2013 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 43, Number 1
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | 13167 |
J. Brar | |
Tabling Documents | 13167 |
Office of the Auditor General, report No. 11, 2013, Health Benefits Operations: Are the Expected Benefits Being Achieved? | |
Budget Debate (continued) | 13167 |
J. Brar | |
Hon. S. Bond | |
N. Simons | |
Hon. N. Yamamoto | |
R. Fleming | |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Lake: I now call for a return to response to the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
[Applause.]
J. Brar: Thanks to the member. Quite a good beginning and in the spirit of friendship, at least to start the day.
[D. Black in the chair.]
It's always a real honour to stand up in this House and respond to the budget speech. This is a rare opportunity to speak for the people of Surrey. I exist in this House because the people of Surrey have elected me as their representative three times in a row. Therefore, I would like to convey my sincere thanks to the people of Surrey for giving me the opportunity and for putting their faith in me.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
The city of Surrey is the second-largest city in the province.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Member, sorry to interrupt you, but I have a report that I have to table.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present the Auditor General's report No. 11, 2013, Health Benefits Operations: Are the Expected Benefits Being Achieved?
Continue, Member.
Debate Continued
J. Brar: The city of Surrey is the second-largest city in the province. Surrey welcomes over 1,000 new residents every month and is proud to be called the fastest-growing community in the country.
[D. Black in the chair.]
Surrey is also a young city. There are over 100,000 people under the age of 19, and Surrey has the largest number of youth of all B.C. municipalities.
The population growth brings with it unique economic opportunities and challenges to address the growing needs of our growing population. Therefore, the people of Surrey watched the budget speech with deep interest, hoping it would address some of the challenges facing our people. Over the years the B.C. Liberal government has shown it is not up to the challenges facing our fast-growing community. We still see chronic problems with education, income inequality, transit and health care. Surrey residents are finding it hard to travel on public transit, schools badly need funding, and we see the visible signs of poverty and income inequality in parts of the city.
There is no good news in this budget for the people of Surrey. B.C. Liberals claim that this is a balanced budget. It is not a balanced budget. This is the fifth deficit budget in a row. In fact, it is a bogus budget. Let me tell you why this budget is a bogus budget.
First, the total projected surplus for this budget is just $197 million — just $197 million — and the projected deficit for last year's budget was $968 million. In reality, today the deficit for the last fiscal year is now predicted to be $1.2 billion. In other words, the deficit, as projected by this government, and the reality of the deficit — there's a variation of $232 million. It is $232 million more than they projected last year.
The question that the people of British Columbia are asking is: how realistic is it to have a deficit of $197 million when their last-year deficit was over, by their projections, about $232 million?
Secondly, they used accounting tricks to move expenditures from one year to the other year. That is another thing they did, and that's why this is a bogus budget. And it is not only the opposition saying it. Media are saying it, political pundits are saying it, and the accountants are saying it.
Let me tell you what a well-known, respected reporter, Vaughn Palmer, said on February 20 in the Vancouver Sun. "Another fiscal trick saw the government bring forward into the outgoing financial year, meaning the one ending this March 31, about $150 million worth of program spending that would have otherwise been booked to the incoming year, meaning the one beginning April 1." That means they have moved the $150 million expenditure from the budget year, which is the next year, from the previous year.
Thirdly, this is a bogus budget because the Liberal record of making predictions about revenue is very, very poor. Last year, for example, the B.C. Liberal predictions for natural gas revenue were wrong by half a million dollars — half a million dollars over just a six-month period. That's why this is a bogus budget.
Fourthly, this is a bogus budget because this budget in-
[ Page 13168 ]
cludes $800 million of revenue from a fire sale of public land and assets. This is unrealistic and simply not credible. Again, this is not only the opposition objecting to it. The people of British Columbia are asking questions about it, and the media are asking questions about it. This government has been silent, not responding to many of the questions being asked.
Let me tell you what Vaughn Palmer on February 20 stated in the Vancouver Sun: "The most controversial saw the inclusion of $800 million worth of scheduled asset sales, mostly government-owned land that has been declared surplus, marketable or both. Previous governments have sold off assets from time to time as well. I don't recall them doing it to this extent, nor as a route to a balanced budget." That's what Vaughn Palmer is saying from the Vancouver Sun.
Today in the Vancouver Sun I read a completely different new layer about that. The government planned to sell off financial instruments. That's what is reported in today's Vancouver Sun by Jonathan Fowlie. This is a new item which has never been disclosed before. This is what Jonathan says: "The B.C. Liberal government's controversial plan to balance its budget by selling off public assets includes the disposal of hundreds of millions of dollars…of what it is calling 'financial instruments.'" That's what the newspaper is saying today.
Interjection.
J. Brar: Madam Speaker, the member for Chilliwack is objecting to my comments. I think he will have a chance to speak to the budget, and he should stand up and speak to the budget when his turn comes.
About this sale of these properties. This government has been very secret about disclosing the list of those properties. We have asked them in this House, and the people of British Columbia have been asking about that list, and this government has been completely secret. That brings a lot of suspicion about the sale of those properties. The argument used by the government, in my opinion, is baseless and does not stand the test of the market.
What they are saying is that by disclosing the list of properties, the price of the property is going to go up. That's the argument this government is using. That is a baseless argument, in my view. In my view, the more buyers, the better the price of the property. Therefore, I would like to ask the government that they should make the list of those properties public.
(a) The public of British Columbia has the right to know the list of those properties.
(b) The more buyers, the better the price, I think, is the formula. The more people that know about it, the better the price that the people of British Columbia can get for that property.
(c) People will judge whether those properties are surplus, as defined by the government. Therefore, there is a disclosure issue this government continues to refuse about those properties, and that's why this budget is a bogus budget.
There is bad news for the people of Surrey. The list of those properties includes five properties in the city of Surrey. The city of Surrey, the fastest-growing population in the province, in the country, which needs a lot of properties to build schools, to build hospitals, and five of those properties are included in the city of Surrey. There are two lots on 192 Street in the middle of a fast-growing community.
They also sold a former school board office, located next to the city hall, and they are selling two schools. I don't know which the schools are, because they don't disclose the information. But the most controversial and most objectionable piece of land this government has put on sale is the 15-acre lot in the Panorama Ridge neighbourhood in Surrey. This is a piece of land that was purchased more than 15 years ago by the previous government to build a new hospital for the growing population of Surrey. This is a perfect location to build a new hospital at the corner of 152 Street and Highway 10.
This is a location that is in the middle of a growing population and with an excellent road network to three other hospitals in the region: Peace Arch Hospital, Langley Hospital and Surrey Memorial Hospital. But the B.C. Liberals have put that piece of land on sale to balance the budget just before the election, so they don't care about the needs of the fastest-growing community in the province. That is the people of Surrey.
That's why this is a bogus budget, because we don't know whether the sale of those 100 properties will materialize and will bring the money they have projected in the budget.
Another thing is that this is not the first time. This budget is actually nothing but a repeat of the 2009 pre-election budget. If you remember, Madam Speaker, it was in '09, just before the election, that they presented the budget saying that the total deficit would be $495 million. Not a penny more. That's what they said. And it's not only what they said during the presentation of the budget. They kept repeating it during the election campaign. But as soon as the election was over, what did the people of British Columbia find? That that was completely wrong. The actual deficit was over $2 billion, five times more than the prediction made by this government in the '09 budget.
Clearly, this government, the B.C. Liberal government, misled the people of British Columbia. They misinformed the people of British Columbia about the prediction about the budget and particularly about the deficit.
The other thing they said during the pre-election campaign, that….
[ Page 13169 ]
J. Les: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe I heard the member opposite suggesting that the government misled the people of British Columbia. I believe that to be unparliamentary language, and he should withdraw.
M. Farnworth: Madam Speaker, it is a time-honoured, long-known parliamentary fact that the term "misled" is perfectly acceptable parliamentary language. The term "deliberately misleading" would be unparliamentary, but "misleading" is parliamentary.
Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. Would the member for Surrey-Fleetwood please continue.
