're getting to balanced budget in 2013-2014. Making tough choices to achieve savings allows us to invest in what matters most to British Columbians — job creation, maintaining a quality health care system, providing top-notch education to our children and having access to affordable health care.

Within the balanced budget government is bringing new measures to benefit B.C. families and help make family life more affordable. Every family with a child turning six on or after January 1, 2013, meeting the basic eligibility requirements will qualify for a one-time B.C. training and education savings grant of $1,200. This can go towards post-secondary education.

[1535]

We've been investing that thousand dollars in savings for every child born in this province since January 1, 2007. Those are real dollars.

You heard the Finance Minister talking about the power of savings. A contribution by families of just $10 a month will add another $4,500 in that child's lifetime before going to post-secondary education, and $50 would add up to an amount, which I think he quoted, of somewhere around $12,000. It is an amazing power when you put your mind to it. The government is trying to demonstrate that by getting these RESPs set up for these new British Columbians.

As I look around at my colleagues, I see many parents and even some grandparents amongst us, including myself. I'm sure that we can all agree that child care costs add up fast. So over the next three years we're going to invest in an additional $76 million to improve families' access to quality early learning and child care supports.
[ Page 13139 ]
This includes $32 million for child care spaces, an additional $37 million dollars to improve the quality of child care and early-years services, along with $7 million to improve coordination of early childhood development programs and child care services.

This is on top of the government's record of adding 320 StrongStart centres across British Columbia and all-day kindergarten introduced for approximately 38,000 children. These are huge and powerful investments we've made in education for children, and we want to make certain that we have the best outcomes. We don't just say it. We deliver it.

Starting in 2015, we will invest $146 million in a new provincial tax credit that will provide up to $660 a year to help cover the cost of child care in B.C. for children under the age of six. Approximately 180,000 families will be eligible to receive that benefit. This budget also includes $81 million for the seniors home-renovation tax credit and $27 million for the children's fitness and art tax credits over the next three years.

We're putting together another $13 million towards the ongoing renewal of single-room-occupancy hotels to improve the quality of life for some of the most disadvantaged citizens here in British Columbia.

Recently I reflected on some comments made by the member from West Vancouver. He commented about taxes that people are paying. In 2001, under the NDP, an individual earning $20,000 would have paid personal income taxes of $752. Doesn't sound like a lot. Today, under the B.C. Liberal government, that individual's tax bill is only $81.

A low-income couple earning $40,000 in 2001 under the NDP would have paid $793 in personal income taxes. Under the B.C. Liberal government today, that couple pays zero. A family of four earning $70,000 under the NDP paid $4,300. Yes, that's $4,300 in taxes. Under the B.C. Liberals today, their tax bill is around $2,200.

Low taxes, putting it in the hands of the lowest-income earners, is what we've said. We're helping with children. This is a government that cares. As a parent of three kids and a grandparent of three other granddaughters — Ruby, Ginger and Hazel — I understand the importance of taking time for our youngest learners.

This government takes health and well-being of students seriously, and B.C. is leading Canada in one of the most aggressive student health initiatives in the country. We know that students who are physically active do better in school. That's why, over the next three years, this government will be providing the $27 million I mentioned for the children's fitness and art tax credits. There's also $18 million for the recently announced Creative Futures initiative that will help increase youth participation in the arts.

We are investing $1 million to help ensure that students have access to healthy foods they need for optimal growth and development. As a former Minister of Agriculture, I have to tell you that it's great to see B.C. fruits and vegetables in our schools. I know that our hospitals make that a priority, as well, in their purchases.

The successful sports and arts legacy program, which provides more opportunities for youth participation, will receive another $20 million, the same funding allocation it has had since its inception in 2010.

[1540]

Investments in health care and education are key to the success of British Columbians.

Let's talk about health care for a second. Health spending is expected to rise at about 2.6 percent per year over the next three years. That doesn't sound like a lot, considering the increases that we've been accustomed to in the last decade, but that's still an additional $2.4 billion from the provincial treasury, that 2.6 percent.

I'm pleased to see that Kelowna, which has become much more of a regional centre in terms of its health care operations, is receiving the capital investment for the new Interior heart and surgical centre — in addition to the recently opened Kelowna General Hospital Centennial tower, along with the new Polson Tower in Vernon, the improvements in Kamloops. They're going on across this province in every community that has health centres or hospitals.

I know that there are a lot of priorities and a lot of people saying that we need new this and more of that, but the government is getting to it. We're expending a massive amount of capital across the province to make certain that we have the health resources that people expect.

We are very aware of the huge need for trade professionals in British Columbia today and in the very near future. The need for skilled trades also has presented itself in my own industry. It's quite a different industry than it was 25 years ago, when I first, kind of, was just a dirt farmer, as some of the people I worked with said.

Being a former orchardist and grape grower, I have to say that the need for having people that understand the challenges in even agriculture…. The skills they need to be globally competitive are so different than they were before. The reality is that we are desperately looking for those types of people that understand accounting, soil science. The fact that we need people that are doing trades….

Even myself, I took welding and construction at Okanagan College to make certain I had a good grasp of things that I would need around the farm — besides the fact that I had to be the bookkeeper, the general manager and hire all those other professions that go along.

Today we really do count on the college for people on our hospitality side to make certain that people are well trained, that they're welcoming. They understand what it really takes to make certain that we not only make a great impression but that we retain people that come here and visit.

We have to make better wine, and that's a real chal-
[ Page 13140 ]
lenge. It's not like there isn't a lot of wine being made in the world. Frankly, making better wine every year is the goal and what should be the goal.

Across all sectors there is that challenge of the global economy that is making it important that we do have improved skills for people that are coming out of our schools, or even available. Recently in a discussion with the deputy vice-chancellor at UBC Okanagan, Deborah Buszard, we talked a lot about how we're going get people that really understand and can catapult the British Columbia wine industry into a place that is enviable for people that are trained here.

I have the experience of having a son, Kitson, who went off to New Zealand to get his training to become a winemaker and is now back working in Canada. I don't want to see that happen for other families. I'd like to see them trained here in British Columbia.

I'm thrilled about the investment we've made at Okanagan College. The president, Jim Hamilton, and Deborah Buszard, UBCO's deputy vice-chancellor, and others with the leadership at those two institutions in the Okanagan are getting directly involved in the skills shortage we have right now — even in my own industry, as I mentioned.

We are now one step closer to helping fill the skills shortage gap. There is a planned post-secondary capital investment in 2013, including expansion and renovation of the trades-training facilities, I believe built in 1965, in Kelowna at Okanagan College — desperately needed. Other communities — Penticton; Vernon; other centres that have colleges, like Northern Lights in the Northern Rockies, across the province — are all making huge investments in training for skills that we need, workers that are going to help build British Columbia.

Take the mining school up in Smithers — a great example of someplace that is working on skills training for an area. Who would have thought Smithers would be the mining capital of British Columbia? There are more diamond drilling rigs out of….

Interjection.

[1545]

Hon. B. Stewart: It helps if you have a bit of local knowledge.

These investments will more than double the size of the current complex at Okanagan College, providing much-needed student space and innovative classrooms for trades and technology programs.

This government is going to be investing more than $10.4 billion on taxpayer-supported capital projects over the next three years, and $95 million is being invested in the Okanagan Valley transportation corridors. These projects also will mean more jobs for highly-skilled trades professionals in the Kelowna area.

I'm particularly proud to say that this government is maintaining a steady course to protect the important services we deliver to the public. As Minister of Citizens' Services, I am committed to continuing to provide leadership across government for the effective delivery of public services and meet the needs of citizens, businesses and clients. My ministry acts as the key conduit between government and the people of British Columbia. We are responsible for service delivery, technology, access to information.

Shared Services B.C. is responsible for providing a wide range of cost-effective services in infrastructure to ministries and government organizations. As a reliable caretaker of the provincial real estate technology and purchasing services, we strive to provide innovative, integrated and sustainable services at a lower cost.

The entire ministry is committed to meeting and exceeding last year's service levels, with a budget that has been reduced by $5.3 million. Savings have been found through innovative new policies like leading workplace strategies, which see government workers adopt flexible working models, saving on an office and the infrastructure cost by having them in bricks and mortar.

In the last year we have put more than 1,000 workers in that situation, and they work from their laptop and walk around and have access to offices that are shared, rather than having dedicated offices.

My ministry also includes the integrated workplace solutions division, formerly known as B.C. Buildings Corp, which has the responsibility for the overall management of the government's real estate portfolio. I know staff there are working hard to support the Ministry of Finance's initiative to release surplus assets.

I know the minister spoke about empty fields and parking lots that aren't really creating any economic activity. We've identified a number of them. Really, after we've gone to ministries to make certain that there is no future use in other ministries for these properties, we dispose of them as a normal occurrence. But the fact is that we've identified and taken a very aggressive approach in making certain that we're not sitting on surplus assets.

The planned expansion of our LNG resources will require digital infrastructure to be developed at the same time as the physical infrastructure. My ministry is ready to work with partners and stakeholders to make sure that our on-line capacity doesn't lag behind our physical capacity.

Another goal of this government is to provide high-value services that are secure, protect personal privacy and are easy to use. The Minister of Health and myself introduced the new B.C. Services Card just a few short weeks ago. It combines health care cards with drivers' licences in the province at no additional cost. It protects valuable personal information with the latest anti-forgery features.

As well, it will reduce identity theft. By reducing the number of health care cards in the system, we will be able
[ Page 13141 ]
to better control costs and reduce fraud while providing better and faster health care services.

You know, it's this innovation…. I think people in other provinces have recognized British Columbia for the fact that we have continued to innovate and find different ways of delivering services. The staff and the people that work in Citizens' Services are really second to none. It's recognized across the country as being one of the most innovative, internal government ministries.

We are committed to speaking with citizens about the ways they want us to use this new form of identification — for example, maybe to vote on line, to register for government programs. We will continue to work closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure identity and privacy security concerns are the cornerstone of the new CareCard.

This budget continues to support our commitment to expand connectivity in rural and remote communities in British Columbia. I'm pleased to say that that is one area where we have done a tremendous job. In the last ten years we have grown from an 80 percent on-line connectivity to 93 percent.

[1550]

Internet access. I think that most of us, especially sitting here in the capital region, couldn't imagine not having the Internet and access to it. Internet access helps people access information services, especially when they live in rural and remote communities — the people that are least likely.

Today 93 percent of British Columbians have access to high-speed Internet connectivity, and that number continues to grow as more and more communities receive high-speed Internet connections on a regular basis. Citizens continue to benefit from the last-mile Internet connections made in B.C.'s rural and remote communities through investments via the connecting citizens grant program.

We have just recently committed another $2 million over the next five years to help connect citizens in the most remote areas. You can look forward to news on the announcement of this in the coming weeks.

This will allow people that are in those areas where satellite connection is really the only option…. They will be given a priority to be able to make certain that they can access connectivity, which brings us 3 percent closer in that gap to getting, by 2020, 100 percent connectivity across the province.

We are creating new economic opportunities for families by working with the private sector and other levels of government to expand connectivity into communities while at the same time improving cell phone coverage along provincial highways, resulting in significant improvements in public safety by making it easier for motorists and residents in these areas to contact first responders more quickly.

Through the work we are doing with our partners, the new cellular coverage has been installed on hundreds of B.C. highway kilometres, with over 1,000 more kilometres to come.

This year my ministry is focused on leveraging the strategic telecommunications and exploring new solutions to increase connectivity to places in B.C. where traditional service is completely impractical. This will help the province to achieve its families-first vision, to capitalize on the opportunities presented by technology, to be a gateway to open government and data and to deliver quality services to citizens.

It is also important to mention that we are supporting First Nations in their efforts to close the gap that exists between aboriginal people and the rest of the province when it comes to broadband Internet connectivity. Today 170 out of 203 First Nation communities have broadband connectivity. It's not 100 percent, but we're working hard with ANTCO and Ruth Williams to make certain that we bridge that gap, and our partnership with the federal government is stronger now than it has ever been.

NetWork B.C. will continue to support First Nations as they connect and bring them on stream. Connecting communities is essential for the delivery of our services. It improves access to health care, education and economic opportunities.

Our connectivity objective is also about supporting education in B.C. My ministry is a partner in a program to bring fast fibre optic connections to schools like Anne McClymont primary school and Hudson Road Elementary in my own hometown of West Kelowna. Replacing old copper wiring with fibre optic connections means schools will be able to take advantage of the best learning opportunities that the Internet can supply and offer.

Since July of 2011 over 180 schools have already been upgraded, with more to come. As of February 21 we are at 185. We look forward to working collaboratively with local community groups, all levels of government and the private sector, including small Internet service providers, to achieve an ultimate goal of 100 percent connectivity across the province.

We recognize that the Internet has changed the way that people communicate. By using new technology, we can better reach out to the public.

This brings me to open government. The Premier has committed that this government will change the style and approach to governing. The open government platform agenda is about a different way of governing. Our Open Information and Data B.C. websites, which are up and running over 3,000 data sets on line, support ministries and the public, providing leading-edge tools and information that let them operate in a more open manner.

We want to hear directly from people. We want to make British Columbians know that we are not only listening, but we're acting on what we hear. We are providing and enabling citizens with opportunities to influence
[ Page 13142 ]
and improve policies that impact them and their quality of life. In order to continue to do that, we will continue to make government information more open, outward-facing, more accessible to British Columbians.

[1555]

Lastly, Service B.C., one of the cornerstones of British Columbia, the government agents that are out there in every community. I guess I should give a shout-out to them if they're watching today. The Ministry of Citizens' Services is responsible for Service B.C. Whether you're in Atlin, Stewart, Ashcroft, in every corner of the province it's the front line of service delivery to the public. But it's also changing.

Our B.C. government agents are the professionals when it comes to the delivery of services to the public. I've witnessed many of these firsthand in my tours across the province — the B.C. Service centres.

The government agents and their staff deliver a number of the front-counter services to the public, and they are always helpful and friendly. They help people with a variety of services, whether it's a new driver's licence, registering for the Medical Services Plan, getting income assistance or needing assistance in finding a job. I look forward to an opportunity to visit even more of the Service B.C. centres across the province.

They combine the services of various ministries, depending on the communities' needs and making a one-stop shop for government service. For instance, one centre may combine ICBC and the Ministry of Social Development and housing, while another may see court services integrated with services with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. No matter what the agency is inside, signage outside greets the clients in 12 different languages, welcoming people of diverse cultures inside to access many services.

I am proud of the government's record on sound fiscal management. We are building on that foundation. With this budget, we are being proactive at keeping debt affordable and returning to balanced budgets in the year 2013-2014. I look forward to the year ahead, the future opportunities and the many accomplishments we will achieve.