J. Brar: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, we live in the finest democracy on the earth, and people have the right to object, but at the same time, if you say to the people of British Columbia that the total deficit will be $495 million, and, in reality, it's $2 billion, I don't know what word you would use to explain that. I just said "misled," but I don't know. What word would you use to say that, as to what happened there?
The other thing they said during the pre-election in '09…. They didn't mention in the budget at all about the HST. They said they had no plans to introduce the HST in the province of British Columbia. Not only that, but they actually gave that commitment in writing to the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. They also gave that commitment in writing to the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association.
But that was during the election campaign. As soon as the election was over, because they said the total deficit would be $495 million and, in fact, it was $2 billion, they were looking for new cash. So guess what happened. Just a few weeks after the election, they imposed the HST on the people of British Columbia. That's what they did. It was a complete surprise for the people of British Columbia.
What happened after that we know. The people of British Columbia stood up to this government. They signed petitions. They answered the future of the HST through the referendum — and we still continue, the people of British Columbia still continue, paying HST, even after that HST was defeated through a legal process, through a referendum process. People still keep paying it. That's why the people of British Columbia don't believe the budget of this government.
The other issue, which is not part of this budget, is the issue of income inequality. This is very close to my heart. The budget fails to address the growing income inequality in our rich province.
Income inequality has been growing in every part of British Columbia since the B.C. Liberals took over in 2001. That's why I accepted the welfare challenge last year to live on the welfare amount, to experience first time what life is like for the 800,000 people living in poverty in this province, because it is very hard for me to believe, and I think it's very hard for any member of this House to believe, that we have 100,000 children living in poverty in this rich province we call "The best place on earth to live." It's very hard for me to believe that over 90,000 British Columbians use a food bank every month.
We have a wealthy society. We have a wealthy province, and we can do better. We can do better, and I think the people of British Columbia want us to do better, particularly the way we look after the most vulnerable people of the province. This budget does not address that issue.
I lived on the provincial income assistance for a month, beginning January 1, 2012. I met a lot of people living in poverty, living on welfare. I listened to their stories, very heartbreaking stories, and there is a message to all of us. Under the B.C. Liberals life has become less affordable. Life has become less affordable for families. That's the message, and that message was very clear.
British Columbia now has the highest level of income inequality and the highest rate of poverty of any province in Canada. This budget offers absolutely no hope for those people.
The B.C. Liberal record is very clear when it comes to supporting or assisting the most vulnerable people. A report released by the Toronto-Dominion Bank in December 2012 shows that British Columbia has the highest level of income inequality in Canada.
Similarly, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives states that in 2009 the top 20 percent of earners in British Columbia had 44.8 percent of after-tax income, the most of any jurisdiction in Canada. The bottom 20 percent had the smallest share, with only 4.5 percent of income. The gap between the rich and the poor is highest in this province because of the policies of the B.C. Liberal government for the last ten years.
The B.C. Progress Board annual report, 2006, emphasizes the fact that…. This is a board established by this government. This is the board established by the B.C. Liberal government.
This is what they say: "Low income matters for two reasons. First, equality of opportunity is an important goal in British Columbia. All children, irrespective of their social background, should have an equal chance to succeed in the province, and there is compelling evidence that children from low-income families are at greater risk." That's what the B.C. Progress Board said.
The second thing they said: "Governments and society as a whole bear important collective costs that flow from high levels of economic marginalization in the province." That's what the B.C. Progress Board says.
There is a clear difference between our vision and the B.C. Liberals' vision, as indicated in this province. The B.C. Liberals' economic and social policies have left B.C.
[ Page 13170 ]
with the worst poverty rate in Canada for several years in a row, according to Statistics Canada. The B.C. Liberals have refused to follow the lead of eight other provinces and territorial governments that have comprehensive poverty reduction plans in place or under development.
We cannot afford not to take actions to address the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We must start addressing income inequality with a pragmatic approach, with clear targets and timelines. The B.C. Liberal government has continuously refused to take steps in that direction.
The government and the people of British Columbia want us to take action. That's why we have tabled, the New Democrats have tabled, a Poverty Reduction Act in the Legislature that would result in a poverty reduction plan to improve the lives of the most vulnerable people of British Columbia. We are committed to bringing change for the better. We are committed to bringing change for the better, one practical step at a time.
Interjection.
J. Brar: I know, Madam Speaker, the member for Chilliwack has difficulty listening to all of these facts, you know, because it's hard for him to digest the factual reality.
Education is another story, and this budget does not address the chaos this government has created in the education system. In 2001 the B.C. Liberals promised to the people of British Columbia that they would provide "the best education system, so that no child is left behind." That's what they said.
In reality, they did the opposite. They closed over 150 schools in the province, and they cut capital funding for building new schools in every budget, particularly in the fastest-growing community of Surrey, as well. Under the B.C. Liberals, a decade of confrontation with the teachers has damaged our school system completely. The ability of our public education system to meet the needs of students, particularly those with special needs, has declined.
This budget does not address the key issues facing our students. Class size, composition, support for special needs students remain key educational priorities, and this budget does not address those priorities. This budget is a missed opportunity, and particularly when it comes to the city of Surrey — as I said earlier, the fastest-growing community in the province. The B.C. Liberals have cut capital funding for the Surrey school district since 2005. The Surrey school district didn't receive a penny to build new schools since 2005.
The Surrey school district is the largest school district in the province and one of a few growing school districts in the province. At this point about 7,300 students are attending schools in portables. In other words, around 10 percent of the students in Surrey have no real classrooms, and they receive education in portables. That's the reality, and the number of portables has gone up to 292 last year. That is equivalent to 12 elementary schools, and that is not good for Surrey families and students.
The B.C. Liberal government record on education is very disturbing. This government, the B.C. Liberal government, championed a law that strips teachers of the right to negotiate smaller classes and enhanced school support for students. In 2001 the B.C. Supreme Court declared that law unconstitutional. That's what happened.
In 2001 and '02 the B.C. Liberal government slashed education capital funding by 47 percent, from $450 million to $240 million, and then continued to reduce it over the following ten years. That's what happened.
In 2010-11 there were more than 16,000 classes that broke the B.C. Liberals' own class-size and composition law — 16,000. B.C.'s student-to-educator ratio was the worst in Canada in 2009 and '10, as per Statistics Canada.
Post-secondary education is another story under the B.C. Liberals. The B.C. Liberals have failed to make post-secondary education a priority in this budget, resulting in lost opportunity for young students. The Liberals singled out the Ministry of Advanced Education as the only one to receive a cut in the 2012 provincial budget, and they did the same in this budget at a time of a serious skills shortage. It makes absolutely no sense to cut funding for post-secondary education. That's what the B.C. Liberals did in the budget.
At a time when students in this province have roughly about $27,000 average debt, it doesn't make sense not to have a need-based grant program for students. At a time when 80 percent of the jobs in the future will require some level of post-secondary education, it doesn't make any sense to cut funding for the Ministry of Advanced Education. That's what this government has done in this budget.
Access to education and skills training is key to growing a sustainable economy. That will attract investment, create good jobs and build a ladder of opportunity into a stronger middle class. But this government has a completely different vision.
To conclude — I don't know how much time I have — I just want to re-emphasize that this is a bogus budget because it is not a balanced budget. This is the fifth deficit budget in a row. In fact, it is a bogus budget because they used accounting tricks to move expenditures from one year to the other and because this budget includes $800 million revenue from a fire sale of public land and assets. That is unrealistic and simply not credible.
It's a bogus budget because critical issues like training and reinvestment in our land base and investment in climate change are missing in the budget. This budget will not fix the credibility gap that the B.C. Liberals have desperately tried to fix with more than $16 million in taxpayer-funded ads.
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity.
[ Page 13171 ]
Hon. S. Bond: I very much appreciate the opportunity to stand today in the Legislature and provide some comments about Budget 2013.
I will have, certainly, more to say about the budget specifically, but I do want to take the opportunity as I stand in this House, and as I do each time that I get to speak, to recognize what an unbelievable privilege it is, whether you are in government or in opposition or an independent in this House, to serve British Columbians after having been elected by your constituents.
It's an amazing place. It's an opportunity to teach the rest of British Columbia about all parts of the province. I live in a beautiful riding. I'm extremely proud of it. I am very honoured to be the MLA for Prince George–Valemount.
It's also a place where we get to disagree with one another. Hopefully, that's in a respectful way. I think British Columbians expect that of us.
I want to begin by recognizing, as virtually every member has, that we get to serve in this place and we get to be as successful at our jobs as we are because of a number of groups of people. First and foremost are our families.
Certainly, I, like others, have had exceptional support from my husband, my children and many, many close friends and colleagues. When you've been in public office of some sort for almost two decades, there is a long list of thank-yous. I'm very grateful to my family and friends for the unbelievable support that they continue to give.
But I also know that in order to be effective in our jobs as MLAs — and, certainly, as a cabinet minister — there are teams of people who work to support us every single day. I am always grateful, and I want to very much recognize my own constituency assistants, one of whom is not feeling very well today in Prince George. I'm sorry for that. So to Katrina and Dorothy, who make my world a lot more simple — I appreciate them.
Here in Victoria I have a very busy portfolio and a team that literally helps to hold everything together in what is a complex and difficult ministry. To Evan, Mike, Damon, Raz, Rahim, Lara, Kim and Candice — they are an exceptional team, and I'm very grateful to have their support on a daily basis.
I also want to recognize two other members of the House. We have been a great team, and we enjoy working together — the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and the member for Nechako Lakes.
One of the things that helps when you're here in Victoria is making sure that you're bringing a strong and united voice for your part of the province. I can't begin to tell you what an honour it's been to work with both of these members, working hard on behalf of the people who live in the northern part of British Columbia.
You know, we stand in the House, and we hear…. The member who just spoke previously. There was hardly one positive sentiment in the entire speech.
We live in a fantastic province. We live in a province that is on the verge of being even greater, and we have such possibility and such opportunity. It means we have to be strategic and we have to be thoughtful. We have to be bold, and we have to grasp the opportunities that are before us.
Member after member on the opposite benches has gotten up and looked back. Lots of criticism but very little positive planning for the future. We can stand here all day and can debate whether or not the members opposite believe that the budget is balanced.
What is absolutely astounding to me is that we talk about what happened in terms of previous budgets, but what's completely ignored in the comments is the fact that the world faced a global economic downturn.
If you look around us, British Columbia is better positioned today than virtually any other jurisdiction in North America. In fact, you don't have to just listen to members on this side of the bench. When you actually look at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example, they said that if you're going to invest anywhere, choose British Columbia.
When we look at a triple-A credit rating, that is not an insignificant accomplishment. There are very few jurisdictions that have managed to retain and have successive credit upgrades.
We don't hear anything about that on the other side of the House. In fact, if we look back to the 1990s, we had successive credit downgrades in British Columbia — a pretty staggering difference.
I remember one of the things that compelled me to run in the first place, when I first decided to run as an MLA. I was so embarrassed that British Columbia had been moved from have status to have-not status — a rich and beautiful province. At a time when other jurisdictions were actually prospering, our province was going in exactly the opposite direction. That not only made me sad but concerned me greatly.
If we look at the comparison today…. That was then, and this is now. Let's talk about why it's important to place a balanced budget before the citizens of British Columbia. I can assure members of this House that one thing we're clear about is we're not prepared to saddle future generations with debt. We're going to continue to look at debt reduction. We're going to continue to look at economic investments in this province.
In fact, we just heard from the opposition Finance critic the other day that the plan on the other side is: "You know what? We're going to balance the budget, but we're going to take one fiscal cycle to do that. In other words, we're going to build up the debt, and we might get around to balancing a budget in four or five years." It's pretty rich that we sit and listen to members on the opposite side of the House talk about this balanced budget, when in fact they have laid it out for British Columbians.
[ Page 13172 ]
One thing we do know about their plan is that they plan to have a deficit. We don't know how big it is. We do know that it'll take them four or five years to get around to actually balancing the budget. So how big will that deficit be?
Day after day: "Let's add more to education." We just heard that from the member opposite. "Let's add more." He neglected to point out that there are 65,000 fewer children in the education system, and we continue to invest record amounts of funding in education in the province.
The same is true for health care. All we hear about on the other side of the House is that we've cut funding to health care. The last time I looked at the budget document, it says that over the next three years we will increase funding to health care by $2.4 billion.
I don't know how you get the math to work it out to be a cut — $2.4 billion. The health care budget has grown to the largest budget in the history of this province, and yet it's characterized as a cut.
It's also hard to sit and listen to the member previous to me speak about child poverty. Now, we should be very clear. There is not a single member in this House, whether they're on that side of the bench or this, that doesn't care about children in this province. Child poverty isn't and shouldn't be a partisan issue. Every single person in this House cares about that.
What the member opposite failed to point out is that B.C.'s poverty rate is at its second-lowest point in the past 20 years. Only 2008, before the recession, showed a better result, and until the recent recession British Columbia saw a dramatic, consistent decline in the poverty rate. In fact, since 2003 our child poverty rate has dropped by 45 percent — 19.2 percent in 2003 to 10.5 percent in 2010. That is a higher rate of decline than the national average.
No one in this House believes for a moment that that's good enough — no one. To stand in this House and suggest that there should be a partisan approach or that people feel differently about reducing child poverty is simply unacceptable.
Madam Speaker, when you look at Budget 2013, one of the most important things we have looked at is how we make tough, practical decisions so that we can make sure that our families in British Columbia can be protected as much as possible through what are very difficult economic circumstances. But to suggest that the budget does nothing for families, once again, is simply not accurate.
I want to reflect on…. We spend a lot of time talking about how that was then and this is now. I want you to look at where I live, for just a few minutes — what it was like then and what it's like now. One of the most important things for families in British Columbia is that they have a chance to have a job so that they can care for their children, so that they can meet the dreams and hopes they have.
Let's look at the unemployment rate where I live. In 1998 the unemployment rate was 14.1 percent. I live in a beautiful, prosperous place full of resources that need to be developed responsibly and sustainably — 14.1 percent. Let me tell you what it was last month. Last month where I live the unemployment rate was 4.5 percent. That was then; this is now.
For the first time in the history of British Columbia we're training doctors outside of the Lower Mainland. Why is that important? Because families in northern British Columbia deserve a physician, and we've learned that if you actually train those physicians closer to home, they'll stay there.
This government in the beginning of our mandate had the foresight to say that you need to move the training closer to home so that northern students would have the opportunity to train and be physicians closer to their homes. That's exactly what we did, and we're seeing that we now can retain and recruit physicians to the north in a way that simply wasn't possible. We have a medical program in northern British Columbia. That wasn't even contemplated before we became government.
It doesn't stop there. I know many members in this House travel extensively. I travel back and forth to my home. I try and do it every week. But I can't tell you how many times, Madam Speaker, I sit beside someone on a plane who has had to leave their loved one in Vancouver for cancer treatment. I want you to know that's not an easy ride home when they're feeling like they want to be close to the person that they love. Is it fair that they should not be able to be treated closer to home? Of course not.
Let's look at what happened then and now. Northern residents wanted a cancer centre for decades. The answer was: "No, there are not enough people. You don't have a large enough population base." Well, I want you to know we looked at that, and we said: "That's simply not good enough."
I can't begin to tell you what an unbelievable day it was when we opened the northern cancer centre. It was emotional, and it was a demonstration of what Prince George and the north looked like then and what it looks like now.
We only have to look at our post-secondary institutions. I sat and listened to: "We don't invest, we haven't done anything, and nothing has changed." That's simply not accurate. We have invested millions of dollars, both in infrastructure and in training programs, and this budget continues that practice.
I am a firm believer in training people closer to home, making sure we have the workforce of the future. I know this. I'm pretty excited that at this point in British Columbia's history we actually have jobs looking for people instead of people looking for jobs, which was certainly the circumstance back then.
Now, when you talk about investing in infrastructure, government is going to invest…. Think about this. Over the next three years, despite what we just heard — "no
[ Page 13173 ]
investment, nothing is happening" — government is going to invest $10.4 billion in taxpayer-supported capital projects — $10.4 billion.