Balancing the budget means managing taxpayers' money with respect. The way we are going to do that is by focusing on growing the economy, not growing government. We all know from the opposition that they don't believe in balanced budgets. They don't understand the importance of seven credit-rating downgrades.

K. Corrigan: The member opposite just said that we don't believe in a balanced budget. We don't believe this is a balanced budget.

I'm going to start, first of all, because I probably won't have an opportunity to respond to the throne speech…. There are a few things I want to say about some people in my community, and I'm going to do that now.

First of all, I want to thank the wonderful constituency assistants I have — Cate Jones, Caitlin Meggs, Isaac Vallee and Angela Liu.

Caitlin Meggs is not technically my CA anymore because she had the audacity to decide that she wanted to go to law school and travel to India. So she has been doing that the last several weeks, and I wish her well. The problem is that when you have excellent staff, as we all do, sometimes they make decisions to take other directions in life, and they don't stay with you forever, unfortunately.

Here in the Legislature, a wonderful legislative assistant — Heidi Reid. I've had previous legislative assistants who have been wonderful to work with, including Susan Vasilev and, of course, another one, Erich Nahser-Ringer, who decided that he was going to pursue a masters program. So we lost him as well. He was wonderful to work with.

I also want to thank the many volunteers in my community that come and volunteer in my office to help serve the community — a diversity of constituents who come and help me serve the diversity of the community that Burnaby–Deer Lake is.

I also want to thank my dear husband, Derek, husband of — I've lost count; I think it's about 37 years now — a long time. Oops. Can we cut that part? I thank my dear husband, Derek, and my family for supporting me these past four years and my wonderful now adult children, Sean, Darcy, Patrick and Kelsey.

It's hard for families, particularly a spouse who gives up a lot of time with their partners. We all know that in this work that we do. So it's a sacrifice for everyone.

[1600]

I would also note that I have four grown adult children and no grandchildren, and that's a hint.

I also want to recognize that I have five colleagues who are retiring this year. They're all wonderful colleagues, and I will miss them all. I hope to be back here, and if I am, I will be sad that they are not here.

I particularly wanted to mention the members for New Westminster and Coquitlam-Maillardville. We have had a wonderful women's caucus who've really enjoyed each other's company and all become very good friends. I will truly miss those two members who are part of that women's caucus.

I also want to pay a little tribute today to somebody who died recently, on October 25, 2012, and that is Jim Lorimer, who was a former member of this House and cabinet minister. He was born in the city of Victoria, this very city, in 1923. He was a proud veteran and, of course, a veteran of provincial politics as well, representing the predecessor to what is my riding now. He was in Burnaby-Willingdon.

[D. Black in the chair.]

Jim and I both shared politics and law. When I gradu-
[ Page 13143 ]
ated from law school and after I articled, I came and worked in partnership with him and my husband, Derek, in a little office on Kingsway before I stayed home and raised children for a long time. And then Jim came back to the Legislature. He was, of course, part of the great Barrett legacy of 1972-75, years that brought us the agricultural land reserve and ICBC. Jim played a major role as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and of Transport, doubling the transit system and introducing the SeaBus.

Closer to home, of course, Jim Lorimer oversaw the transfer of the Oakalla Prison lands back to Burnaby for park use — and that's been a wonderful addition to our community — and the expansion of Burnaby Hospital.

And Jim, we could use you now in that regard.

It's also a great deal of pleasure representing Burnaby–Deer Lake, which is a community of great diversity, both economically and ethnically. There are dozens, literally dozens, of languages spoken in my riding, and it makes the community a rich and vibrant and very successful place. I often think: "Who but a politician gets the opportunity to walk through so many different doors and do so many different things, meeting so many people of so many backgrounds?" Who other than a politician gets to do that?

I do want to thank the many people who have walked through the doors of my office to volunteer and all those people who have come in looking for help navigating the provincial government. I hope we've been able to help many of those people, and I think we have, over the last several years.

I also want to talk about and congratulate the many organizations in Burnaby–Deer Lake and throughout Burnaby that make our community a very well-run, very well-integrated, caring and, I think, very well-balanced community — organizations like the Burnaby Board of Trade, led by CEO Paul Holden and president Leza Muir. It's a dynamic and innovative board that recognizes that in order to have a well-functioning economy and community, we need to address issues like homelessness and to recognize the critical role of early childhood education and environmental sustainability.

At the board of trade it's heartening to have people like Bala Naidoo of Investors Group Financial working side by side with Jeanne Fike of the non-profit Burnaby Family Life, or Frank Bassett of Electronic Arts working with Dennis Nokony from the city of Burnaby on the environment committee. I want to thank the many businesses that support the board of trade and our community: the Hilton Vancouver Metrotown, A.B.C. Recycling, Ritchie Bros., Encorp. The list goes on and on.

In addition, we are very lucky to have diversity in the faith community of Burnaby. We have a very strong and vibrant Ismaili community, an Ismaili community that contributes in so many ways in our community and certainly does great work through the Aga Khan Foundation. Right now, in fact, the Aga Khan Foundation and the Ismaili community are working with the city of Burnaby to create one of their wonderful parks that they're famous for throughout the world.

[1605]

I think that the Aga Khan and the Ismaili community have recognized that places like Burnaby, and Canada generally, celebrate plurality, which is one of the foundational principles that the Ismaili community operates under.

Of course, there are mosques and churches — all matter of faith organizations in my community.

We have great educational institutions as well. Many people know that I was on the Burnaby board of education for nine years. That was a wonderful time, and I got to see how well local boards of education deliver the K-to-12 public education system. Of course, K-to-12 education is a jewel and, I think, the most important public service that we provide. We prepare all children, hopefully with the same access and same opportunities, for the chance to get ready to do well in life. I think it's the most important function that we have. The board is ably chaired by Baljinder Narang at this point, and they continue to do a great job.

I also want to congratulate Simon Fraser University and President Andrew Petter. It was again ranked, I think for the fifth straight year, as the best comprehensive university in Canada in the annual Maclean's magazine rankings. That's quite an honour.

In addition, of course we have in my community the wonderful BCIT, B.C. Institute of Technology, which has, until very recently, been under the very able leadership of Mr. Don Wright.

I also want to spend a couple minutes talking about a very positive thing that I have been involved with in this Legislature over the past several months, and that was working on the committee to review the use of conducted energy weapons. Most people would not know what that meant, but they're Tasers. That came about as a result, of course, of the terrible death of Robert Dziekanski and the Braidwood report that ensued, which made many recommendations about the use of Tasers, the training of officers and so on.

This committee was struck to review the progress in terms of implementing the recommendations of Mr. Justice Braidwood. I have to say that it has been a pleasure working with the Chair of the committee, the member for Saanich North and the Islands. I do have to give credit to the Ministry of Justice, particularly police services division, for all the work that they have done, working hard to implement the recommendations of Mr. Justice Braidwood.

That report will be coming to the Legislature in a very short period of time, and I will have a chance to talk about it more at that point.

I've served on another committee this year, and this was not nearly so satisfying and positive. I served
[ Page 13144 ]
on the Committee to Appoint an Auditor General. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to speak publicly about it, partly because it's not appropriate to speak about deliberations that happen in a committee. I haven't done that, nor will I do that.

Of course, the report was tabled and received in this Legislature, which is non-debatable, but it went no further. So here we sit.

I do want to say that the work of the Auditor General is critical. The throne speech and the budget set out what the government's priorities are for the use of taxpayer dollars, but the work of the Auditor General is to determine whether those plans are working, whether there's an effective use of taxpayer dollars and to ensure that government is performing well — whether it's accountable and whether or not there is transparency.

I have sat on the Public Accounts Committee for the past several years and witnessed what I believe is the very excellent work that has been done by the Auditor General, John Doyle. Every single report recommendation that he has made, except one, was accepted by the Public Accounts Committee and government, and even that one recommendation that was not accepted ended up being implemented. I think that's a pretty impressive record.

Unfortunately, it was clear over the last while that this government did not want Mr. Doyle here anymore, because, I believe, of the uncomfortable truths that Mr. Doyle, in his role as Auditor General, was uncovering, and case after case of Liberal mismanagement and, in the Basi-Virk case, corruption.

[1610]

There is much more to be done. I'm sorry that we are losing the Auditor General, but I am pleased that he intends to complete some important files, including the signing off of the books of the province, before he leaves.

When talking about the importance of the work of the Auditor General, in reflecting whether or not the money that has been allocated in budgets is being used well…. I want to talk about some of those reports. For example, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee, and one of the reports that came before us…. This one hasn't been before the committee yet but has been published. It's the JUSTIN report, an audit that reveals security flaws in JUSTIN, the province's computerized criminal justice system.

The JUSTIN system is a database which includes very sensitive information about what witnesses and trials are going to say, what their evidence is going to be. The Auditor General found that there were huge deficiencies, many of which, he said, are too sensitive to even include in the report. He pointed out, with the publication of JUSTIN:

"In 2008 my office reported the results of an audit into the management of access to the corrections case management system called CORNET, which also identified security flaws. The failure to apply recommendations from the CORNET audit to systems like JUSTIN leads me to question the quality of IT leadership and governance around criminal justice information."

In the report on the environmental assessment office, he said, when talking about projects in the province:

"The environmental assessment office is expected to provide sound oversight of such projects. However, this has not been happening. The audit found that the environmental assessment office cannot assure British Columbians that mitigation efforts are having the intended effects because adequate monitoring is not occurring and follow-up evaluations are not being conducted. We also found that information currently being provided to the public is not sufficient to ensure accountability."

Again, when we are talking about budgets, we are talking about the plans to spend the money. But it is just as important to review later whether or not those moneys have been spent effectively and whether those moneys have been well managed. What the Auditor General found over and over again was that they were not. He had concerns about accountability, and he had some concerns about transparency as well. Similarly with the Coroners Service report, which I remember coming to the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago.

Finally, the tree farm licences report, which dealt with tree farm licences 6, 19 and 25, which he said were approved without sufficient regard for the public interest. The decision, he said, was not adequately informed, was based on incomplete information, and so on and so on.

I think the Auditor General did uncover some uncomfortable truths about the running of this province. Frankly, I think that is probably the reason why there was not much appetite on the other side to reappoint him, which is very unfortunate.

I would like to turn to the budget at this point. We like to call it…. It is a bogus budget. After four consecutive deficit years we have a budget which purports to be balanced, but in fact it is balanced on the basis of one-time asset sales, unsustainable cuts to vital public services and accounting manoeuvres.

[1615]

I want to give you an example of one of the pieces of property that is on the list, I believe, of the asset sales. The list that was published by government included what was described as a large vacant lot in Burnaby.

I believe that the only piece of land that fits that description and that is owned by the provincial government is a piece of property that is at the corner of Willingdon and Canada Way in Burnaby. This is the piece of property where the government tried to impose a prison, without any consultation, about four years ago now. Now it seems to be on the list for sales of lands that are going to be sold with this fire sale of assets.

Now, I'm not, and I don't believe anybody from this side of the House is, opposed to governments prudently buying and selling real estate. If it's done for the purpose of improving, of buying property that needs to be used for government purposes or if it's sold in a way that is part of an overall plan of good management, I don't have a problem with that. But what I'm worried about is that these lands, including the land that is in Burnaby,
[ Page 13145 ]
are simply being sold as part of a desperate attempt to supposedly balance the books just before a provincial election.

For that piece of property, which is a large piece of property — I can't recall, but I think it's in the area of around 40-plus acres — there are so many possibilities. And I think that with good cooperation between the province and the local government, the city council, there are huge possibilities.

It's not just in terms of what could happen on that piece of property, which is a jewel in Burnaby, next to BCIT and close to a high-tech business park, but I think there are so many possibilities of things that could happen there. So not just in terms of what kinds of projects could go there but also economically, I think there are great possibilities. I think that land, if there is cooperation, could benefit the people of British Columbia to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I think it's very shortsighted to suggest that the government should just sell off the land.

I am very concerned about this, the fire sale of property by the province. One of the reasons I'm concerned is that I recall another piece of land that is in Burnaby. It was the Fair Haven property.

Several years ago that piece of property was sold off by the provincial government. I know that the city of Burnaby wanted to purchase that property, offered to buy the property and were turned down. It was sold to somebody in the private sector for housing development — nothing the matter with that. But the price it was sold off for was less, by several million dollars, than what the city of Burnaby had offered the province. With that kind of track record, when we have asset sales of $800 million done in a big hurry in order to balance the books, I have real concerns about it.

One of the things that I've seen happen with asset sales by this province before, by this government before, is that sometimes the asset sales or contracts are posted for four or five or six weeks, and that is no way to get the best money for assets that we have. I'm very concerned about that.

I'm also concerned that this budget, this bogus budget, is being supposedly balanced on the basis of what are clearly unsustainable cuts to public services. I'll give you an example. Essentially, there has been a cut to what was planned for the health care budget this year, compared to what was in last year's budget, of $230 million. Now, health care costs have been rising at the rate of over 4 percent a year, and this budget would equate to very serious cuts to health care. That very much concerns me, and there's a whole bunch of other areas as well.

[1620]

That's essentially $233 million, and those are services. You cannot make those kinds of cuts and suggest that there is some kind of administrative savings, which is what this government constantly talks about. The public services in this province have been cut to the bone. To suggest that we can simply…. It's another one of the words that the members from the other side of the aisle just use continually — administrative savings. Well, they're not there. It means cuts to real services to real people.

Talking about using your dollars wisely in the health care system, Burnaby Hospital is in my riding. It is a very important medical institution that the people of Burnaby treasure. It's where my four children were born. It's where my mother and father received much medical care and where they both passed away.

It matters a lot to people in Burnaby. We believe, in Burnaby, as people across the province do, that health care delivery needs to be fair and effective and that the decisions that are made about service delivery and allocation of resources be made in an unbiased way that is based on the best use of public dollars and in the public interest.

That is why I was so very disappointed to learn that leaked documents planned — and then did, as it turned out — to use the hospital, use my community hospital, as a political ploy to gain seats.

The thing that is most shocking to me about it — or one of the things; there was so much in that leaked document that talked about their plan to unseat me and take other Burnaby seats — is that they said they would create this bogus committee headed by Liberals. That's interesting. I'd forgotten about that. Brian Bonney, who is much in the news today, was deeply involved in that plan as well — the plan to use Burnaby Hospital to gain seats.