The north has been such an amazing beneficiary of the strategy that we've had in place. It's so discouraging to sit on this side of the House and listen to people say that the north has been neglected. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I live there, and I've watched investment at the College of New Caledonia, at the University of Northern British Columbia. We're training more nurses. We're training physiotherapists. We're training doctors. We're training skilled workers at the College of New Caledonia. In fact, we made the single largest investment in the College of New Caledonia's infrastructure since the day it was built. And we will continue to invest $10.4 billion in taxpayer-supported capital projects over the next three years.
If we look at health care…. In 2000, I believe, approximately 6,000 people went to an arena in Prince George, and do you know what they said? "We don't have the health care services we need." These 6,000 people said: "We've had enough. We deserve better health care opportunities."
That's exactly what they got under the B.C. Liberals over the last 12 years — investment after investment in health care. And as I've suggested, we look at the outcomes. We have a cancer centre now. We're going to open a cancer lodge very shortly, and what a project that is.
The generosity of northern British Columbians. Yes, government contributed a small amount to that project — small in terms of the total project; certainly not small when you think of a $2 million contribution. But the millions of dollars that were raised for that project were raised in the north, across the north, by generous donors. We have physicians staying in the north.
Six thousand people said then: "We've had enough. It's not fair. We don't get equitable service." That is not the case today. We have a new set of circumstances in northern British Columbia, and we are very proud of the accomplishments and the investments that have been made over the past 12 years. This budget ensures that the health care budget in British Columbia, as I said, will increase by $2.4 billion — hardly a cut.
When we talk about the budget and how we invest in families, we know that families are challenged. One of the most important things for families today is that their children get the opportunities that they deserve. It's fantastic because, as I stand here in the Legislature today and I look up, we've got some guests in the gallery. I'm not sure where they're from, but they're students.
It's important, whether you're on this side of the House or that side of the House. The work we're doing here today and in the years past and future is to make sure that young people, like the ones visiting us in the gallery today, have every opportunity to be successful. We've built some opportunities into the budget for families. We have a B.C. training and education savings grant, a chance for families to start that….
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. The member for Delta South seeks leave.
V. Huntington: I seek leave to make an introduction, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
V. Huntington: I'm very pleased today to be able to introduce 30 grade 5 and 6 students from Pebble Hill Elementary in South Delta. They're here today with their teacher, Mr. Scott Preddy, and many of their parents. I hope members help me welcome them to the precinct today.
Debate Continued
Hon. S. Bond: Well, now we know where they're from, and that makes it even easier for us to have that conversation. So welcome to the precinct today. We hope that you enjoy your visit here and have an opportunity to understand government and how it works a little bit better. Hopefully, it might inspire you to think about, possibly, a political career somewhere in your future. It's a pretty important job and exciting — lots of opportunities for you.
As we look at our budget, we think about the B.C. training and education savings grant — an opportunity for families to plan for the future, to make sure that their children have a head start when they get the opportunity to go to a post-secondary education.
We have a new B.C. early childhood tax benefit. Again, we hear, "No investment," yet $146 million to support approximately 180,000 families in our province with children under six years old. Families will receive additional support. That's important.
We have a new early-years strategy that will invest over $76 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and improve the quality of child care and early-years services. All of these things are investments that the balanced budget in 2013 brings to the table.
But when we think about why it's so important…. You know, we sit and we listen to the rhetoric and the back-and-forth. What's critical is that we recognize that for future generations, we have to make tough decisions. We have to be in a position at times to say: "No, we simply can't afford to do that now." We have to look after the priorities of health care. We have to look after education. We have to make sure we have strong transporta-
[ Page 13174 ]
tion infrastructure.
In fact, really very personal and important to me now is that we have an accessible, transparent, affordable justice system. The first thing that I hear…. When the question is asked, "How do we ensure that system is in place in the province?" the first answer is: "Let's just write another cheque. Let's just invest more money, and that'll fix all of the problems."
Well, it's about much more than that. It's about foundational challenges. When you look at what the issue is in the justice system…. Geoffrey Cowper was a very respected lawyer who did work to look at justice reform. In his report one of the things he said was that we have to grapple with a "culture of delay." We're not going to fix the culture of delay by simply writing a bigger cheque. In fact, this budget provides over $1.1 billion to support the justice system in British Columbia.
Madam Speaker, you know, for most British Columbians, that's a pretty big number — over a billion dollars to ensure that we have a justice system that works and that people can have confidence in, in our province. But we have to ask some of the tough questions. At a time when the crime rate is the lowest that it has been at in over three decades, when there are fewer cases going to courtrooms in British Columbia, why does it take longer to find resolution to the issues that victims face?
We know that it's tough enough to be the victim of a crime, to suffer some great, horrible circumstance. Is it made any easier by the fact that it takes so long to come to resolution? Of course not. Just as I believe the issue of child poverty isn't a partisan issue, I don't believe that having a great justice system should be a partisan issue either.
Where we may differ is how we get to that place where we can remove that culture of delay. I believe that before you start to add more dollars…. And we certainly hear about it — add more judges, add more legal aid, add more this, add more that. First we have to figure out if what we have is being invested properly and if the system is working effectively.
I'm very excited about the work we've been doing. Yesterday or earlier this week, I think, we released a white paper, too, and a community safety and policing plan. We're looking at innovation in the system. We're looking at how we bring stakeholders and partners together in the system to talk about how we can improve this justice system. The fantastic news is that in this budget, the Justice Ministry's budget was increased. We wanted to be sure that, first and foremost, we could protect front-line police officers, and our budget includes a significant increase to do just that.
But we're at a pivotal moment in the time that we have to look at justice and look at reform. That takes courage, and it takes cooperation, and it takes momentum. It means we have to ask ourselves: what are the things we can take out of the courts today so that we can concentrate on those significant cases that need to be in courtrooms?
One of the things I am most proud of, which we have worked on as a government, is the significant changes we have made to the Family Law Act in this province. For decades the act remained status quo. When we looked at the issue of family law, one of the things that I thought a lot about was the fact that families who find themselves in conflict need to be supported in ways that don't necessarily mean litigation.
Do we really want to be solving, in courtrooms, issues that are difficult for families? There are far better ways. We look at mediation. We look at other ways of supporting families. The Family Law Act, which will come into force very shortly now, in March, takes a new approach to supporting families who find themselves unfortunately caught up in the justice system in the province. Those are the kinds of innovative things that we need to look at.
The issue of impaired driving — we've debated it in numerous ways in this House. In fact, there have been challenges. I had to bring that law back into this Legislature after the courts said to us: "You need to do this differently." We did that, and there are benefits to that. Obviously, we will continue to refine a law that is leading the country in the reform that it has brought.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
Why does it matter? Well, first and foremost, it matters because it takes impaired drivers off the streets. Over the course of the time the law has been in place, we know that over 100 people have gone home to their families, who would not have without the tough and focused legislation that this side of the House put in place. Those benefits are priceless. But if you look at it from a reform perspective in terms of the justice system, it also means that impaired-driving cases are far fewer in the courtrooms than they were previously.
We're also looking at civil disputes in a different way. We should be able to deal with strata issues and small claims without taking up excessive court time. That doesn't mean there isn't the opportunity at the end of that process for a judicial review, a judicial process. But why can't we begin to resolve those issues outside of courtrooms? That's why we brought that legislation through the House.
In fact, we'd like to do the same thing with traffic tickets. Picture this for a moment. Communities want more police officer time. Guess where a lot of them spend their time — sitting outside of traffic court, only to discover that their case won't be called today.
There are different ways we can approach the justice system, and it's essential that instead of simply saying, "Let's just add more money. Let's just keep putting more
[ Page 13175 ]
taxpayer dollars into the system," we need to be bold. We need to be innovative. In the words of one of the recently appointed Supreme Court justices…. He said to me: "You need to be persistent if you are going to succeed in change and in reform in the justice system." So we will continue to look through our white paper, through other initiatives at laying out a path in British Columbia for looking at reform in the justice system.
As I am close to the end of my time, I want to focus just for a couple of minutes on the budget. You don't get to the place we find ourselves in today in British Columbia without a great deal of hard work and discipline. We can debate that in this House, but there's something we can't debate because it's simply the fact. There are only two jurisdictions in Canada that are in a position to balance their budget. We are one of them.
In fact, it has taken a decade of fiscal prudence, controlling spending, looking at making those tough decisions, making sure that we are making tough choices so that investors have confidence in our province, looking at sustainable economic development. At the end of the day, it's not a partisan issue. British Columbians want the best health care options they can have. They want the best education opportunities for their children. They want great transportation infrastructure.
They want safe communities to live in, appropriate policing. They want community-based policing. They want to make sure — yes, to the member opposite's point — that we are addressing poverty and child poverty in British Columbia. But to do that you have to have sound, strong economic principles and a vibrant economy. We have a track record that demonstrates we can do that. We are one of two jurisdictions in a position to present a balanced budget.
Today I am very proud to stand and support balanced budget 2013. It lays out the path for the future of British Columbia. It demonstrates prudent fiscal management. Most importantly, it supports families in British Columbia in the way they deserve to be supported.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast. [Applause.]
N. Simons: Thank you for that wonderful, wonderful reception. I most appreciate it.
It's my honour and privilege to stand in the House and respond to Budget 2013. I thank the minister and member for Prince George–Valemount for her comments — some of which, I would like to say, I agreed with. That was my first positive statement. There will be some others.
Obviously, in the Legislature of British Columbia there will be differences expressed in this chamber. Because of the system we have in place, it's not often that we stand up and give the other side our compliments, our gratitude and our thanks.
But there are some members on both sides of the House who are leaving. On a personal note, I'd just like to say my best wishes to each and every one of them who I have had the opportunity to trade baseball signals with or chat with in the hallways or exchange some jokes with and get comments on my haircut from. I think that, in truth, the hallways of this building are often more tempered than perhaps this chamber is.
That being said, I also have colleagues on this side of the House who are off to do other things — pursue their retirement perhaps or just get on to other new and exciting adventures. I'd like to particularly mention — well, all four of them…. But the member for Delta North…. Or is it Delta South? I just call him by his first name, which we don't do in this chamber very often. He's going to be spending a bit of time in Powell River, so I'm trying my best to be nice to him now, knowing that perhaps he's going to be closer than I would have otherwise suspected.
The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who is a wonderful MLA, has represented her constituency with great spirit and has served her community for a long time prior to being an MLA as well.
The member for North Coast, who I spent a lot of time with, has been a spark, an energetic superstar in caucus. He has worked extremely hard on an issue that is of huge importance to my constituency, and that is the ferries. He has been an outstanding critic and someone who has brought to the fore the concerns of our constituents and made them known to successive Ministers of Transportation, who have not necessarily been in the position to make the necessary corrections to that system that would have made life more affordable.
Of course, there's also my friend the former counsellor and biologist — still a biologist — the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who besides being an eloquent spokesperson for the protection of the environment and agricultural land has also been a steadfast supporter of mine in my attempts to become a better birdwatcher. His skill in that area is matched, perhaps, by very few in this chamber.
Their personal style and their generosity have made life in this chamber easier, and I thank all of them. So while we see members departing, there will be new members in this House after May. My best wishes, on a personal note, to everybody.
I'd like to also thank people who work in my offices in Powell River and in Davis Bay on the beautiful Sunshine Coast — also known as the Gulf Coast Riviera. It's true; it was referred to as that at one time.
Both Maggie Hathaway and Kim Tournat have been amazing advocates for my constituents on issues of importance to them, whether they be individual issues where people come to the office and need some help navigating the complexities of government or systemic issues that affect a broader number of people and need to be addressed perhaps in this chamber.
[ Page 13176 ]
They have both been wonderful in helping me carry the concerns of my constituents to this chamber and, in some cases, in having some success in changing the approach of this government on some issues after a considerable amount of arm-twisting and, shall we say, prodding. I was going to say "coercion," but that would've been the wrong word.
So my thanks to the staff in Powell River–Sunshine Coast and, of course, to the staff here, who are always working hard and who we fly by quickly, carrying papers, and sometimes only see in passing.
I'd like to say thank you to the class from, I believe, Delta who are presently exiting the chamber. I will not take that personally. I understand that they have other classes to go to or other things to do in this wonderful capital city. So thank you for coming to the legislative chamber, and I hope that this place….
You will remember this place. Perhaps you'll be back. Perhaps we'll be mentioning you in speeches for the accomplishments that you make in your lives, whether you're a musician or an athlete or a bureaucrat. I hope this chamber is a place that you can have pride in as you grow up. It is a place of great importance to the people of this province.
We've often talked about issues — very specifically, about the direct connection that this chamber has to the quality of life and the safety of young children, to the quality and safety of our drinking water, to the protection of our natural environment, to the promotion of equality and a better system of governance. I think this chamber's relevance to the people of this province, whether it's noticed or not, can't be understated. For that reason, I'm proud to be able to stand here and represent what I believe are the important concerns of my constituents living in Powell River–Sunshine Coast.
I should start, perhaps, to talk about one thing that I would've hoped was in this budget but wasn't. I know that when I talk about the cuts I see to programs and services to people with developmental disabilities, children or adults, the government side will just shout back: "Spend more money; spend more money."
I take offence to some degree with that, because, quite honestly, it's not always about finding more money to spend, but it's using the money that we have in a better way, more effectively, and to priorities that I think many on both sides of this House sometimes would agree to. I could list a litany of expenditures made by this government or other policy directions that they've taken over time which have, in fact, reduced our ability to target resources where they really need to be.
As a former child protection social worker, I remember quite well the announced 23 percent cuts to the Ministry of Children and Families in the early 2000s. I had a problem with them, not because I wanted to criticize the government…. Quite frankly, at that time I was not as politically aware as I should've been. I was not familiar with the political parties and their views, but I certainly became aware.
When I saw that a ministry that had gone through quite a bit of difficult time with the Gove inquiry that came about because of mishandling of cases in Vancouver, I thought that the attention paid to that situation was necessary. I think the government of the day took a bold step to ensure that the problems in the child welfare system would be addressed and that they'd find some solutions and that perhaps we would learn something from that as we went forward. But then I saw the 23 percent cuts, which were later reduced to 11 percent.
I suppose, in a way, if you're getting hit, you want the person who's hitting you to stop or slow down. It doesn't really effect the change that you want. An 11 percent cut only sounds good in relation to not being a 23 percent cut. But an 11 percent cut to the ministry that's responsible for ensuring that children — children who cannot speak for themselves, who live in most cases in a degree of poverty that we shouldn't tolerate in this province…. The services that were in place to make sure that they were safe, that they had opportunities, were the services that were cut in 2002. Eleven percent had a huge impact on the children throughout this province.
Those were decisions made then by many of the members who are still in government. I still wait for some justification for those or some acknowledgment that they were ill-conceived. Without that, the public of the province sees a government that has not learned from its mistakes.
We just received a report from the Representative for Children and Youth, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. The report ostensibly was on the tasering of an 11-year-old boy in Prince George. This 11-year-old boy had some behaviour issues that resulted in police getting called quite regularly to where he was living, which I might add changed quite often in his young life. The police responded by trying to subdue the young fellow with a Taser and were successful, obviously.
When that news broke, we had to say: what was going on? An 11-year-old who can't be charged under the Criminal Code and whose life has obviously taken some turns which have caused him some trauma — how is it possible that we ended up in a society where an 11-year-old could be tasered?
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond did a comprehensive review, not of the specific incident where the police showed up and tried to subdue the young fellow, but about the child's life. He was born in the late '90s. He grew up essentially under a government that, when he was about four, cut the services that were the most important to him.
The representative specifically says in her report that in 2002 she didn't understand why the child development office wanted to cut back his services 50 percent. That
[ Page 13177 ]
question remains unanswered in the report of the representative. It is incomprehensible, I think the words were — or for reasons unknown to the representative — that the social worker was asking for a 50 percent cut in this child's access to child development programs.