The plan was that they were going to talk about Burnaby Hospital, building a new Burnaby Hospital — which is a wonderful thing — but they were doing it entirely for political purposes, which was certainly confirmed by the sentence in the leaked letter that said: "This would keep the issue ours without committing dollars and buy us time to do some polling and confirm this is a winning issue."

In other words, what Brian Bonney's and others' plans were was to use Burnaby Hospital — not necessarily commit the dollars but use discussion in this fake committee that they were creating — in order to try to win some seats, with nary a consideration about what was best for health care in Burnaby.

I find that terribly, terribly disappointing, particularly against the backdrop that this was in a hospital where over 80 people had died from C. difficile or in deaths associated with C. difficile and that we were in crisis in Burnaby Hospital. That was very cynical, and it's a very unfortunate thing.

But having seen what has happened today…. There is a leaked document that indicates that, again, Mr. Brian Bonney is involved in a plan by government to use taxpayers' money in order to get the Liberals re-elected. It's to use not only taxpayers' money but to use the resources
[ Page 13146 ]
of government, the employees of government. I think it is a good example — there were a couple of good examples there — of why it is that people have had enough of this government.

In addition to the decrease in what was allocated to health care spending, there's also a planned 50 percent decrease in programs for adults with disabilities, a $35 million cut to forest health, a $7 million cut to victim services, legal services and emergency services. The latter are services that…. I am the critic for some of it. It's the Justice Ministry.

[1625]

It very much concerns me that we have an announced plan for renewal of the justice system while at the same time there is talk in that renewal, in the documents that have just been released in the last day, about the importance of victim services, the importance of improving the justice system. How can you possibly do that when you are at the same time cutting the prosecution services, court services, legal services and, very importantly, victim services?

We know that when we're talking about victim services, very much we are often talking about services to very vulnerable women and children.

Madam Speaker, I am coming close to the end of my time, I'm sure. This budget is a bogus budget based on sales of government assets, false profitability at B.C. Hydro — which I haven't even had a chance to talk about, another public accounts fiasco that I would love to have talked about — unsustainable cuts to health care spending, unsustainable cuts to CLBC, cuts to Children and Families and cuts to the justice system.

It very much concerns me, but I'm looking forward to the fact that the people of B.C. will get a chance to pronounce on this budget on May 14.

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. R. Coleman: Since this is my first opportunity, I will reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege about the remarks of the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake.

Debate Continued

Hon. D. McRae: I am pleased to take my place today in February of 2013. This is my fourth time to stand, actually, in the Legislature since being elected in 2009 and speak either to the budget or the throne. As always, we want to make sure we acknowledge the people who are most important to us.

I would like to just start the remarks by first mentioning my wife, Deanne. As of this year we'll be married for 18 years. She is obviously a huge part of my life and allows me to do this job representing the citizens of Comox Valley. I miss her very much. It is tough being away, but it's also one of the things that we came to understand when we went into this — that it was going to be a bit of an experience for both of us. I want to thank her publicly very much for her support.

Also my two children, Gracie and Chloe. Gracie is in grade 4 this year at Puntledge Park Elementary or Ecole Puntledge Park, and she's probably working right now as we speak on her science project on light. I need to get home this weekend to help her on that, because I committed to doing that. I think we have at least four hours of cutting and pasting to do.

My other daughter, Chloe, is three this year. Actually, if you think back to November of 2009, there was an all-night legislative sitting, and I got to miss it because my daughter decided that she was going to be born that day. I was able to take a phone call, leave the Legislature, get home. [Applause.]

Thank you very much.

Chloe has been excellent ever since. I don't like to brag about my children too much, but both Gracie and Chloe, amongst their many talents…. I don't mean this in any disrespectful way to my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale, behind me. My children — and I won't brag about many things — do sleep through the night and have slept through the night for most of their lives, and that has made my life that much better. They are absolutely outstanding young girls, and I look forward to watching them grow up and seeing what they become.

It's also important to recognize the Comox Valley. The Comox Valley is, I think, one of the jewels of British Columbia, which makes it one of the jewels of North America. It is a place that is very vibrant. It has a lot of opportunity, a lot of experiences that people can either come and move here and enjoy or come and stay for a weekend and enjoy. Obviously, we're doing something right because we are the fastest-growing population on Vancouver Island and have been for a period of time. Because of this fast growth but also because of the confidence in the Comox Valley, there are a lot of opportunities there.

I'd like to acknowledge one of our really important institutions. Mount Washington is a recreation institution. We are blessed to have Mount Washington in the Comox Valley. Once again, they have had a very good year of snow. The residents have been enjoying the opportunities for outdoor activity, but we've also seen residents come from Alberta and beyond to make sure they enjoy their quality of life in the Comox Valley. Every so often they even share their investments, and that allows us to have vibrant restaurants and other activities.

[1630]

We're also very lucky, in the Comox Valley, to have CFB Comox. The approximately 1,300 or 1,400 men and women who work at CFB Comox, both uniformed members and civilian members, are absolutely essential to the Comox Valley. It has been there since the 1950s,
[ Page 13147 ]
and it has been excellent in terms of a cornerstone of our community.

The base commander, Jim Benninger, is leaving us this year. Base commanders sadly only get to stay with us for about two years, and they move on to other opportunities. Jim has been a great representative for CFB Comox, and I wish him well in his future endeavours.

Attached to CFB Comox — and perhaps many members in this building here have had the opportunity to visit it — we have the YQQ, where we have the civilian terminal. It's a terminal that just actually a couple of weeks ago celebrated its tenth anniversary. The community came together and made sure that that facility was built.

As of this year, we are seeing about 310,000 passengers a year travel through our small community's airport, travelling to work and for pleasure. Last year alone growth was in the 4 percent range. When you think about it, as we come out of the Great Recession of 2009, anytime you see growth in air travel for a community it is impressive. YQQ is very ably managed and run, and the volunteers are outstanding. It has allowed us to have a special opportunity there.

Now, the other person I'd like to say thank-you to, as well, is North Island College in the Comox Valley. It's been a great institution, one that has been around my entire life. It's evolved during the period of time in the last 20 years. I think a lot of credit for that goes to the previous MLA before me, and that was Minister Stan Hagen.

The college is a great institution. It provides university and skills training and because of that young people either come to the Comox Valley or they decide to stay in the Comox Valley and receive a great, quality post-secondary education. It's one that benefits not just the Comox Valley but allows them to stay on the north Island if they so desire. Because of that, we've actually been able to retain younger people maybe to our advantage, in terms of as the institution grows, so do the courses.

The president of the college, Jan Lindsay, is going into retirement this year. I wanted to wish Jan all the best as she goes forward into new endeavours and with her grandchildren to play with and look after. She's been a very solid leader for North Island College. She's done a great job and has been a great north Island spokesperson and advocate. We will miss her, but she's done a great job and deserves her retirement.

One of the things in the Comox Valley that we're kind of proud of right now is St. Joseph's Hospital. St. Joseph's Hospital, just recently — last Friday, as a matter of fact — celebrated 100 years of serving the residents of the Comox Valley and the north Island. The 100 years is impressive by any stretch.

I was very pleased. The Premier happened to be in the Comox Valley last Friday, and she was able to participate in the celebration. We had about 150 young and old individuals in the building celebrating the past and celebrating the future.

I'm sure many people in the building know that this province has committed to building new hospitals in the north Island, one in Campbell River and one in Comox Valley.

St. Joseph's is pondering its future. I know the Catholic church, which owns and runs the hospital, wishes and desires to stay in the health care business in some form or manner. I'm really excited that the opportunities that that partnership — with the Catholic church and government — as they go forward, will provide services for the residents of Comox Valley and the north Island and make sure that we maintain and keep our great quality of health care.

As well, since I spoke last in this House, this budget, I've changed portfolios. Some members of this House may remember that last September I changed from Ministry of Agriculture to become Minister of Education. It's been an absolute pleasure, though I do miss the agricultural portfolio, by many means. The people, the products, the stories and the opportunities were absolutely great to be part of.

As Minister of Education I have been rather busy. I think it's important to read into the record some of the opportunities I've had as Minister of Education to basically support our education system in the province of British Columbia.

Just to name a few. Just recently I was in Surrey in the riding of Surrey-Cloverdale where we announced the project for Clayton North secondary. As many members in this House know, Surrey is growing rapidly, and we need to continually invest in Surrey. So as we have done many times over the last 12 years, we are making sure that projects of importance are happening. I look forward to seeing Clayton North as it goes forward.

[1635]

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: I must admit I didn't hear my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Tynehead in the back there. I know, my good colleague, you are entering into another stage of your life soon. While you've been a tireless advocate for Surrey, I must say that one of the things I'll remember, as Minister of Agriculture, for the rest of my life was our two tours of Barnston Island — your pride in your community, your willingness to advocate for your community, and also to introduce me to parts of the community that many MLAs perhaps never get a chance to see. Your constituents will miss you as MLA, and I will miss your advocacy for Surrey in this House. I wish you well.

Let me go back to my tour of projects that I've been privileged to work on. James Park Elementary replacement school. Just recently I was in Port Coquitlam and I had the opportunity…. The member for Coquitlam–
[ Page 13148 ]
Burke Mountain was there. We celebrated the official opening of the James Park Elementary School, a great school. I've had the opportunity to visit it twice. The principal and the staff there are really top-notch.

My colleague from Vancouver-Fairview, also known as the Minister of Health…. I had the opportunity to attend L'Ecole Bilingue, where they're doing a seismic replacement project — $15.2 million to replace a school that was built the same year, I believe, that the Titanic sank. We're talking it is a 100-year-old school as well. Again, this school has served its community incredibly well, but it is a tired building. The students deserve better, and I'm pleased that this province is investing for the students and in the area.

One of the most exciting opportunities I had as Minister of Education was to attend a school opening in Port Edward. Now, most of us in the Legislature may not know where Port Edward is. It's a small community outside of Prince Rupert, but a very proud community, a community with a lot of opportunity and potential going forward as well.

Like many communities in British Columbia, it is seeing decreasing enrolment. The school they had was definitely oversized for the size of the community and definitely for the number of students they had. But the community didn't want to lose their elementary school. So working with the municipality and working with the province, we were able to partner together and make sure that Port Edward not just had a school for this generation of children but for generations going forward.

It was a testament to this government's willingness to invest in education and also in this community's willingness to work hard, find solutions, advocate for its needs and make sure that it's going to be a vibrant community for many, many years.

The other project we had an opportunity to attend was the Belmont and Royal Bay secondary announcements. Now, as a Minister of Education it is by far my biggest announcements that I had to do this year. It was, between the two projects, over $88 million to open up two schools in a fast-growing area of Victoria, or the capital regional district — schools that are definitely needed. I was pleased to be there and open those.

Now, I don't want to go into the other schools and take a huge long list, so I won't mention in great detail that I had the opportunity to open Alberni District Secondary. I was there at the Lord Kitchener Elementary official opening. Burnaby Central Secondary School was opened earlier this year. Carson Graham was one of those great….

Oh, hello. I see the member from Burnaby here who was also at that opening. The school definitely is a huge asset to your community and one that I think will be a treasure for the students today and well into the future. So well done for your advocacy there as well.

I also had the opportunity to visit Carson Graham. Why did I visit Carson Graham, you may ask.

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: Why, hello. One of my colleagues from the North Shore. You might remember I was in the….

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: Oh, there are two colleagues of mine from the North Shore.

You might remember we were there to open Carson Graham. Carson Graham I've known a very long time as a student, as a teacher, as a rugby coach. Their rugby program was always one of the best in the province. Their students are outstanding, and I think it's a testament to the MLAs in the area, so thank you very much.

You know, as I look over to see my colleagues in North Vancouver, I can't help but glimpse my colleague from Kamloops and…. Oh, we have done something for Kamloops as well — the Nor Kam Secondary trades expansion program.

As many people in this House know, skills training is absolutely so important. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson was there advocating for his community, saying: "You know what? We need to have regional trades training in our area. It's absolutely important. We have great economic opportunity. We want to make sure the young people in our community get a chance to get a great education but also get the skills they need to support the industries and the jobs that are coming in our area." So I was very pleased that we had the announcement for the Nor Kam Secondary expansion program.

[1640]

But I will mention the other ones. For example, Begbie Elementary School in Columbia-Revelstoke, or perhaps at a smaller level but one that's no less important, Giscome Elementary, where in Prince George–Valemount we had the modular school announcement. We had opportunities for very small communities but very important communities to make sure they maintain some academic education institutions within their community. I was very excited, and I know that the community was obviously strong advocates for the resources there. So I was very pleased.

As Minister of Education — even though we are in the waning stages, hopefully, of the Great Recession of 2008 and '09 — the opportunity to keep investing in the public education system in communities large and small — in the Lower Mainland and rural British Columbia, on the Island, in the Interior…. It has been an honour to make sure we've had these opportunities.

These are only the projects, actually, that I've been able to announce since I became Minister of Education about six months ago. For those of my colleagues who I haven't
[ Page 13149 ]
had a chance to work on projects with there, I look forward to doing those in the near future.

Now, if you've heard my speeches in the House before — and I know many of you look forward to them on the opposite side — I know that you often will remember that I spend a little time…. I think it's really important to have context, and it's really important to have an understanding of where we are not just as a province or as a country but to look at the world situation.

I am so pleased, though I will admit that B.C. needs to continue to work on some of its economic issues. We're still coming out of our recession. Then you look across not just Canada but the world and see some of the situations they're facing — some of the struggles, some of the choices they're forced to make — and I'm so pleased that we are in such a better place.

I see my colleague across the way from Revelstoke is in the chambers. I was just talking about how I was so fortunate….

Deputy Speaker: Minister, may I please remind you that it's not appropriate to mention who is or who is not in the chamber and the members. Thank you.

Hon. D. McRae: My apologies.

I am pleased to say that I was talking, well, about Begbie View Elementary, which I think you have been advocating for and have been a strong supporter of. It's held up…. Revelstoke is definitely a leader in education in British Columbia. There's no doubt about it.

I was also very pleased to give a Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal to your retiring superintendent, whose leadership was not just solid for your district but shared with other districts across the province of British Columbia. She will be missed in education, but her legacy will be long there. So well done to your retiring superintendent and your district.

Now, back to where I was going.

The world situation. It is still not easy in the world economic situation. If you look around, especially to Europe…. The eurozone is obviously still majorly important in our economic cycle.

In fact, just the other day you saw, perhaps, if you were reading the news, that they were talking about the Italian elections. The Italian elections actually had an impact on our stock market earlier this week because there was some surprise as to who was perhaps going to win that election.

British Columbia, with its small population of 4½ million but a large land mass and great resource potential, still is at the whims and concerns of global economics and global politics. It's sad to say that this year the eurozone economy is expected to shrink by about 0.2 percent.