Those are the programs that try to address the disabilities or the delay in a child's learning. This little fellow, who ended up getting tasered when he was 11, was a client of those services — a client of the services that were being forced to be cut in 2002 because of the 11 percent cut in services to Children and Families. So we see a more recent symptom of a bad decision made in the early 2000s that I think really needs to be acknowledged.
I would also point out that in the same years when those budget cuts were coming into play in 2002, there was also a push towards deregulation. I know "deregulation" is a bit of a buzzword. When people say, "We don't like red tape," they're often referring to regulations.
Let me point out that the regulations in our province are in place to protect us. Whether it's health regulations to make sure that our restaurants are clean and we won't be likely victims of food poisoning…. Our water quality is regulated. Regulations exist in order to protect the public interest.
There are some regulations that are perhaps redundant, perhaps over the top, and some regulations needed to perhaps be changed. But in the context of budget cuts of 11 percent to a child welfare agency or organization, when you put that and juxtapose it with the fact that at this very same time the Ministry of Children and Families was deregulating faster than any other ministry in the province in 2002….
The Ministry of Children and Families, in fact, won an award presented by the then minister responsible for deregulation, the Deregulation Sprint Award, for the ministry that achieved its deregulating targets the fastest. So in my mind this really reflects the personality of a government that in its zeal to appeal to those who think regulations are all bad, to prove that they are interested in deregulating, creates an award system for ministries. How fast can you deregulate? It's not about how well you can deregulate or how much thought goes into the deregulation process, but just how fast.
They won an award. I'm sure it's a lovely award, but I think it would be an award that I would hide, because the result of their cuts in regulations…. As a result of their cuts in services to children at the time, the impact was devastating. Just one little symptom that we see was an 11-year-old whose needs were not met because of cuts made at that time.
R. Fleming: Apologies to my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast, but I just would seek leave to make an introduction.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed, please.
Introductions by Members
R. Fleming: With us today are 24 grade 5 students and eight adults from Selkirk Montessori School. It's a wonderful facility in my constituency down in the Burnside-Gorge area. They are joined by their teacher, Ms. Arlene Ewart, and I would ask the House to please make these children and adults welcome here in this House this morning.
Debate Continued
N. Simons: I join my colleague from Victoria–Swan Lake in welcoming the Montessori kids. Somehow the kids never sit in the other gallery, so I'm just presuming they're up there. I take your word for it, and the fact that you wave at them from the other side of the House, I'm sure. It seems just as quiet as it was earlier.
I was just talking about the previous budgets of this government in the context of this current budget and the thought that needs to be put into the impact of cuts to services to not just children but adults with specific vulnerabilities.
I just want to talk about vulnerability. We always talk about vulnerable people in our society. What is that vulnerability? The vulnerability in my mind is to be susceptible to a life that isn't lived to its fullest — you know, a life where its trajectory is hampered by poverty or by involvement unnecessarily with the health system, the justice system, the mental health system or addictions services. You know, these are kids and adults who need the support of a society that cares in order for them to live a quality of life that we could look at and say: "We're proud of that" or "We can accept that."
I've had the pleasure and privilege of being the critic for both the Ministry of Children and Families and currently for Community Living B.C., both of whose clients would be considered in the category of vulnerable — vulnerable to harm, vulnerable to a poor quality of life if their needs are not addressed appropriately. I see in the budget, this particular budget, things that would…. If I were a parent of a person with a developmental disability or if I were a self-advocate or if I were a brother or sister or relative of someone with a disability, I would say: "I do not like what the future holds for them under this government."
It's not a question of saying: "Well, just throw more money at it." But there are some fixed costs in government. There are some fixed costs that we should expect to provide, especially for children at risk, especially for adults at risk. I don't think we should be making compromises, and I don't think we should be trying to achieve the impression of a balanced budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our communities.
[ Page 13178 ]
I'm sorry, as the Minister of Justice earlier said she was sorry. I'm sorry about the impact that this budget is going to have on them.
We hear repeatedly of the image of parents sitting around a dinner table and saying: "You know, Son" — or daughter, whatever the case may be — "we just can't afford it."
I can understand it. I sat around a dinner table with my parents. My parents raised six children. I know I was shielded from any of the concerns they had around the cost of living, but I don't remember my parents saying: "I'm sorry we can't afford food" or "I'm sorry we can't afford something that you need, because we've spent it on something purely aesthetic." So when I hear the government chastising us for saying that there should be more resources into a particular area….
I would understand that chastisement if they were not, at the same time, putting millions of dollars into advertising that sort of contradicted their previous position on advertising — that is, advertising prior to an election. I would accept it more if the government hadn't chosen to spend $11 million on a festival to celebrate artists. I recognize the importance of that, but this is a tough time, and I say that right back. We can't afford certain things because we have more important priorities, and I think no one would disagree. I would ask any of the members opposite if they would disagree.
Maybe a wheelchair for a kid who needs a wheelchair is more important than the Bollywood film awards that were created for the government's purposes. Maybe a dad who's looking after a child with disabilities shouldn't have to spend six months trying to get approval for gloves so that he can provide personal care to his teenage daughter. This fellow shouldn't have to wash his gloves because the government won't pay for another box of gloves, especially in the context of $11 million for a film award or a $16 million budget for self-serving ads. That's what I'm saying.
I'm not saying: "Just create a new stream of revenue." I'm saying that the stream of revenue is flowing in — or trickling in, even. We'd better use that for things that'll make our communities better. We should really try to use that to invest in order to address the concerns that have been raised in this House.
I know it's difficult for a government, especially individual members, to see that our record on child poverty in this province is by all accounts — when I say "by all accounts," by almost every measure — not good enough. Put a number on it. Second worst, worst, third worst, least best? It doesn't really matter. Where it does matter is to a child who's growing up in that and whose first five years of life are living in poverty because the government just doesn't want to do a plan.
Maybe they don't want to have measures that they may not achieve, but a plan would be a good idea anyway. A plan would be a good idea because then you can see if you're succeeding. If you don't want to know if you're succeeding or not, maybe that's when you don't have a plan. But I would say there were just $16 million, $11 million….
I have to tell families that I'll try and advocate. "I'll try and advocate for you to get a van so that you can drive your child around town. I'll try to advocate so you can get a ramp built for your front steps so you don't have to strain your back carrying your 16-year-old up the stairs. I'll try and advocate for you if you're resorting to installing a pulley system to take your son up the stairs because the government doesn't have money for a stairlift."
You know, I'll try to advocate, and I'll do so with a certain degree of resentment — but dedication, nonetheless — because I see expenditures of this government and I see where some of the spending is going.
I'm not saying everything this government does is bad. I take issue with that characterization. I don't raise issues affecting my constituents because I want people to throw more money at it.
I don't say that ferry fares are unaffordable, and businesses are going under because people can't afford to travel, and it's all the government's fault. I'm just saying: why aren't the priorities of this government to address the real economic and social needs of our communities? We see a lot of this. You know, it's almost like fresh paint on a building that is not in good shape. Prioritize, prioritize. Do not burn the kitchen table to provide heat and then expand to your walls. Eventually you have nothing to heat. There's no point.
Celebrations are important, and recognitions are important, but we see, unfortunately, this trend that I think the public sees as well. It's cynical, but it's accurate, and that is a government that is attempting to put a shine on something that is tarnished.
What I see as tarnished is the record over good times and some bad times. We came through very good times while we were sitting here in opposition, and we went through bad times while we were sitting here in opposition. They take the credit in the good times, and they blame us in the bad times. We're still on this side, but not for long.
I think, really, we need a government that takes responsibility, places the amount of attention necessary on the issues that will create a better society in the long run. It's just disappointing to me that, you know, criticisms of the budget are met with: "All you want to do is throw more money at it." No. We want to have deeper discussions and better decisions around the money that we do get from people in this province.
We talk about taxpayers. I'd like to talk about taxpayers. I'd like to talk about people who don't pay taxes. I'd like to talk about all the people in this community, our environment. You know, we have a broader interest to
[ Page 13179 ]
represent than simply those who are giving government money. We have a broader interest. We have a broader interest to the children, and we have a broader interest to our environment, and we have a broader interest to those kids who are yet unborn and the future of this province.