If you look at certain countries…. Spain has unemployment over 25 percent — absolutely devastating to that country. If you look at Italy — 11 percent unemployment. Youth unemployment in Italy is about 35 percent. Youth unemployment in Spain is over 50 percent.

We can also talk about how we measure how our nations and provinces are doing when it comes to economic strength. Debt-to-GDP ratio is obviously so important. Greece last year obviously was in a horrible place, and they are still in a horrible place today. You look at Greece, with its debt-to-GDP ratio of 144 percent. Italy — 126 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.

Only three nations in Europe are expected to run a surplus this year: Sweden, Estonia and Hungary. Obviously, of all of the nations in Europe, this is not that many. It is still recognized as a challenge.

The other thing, too, that we often don't talk about is the taxation rate that many Europeans are facing. You talk about the value-added tax in Europe, one you don't see in Europe because it's actually embedded into the price.

I was talking to a friend of mine from Ireland just a little while ago, and he was reminding me that in Ireland the VAT is 22 or 23 percent. You don't see it in the price of the goods you buy, but it is embedded into the cost. In the U.K. it's 20 percent.

It is obviously very expensive to live there, and he was lamenting some of the extra costs. In fact, in Ireland they're actually talking about a new tax which is rather controversial. I'm sure the members around this chamber know that Ireland has a long, long tradition in education. They're actually talking about introducing a property tax for the first time in the country's history to deal with some of their economic woes.

[1645]

You think, when Alberta is floating the idea of, "Should we consider a PST, potentially…?" Imagine how it would be as a politician floating the idea of introducing for the first time in history a property tax in Ireland.

But obviously, while Europe is important, one of our most important trading partners is the United States of America. Their debt-to-GDP ratio in 2009 was about 54 percent. They've still been struggling to come out of the economic recession. It's about 73 percent this year.

Their economy is expected to grow, but again, they're at 8 percent unemployment. A national debt of $16.5 trillion — not billion, not million — is absolutely devastating. The new words "fiscal cliff," which has become part of our vernacular, is sadly because of the American economy and some of their struggles there.

I was just reading an article the other day about California, a place that many of us have perhaps visited. It was quoting Gov. Jerry Brown, who proclaimed just recently that California now has enough cash to pay its day-to-day bills. It is no longer a failed state.

This is a situation, obviously, which British Columbia is not in. It's not there because we have had — I don't know where the quote came from — "good, strong fiscal prudence," not just this year and last year, but we have done so for the last 12 years.
[ Page 13150 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. McRae: The previous Finance Minister. Why, hello. I think I mentioned you already before in my speech. I won't turn around and acknowledge you anymore.

The reality is we're in a position that other nations, other provinces, other jurisdictions could only dream of being in. Again, we still have our struggles in this province — there's no doubt; we continue to do more — but we're not facing the uphill struggles that some of these other states, countries, even provinces are facing.

Now, one of the things that I think we're very proud of — it was mentioned in the throne speech and also the budget speech — is British Columbia's diverse economy.

As many of you know, in 2001…. I remember reading textbooks as a teacher but also as a student back in the '90s and in the '80s talking about how important United States trade was with Canada and with British Columbia.

By all means, I do not want to belittle that. We are so fortunate to have a good, strong trade and relationship with the United States of America. But in 2001, as has been stated earlier, 70 percent of the B.C. trade was with the United States. That was definitely to our advantage in terms of…. As their economy did well, they wanted to buy the goods and services that we had as a province, and we definitely prospered partly because of that.

But you cannot put all of your eggs in a proverbial one-trade basket. I think it's so important — whether you're a business person, whether you have a retirement plan or whether you're a province — to make sure your trade or your portfolio is diversified.

In 2012 I'm pleased to see that the pie graph has changed quite dramatically. Nowadays, if you look at a new pie graph of where trade happens, 45 percent of trade right now from British Columbia is with the United States. Well, 18 percent of trade is with China.

Many of you wonder: "Well, that's quite a bit." And it is. The reason it is, is because MLAs, ministers from this government, have decided to do something that other provinces perhaps did not have the foresight to think about. That is to build a relationship, one that does not happen overnight, and make sure that we recognize our strengths and make sure that we actually have an opportunity to use and visit some of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

You look at China. Its economic growth this year, by China's measure, is rather slow — 8.2 percent. There have been years where it has been in double digits. It is still a growing economy, one with the large middle class. Let's not forget India — a 6 percent economic growth this year.

It has in both countries…. As people well know in this chamber — one billion people in each country. The middle-class opportunities there for the individuals in the country and us as a supplier to these countries are absolutely unprecedented. I think we are so lucky to make sure we are positioned — in terms of goods, services and relationships — to grow that relationship and make sure that our people, our jobs, our industries can grow and prosper because of the work that was done by this government, the ministers who've gone before.

I believe that the Minister of Forests, or the iteration thereof, has visited China at least seven or eight times in the last ten years. That's because you understand that you have to build a relationship. Again, in the last 11 years we've increased trade with China by 600 percent.

[1650]

It's not just China we're working towards. Trade with Japan is obviously very important as well. Their demographics have changed dramatically. You look at China. Their population is growing rapidly. Their middle class is large. Japan's population's demographics are causing some contraction. But they are still a very vibrant and very strong economy, and 13 percent of our trade is with Japan.

Just this year alone, our trade with India has increased by 60 percent. We are knocking on the door of India. We're going in, we're visiting, and we're recognizing that there are goods and relationships that will benefit both nations. I'm so pleased to see that we have a Premier, a government, ministers and industry that recognize that India is an opportunity that will benefit both parties — Indians who live in the nation there and British Columbians who wish to welcome the opportunities that exist. I am so pleased.

Now, one of the things that does puzzle me…. I'm just a high school teacher, so I'm not going to pretend to be an economist with great insight. But I will say this. There's still a lot of volatility in the world markets. I think it's nowhere more obvious than when you look at some of the concerns that are coming out of our friends to the east in Alberta.

They've been so blessed to have natural-resource wealth for a very long time, whether it goes back 100 years ago with farming to oil and gas today, obviously. But some of the budget issues they've seen with the changing price of oil and how it has affected their budget — that's been a challenge. One of the advantages that we've had in this province is that we recognize that a diverse economy is a strong economy. You want to make sure you don't have all of your revenues tied to one source.

You probably — the members opposite, just like my colleagues as well — know that the opportunity with the B.C. jobs plan is looking to areas of strength so that we can grow our economy — one that we are globally competitive in, one where we can make sure that there are opportunities for our industries to grow and thrive. And yes, the natural gas opportunities, which I'll talk about in a little bit, are absolutely important, but things like agriculture — outstanding — forestry, international education.

Actually, let me just pause at international education. In British Columbia we've seen a change. I mentioned
[ Page 13151 ]
Japan's change in demography recently in my speech. Well, in British Columbia we've also seen very much of a change. The reality is that families are not as large as they once were.

If you look at the numbers, in 2001 compared to today, there were actually 66,000 more students in our K-to-12 system. There are a lot less students that are out there. Schools and districts are making choices. One of the areas that we weren't doing in the past that we are doing today — which I think actually has a lot of value in terms of multiculturalism and strength for our schools — is international education.

I wanted to speak, if I may, on the benefits of having what we call foreign students or offshore students come to British Columbia and spend some of their education time. Right now in British Columbia we have about 10,000 students in the public education system, K-to-12, learning English, getting some level of education in the province of British Columbia. They're enriching the lives of the students and the schools where they visit.

Some districts have embraced this and have hundreds and hundreds of students; other districts on a smaller scale. The thing is that they're playing to their strengths.

There are some communities in northern British Columbia that I've talked to, and they've had an opportunity to invite young people, whether from Asia or Europe or South America, to come. They get to spend six months or a year living in rural British Columbia, maybe living on a farm, maybe with horses, maybe with the opportunity to ride ATVs.

They also get to learn English, and they get to actually have an opportunity to see a side of British Columbia that many British Columbians don't even get to see. The experience that they have here and the relationships they have here are ones that they will have, I'm sure, for the rest of their lives.

It also allows some schools and some districts to have more flexibility by having students coming from overseas and spending time in our public school systems. Maybe they have to make some choices. Maybe they don't need to close a school. Or maybe the principal says: "You know what? We can offer different electives because we have a larger student body base."

That's something that I've been very pleased for. When the students come, not only do they come, but oftentimes they will have their family come and visit them as well. So we definitely get the value of them coming and spending their tuition dollars in British Columbia, their board dollars as they stay with maybe a host family in the province, but maybe their mothers and fathers or aunts and uncles will come and visit them as well.

And perhaps after they spend some time in British Columbia and realize what a great public education system we have in the K-to-12, they'll realize that there's huge value in staying in British Columbia and actually maybe pursue a post-secondary career here as well.

Many students actually make that transition. They decide that they might do their grade 11 or grade 12 year here in British Columbia, and then what do they do? They maybe go on to a college or a university, and they get their training here.

[1655]

Sometimes we get the benefits as they decide to stay in Canada. Maybe they marry. Maybe they just decide to get a job. We get an opportunity of a well-educated person.

Sometimes they choose to go back to where they came from. When they do that, there's a relationship there that they've forged with their friends and the families that they stayed with, and that will be a benefit to British Columbia and British Columbians for years to come. I think it has been an absolutely great, great investment.

Now, when we talk about the budget as well, I also wanted to just touch on a couple of pieces here. You know, health care is obviously so important to the province of British Columbia. I must say thank goodness that decisions were made in the early 2000s that allowed us to grow the economy of the province of British Columbia. It is so important, when you think about it. I think the provincial budget in about 2001 was about $25 billion. Well, as we go forward, we're going to look at a budget of $44 billion in the province.

We've grown the budgets of many, many ministries. Health care has been one example. We have added billions of dollars to health care over the last 11 years. We've grown it from, I believe, about a $9 billion budget in 2001 to, in 2012, where over $16 billion is invested in health care. I'm very pleased to say that by 2015 we'll be investing over $17 billion in health care. We continue to add new money to such an important institution.

We've done so — how have we done that? — by keeping taxes low. This government recognizes that when families get to keep dollars in their pockets, they get to make choices. They get to make investments. They get to use that wealth in their community. I think it's important that we realize that if you look at a senior couple in 2001 making $40,000 a year, they paid $793 in personal income tax. This year, 2012, they would pay — making $40,000 a year — nothing. The senior couple gets to keep every dollar they earn.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. D. McRae: Madam Speaker, thank you so much. I must say I'm so pleased this government has presented a balanced budget 2013.

Deputy Speaker: I want to remind members that the Chair has given a great deal of latitude in speaking today. We are debating the budget. I'd just remind members of that.

H. Bains: It always is a privilege — indeed, it's an hon-
[ Page 13152 ]
our — to stand up here and speak about issues that are important to my constituents and issues that are important to British Columbians. I cannot say how fortunate I feel I am for the fact that my constituents, who have put their confidence in me in the last two elections, gave me the opportunity to speak about issues that are important to them, their families and their community.

I think as I start to speak about Budget 2013, I will speak more in detail about the budget. I have a great deal of difficulty in accepting that it is a balanced budget, and I'll lay out some of the reasons why it cannot be believed to be a balanced budget.

Our Finance critic, from Surrey-Whalley, spent quite a bit of time explaining why this is not a balanced budget. I also would like, on behalf of my constituents, to make a point of what's missing in this budget and how we cannot believe that this is a balanced budget.

Before I do that, I just want to say that since the last session here in 2012, when we left here in May, we've also seen growth in our family. My son Kulpreet and his lovely wife Parveen gave birth to a beautiful son, Brayden — both Rajvinder and I are so blessed; this is our second grandchild — who is joining his older sister Rhianna, who is thrilled to no end every day. Now it's eight months since Brayden's birth. She still is the one to protect him, and there's no way that anyone could go near Brayden without her permission.

[1700]

I just want to ask the entire House here to join with me to give my son Kulpreet and his wife, Parveen, a sense of congratulations on the arrival of their son Brayden.

As this term comes to a close, I would like to reflect on the past eight years. It has certainly been a high point in my working life to serve the people of Surrey-Newton. The city of Surrey has many things to be proud of as the fastest-growing metropolis in Canada. I'm proud to be part of that growth.

It is the spirit of inclusion that makes Surrey such a wonderful place to live. I have been part of many cross-cultural events and initiatives in Surrey that bring cultures together — sometimes in times of need, to raise aid for good causes, and often to simply celebrate each other's important events, whether it be Christmas, Diwali, Vaisakhi, Eid or lunar new year.

The opposition MLAs and I have pressed this government on numerous occasions to protect our seniors living in manufactured homes. We have introduced several private member's bills in this Legislature to adequately protect people from park owners who develop the land right out from under them. This government has not ever responded.

Serving my constituents, we have made many accomplishments together. With the residents from Seacrest manufactured home park and other manufactured home owners in Surrey, we were successful in working with Surrey city council to turn down a redevelopment and rezoning proposal that would have left many people homeless. Some residents of this home park had lived in this location for 50 years or more. This is the only place that they know. They are close to all amenities — doctors, grocery stores, hospitals, etc. Some of the residents would have had to go from their lifelong home at Seacrest straight into a care home.

Manufactured home parks are a vibrant microcommunity. People know each other and check in on each other. This type of living enables seniors to live independent longer, relieving our health care system and precious funding.

On another occasion my office was contacted by some residents of Cedartree apartment building because the landlord was attempting to increase the rent, in some cases more than 67 percent. We were successful, with the help from Newton Advocacy Group Society, to go forward with a group hearing at a residential tenancy office that the landlord did not have grounds to raise the rent.

Over the years my office has had a very successful working relationship with the city of Surrey. Many individuals approach our office with municipal concerns on request. I worked with city hall, city staff, to solve issues that people face in a community.

There have been times when crime escalated in our parks and neighbourhoods. Surrey RCMP have always been very approachable and willing to get involved, to get advice and help people through these situations.

Surrey school district is dealing with its own issues. Our school district is growing by 1,200 students a year. This growth has put a strain on our infrastructure and maintenance of existing schools. Even under these extraordinary conditions, the district has been more than helpful with issues brought to us by constituents.

Our city is stepping up. On the other hand, our provincial government has been downloading hundreds of thousands of dollars onto the backs of our city — carbon tax, transit funding, etc. Since 2001, over the years this government has cut funding for essential services to our seniors, people with disabilities, children and families, injured workers and our students. This takes hundreds of dollars out of the average family budget.

The service fees have increased on everything from medical services premiums, driver's licence fees, carbon tax, ICBC rates, B.C. Ferries rates, tolls on bridges. Then they brought in the HST when they promised they would not.

[1705]

This government's priorities are wrong. They can find money to cover the cost overrun to put a new roof over B.C. Place. They can certainly find money to spend to cover cost overruns for the new convention centre. The 2010 Winter Olympic security that jumped from $175 million to close to a billion dollars — they found money for all of that. But they could not find money to deal with the overcrowding in our Surrey schools. Seven thousand
[ Page 13153 ]
students are in portables right now.

Public transit and to deal with child poverty — there's no money for those. There are shipping jobs now that are being shipped out from our marine industry. The latest — our SeaBus contract has gone to Singapore, robbing our workers of good, sustainable employment. Not only that, it's a huge missed opportunity for our young workforce, who are missing out on the opportunity to upgrade their skills and training through apprenticeship. That would be the opportunity.

The Premier was boasting how they brought the federal jobs to British Columbia, when they had nothing to do with it, and how it will have a multiplying effect on our economy. But when their turn came to keep jobs here, to build the SeaBus here with B.C. tax dollars, what do they do? They ship it out. That's the history. We have seen raw logs being shipped right out of our province at an alarming rate, and British Columbia sawmills are laying off workers because they cannot access logs.

I was speaking the other day to Teal-Jones, local sawmill operators. They create good jobs for the local economy. They had to shut their mills down for the last five weeks because they cannot access the raw logs. In the meantime, logs are being shipped out from our neighbourhoods here. The minister is actually overstepping and overruling his own committee, which says that the logs need to be kept here because they do not meet the access test. But the minister, over a hundred times, has overruled the same committee. That's their record.

I think people are starting to say: "What are we becoming?" We are becoming somehow a we-cannot-do province. We need to change that. We need to turn that around.

Raw resources and manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas are not the way to create job opportunities in British Columbia. British Columbians want a change in direction. Concentrate on our people, the families that are finding it hard to make ends meet because of added expenses due to service fee increases, tolls and higher property taxes. It is the people that need good-paying jobs so families are sustainable in our province.

We need to provide opportunities to improve our young people's skills and training and post-secondary education. This is what we need in this province. We do not need to listen to expensive prime-time ads telling us what a great job this province is doing.

On the transportation side, I've been working on this file for almost four years now. Our overall transportation system in British Columbia — for public transit, highway infrastructure and road maintenance — is in neglect and is in need of immediate attention.

This government has broken its many promises to expand public transportation services south of the Fraser, and nothing in this budget addresses that. Right now arguments can be made that we could use hundreds of new buses just south of the Fraser to meet the demands of today's population — but nothing in this budget.

The government is now saying that the regional mayors are responsible to find solutions to fund these services. At a time when we are asking people to consider public transportation and leave cars at home to alleviate road congestion, this government is forcing people into their cars because there are no viable means of public transportation.

This government's handling of TransLink funding is a cause for concern. Better governance and bringing the regions, municipalities and mayors into decision-making are key issues for long-term, sustainable transit funding. It still makes sense to use some of the carbon tax money to help fund public transportation.

Incompetence and mismanagement are rampant when you look at any of the projects that they have handled lately. Port Mann Bridge shows more incompetence by this government. This government chose to make the widest bridge — they boast about it — in the world without thinking through the consequences of how the bridge will perform under all weather conditions.

[1710]

We've seen what happened last winter, when within a month of opening we saw over $200 million of damage because of the ice falling from those cables. That kind of protection was listed. It was in the contract to provide provisions so that the ice and snow does not accumulate on those cables, so that it does not fall on cars and trucks underneath. But guess what. We paid for it, but we didn't get that in return — again, mismanagement and incompetence, no doubt.

The Golden Ears Bridge is an indication that this government is also out of touch of the needs of British Columbians. For more than five years the taxpayers have been on the hook to subsidize a private contractor because of wrong assumptions made. People are not using the bridge, and the government guaranteed a minimum traffic flow.

In Surrey we do not have a reasonable free alternative to cross the Fraser River. The only alternative is the Pattullo Bridge, which is aging and at capacity and bottlenecks on both sides. The infrastructure is not there to support additional traffic.

British Columbia highway road maintenance — there are issues as well. I get phone calls on a daily basis. Also, when I travel in the Interior, the road conditions are not what they should be and what we are paying for. We have 29 private contractors all around the province to provide the maintenance of our roads. It's the government's responsibility and the minister's responsibility to make sure that those performance standards listed in those contracts are met, and many people are phoning us that they are not.

ICBC is suing one of the contractors that deals with Coquihalla maintenance. That just shows that people have lost faith, that the work needs to be done. This gov-
[ Page 13154 ]
ernment needs to ensure those performance standards are met. They're obviously not being met. That's the record of this government. They're not governing for the last few years. They are basically campaigning.

Now I want to go over the SeaBus contract that this government allowed to be shipped out. When the federal contract came to B.C. — Seaspan — the Premier and the minister used some calculations. They were using a calculation, a 1.8 to 1.9 factor when it came to creating additional jobs, the indirect jobs. It's also the factor that they used for how much it will add to the economy.

Using those numbers but keeping the $27 million contract for the SeaBus here in B.C, you're looking at $21 million in additional benefits to British Columbia, and never mind that it would also have provided the opportunity for our workers to upgrade their skills and training through the apprenticeship program. Those are some of the overall views of what's going on in this province.

Let me go back to the budget, why I believe that it is not a balanced budget. It's not a balanced budget, I say. I agree when people call it a bogus budget. And 72 percent of the population, when they were polled, don't believe this government either. They think it's a bogus budget. These are the reasons. It relies on one-time asset sales, accounting tricks and unsustainable cuts to vital services. It concocts a budget that is balanced on paper but hides a large deficit in reality.

It's a bogus budget — 2009 all over. We all remember. I think the members opposite remember what happened in 2009. The Premier would stand up and say that $495 million would be the maximum deficit in the 2009 budget, but in reality it was close to a $2 billion deficit. That's what we found out after the election — $2 billion. As a result, the HST was rushed in and brought on when they said they would not.

[1715]

They are cashing cheques on $800 million, a one-time fire sale of assets, before the vast majority of those sales have been made. There are properties in Surrey that were purchased for a reason. The government had foresight back in the late 1990s. Properties were purchased because it's a growing community. They recognized that, but this government somehow does not see it that way. This community is going to grow even further. We all know that, and they know that. It's no surprise to anyone, but we're selling assets right now that would be needed for future services for that growth.

The budget 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 when none actually existed. That's why it's a bogus budget.

The Liberals have also used accounting tricks to move expenditures out of their bogus budget and into other years. They also moved revenue into their budget from other years to show that there is a balanced budget. That is not a balanced budget.

They also deliberately underestimated the cost of many programs in order to make the budget balance. When the money runs out, just as 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 is now pegged at $235 million. It's less than projected in previous budgets. This will result in cuts across the system. Madam Speaker, if you think there are problems in Surrey Memorial Hospital today…. People have to go and line up and stand and wait in the emergency ward for six, seven or eight hours, sometimes longer. What will happen when they don't get the increase in resources that they need to meet the growing demand of their community?

I think it is a huge issue for Surrey. I think people are worried. I can tell you that people do not believe that this is a balanced budget, and I agree with them.

Let's talk about one of the issues in Surrey, and I have touched on it. There are 7,000 students in portables right now. It's not that the government didn't know of the growth. Since the 1990s Surrey has been growing at a rate of 12,000 new citizens. They knew it. It was planned. Right up until 2005 and 2006, budgets were approved for addition to the schools. Since 2005-2006 not a single dollar was approved for capital projects for Surrey schools — as a result, more portables.

You have examples where we have brand-new schools built, but they had to bring in portables right away. Those were….

Interjections.

H. Bains: That's the problem with the minister and the rest of the people over there. They don't listen properly. They don't listen to anybody here. They don't listen to the public. They don't listen to their constituents.

Since 2005 no new capital was approved. Everything was approved before that. It's not that Surrey stopped growing since 2005-2006. It continues to grow. They know that.

What happened? The students, parents, teachers, the Surrey Board of Trade and the Langley board of trade all got together and formed an ad hoc committee. Madam Speaker, I want to thank that committee, because they worked with us. We worked with them to put pressure on this government. Basically, this government was shamed into accepting their neglect of Surrey schools.

Finally, about a year ago the Minister of Education went to Surrey, and they announced something — that part of the overall capital program will be for Surrey. Now, it was estimated that probably $120 million or $125 million would be allocated to Surrey schools. Welcome news, but way overdue.
[ Page 13155 ]

[1720]

Surrey continued to grow. Since 2005-2006, the last time they ever approved any capital to expand any school space for students, we have had 2,700 new students entering our Surrey schools. The result is all of the portables. I think that a week or two weeks ago the minister went there again and announced another school.

It is about half of what Surrey needs today. That's what the ad hoc committee is saying, not just me saying, because they work in those communities. Actually, the government's own paper…. There's a five-year capital plan summary. It requires about $280 million over five years. They could find a $300 million or $400 million cost overrun to put a roof over B.C. Place, but they could not, as you know, come up with $280 million over five years to give Surrey schools and the children real classrooms. That's their record.

Madam Speaker, when you look at the post-secondary education…. The Surrey Board of Trade again put out a paper, and this is what they have to say. Some of the key statistics in the paper show that 22 percent of the province's high school graduates come from Surrey and south of the Fraser region, but for every hundred 18- to 24-year-olds from this area, Kwantlen and Simon Fraser University are only able to offer 12.5 enrolment spots. This is how we compare to the rest of the Lower Mainland.

Meanwhile, the other post-secondary locations in B.C. offer an average of about 48.7 spots per 100 individuals. One can argue that some of those institutions, UBC and BCIT, also take students from this region. We get that. Everyone accepts and everyone understands that there's always a direct correlation between the education institutions in the area and the literacy and the skills and training of that area.

What I'm saying here is that the government has neglected that region on the transportation side and on the post-secondary education side and on K to 12. Those are the facts. I would like to see any MLA from that region stand up and defend their record. If they do, they'd better go to their constituents and say that they are proud of their records. They cannot do that, and they know that.

I also want to talk about how this budget failed to understand or address some of those issues. When I talk about public transportation, in Surrey right now — and if you take a look in Victoria — there are thousands of pass-ups. The bus goes by, and the students and the public are left standing because they can't get the bus. There's no room on that bus. There's no space on that bus.

Instead of expanding and adding resources and working with the local mayors, what this government does is point fingers at them. They are not talking to TransLink. They are fighting with local mayors. In the meantime, people are left at the bus stops because there's no bus for them. People are stuck in traffic. There are huge lineups, because they have no other choice but to drive cars.

In the last supplementary proposal that TransLink came up with, they have to cut, they are saying, 306,000 hours from what was originally planned in 2012. In 2013, 306,000 hours will be cut. Where are the cuts coming from? They are cutting in areas that actually need expansion.

That's another example that they have lost their way. They don't know what to do anymore. They are throwing their hands up in the air and saying: "We don't know what to do. We cannot do it."

There is no plan in this budget of how we are going…. They took credit about the Evergreen line, which was termed at one time Nevergreen line because they failed over the years to work with the local mayors and come up with a funding formula to put that plan together. And for 20 years it's been in the works.

[1725]

In the budget they do have a mention about the Evergreen line but no mention about south of the Fraser — what their plans are, what they will do. That's the fastest-growing community. We need LRT or some sort of light rail along King George, along 104th, connecting Whalley to Langley, then connecting all those town centres — whether they're White Rock, Newton, Cloverdale, Langley, Whalley, Fleetwood or Guildford — with fast buses.

We need that right now, and everyone agreed that we need them right now, but this government is the one that actually is not at that table. So what do you need? You need to change the governance so that local mayors can get to the table and start making decisions that affect them. I think that's something we really need to do.

Madam Speaker, I know that my time is running out very, very quickly.

The other cut that they have made in this budget is in the forest industry. How do you cut $35 million out of a forest health program when everyone…? When I travelled, along with the rest of the committee, across the Interior, 17 different communities said we need more investment in forest health. But what does this government do? They cut in that area. So how could they, in good conscience, stand up and say it's a balanced budget? We will find out after the election that it is not, as we found out in 2009.

I think that people are actually looking for direction. They're looking for someone who would be on their side, someone who will say that skills and training are going to once again be a priority. The forest industry will, once again, become the economic engine that drives our economy. Our seniors and our students will get the respect that they need. Our communities will have a partner in Victoria to work with them. It's about the infrastructure and the services that they need in their communities.

That's what our role is. The role is to make sure that the province we were handed by our parents and people before us…. It's that we leave this province in better shape for our children. When I talk about Brayden and Rhianna,
[ Page 13156 ]
that's what our goal is. What this government has done is they have failed to address that. I don't see them leaving a better province for our children and their children — the province that they have inherited from people before us.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. I will listen to the rest of the folks and see what they have to say.

K. Krueger: I've been sitting here thinking this is going to be my last response to the budget speech in this beautiful chamber. The member that last spoke is enthused about that.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

So 17 years. I've probably done more than 17 of them. Over those years, seven grandchildren have been born. My three children have all been married. I can't keep up with my colleague who has over a dozen, maybe two dozen grandchildren now. But I don't think that I've ever put all their names on the record, and I'd like to just take a moment to do that.

My son Marshall and his beautiful wife, Erin, have Sydney, Marcus, Linden and Samuel — four wonderful children. My son Lorne, a couple of years ago, married an absolutely beautiful girl, Kelly. Sadly, they live in Edmonton right now, but we're hoping to lure them back soon. She just finished her education as a geologist. My daughter Keturah married a great guy named Joel Neustaeter. They have children — Noah, Austin and Avalon. These seven grandchildren are just the lights of our lives — my wife's and mine.

With all the work that we've done in this chamber together, I know we all care about our children very deeply and our grandchildren and each other's. There's nobody in this chamber that doesn't really care about the future of British Columbia's children and what it will be like for them as adults and when they become parents and grandparents.

We've been dismayed on this side to run deficit budgets. Everybody knows the history of that. A worldwide recession began in 2007-2008 just south of us, just across the line in America. It swept all around the world and came across Canada. It got to Alberta and B.C. pretty much last in the world, as I saw it unfolding. But we don't like having deficit budgets.

[1730]

This is a balanced budget. The members opposite call it something else. The proof will be in the pudding, and the pudding is going to be good.

Alberta and Ontario, normally two of the powerhouse economies of Canada, are both running multi-billion-dollar deficits this year — even wealthy, wealthy Alberta. But they've been dragged in, too, by this whirlpool of recession that came around the world.