Can I maybe just turn now to the issue around justice? The Minister of Justice and member for Prince George–Valemount talked about how our justice system, in her words — and I would disagree ahead of time — is "more accessible, transparent, affordable." But I know that in 2002, 28 courthouses were closed.
You know, the first thought is that these delays in people's trials are unfair, and we'll have cases thrown out, and in fact, we do. Drug dealers — cases have been thrown out of court. That's a shame, because we had a system where there were delays and there were inefficiencies, but closing 28 courthouses out of 64 was probably not well-thought-out. However, it reflected the need to cut the budget in 2002.
It's across-the-board thoughtless. Almost across the board, it's just an inappropriate way to be governing the province.
Those communities…. Burnaby, Castlegar, Chase, Chetwynd, Creston, Delta, Fernie, Grand Forks, Hope, Houston, Invermere, Kimberley, Kitimat, Lillooet, Lytton, Maple Ridge, Merritt, Oliver, 100 Mile House, Parksville, Princeton, Revelstoke, Squamish and Vanderhoof — those courthouses were closed. And it's not just the impact on the criminals and the victims. Let me point this out.
It's not just the victims and the criminals who deserve a swifter justice. These are the courthouses in which children who have been removed from their parents will appear with a social worker and with the family. These are the kinds of things that we need to address.
A government that prioritizes self-promotion over the needs of its children, its disabled or the seniors of this province, I think has its priorities wrong. I know that they may be making the best effort, and I would not criticize any effort. However, I believe that the government has run its course. It has made some mistakes. It is not all bad. There are good people on the government side.
I disagree strongly with the priorities that they've fixed for themselves in this budget, and for that reason I can't support the budget. I'd have liked to have seen a little bit more for those who needed it and a little bit less for the pomp and pageantry that is not deserving. With that, I think I've made myself clear.
Hon. N. Yamamoto: It is an honour to rise today to speak in support of Budget 2013, but before I start, I just wanted to address some of the comments that the member opposite, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, just made.
CFIB gave British Columbia, the only jurisdiction in Canada, an A in red tape reduction this year — the only jurisdiction in Canada to receive an A.
I take great exception to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast when he remarked about the great work that this government has done on red tape reduction. But like the member opposite, the ministry, Children and Families, and this government place the safety of children and families in British Columbia as their highest priority. The ministry is always evaluating the regulations to ensure that they're effective, that they're relevant, that they're streamlined — to ensure that they provide children and families in B.C. an environment that is safe.
Despite a global economy that continues to be in turmoil, we have fulfilled our promise to balance the budget in fiscal 2013-14. I am proud that this government has balanced the budget — something that only two provinces in Canada have managed to accomplish. This is a modest, responsible budget, and we are being very, very prudent.
Balancing the budget is a core value of this government. In effect, we're making a commitment to not spend any more than we take in. Balancing the budget allows us to create the economic conditions that will stimulate job creation and help the province grow. Balancing the budget means managing taxpayers' money with respect, and it sets out a sensible, realistic plan to guide our province for the next three years.
Let's contrast that with the actions of the NDP. The NDP have said that they plan to return to deficit budgets and overspending, with a promise to balance the budget some time in the next few years — eventually. We don't really know. Mr. Dix says that more money should be….
Interjections.
Hon. N. Yamamoto: Sorry. The Leader of the Opposition says that we should spend more money in a number of areas — thank you for listening — but refuses to provide very many details. Remember, we are talking about taxpayers' money. We're talking about spending taxpayers' money, hard-earned money. He's refusing. The Leader of the Opposition is refusing to tell us how he would spend it.
What we've done is we've offered a clear, detailed plan — one that is balanced, and one that will grow the economy. The NDP is proposing higher spending and bigger government, without providing details.
British Columbians do have a choice, a clear choice. They can look to a proven government that understands fiscal responsibility, a government that has made some tough choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren are not saddled with overwhelming debt. Or, they can choose a group that doesn't understand that you can't spend more money than you earn, that you can't make promises you can't keep, and you can't tax and spend beyond taxpayers' ability to pay.
[ Page 13180 ]
This government took an unprecedented step of engaging an independent, highly regarded top financial forecaster to review B.C. government's revenue and economic forecast for the 2013 budget. The former Bank of Montreal chief economist, Dr. Tim O'Neill, concluded that the province's economic and revenue expectations are sound and prudent, and we've adopted a very cautious economic forecast that reflects the global uncertainty that still exists. Mr. Speaker, you can't ask for a better recommendation than that.
Budget 2013 is all about planning for B.C.'s future. We should not spend money we don't have, and we won't leave a legacy of unnecessary debt for our children and the next generation.
That approach will give our province an edge in attracting new investment in a still uncertain global economy. We can look towards a future of growth, opportunity and prosperity.
The board of trade has also had extremely positive things to say about our budget. They have categorized their feedback under four headings. They are: debt reduction, spending restraint, tax competitiveness and economic vision.
For debt reduction, they've awarded us a B-plus. The Vancouver Board of Trade wanted government to maintain an 18.3 percent debt-to-GDP ratio in 2014-15, and they were pleased to note that not only did we achieve the 18.3 percent, but we were, in fact, able to lower it to 18.1 percent in 2015-16.
This budget also received an A-minus for spending restraint. The board of trade has noted that "for an election-year budget, there is remarkable constraint on spending, and we acknowledge the discipline required to identify $1.1 billion in savings in various ministries and Crown agencies."
The Vancouver Board of Trade has also acknowledged the difficulty for governments in achieving balanced budgets in a difficult fiscal environment without increasing revenues and, in recognition of that work, has awarded us a B-minus for tax competitiveness.
The final area of examination from the board of trade was that of the overall economic vision. The board of trade determined that our budget, combined with the throne speech, demonstrates clearly that our government's priority of balancing the budget using cautious and realistic assumptions, spending constraint and targeted economic development in natural resources and the Asian marketplace is worthy of a mark of B-plus.
In every area of the budget this government has found the balance between ensuring that services to British Columbians are maintained — in fact, expanded where necessary — and not overreaching or overpromising. This is actually very difficult to achieve, but we've done it.
At the same time, we found savings of close to $1.1 billion in ministries and Crown agencies, and we are putting about half of that towards achieving the balanced budget and about half to investment in families, jobs and economic growth.
That includes spending in such areas as a sports and arts legacy fund. There's additional funding for increased RCMP policing costs, including officers hired to combat organized crime and gang activity, and additional moneys to provide carbon tax relief for commercial greenhouse vegetable growers and flower growers.
New measures introduced in this budget will help make family life more affordable for British Columbians raising children — including the B.C. training and education savings grant. For example, a new B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six years old. Effective immediately there will be a one-time education savings grant of $1,200 for families to put into an RESP. About 90 percent of B.C. families with young children will be eligible for this.
B.C.'s new early-years strategy announced by the Premier last week will invest $76 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and to improve the quality of child care and early-years services. The B.C. early-years strategy is an important investment in our children and their futures. It's about helping parents balance the demands of work and raising a family, and setting up children for life-long success.
The goal of this government is one that I support wholeheartedly — that is, to control spending, keep taxes low, keep our triple-A credit rating and a balanced budget.
In education, on the North Shore we've been particularly fortunate. In both bricks and mortar and quality of education, this government has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring B.C. students get a world-class education. Our infrastructure commitments have made our schools safer. The seismic upgrading of many North Shore schools is either complete or well underway.
When I walk up the hill to my office, I pass Queen Mary Elementary, currently undergoing seismic upgrading and heritage restoration, and I think of all those generations of students that will learn within those walls safely, getting one of the best educations available anywhere on the globe. The results speak for themselves. B.C. grade 4 students, some of who will be educated in that building, have been shown to be amongst the best readers anywhere.
What will those students do when their time in our primary and secondary education is done? It's my hope that they will make one of the best investments anyone can make and continue on into some form of post-secondary education. In the future, as we've all heard, 80 percent of jobs will require some form of post-secondary education. I'm incredibly proud to be part of a government that is making that investment just a little bit easier.