With this budget, British Columbians still enjoy the lowest taxes in Canada up to $122,000 in income. The increases in taxation to high-income earners, we think, are regrettable but necessary. Even with those, they'll still be paying far less — thousands of dollars less each per year — than they were with the NDP government that we replaced.

I read over the weekend that Britain just lost its triple-A credit rating last week. Their debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to hit 95.4 percent in 2013 and 98 percent in 2014. We had ours down to 13 percent before the recession. Now it's at 17 percent in a worldwide recession. That is considered very small and very good management by the bond-rating agencies, which continue to give us the highest rating they give anyone in the world, which is triple-A.

Out of every dollar of revenue flowing into the provincial coffers to provide for the needs of British Columbians, we spend four cents on interest on the province's accumulated debt over many decades. Ontario currently is spending 20 cents on the revenue dollar, and they're running, I believe, a $10 billion deficit this year. If we were paying 20 cents on the dollar like Ontario is unfortunately having to do, that would cost us an additional $2 billion more before we could pay for the many services that we want to provide to British Columbians.

It's disappointing to me when members get up in this chamber and say things like the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake did, which was that public services in B.C. "have been cut to the bone." That is entirely false. She said that there is a "fire sale" — and I have heard other NDP members say this too — of British Columbia's assets. That's false too.

I'd like to tell you the story of Thrupp Manor. I've been an MLA 17 years now, and this was one of my 17-year files. I was concerned about it for a long time. Over the ten years the NDP were in office, 1991 to 2001, not a single new extended care or acute care bed was built for seniors in the whole Thompson health region. We had two very aged residences, Ponderosa and Overlander. Then Thrupp Manor was actually owned and developed by a society for low-income residents many years ago.

Those residents had aged in place, and now they were reaching the point where they needed extended care. The facility was not only pretty much at the end of its useful life, but it was never built for extended care. The board was becoming desperate about what they were going to do about replacing Thrupp Manor, because the residents, of course, had been wards of theirs a long time and they were worried about them.

Meantime, the Interior Health Authority was working frantically to try and catch up on the huge deficit in seniors housing, because when a government doesn't do what it knows it needs to do — as the population ages, for example, in this case — it accumulates deficits of various kinds, and the housing deficit was severe.

We started building new extended-care- and intermediate-care-style facilities all over the Thompson valleys, and
[ Page 13157 ]
we've caught up. We've actually caught up, but at the time, things were getting really tense for Thrupp Manor. That was dozens more residents, and they were not on the list because they had been fine in Thrupp for such a long time.

The board had given me briefings. We were all concerned. One day a man named David Beardsell came to see me. He's a prominent businessman in Kamloops. He was actually on his way to becoming a medical doctor, but he was so fascinated with microbiology that he went to Germany and learned how to make beer. He's been a very successful builder of breweries since, and he owns a wonderful brewhouse pub called the Noble Pig in Kamloops, a very popular watering hole.

[1735]

He was a volunteer working for Thrupp Manor, trying to help them raise the money they needed. He came to see me, and he said there was a beautiful property in North Kamloops. The owner's wife predeceased him, and now he had died. Of his estate, he said in his will, he wanted to leave some to the church, some to his family and some to Thrupp Manor. And he wanted to leave some of his land as a place for Thrupp Manor to build a new place. So we went to work on that.

I asked the Interior Health Authority executive to come and meet in my constituency office with me. They did that, and they ultimately agreed to buy his property. Now, shortly, all that property will have been used to build beautiful new seniors facilities. A public-private partnership built a huge one called RiverBend. It's just gorgeous, and a lot of it is privately held. Thrupp Manor is included in that, and it has double the number of residents that it did in the other facility. That was a wonderful outcome, and RiverBend also added many more suites.

We believe in public-private partnerships. The opposition ran against them — I think it was the last election — and against carbon tax the election before that and, after those elections, decided to switch to our position, which we're happy about. They said they now believe in public-private partnerships. I'm not completely convinced, but I'm glad if they do. P3s are a really good way to get things down without adding to public debt.

The last of that land — Mr. Desmond's land that he wanted seniors to live on in perpetuity — is sold as a part of this budget. That's the asset that the budget is dealing with in Kamloops. An organization named Buron Healthcare bought the remaining land for $1.8 million, and they're going to have 130 more seniors beds there. I think that'll put us well north of 700 net new beds that we've built in Kamloops and the Thompson valleys since we've been government.

When the opposition shouts that this budget is a sell-off of assets, that is just silly. Government actually holds $70 billion in property and improvements, and that's not counting all our forest land. A huge, massive majority of the land in British Columbia still belongs to the Crown, but we're talking about property with improvements here and empty lots that already are serviced — $70 billion worth. It's very common for governments to buy and sell lands and trade them. The NDP did this too.

It's right and good that surplus land that could be used to help grow the economy should be sold into the private sector if government knows it's never going to need it. The example in Surrey stands out, where government had bought land for the hospital but the health authority built at a different site. So why would government keep it when it could liquidate that asset, which is not going to be needed?

This government is all about caring for the vulnerable — seniors, adults with disabilities, children, children and families. The assets that are being sold off and spelled out in this budget comprise about 2 percent of government's held property. The public should have access to that because we don't need it, and the money realized will help us avoid deficits and the accumulation of any further debt. These are not crown jewels, which is what a person would think by all the kiyi-ing that goes on.

What I did with the Thrupp Manor project was what a constituency MLA does. We had two NDP MLAs between 1991 and 2001. There were always NDP cabinet ministers during those years. Art Charbonneau was a minister, and then Cathy McGregor. They probably tried to get help for Thrupp. They probably tried to get new beds built for seniors, but they couldn't. Zero new beds. Not net new beds, just zero new beds in ten years in that whole health region.

On Sunday I heard David Schreck, a failed ex-NDP MLA. He was speaking on CKNW to Sean Leslie, and he made false allegations about people lying in acute care hospitals waiting for an extended care bed. Those days are over in Kamloops.

I had people come in, in tears, people in their 50s and 60s, when I was in opposition from '96 to 2001, crying because they were exhausted. The very elderly parents that they were trying to look after in their homes had dementia and would get into unsafe situations. These people were trying to still work for a living and support their parents financially, and trying to deal with that.

[1740]

Recently the heads of the doctors, three of them, came in to see the Minister of Environment — who is the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, of course — and me in one of our constituency offices. They said: "You have completely caught up. We have zero people in acute care beds in Royal Inland Hospital that ought to be in extended care." Well, nobody could say that in all of the '90s.

This budget demonstrates B.C. Liberal values — caring for the vulnerable, the elderly and the very young and building an economy to do so.

Britain lost its triple-A credit rating from Moody's last week. Moody's said that they're unlikely to be able to reverse their deficit direction until 2016, as I understand it.
[ Page 13158 ]
Britain's GDP-to-debt ratio is 95.4 percent this year and expected to be 98 percent next year.

The NDP have talked repeatedly about us having deficit budgets since 2009, and we have had, but everybody knows why. Our revenues went south. Natural gas began to drop rapidly in value. Every time it drops a dollar, our budget loses $300 million from what we used to get. The whole world has been struggling with deficits, but we're the jurisdiction that's out of it. It looks like we're perhaps the first out of it.

The NDP talk about deficits as if they're something that they never did, but everybody knows they had eight deficits on the books in their ten years — the ten sorry years that British Columbia saw the NDP in power. They only had two that they even claimed were balanced.

Those budgets were balanced in part by a pension funds raid. We talked to the accountants at the time, and we didn't really criticize it much, if at all, because they said that pension funds did appear to have a surplus. I think it was $1½ billion — very helpful to them. They were able to claim a balanced budget on the basis of that.

I think the other factor was the massive proceeds from selling electricity to California in those years, and those sales were on the books. But hundreds of millions, as I understand it, have never been collected, and now they're the subject of legal proceedings.

Those two kind of windfall reasons are the reasons the NDP ever balanced any budgets, but eight of them they couldn't even pretend that they balanced. They left British Columbia with a structural deficit. We had a team of experts review the provincial books. They told us that we'd been left in a situation of having to pay out, by obligations the NDP signed on for, substantially more than the revenues were going to be — in the neighbourhood, as I recall, of $3.4 billion. So $3.4 billion a year, and we had to cut that down.

I heard a speech by Stockwell Day recently. I really respect him. I think he's a great guy, and he's got a great track record of public service. He said: "The socialists tear things down. The free enterprise coalition" — which is known as the B.C. Liberal Party right now — "builds them up." But we can build them up and build them up, and four years of an NDP government — this is what Stockwell Day said, and he's right — do enough damage to take a whole generation to repair. God forbid that that's going to happen to us.

You add up all the things that the opposition critics have been saying should be in the budget, all the things that we should spend more money on…. That's always their measurement — how much you spend. That's what it was like in the '90s too. You add them up and imagine the deficits and the debt that would ensue. As always, their solution is to just keep running deficits.

I was shocked, but pleased and gratified, when the Finance critic said to the media that they expect that if they became government — heaven forbid — there would be deficits for essentially the whole term in office, maybe five years.

Our Premier, the Premier of today, who we're very proud of — Scottish heritage — believes it's absolutely wrong to be running deficits if you can avoid it. She said to the media that there are no goody bags in sight, and I'm glad for her fiscal discipline. I'm glad for her leadership on that.

But the wannabe cabinet ministers over there on the other benches are each dragging around a little red wagon full of, if not promises, at least statements that they've made about how much more should be spent, notwithstanding the fact that if British Columbians were unfortunate enough to elect them, the NDP would wreck the economy. They always do. They would poleaxe revenues, and we'd be in a pickle again.

[1745]

Thanks to the hard work of our cabinet and the two Premiers that we've had over the last 12 years, we have gone from being dependent on the U.S.A. — for example, in our lumber markets; 75 percent of our lumber market was the U.S.A. — to diversification across the board in all sorts of industries. We only have 41 percent of our lumber market now in the U.S.A., and that's in 12 years.

Right across the board our government has done a superb job of creating a robust economy. I remember when we celebrated going over two million jobs in British Columbia — two million people with paycheques for the first time in the history of our beautiful province.

I saw a news release recently that Mr. Cummins put out, of the B.C. Conservatives. They're always trying to tear us down. He did put in numbers, and I think he said it was 2.4-million-plus jobs. But it's been way above two million for a long time, and that didn't happen by accident. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it happened through fiscal discipline, having a great plan and sticking to it but modifying it with the times. That is something for all British Columbians to be proud of. I think the members opposite are probably secretly proud of it, too, and will later claim credit for it, no doubt.

It bothers me that they attack the federal government. That's an old tactic of Premier Glen Clark, who attacked our neighbours, attacked our allies, attacked other provinces, always trying to be a social warrior, class warrior — any kind of warrior — so it looked like he was getting something done, but British Columbia was suffering.

I don't like the thought that the NDP is the same organization in local governments, in provinces and in Canada. Right now they're taking their marching orders from a guy named Tom Mulcair in Quebec, a guy who doesn't believe in resource revenue for the provinces, who insults our economy by calling it the Dutch disease. That is colossally insulting, especially since every year, except for several when we had an NDP government…. We were a have-not province and getting transfer payments.

Otherwise, pretty much all my life I've seen revenues
[ Page 13159 ]
collected in British Columbia and hauled away to Quebec — massively more than is collected in Quebec. They spend it on things like $7 daycare and child care, and who wouldn't? I mean, who can blame them if somebody is going to give you, essentially, a huge lottery win every year at the cost of other provinces?

I don't like it that a guy from Quebec now controls more than half of the NDP Members of Parliament and that that's his attitude. He doesn't believe in resource revenues. He doesn't want the Canadian dollar to be robust, because driving it low is another way to subsidize industry in his own province.

I really resent that name "Dutch disease" being applied to our province, and I think a lot of British Columbians do. I said the other day that the Quebec economy is the tail trying to wag the western Canadian dog.

In another analogy, I've always thought that it's pretty much a situation that Canada provides the horse and Quebec provides the jockey and they get to ride along a path that is very beneficial to them. Again, who could fault them for that?

How are the NDP ever going to stand up to their Quebec power base, which is more than half their Members of Parliament and where their leader came from? I think that's the goal of today's NDP — Quebec-centred, anti–resource development and wanting to keep the west, including our many First Nations — we have over 200 First Nations in British Columbia — in economic chains. I don't believe the people of British Columbia will go for that.

There are many benefits for families and children in this budget, and they have been discussed at length in this chamber over the past days. I think we should all be very proud of those.

Some 42,000 babies are born in British Columbia a year. Every one of them since January 1, 2007, is going to benefit through the RESP provision. They'll apply for $1,200; their parents will apply for them. The federal government will add grants. If parents are able to add $10 a month, it will add up to $4,000 for them by the time they cash it out. If they're able to add $50 a month instead of $10, it will be $12,500.

That's a really good chunk of change. It would have been really nice for me to have had that kind of a savings account when I graduated from high school. Again, I am delighted that it's going to be there for all these British Columbian children.

Every British Columbian is far better off today than we were in the '90s. There are people in very regrettable circumstances, and we're lifting them up in every way we can conceive of and afford.

[1750]

In my stint as Minister of Social Development, I thought that the civil servants I'd be working with might be very depressed people trying to bid out of their jobs. I wanted to get out and meet them.

I told the deputy and assistant deputy ministers that I'd like to go out and start meeting staff and I'd like to start with the toughest postal code in Canada, which is what people always say about the Downtown Eastside. Those visits were absolutely inspiring. The staff were so proud of what this government has been getting done. The Minister for Housing has had all these tremendously creative ways of developing social housing — again, partnering with private sector money.

Once people have an address, then the Ministry of Social Development folks connect them with the sorts of agencies that can help them. They tell them: "You'll get some more money each month if you'll volunteer in an agency." So they do, and then they get a group of peers, a network of people they know and like and work with. They like that — just like all of us do. The ministry starts adding helpful programs. If they have addictions issues or health issues — the various things that drive people into those desperate situations — they help them out of it.

Those employees in the Ministry of Social Development were just bursting with joy over that. Pride never seems quite the right word for Canadians because we're not prideful people. But you've got to feel good when your government has come up with a plan and an approach that's working and you're seeing a tremendous difference in people's lives.

This budget is something for everyone in this room — and our families and all British Columbians — to be proud of and to have joy about. It's a budget that keeps us on course for a strong and secure future. We think it's key to creating confidence in British Columbia as a safe harbour for investment and maintaining that triple-A credit rating I spoke of.

It's a core value to us to have a balanced budget. We're embarrassed if we don't have a balanced budget. We started off without one because of what we inherited. We did well for years. I believe we paid off the NDP of the 1990s' accumulated deficits before a worldwide recession took us backwards.

Balancing the budget allows to us continue to create the economic conditions that will stimulate job creation and help this province grow. If you aren't growing, you're shrinking, generally, and it's good be to growing.

We mean to manage taxpayers' money with respect, and that is what this budget does so that we can continue to provide the services that families need year after year. It's galling to hear the members opposite suggest that we're cutting health care when we're adding over $2 billion in what is laid out in this budget.

We've added and added, and everybody knows the pressures that western governments are under as our populations age and as more and more marvelous surgeries and medications are discovered. The medical people we have are wonderful. They come up with all of these things that cost a lot of money, and it's a struggle to pay for them.
[ Page 13160 ]

It's a struggle, also, to keep the balance where we're putting the kind of investment into children that we need to. We've got to do that as well, of course. They are the taxpayers of tomorrow, but more importantly than that, we all love children, and we want them to be well looked after. So management of money is absolutely essential, and we are good managers of money.

The responsibilities start with government, and before we ask taxpayers for a single penny, we control all the spending we can to make sure that nothing is wasted. Our focus is on growing the economy; it is not on growing government.

There are very effective ways to partner with the private sector and take out some of the waste that can occur if governments are trying to do it all themselves. You have these up-and-down cycles that the private sector — especially small business — adapt to much more quickly and much better than government.

One of the galling things about the HST debate, over the time that it raged around the province, was that people said we couldn't possibly have got it done that fast if we hadn't planned it before the 2009 election. We did not. I stand before this House and say that we didn't plan it.

I was the minister responsible for small business, and they would plead with me to try to bring about harmonization. I served and co-chaired the Small Business Roundtable for a year and a half or so, and that came up repeatedly. I would say: "Folks, we've debated that internally. We're the tax-cutters, not the tax-adders. We've cut taxes 120 different times, and we have no intention of adding."

The federal government had always insisted that we would have to go for 13 percent if we harmonized. Instead, we insisted we wouldn't add anything. We would only consider it if it was the 7 percent PST plus the 5 percent GST, and there would have been no exceptions.

[1755]

They came to our Finance Minister after the election. He came to us in some trepidation at our first cabinet meeting after the 2009 election and said: "I know you don't want to talk about this. We resolved it all long ago, but the whole playing field has changed. They're willing to go with 12 percent, and they're willing to give us a 5 percent exemption for goods and services of our choice."

We felt we had to apply that to fuel for vehicles and homes because we'd already done carbon tax and we shouldn't fail to make that allowance. There wasn't too much left in the way of exemptions by the time we'd budgeted for that.

We had to make a decision. When we heard what the offer was, including $1.6 billion to be used wherever we needed it at a time when the worldwide recession had caught up to us with a vengeance, we knew that was a good offer. I still feel that if we had one of these electronic voting systems, where our constituents could have voted whether we should go for it or not, it would have been off the charts that we should go for it, and we did.

Then our Finance Minister and his people worked like Trojans to get it done. So it's shocking when people say: "Well, you got it done so fast that we just don't believe you hadn't planned it before the election."

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge. I have business people pleading with me presently: "Couldn't you please find a way to go back to harmonization?" They think that British Columbians have realized now what a good deal it was and would be and what an antiquated system PST plus GST is. But we made a commitment to have a referendum. We made a commitment to abide by the results. We even upped the ante for ourselves, and we all know what the result was.

Look, folks, this is my last budget response speech. In spite of how partisan I sometimes seem, I care very much about everybody in this chamber. It's a privilege and a pleasure working with most of you. I care very much about your children and grandchildren, all British Columbians, the Clerks of the Legislature and their families, all the staff here — everybody. Dining room staff, custodial staff — so pleasant, and they keep this place so beautiful. They're so fine to work with — all of you.

Farewell to budget speeches for me, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to this one.

R. Cantelon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure to introduce a friend of mine — and indeed of yours, Mr. Chair — Ms. Tracy Liu. Tracy is a graduate from BCIT, business administration with honours, and has taken a job in Victoria as the general manager of a new inn, the Prior Castle Inn. It was built in 1885 by Edward Gawler Prior, the 15th Premier of British Columbia, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia and a Member of Parliament for British Columbia. Let's join in wishing her all the success in her new venture.

Debate Continued

M. Mungall: I rise to take my place in this debate on the budget.

Before I get started, I would like to just say a few words about all of the members who are retiring this year from this House. I don't know if I'll get another opportunity to put some of my thoughts on record, so I beg your indulgence for a few moments to just say a tremendous thank-you for all the work that they've done, on both sides of the House.

Everybody who is here is certainly here to serve their
[ Page 13161 ]
communities and to serve the people of British Columbia. No matter which political party one is with, there's no doubt in my mind that everybody has done that to the best of their abilities. Despite disagreeing on numerous occasions, obviously, we can all walk away from this House respecting each other's contributions. I know that I will certainly miss several friends that I have come to make over the last four years who are departing.

I really do want to say perhaps just one thing about the previous speaker before me. Often his heckles can be quite controversial, but outside of the politics and everything, he's always been very kind to me, and I really appreciated that about knowing him.

Of course, I could go on about many of the members who are departing. I know that the member for New Westminster has really been a mentor for me in this place, and I'm going to miss her very, very much. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to have worked with her for these last four years.

[1800]

Without going into a long personal story of all the members who are leaving, we are here to discuss the budget, so I will move on to that topic and anticipate that I'll probably be getting a few heckles from the member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

K. Krueger: I don't have the heart.

M. Mungall: Oh, thank you.

Being one of the younger members of the House, I remember a cult classic that had an impact on me and many of my generation from the…. I can't even remember the year that it came out, but it was a year that I wore a lot of hairspray in my hair. I recently revisited this cult-classic film in an effort to not think through a movie, to be quite honest. What was it but Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey?

I recently watched this, with Canada's own Keanu Reeves playing the role of Ted. Of course, they have this terrible experience and, using the very hip and cool words of the day, "bogus" journey. Little did I know, of course, that I was going to be coming into this House and on February 19 somewhat revisiting that movie with the budget delivered by the government.

We have used the term "bogus budget" because that's exactly what it is. The attempt to pass this off as a balanced budget is, in the famous words of Ted, Keanu Reeves, "totally bogus." What makes it so?

Well, let's start with the land sales issue. I believe my colleague from Surrey-Whalley has made the point on many occasions that a budget cannot be balanced if it's predicated on the sale of lands before those sales have actually occurred. So let's just put aside right now, into the parking lot, the idea of whether it's adding value to British Columbia and to the public to sell off all of these identified lands. We don't even know what they all are, on this side of the House.

Let's put that aside and just focus on the mere fact that most economists — including Don Drummond, who's quite well-known in Canada for the work he did in Ontario — have said that to put the numbers of a sale, what is anticipated to be the final benefit from a sale, into a budget and then use that to balance a budget is in fact just imprudent. It is not a balanced budget. That, in and of itself, to the tune of $800 million, is precisely why this budget is totally bogus.

Moving on from this and looking at some of the other issues that we find in this budget, I want to highlight what's going on with Advanced Education. This is very important. What we see this year and projected into future years is a $46 million cut to post-secondary education. Last year's budget had a $50 million cut, identifying $20 million one year and $30 million another year, starting this fiscal year, for a total of $50 million cut from the Advanced Education budget.

This year we see that same cut. After an incredible amount of advocacy, we see that same cut taking place. Let's talk about some of that advocacy and some of the realities that we were hearing about from the post-secondary sector, about what this type of cut would do. The government insisted that this cut would only impact administrative services, that it would not impact students whatsoever.

[1805]

Disputing that claim was not just one president or students or faculty members or other people — staff members at colleges, institutes and universities. All 25 presidents of public post-secondary institutions put their thoughts in a joint letter to this government telling them that that cut and the idea that it would not impact students was "unrealistic."

Here they are, the people on the ground who are serving students every day, who are ensuring that our future generations have the education that they need to get the jobs of today and tomorrow so that they have the skills required to go into the labour force to contribute to British Columbia to offer their best. Here they are, giving feedback to this government, saying that what they proposed was unrealistic.

Of course, we heard from students. We heard from faculty associations. We heard from staff. We heard from employers. We heard from the broad public about that proposed cut last year. The general consensus was that was not a good idea, that should not be done, especially at a time when we need post-secondary education more than ever.

Going back to the economist I already mentioned, Don Drummond…. He was responsible for advising the Ontario government of the day not too long ago that they needed to make massive cuts, except in post-secondary education. That is the area they needed to be investing in more. They needed to invest an increase of 1.5 percent. The reason he said that was because we have a skills
[ Page 13162 ]
labour shortage in Ontario. We also have it in B.C. In fact, we have it right across Canada and North America.

We have a skilled labour shortage. In many parts of B.C. it's happening right now. We know that in the north it's happening right now. I have visited every single institution in every single corner of this province. I hear over and over again about the skills labour shortage, and right now up in northern B.C. they're hit with it the hardest.

An example is Mount Milligan mine. They found that they're going to actually have to prolong their project, and they're going to endure a cost increase of about $200 million just because of the skills labour shortage.

Interjections.

M. Mungall: The heckles have started. I'm so glad that I have an audience.

Back to the point at hand, though, around the skills labour shortage. Because this is going on, we need to be investing in post-secondary education. We need to be providing our institutions with the ability to support students so that they can get the training they need to fill the jobs that are coming on line today and in the future.

What we have right now…. Now, it's not to say that the skills labour shortage, that there are people who…. How to put this? It's not to say that there is no one who's unemployed; there are people. There are young people who are unemployed in this province. In fact, if we look at the statistics for youth unemployment, they are double the general population.

What we have here is people without jobs and jobs without people. The only way to address that situation — as we've heard from people like Don Drummond, as we hear from people who are on the ground in post-secondary education — is through training and education at the post-secondary level.

We know that. We know that this is critical for our economy. And here we are, looking at a budget that cuts post-secondary education by $46 million — $46 million less going into the system. We're going to see less seats as a result. In fact, this budget cuts FTEs, full-time equivalents, by 6,000.

This comes on the heels of the Research Universities Council issuing a plea — essentially, that's what it was, a plea — to government, saying we need more spaces in post-secondary education: these are the numbers of spaces that we need based on labour market data from 2010 that was done by this government.

[1810]

This government's own labour market data has identified that skilled labour shortage. It has identified the need, that we need to be creating in post-secondary education, and yet it has abandoned that information in a race to make cuts and therefore cause long-term economic problems in this province. That's the reality that we're facing with this budget.

All this information I'm saying, as I said, isn't new. I've been reiterating the story that has been going on, the advocacy that has been going on, for the last year. So it's a shock to see that this budget has completely ignored that and is still cutting post-secondary education.

Another issue that's facing post-secondary education and the students in our province is affordability. B.C. students, on average, have a $27,000 debt load, the highest west of the Maritimes. They pay the highest interest rate in Canada on that debt load, at prime plus 2.5 percent. There are no financial needs–based grants in this province. Yet the answer that this government has provided for affordability for post-secondary education doesn't come into effect until 2024. Not a single student in post-secondary education today benefits from this budget.

We have proposed $100 million into financial needs–based grants. We've said how we're going to pay for it. We've offered up…. We've been talking about it for two years. Clearly, the idea has been out there long enough that the Liberals could have taken this idea and implemented it in their budget.

Instead, we have a registered education savings plan program. What this program does is give $1,200 for each child whose parents are able to get an RESP and apply when that child is six years old. If the child is seven, if the child is five, eight, nine or ten, parents cannot apply. The child has to be six years old.

What happens if the children are in care? That was asked of the Minister of Finance. What I heard him say in the media was that they're looking into that. I have yet to hear a viable plan that's going to address this issue for children who are in care.

There is also no data that supports that this will be a major uptake by parents, that this program will be something that is widely available to all British Columbian students. There are a lot of hoops that have to be jumped through so students can access what is actually a very small amount of money. It is not even going to cover the tuition increases that will occur between now and 2025.

Knowing that it's going to have a small uptake, knowing that it's not going to provide a substantive amount of financial support for students who do qualify and who do get this, what are the Liberals going to do to address that? Well, let's go to the budget book. It says right here on page 49: "One of the key objectives of the new program will be to increase RESP participation rates through marking and communications efforts directed towards families and at schools."

Marketing and communications efforts. How much more money is this government going to spend on self-promoting advertising before the election when it comes to RESPs? How much more? They're already spending $17 million. They've been spending countless millions of dollars for the last two years on self-promoting ads. How much more are they going to be spending on this RESP program before the next election? We know the ads have
[ Page 13163 ]
already started. How much more?

It seems to me that this RESP program is little more than an opportunity, a thinly veiled opportunity at that, to do more self-promoting advertising. This does very little to benefit students, and students are looking for more out of this budget than what they got.

Post-secondary education isn't the only area that is going to be seeing a cut and isn't the only area that's going to have detrimental, long-term consequences because of that cut.

[1815]

I look at forestry. What we're seeing here is a $35 million cut to forest health, despite the forest health crisis in the province and the many recommendations that came from the Timber Supply Committee. That committee has been completely ignored — $35 million worth of cuts to forest health.

Let me tell you. Coming from a part of the province that is in the forest, so to speak, and has seen incredible devastation, with one company that failed to meet its silviculture obligations forcing the province to pick up the tab…. If somebody had not come along…. We're very fortunate that we have another private operator who has come along and said they're willing to start working with the community of Meadow Creek to rebuild its forest health.

A $35 million cut to forest health. I can only imagine what that's going to mean for Nelson-Creston. Our communities are surrounded by the forest. Nelson itself comes right up against the West Arm Provincial Park. We have community forests in my region. We have many small-scale but vibrant and viable mills that are doing exceptional work, and they need a healthy forest to do their jobs. All they got in this budget was a $35 million cut to the very area that they need this government to work on, which is forest health. I was very disappointed to see that.

Another thing that's going to be impacting all of British Columbia, of course — and particularly, this is going to be very hard-felt by many of the seniors in my area — is the 4 percent increase to the Medical Services Plan. This is another jump in MSP rates, making it a total of a 92 percent increase since 2001. A family is going to be paying another $66 per year, bringing the rate to $1,662.

This comes at a time when the Liberals boast of three terms, 12 years, of exceptional tax cuts. The member before me talked about the 120 times they've cut taxes. Well, the flip side of that is the number of times they've increased things like MSP or other fees that people have to pay. It's called nickel-and-diming. That's what this government has done to British Columbians, to the middle class in this province — nickeled-and-dimed them.

I believe there have been studies by the media that have shown that the reduction in income tax is matched, if not increased, by the amount in fees that individuals and families now have to pay. It's important to note that this budget has been balanced, in part, due to this MSP increase. But of course, if it's been balanced on that basis, let's remember that it's bogus.

But the most bogus part of this entire budget — and I've got to say, I'm clearly not the only one who has noted this; I've seen many political pundits call this the pie in the sky — is the B.C. prosperity fund. This fund was announced in the Speech from the Throne and is barely mentioned in the budget. That's the odd part.

It's important to talk, when we talk about the budget, about what's in here and what's not. I mentioned the $100 million into financial needs–based grants. That is not in here. This B.C. prosperity fund is barely mentioned in the budget. The idea is so pie in the sky, so up in the air, how on earth can we anticipate it to be anything real or anything viable?

[1820]

Let's take this into consideration. It's based on the notion that the LNG plants will return incredible amounts to British Columbia. But not a single one of those LNG plants has gotten the green light from the company, much less through various other processes and permitting that they have to go through. They haven't even gotten the green light from the companies that want to build the LNG plants.

I wanted to pay particular note to that because it is so pie in the sky, but clearly it didn't even make it into the budget. I guess it was just too bogus for this bogus budget.

I think at the end of the day it's important to note that despite all the rhetoric that we hear about a balanced budget, when you actually take a look at the numbers, when you actually go through the budget books and do your due diligence and analysis, what we're doing is reliving 2009 all over again. We have a phony budget being delivered prior to an election for the sole purpose of scoring points rather than being authentic with the public, rather than saying to the public: "These are the facts. This is what is happening in British Columbia."

Instead, we have a bogus budget predicated on land sales, predicated on massive cuts to areas that should not be cut, like post-secondary education, like forestry. We've got numbers in health care. We have a lift, but that lift is just not going to address some of the major issues that we're facing in health care today. When you look at these numbers, the only conclusion that you can come up with is that this budget is not balanced. At the end of the day, the voters will have the final say on this budget.

R. Lee: It's my pleasure to rise in the House to respond to the budget. As many members of this House have done before, I would like to first acknowledge a lot of the contributions from my staff. My CA, Gary Begin, used to be a city councillor, a school trustee as well as a small business man. With him in my office, we got a lot of help to my constituents through my staff.

I also would like to thank Nancy Chan, my part-time staff, and also Winney Xin. Winney is in China right now
[ Page 13164 ]
for two months. She is actually trying to invite her mom to come to visit B.C.

I also would like to thank my wife. I haven't done that too often. Anne, my wife, is very devoted to the family and taking care of the children. My sons also, Jarek and Darek, and Leanne. We have three children. Sometimes they miss me a little bit — not too much. I am very proud of Leanne, naturally. She's right now making it into the national team of table tennis in Canada at the junior squad level — under 18. She will be very busy in the next while trying to compete, probably getting into the Winter Games of Canada.

I also would like to take this opportunity to thank my parents — my father, Leong Chuen Lee, and my mom, Yuk Kuen Lee. They have been working for quite a while, and now they are retired. Our family came to Canada in 1971, with my grandfather here before that. Actually, coincidentally, this year in May is my family's 100-year anniversary. My grandfather came to B.C. in 1913.

[1825]

I would like also to thank my LA, Brandon Reddy, and also my communications assistant, Marc Wang. From time to time they help me in dealing with a lot of phone calls and scheduling as well as issues in communications. I would like to thank them as well as many of my colleagues. I mentioned my CA, Gary. When Gary gets a phone call, he will schedule meetings. He will try to resolve issues for my constituents of Burnaby North.

As you know, Burnaby North is a very diverse community with a lot of cultural groups and volunteer groups from all over the area. I would like to thank the collaborations with all those people I work with in the community — for example, the Heights Merchants Association. They have a lot of input in the community as well as, for example, Burnaby Meals on Wheels. They serve the community well. Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion serves the sector with people with developmental disabilities. They have been doing very good jobs.

I'm especially proud of many organizations. They participate in the community as well as bring the issues of the community to me.

Ten years ago I was fortunate to have initiation with the Volunteer Burnaby association. They take care of a lot of organizations in Burnaby. We collaborated together to establish the Burnaby Festival of Volunteers, with the help of my colleagues from Burnaby-Lougheed as well.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I think those activities are important — to have activities every year so organizations can come together to showcase their services, to recruit volunteers as well as to be appreciated by us. I think those activities are very important, and I believe they will continue in the future as well.

I would also like to mention organizations of Burnaby, like Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion. I think I mentioned that. Burnaby Family Life have been serving the community for a long time and helping and servicing the families in Burnaby in general, especially sometimes communities in the immigrant area. Burnaby Multicultural Society has long been established in Burnaby. They are still serving immigrants in the area.

I also would like to mention that for the last few years I've been helping quite a few organizations to get some grants, especially the gaming grants, so that they can have some resources to operate.

Now I will turn to the budget debate. This is a balanced budget, as we can hear from many of my colleagues. They have spoken already on the issues. But I don't know if this quotation has been made or not. An organization called Certified General Accountants Association of B.C. actually has a headquarters in Burnaby. Their news release is titled "B.C. Budget Marks Return to Fiscal Basics."

[1830]

The chair and also the CEO of this organization mentioned:

"Families and small businesses have to show that discipline and live within their means every day. And government should be no different…The minister has achieved this through a combination of spending cuts, the sale of some surplus properties and modest tax increases…We like this direction as it shows willingness by government to say no and limit spending increases and recognizes that the province must stay on track for the future."

This budget also predicts a surplus of $211 million in the 2014-15 financial year, as well as $460 million after that. The chair, Ms. Nancke, also said that this is a very good budget.

The total debt-to-GDP ratio will be increased to 18.3 percent, but this is a low number. In 2001 the NDP actually had total taxpayer-supported debt…. The number at that time was near 20 percent. Despite the financial crisis of the last few years, we have been keeping that number low — below the 2001 level.

The CGABC — I should mention that they represent about 11,000 CGAs, those professionals in B.C., as well as about 5,000 CGA students. They know about accounting. They know about how well this budget is. They are actually providing financial management and accounting services to many small and medium-sized businesses across the province, and many of them are at leadership level, so I believe that their assessment is very credible.

In terms of the B.C. taxpayer-supported debt, I think that ratio is very important. The ratio to GDP, I mentioned, is around 17 percent this year. Maybe a little bit of history on those numbers. This ratio actually was 20.9 percent in the year 2000 and 19.3 percent in 2001. The other member just mentioned that in 2001 there was a one-time accounting adjustment, so the 19.3 percent actually is not real. The year after, it was 20.8 percent.

With those B.C. taxpayer-supported total debt-to-GDP ratios, we can see that our management, of this government, actually is much better than the previous NDP government. We actually got that ratio down to about
[ Page 13165 ]
15 percent. Because of the financial crisis three years ago, the ratio is actually getting up again. Some of the investment is necessary for the government as well, to service the province's population.

As we know, the province actually benefitted from a lot of policies initiated by our government. Policy matters. One example we actually give quite often is our policy in the export of lumber. That policy was established about 12 years ago. The NDP didn't believe in that. They said: "Well, this will never work. China doesn't need lumber from B.C. They can buy it from other countries."

[1835]

That's why at that time, under the NDP, they had the lumber with a thickness bigger than six millimetres, so this is anything more than that. There is trade data on line from Industry Canada. At that time it was $21 million, in 2001. A year before it was $13 million. From $13 million, we built up a market for that kind of export to over $1 billion. If you divide $1.07 billion by $21 million, it is 51 times.

This is because of the policy. The policy helped us to export those materials and collect the royalties, and we benefited a lot. When the U.S. was having the downturn in their lumber industry, in their housing sector, we could still export our lumber to new markets and create jobs. We maintained a lot of the jobs in B.C., so I think those kinds of policies are important.

We can see the vision at that time by the government, and the vision in this budget is another opportunity. The vision of this government is liquefying natural gas. This is a sector, I think, that has a lot of potential for B.C. and a lot of markets, as well, in the future. You can see the growing interest and also the price differential between the North American market for that energy and the market in Asia.

About seven, eight years ago I was in China, in Beijing. I could see that they were using a lot of alternative energy as well. At that time there was a proposal. I went to Prince Rupert. There was an energy summit, and I raised the issue of exporting natural gas.

At that time, of course, the American market was higher than the Asian market, and the response from the experts at that time was: "Okay, if we're going to build a liquefied natural gas terminal, it won't be used for exports. Actually, it should be used for imports instead." So market conditions change, but if we can time our investments ahead of time, we can actually benefit a lot from this vision.

I would like also to mention another quote from the Investment Industry Association of Canada. We know that that association has been doing a lot of good work in terms of getting their members together and representing the investment industry's position on security regulations and public policy, as well as representing the members. There are over 175 firms as their members.

That organization had a press release a few days ago. It says: "British Columbia stays the course with disciplined fiscal restraint and positions the province for strengthening economic recovery." The president and CEO, Ian Russell, also said, "The budget preserves the business competitiveness of the province," despite some changes to the taxation for corporations. In the press release it also states: "Its fiscal strength positions the province well for business expansion, new investment and jobs."

As you know, new investment is very important. For the past so many years — 12 years, I think — we've established B.C. as an investment hub for attracting investment.

[1840]

Investments create jobs. Investments will grow our economy. Investments are quite important in the future as well. So how to maintain those conditions, how to maintain the environment for investment, I think, is very important for future governments.

I would like to also mention that in the press release, the organization IIAC also mentioned that as conditions for projects and infrastructure investment improve and as we attract more, as the U.S. economy and housing starts continue their recovery and as emerging economies, notably China, build economic momentum — this is all good.

Further, this fiscal strength gives the province a manoeuvrability that most other provinces don't have to limit tax increases, fund jobs training and needed social programs despite weakened revenue. So I believe this is a budget for the future, establishing a very strong foundation as well.

The B.C. budget also attracts in the business sector quite a lot of attention. A lot of comments have been quoted or expressed already, but I would also like to see that some of those comments really are being seen as endorsement, as well as credible analysis. I believe those analyses should be taken quite seriously by the opposition as well, because those are quite credible.

I would like also to mention the Burnaby Board of Trade. I believe the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake mentioned Paul Holden, the president and CEO. His comment for this budget is:

"It was clearly very important that this be a balanced budget that sets out to be as realistic as possible in its goals, and in many areas this seems to have been achieved. Although there will be understandable frustrations around controls on spending in some areas, challenging economic conditions always call for difficult choices to be made. The return to the PST remains a key concern for our members, and we will continue to provide them with updates, education and resources to assist in the smooth and cost-efficient transition."

I believe they — especially the small business men — are happy with this budget. There would be no tax increase for small business men in terms of the income tax, but they actually could be bearing some burden with a return to the PST.

I would also like to see people agree with the chief economist of Central 1 Credit Union. Mr. Pastrick said: "There is considerable prudence built into the fiscal plan. The forecast allowance and contingency funds, conservative commodity price forecasts and below-consensus economic forecasts in combination with the projected
[ Page 13166 ]
spending restraint increases the likelihood of achieving Budget 2013's broad financial goals."

I think the budget is prudent. Inside the budget there is quite a lot of room for unexpected crises as well as spending. So this is a prudent budget.

[1845]

Now I wanted to return to Burnaby North to see how it affects Burnaby North. Budget 2013 continues to actually include record investments in education. In advanced education, it has $1.9 billion a year of investment to support post-secondary education, which is equivalent to about $5 million a day.

Universities, colleges and, of course, other advanced education institutes — for example, BCIT — are going to find some other administrative costs as well, in order to improve service delivery. Some of the savings will be there. We also would like to see some of the goals — for example, finding those efficiencies as well as protecting the taxpayers' investment in education. Those are the two goals. I think most of the universities and colleges are aware of that.

There are many opportunities for savings as well. For example, it was suggested that shared purchasing is one other way. Another way is standardized network hardware and software, share contracts to reduce credit card merchant fees. Those are some of the projects ongoing, I think. I would like also to mention that this is one time…. It takes time to achieve this, and institutions are working hard on that.

In Advanced Education, I think one of the numbers that is really important is the number of seats government funded and continue to fund. I think these spaces are very important. Last year the ministry funded about 201,000 seats, but over 206,000 seats were delivered. Some of the institutions actually delivered more seats than were funded, with other resources. I think they are doing a good job.

Some members mentioned student loans. I think we have a very good student loan program. It's also easier for a student to manage the loan by reducing the paperwork in the future as well.

Overall, the capital plan shows about $460 million of increased expenditure for capital investment, which is quite an investment in the next three years. We also would like to mention that in the future there will be strengthening of our skills-training infrastructures in B.C. Another $75 million for new buildings and new equipment was announced, so that training facilities have the funding to build up their equipment and buildings.

I should mention that BCIT actually has about a 44.9 percent increase in the grant over the last 12 years. It has been increasing student spaces as well, by around 13.7 percent. This is since 2003-2004 up to last year. So BCIT is growing, and those investments are important.

Not only that. We can also see that since 2001 there have been quite a few capital investments in BCIT.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I am very proud to see the Gateway building has been completed with the support of $22.8 million from the province, as well as $16.3 million from the federal government. The BCIT Aerospace Technology Campus in Richmond has been getting quite a bit of funding, in the order of $16 million.

I am very optimistic for more funding for programs like welding in Burnaby. In fact, it was announced that $8.75 million, a one-time capital allocation for new trades-training equipment, is actually being allocated in the province, and BCIT is getting over $1 million for that.

[1850]

SFU is getting quite a bit of support as well. Since 2003-04 there was about a 19 percent increase in the number of funded student spaces in SFU. Of course, we are very proud to see a lot of renovations happening in SFU — almost $15 million of renovations for the Shrum Science Centre building, as well as about $89 million for the Surrey Central City campus with a lot of funding from the province and support from the federal government's mortgage infrastructure program.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Burnaby Central Secondary School. Burnaby Central has been rebuilt with an almost $15 million contribution from the province. The students and staff are very happy with the building. In education, besides Burnaby Central Secondary we have about 64 schools in Burnaby — a lot of elementary schools and high schools.

Noting the time….

Mr. Speaker: The member can finish up.

R. Lee: If I may, I would like to continue.

Not only in elementary schools and all those education programs…. In health care, I've got a list of improvements in Burnaby Hospital. Of course it's an old facility. It's probably not enough in the future. But I would like to mention that in the past, in the last few years, there has been investment in the patient and family education centre. So $190,000 in Burnaby Hospital. The boiler replacement, the CT scanners, the emergency triage waiting room renovations, the multipurpose room renovations, air-conditioning — all those are important investments.

R. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:53 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