A child that will be starting their education in the fall at the rebuilt Queen Mary School will be able to benefit from the $1,200 grant for their RESP that I spoke of earlier. That
[ Page 13181 ]
will grow and allow them to pursue the education required to seize the opportunities of the future. Whether it's attending the new Bosa Centre for Film and Animation at Capilano University for a degree in visual arts or training in shiatsu massage at the Canadian College of Shiatsu Therapy, a training centre in my riding that recently celebrated its 15th anniversary, post-secondary education is essential to our future prosperity.
This government is providing new help for parents to ensure that our children get the education they deserve. From early learning investments that will total $76 million over three years, students can proceed into an education system that is hiring new teachers and teaching assistants.
Students can take advantage of the $18 million of funding for arts programs. And as the former president of the Gordon and Marion Smith Foundation, I've seen firsthand the great impact that programs like Artists for Kids have on the lives of children. This is $18 million that is very well spent.
One of the reasons why I love North Vancouver is that we've embraced the arts. Our community came together and supported Artists for Kids for many years. The new Gordon Smith Gallery of Canadian Art was built in partnership with the North Vancouver school district and the Gordon and Marion Smith Foundation and the generosity of B.C. arts patrons.
But North Vancouver is more than that. North Vancouver also has a strong waterfront industrial presence, a vibrant restaurant and retail sector. Tourism and the film industry add to the colourful fabric of the North Shore. The North Shore and North Vancouver is a very, very healthy, balanced community.
And I'd like to add that the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce won the B.C. Chamber of Commerce award last year — an incredibly strong, involved chamber. I think when you look at communities all around British Columbia, if you see strong community chambers of commerce, you also see strong communities.
Our focus on increasing trade and economic diversification will be a huge boost to the North Vancouver economy. We are a trading province, and North Vancouver is the focus of much of that trade. Over the past ten years the proportion of B.C. trade with Asian markets has doubled. This can only be a good thing for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, a riding whose terminals are the gateway to the Asia-Pacific for B.C. coal and lumber, grain and potash from the Prairies.
The North Shore trade area terminals and industries generate 5,000 jobs just on the North Shore and 12,000 jobs in B.C. Many of these people work at Neptune terminals, Lynnterm, Cargill, Richardson and Seaspan Marine. These numbers are not abstractions. They mean real jobs for real people, and this economic growth is what will pay for those services that we demand.
A few months ago I had the opportunity to break ground at Seaspan, the shipbuilding facility that will be building the Coast Guard's new icebreakers. Projects like these are going to be driving the economic growth over the next several years. I have the golden shovel from that groundbreaking hanging on my wall in my office.
Speaking of my office, in North Vancouver I'd like to thank Matthew Naylor and Erin Rennie, my two constituency assistants who so ably serve the constituents of North Vancouver. They are young, they're enthusiastic and products of our great post-secondary system. This budget is protecting their future, the next generation, ensuring that they have jobs, opportunities and important services like health care and education for the times when they have families and kids.
I'm very proud to be the Minister of State for Small Business. I think this fits me like a glove, this role. I'm a former small business owner myself, so I bring a lot of my own personal experience and knowledge to this role. I think we all know that small business is integral to the health of the province. But there are some pretty incredible statistics about small business in B.C.
Ninety-eight percent of all businesses in British Columbia are small businesses. The small business sector employs over one million people, making up 56 percent of private sector employment. It generates 29 percent of B.C.'s GDP. Small business owners live and work in our communities. They employ many people in our community. They support local causes and charities and participate in local events.
They don't just own and operate their own small businesses. They are also your Little League coaches. They bring oranges to soccer games. They raise money for your hospital foundations. They serve on their PACs. They are moms and dads and aunts and uncles. If business is the backbone of B.C.'s economy, small business is its heart and soul.
As Minister of State for Small Business, I had the opportunity recently to present the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medals to three incredible people in British Columbia: Dee Dhaliwal, Doug Smith and Ruby Sharma. These three individuals have contributed to enhancing the economic environment of their communities. They hold a passionate belief that giving back to the community in which they live, work and play is a fundamental responsibility. They reflect the spirit and the passion of small business people in British Columbia.
In the fall of 2012, immediately after the Premier appointed me as Minister of State for Small Business, with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, we began a process of consultation with the small business owners and operators across B.C. that was unprecedented. The goal is to create a small business accord that will hold government accountable to small businesses in B.C. to ensure that we are the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada.
Not only did I travel to many communities throughout
[ Page 13182 ]
the province, participating in both chamber of commerce events as well as specific consultations on the accord, but we undertook an on-line survey as well as a hugely successful Twitter town hall in which we reached 35,000 distinct individuals.
We are only a few weeks away from announcing our finalized B.C. small business accord, which will provide guidance to government to ensure that the proper tools, support and regulations are developed for small business. The Premier has set a clear mandate to make B.C. the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada, and I'm very excited about the work that is underway to get us there.
As I've said, since I became the Minister for Small Business I've travelled to almost every region of the province to meet with small businesses across all sectors to discuss their successes and challenges and to see what the province can do to improve the business climate in B.C. "Providing certainty" is a phrase that came up often.
We as a province can provide business with certainty in many ways, including sound fiscal management, consultation on policy changes and programs. Critically, we can provide certainty to business by balancing the budget. That's what we've presented: a balanced budget for fiscal 2013-14. Nothing fancy, nothing extravagant — just simple, credible and balanced.
Let me read you a quote from the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, John Winter. He says: "Business has been clear. Government's priority was to get its fiscal house in order. Budget 2013 does that in a balanced way that controls spending while making modest increases to taxes."
As I mentioned earlier, we had to make some tough choices to balance the budget. One of them was to increase the general corporate income tax rate by a modest 1 percent. However, we are not increasing the small business tax rate.
The small business tax rate is 2.5 percent. Under the NDP, it was 4.5 percent — almost double. The small business threshold before the small businesses have to pay tax is now $500,000. Under the NDP, it was $200,000. This saves small businesses about $20 million a year.
We recognize that there are many challenges that small business owners face, and we want to do what we can to help them grow and succeed. Small business owners or their employees don't have the opportunity to contribute to a pension plan. In fact, just one in three workers in B.C. belongs to a registered workplace pension plan.
My sister has a health food business, and my brother works for a small contracting company. Neither of them has the option of saving for retirement through a group pension plan. We'll be announcing today that we will be working with the federal government so that perhaps one day my sister and my brother will be able to have the opportunity to pool their retirement savings with a regulated pension program to make it easier for hard-working British Columbians to save for their retirement. This is a huge step to support small business owners and their employees.
In conclusion, I am extremely proud of this government's record of sound fiscal management, and we are building on that foundation. It was a huge accomplishment to balance this budget. A recent CFIB survey revealed that 93 percent of small businesses rank this as their top priority.
Small business owners know that they can't spend more than they make. This government knows that as well. With this budget, we are being proactive at keeping debt affordable and have produced a balanced budget for fiscal 2013. This takes discipline.
I am proud to invite all members of this House to support the 2013 British Columbia provincial budget for five simple reasons: it's modest, it's responsible, it's achievable, it's prudent, and most importantly, it's balanced.
R. Fleming: I will begin my remarks now and then continue after the next sitting of the House.
I appreciate the chance to respond to the government's budget bill this morning and later on, because it is something that is worth examining very carefully.
We are so close to an election now — 11 weeks away. We've seen this play from the Liberal playbook before, in 2009. British Columbians will well remember a budget that was tabled that called for a deficit that was, in the words of the then Premier, "$495 million, maximum."
After the election was over, we came back to this place in the fall of 2009. There was a big surprise there for British Columbians that played out over the summer around imposing a harmonized sales tax that the Liberal Party had specifically promised not to introduce. And lo and behold, the September 2009 budget had a deficit projection that was six times larger than the one that was promised in the bogus pre-election budget.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
British Columbians are going to look at this budget that has been tabled in the same light that they saw the 2009 budget tabled from this B.C. Liberal government.
Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place to continue remarks at the next sitting of the House.
R. Fleming moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. T. Lake moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada