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)

Monday, March 4, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 43, Number 4

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

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2013

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted to have on the floor of the House this afternoon a visitor. We have the Hon. Mike Nixon, who is the MLA for Porter Creek South in the Yukon. He is the Minister of Justice and also the Minister of Tourism and Culture. I'm very delighted to have been working with Minister Nixon on a number of files. We're delighted that Mike is able to join us. He was sworn into cabinet on November 5, 2011.

I should share this with the House. Inspired by his son Jack, who has autism, Mr. Nixon co-founded Autism Yukon and has worked with the government to develop a system to offer specialized services for children and adults. He's done some phenomenal work, both as the Minister of Justice and also as Jack's dad — a real advocate for autism support.

We're very delighted. I hope that everyone in the House would welcome Minister Nixon here today.

G. Abbott: In the gallery today is a friend, a financial adviser and a constituent from the Shuswap area, from Salmon Arm, Mr. Steve Hammer. He is here along with others over the next couple of days from the organization Advocis to talk about some of the issues of concern to them. I'd like all of the members of the House to please make Mr. Hammer welcome.

D. Black: In the gallery today is my friend Lynn Hunter. Lynn was a Member of Parliament in Ottawa from 1988 to 1993. She's recently been a councillor for the city of Victoria and an all round good person who works on many community issues, has been an advocate for the environment for some 20 or 30 years — for a sustainable environment. With her today is her partner, Don Armstrong. I ask everyone in the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL PR402 — MENNONITE BRETHREN
BIBLICAL SEMINARY ACT

R. Hawes presented a bill intituled Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act.

R. Hawes: I move that a bill intituled Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

R. Hawes: It's with pleasure that I sponsor this bill, which will provide degree-granting status for the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary.

They provide graduate-level theological training in support of the 250 churches and 55,000 members that make up the Canadian Conference of Mennonite Brethren Churches. Since 1999 the seminary has been part of the innovative and fully accredited Associated Canadian Theological Seminaries, called ACTS — the acronym. It's a consortium of five seminaries located at Trinity Western University.

[1340]

This bill is needed because there has been a decision made by the Mennonite Brethren to organize their seminary independent from that in the United States and to create a separate degree-granting institution in British Columbia. They have been granting university graduate degrees in British Columbia for many, many years under the California charter.

Mr. Speaker, the only way that we can bring degree-granting status to the graduate students in the Mennonite Seminary is through a private bill, which is before us today.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr402, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

BILL PR401 — THE HOOPER FAMILY
FOUNDATION (CORPORATE RESTORATION)
ACT, 2013

J. McIntyre presented a bill intituled The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013.

J. McIntyre: I move that a bill intituled The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

J. McIntyre: This bill is being introduced in order to restore the Hooper Family Foundation to the British Columbia register of companies. The society was removed from the register of companies in 2002 for un-
[ Page 13240 ]
intentionally failing to file annual reports. The society did not become aware of this until recently and now proposes to apply for restoration. Due to the number of years since the society was removed from the register of companies, the only avenue for restoration is by way of a private bill.

I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr401, The Hooper Family Foundation (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Ministerial Statements

APOLOGY FOR MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH
STRATEGY AND PARTISAN ACTIVITIES

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement to this House.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start by saying there is no value more important to me than respect for the taxpayer and ensuring that rules are properly followed so that we can ensure we are respecting the hard-earned money that taxpayers send us.

Last week this House was presented with a document, a draft outreach document. I want to reiterate to this House what the Deputy Premier said on my behalf on Thursday, which is that that document was wrong. It was wrong.

It's right that we reach out to all of the communities in British Columbia. It's right that we make sure that they are full participants in our province in every way, but the document should never have been created.

I want to, now that I'm here personally, offer a very sincere apology for the fact that that document was created by staff on the government side of the House. I want to apologize for the ideas in it, and I want to apologize for the language in it as well.

When mistakes occur — and they do — we must confront them and take responsibility for them. We must also deal with them. I've talked to the member for Richmond-Steveston, and he has agreed that he is going to step aside from cabinet pending the John Dyble review of the draft document on multicultural outreach. While that review is being conducted, the Minister of State for Seniors will take on the role of Minister of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology.

A. Dix: Obviously, these are very serious times and very serious matters, and I appreciate the circumstances and the action taken by the member for Richmond-Steveston. I have always respected him, and I respect the action he's taken.

I would say that this issue is one that's a critical one in our democracy. The issues, when we talk about how events in the past are characterized…. That's essential, because much of who we are as a province and some of our worst moments as a province are involved here. How we deal with those and how we characterize them as a people says a lot about us and who we are.

There's always talk about responsibility, and there's always talk about political fallout in these things. But the pain that people suffer is real, and the disrespect intended towards people and felt by people is real. I know that members of the government side, just as members of the opposition side, will have heard those concerns this weekend throughout the province.

[1345]

I would say that it's not, of course, just the document. It's the actions that flow from the document. Over this period, obviously, we will be interested in the report by Mr. Dyble and perhaps other reports that are produced. I want to say that the issues involved, the way we conduct ourselves, the links between the public service and political activities, the way we characterize "historical wrongs" — these are significant issues for our province, and we have to do better than this. I think we can all agree we have to do better than this and, hopefully, in future we will.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — HEALTH AUTHORITIES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2013

Hon. M. MacDiarmid presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: This bill amends the definition of "nurse" in the Health Authorities Act to include licensed practical nurses. This change will permit the inclusion of all LPNs within the nurses' bargaining unit under the act. As a housekeeping matter, the definition of nurse will also be amended to reflect the fact that all three nursing groups are regulated under the Health Professions Act.

I move that the Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013, be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 13241 ]

Bill 18, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2013, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

SOCIAL WORKERS

G. Hogg: Social workers have driven through snowstorms in northern British Columbia to save abandoned children. They've helped to guide and console families with end-of-life care, and they have provided support to people at all stages of life.

Those in the field of social work are often faced with extremely tough decisions — decisions that have lasting impact on the lives of individuals they are serving. But they're also guided by purpose, driven by a calling to improve the health and well-being of those they work with and those around them. We respect and honour their judgment in making these life-changing and difficult decisions.

Social workers and clinicians are dedicated advocates for human rights and for social justice. Every day they fight discrimination, open doors of access and create opportunities for those in need. Social workers and clinicians strengthen communities, build relationships and enrich lives. They believe in the dignity and worth of the person, nurture diversity and build brighter futures by educating society to the benefits of looking after each other.

Social work enhances the worth, self-determination and well-being of individuals, families and communities through the promotion of social and economic justice and respect for diversity.

March 3 through 9 is Social Work Week in British Columbia. Please join me in thanking the thousands of social workers and clinicians for their dedication and service to improving the lives of British Columbians.

C. Trevena: As my colleague from Surrey–White Rock mentioned, this week is officially an opportunity to celebrate social workers, those hard-working people on the front lines who try to pick up the pieces of other people's lives, who deal daily with the problems of others and try to give stability to individuals and families in crisis.

The theme this year is "Celebrating the past, present and future." Unfortunately, many social workers do not feel much like celebrating the present and are extremely concerned about the future.

Child and youth mental health teams, short-staffed and dealing with heavy caseloads of kids in crisis, are fearful that one will fall through the cracks, and they do. Suicides happen, and they're not in isolation, with the devastation to the families, to the community and to the workers themselves, who fear they might have been able to do something more if they'd had the time.

Child protection social workers are trying to keep on top of all their many files and trying to work when they're still navigating the cumbersome and inadequate data management system, ICM, as well as working with new reporting requirements.

[1350]

Kids helpline, the phone line that's promoted as round-the-clock help for kids facing abuse, is going unanswered. That's because staff numbers have dropped by about a third, down to 40 people on the 24-hour service. Some of them are working three back-to-back shifts to provide cover, and still they can't answer every call. Those calls are not picked up elsewhere. They ring until they stop.

The loss of a shift of the after-hours service, which covers the province during the hours the ministry offices are closed, could mean more problems. There are times, as there were last month when there was a stabbing in Tsawwassen, when two overnight social workers are tied up, leaving just one to deal with dozens of other calls from everywhere else in B.C.

There's a freeze on hiring or replacing staff. Staffing levels are being kept at 92 percent, and that's hurting the workers and the work. When the worst happens, it's those front-line workers who are in the spotlight. The back story is rarely known.

So take a moment this week to thank social workers for their dedication, for their commitment and for picking up the pieces when no one else is there.

DINING OUT FOR LIFE AND
WORK OF A LOVING SPOONFUL

M. McNeil: If you've been thinking about heading out on a date night sometime this week, the night to go is this Thursday. Thursday, March 7, is the night of Dining Out for Life, B.C.'s largest restaurant fundraiser and an annual fundraising event benefitting A Loving Spoonful and Friends for Life, two Lower Mainland charities supporting local people living with AIDS.

Dining Out for Life happens because of the generous participation of volunteers, corporate sponsors and restaurants. Over 200 restaurants, from Whistler to White Rock and into the valley, have joined the fight against AIDS by donating 25 percent of their food sales during this important event.

A Loving Spoonful is a volunteer-driven, non-partisan society that provides free, nutritious meals and nutritional counselling to men, women and children living with HIV and AIDS.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

M. McNeil: Oh. Thank you.
[ Page 13242 ]

COLLIERY DAM PARK

D. Routley: I'd like to share with the members a story about Colliery Dam Park in Nanaimo. Before I can paint a picture of the park, you have to understand that it's in south Nanaimo. South Nanaimo is a community of working families who struggle every day to put food on the table, pay the rent and generally get by.

Paid recreation is not an option for many of these families, so they've become very attached to the recreation that's provided by the Colliery Dam Park. These are two lakes that were created by two dams that were put in place over 100 years ago in order to wash coal for the coal industry. The lakes provide walking trails, fishing and swimming for the residents of Nanaimo.

Recently the dam safety branch has instructed Nanaimo that there is a one-in-10,000-years' chance that these dams might fail in an earthquake. Schools are built to a one-in-2,475-years' chance, hospitals to a one-in-3,000-years' chance. The dams must be built to one-in-10,000-years' chance of failure.

The people of Nanaimo are very upset about the potential loss of the dams. The city has responded by quite rightfully taking the immediate steps of potentially removing the dams at a cost of $7 million. This would take away from the community this vital asset, and the community has responded by forming a society to save these dams.

The community wants to siphon off the water, reduce the risk — to find an alternative other than removing these dams and losing their precious park. The city of Nanaimo is open to this kind of an approach. The dam safety branch is open to a mitigation of the risks and a study of what might be done to save this park.

I hope that the government and this House will be willing to partner with the city of Nanaimo and the people of Nanaimo, my constituents, to save this valuable city asset. It has great educational, historic and recreational value, and the people of Nanaimo hold this park very precious to their hearts.

Mr. Speaker: My apology to the member for Vancouver–False Creek. Somehow they only gave you a minute, so you can continue and finish up. Now you've got two minutes again.

DINING OUT FOR LIFE AND
WORK OF A LOVING SPOONFUL
(continued)

M. McNeil: I thought you were just too upset, Mr. Speaker, because I was talking about a date night.

[1355]

A Loving Spoonful is a volunteer-driven, non-partisan society that provides free, nutritious meals and nutritional counselling to men, women and children living with HIV and AIDS in Metro Vancouver. Over 100,000 free meals are provided each year to some of those most vulnerable in our community. Meals are delivered by volunteer drivers who use their own car, gas and time to ensure that those in need are fed.

This past Christmas Day, after 23 years of service, A Loving Spoonful officially served their two-millionth meal — a huge milestone for them and for the community. Every week their volunteers deliver approximately 1,200 frozen meals and over 250 snack packs to men, women and children who are primarily homebound with AIDS.

To find out more about this wonderful organization, please go on line to alovingspoonful.org, and don't forget that this Thursday, March 7, is a great date night.

ALFRED SCOW

D. Horne: It is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of a distinguished and important figure in the history of British Columbia. Last week I received word of the passing of the hon. Alfred Scow, a true maverick who spent his life breaking down barriers and inspiring others to reach new heights. At a time when B.C. prohibited aboriginals from pursuing a career in the legal profession, Scow chose to enrol in the UBC Faculty of Law, becoming the first aboriginal to graduate from the program and the first aboriginal lawyer in B.C.'s history to be called to the bar.

In 1971 he was appointed a B.C. Provincial Court judge, serving in this capacity for more than two decades. Throughout his career he showed a deep commitment to social justice, volunteering his time and leadership to many community organizations and First Nations initiatives. His generosity extended to a variety of causes, from helping law students overcome their financial barriers to aiding in the establishment of First Nations studies at UBC.

In 2001 he founded the Scow Institute, which works towards creating a greater understanding between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples. In recognition of all of his contributions, he was awarded the Order of British Columbia in 2004 and the Order of Canada in 2010. His legacy remains B.C.'s altered landscape, a province where First Nations voices are integral to the decisions that shape our society. He will be remembered not just for his wisdom behind the bench but for his kindness and ability to inspire others to become leaders and give back to their community.

MARINE COMMUNICATIONS AND TRAFFIC
SERVICES CENTRES ON WEST COAST

S. Fraser: Most people have heard of the dangerous and unsupportable decision made by the federal government to close the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. British
[ Page 13243 ]
Columbians are about to face another major hit to marine safety. The marine communication and traffic services, strategically located in Comox and Ucluelet, are slated for closure next week.

Anyone who has been out on the water in B.C. knows that this is a very bad idea. These centres monitor for distress signals from vessels, everything from pleasure craft to tour boats to fully laden tankers and freighters. They are like a marine 911 service and air traffic control service on the water. They provide vital safety and weather information, and the operators know their regions intimately. The Coast Guard's marine communication and traffic services are the eyes and ears of the coast.

The Ucluelet centre in my constituency is wisely located at Amphitrite Point, overlooking what is known fittingly as the Graveyard of the Pacific because it has claimed so many lives. The highly trained personnel live in the region, and they know the waters like the backs of their hands. Closing this centre will put mariners' lives at risk and be a big hit to the local economies.

At a time when the Port Alberni mayor and council are working to diversify their economy by expanding their deep-water port capability, closing the Ucluelet marine communications and traffic centre looks even more ludicrous.

One half of all emergency calls and marine traffic in Canada are here on the west coast. With these closures and Kitsilano's closure, B.C. will have only two centres for the entire west coast. Back east, with the other half of Canada's emergency and traffic calls, they'll have ten. Maybe it is time that we in this House plan a non-partisan trip to Ottawa. I know a few B.C. mayors who would be more than happy to go. Let's put politics aside and protect our coast.

[1400]

Oral Questions

ROLE OF PREMIER'S OFFICE IN
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

A. Dix: Last Thursday the Premier said of the involvement of her office, the Premier's office, in the multicultural outreach plan: "It was distributed by someone in my office, but it wasn't crafted by them. There has been no suggestion that anyone in my office had any hand in crafting it at all." Does the Premier still stand by that statement?

Hon. C. Clark: Let me start by again offering an apology, and not just an apology to this House — more particularly, an apology to anyone in British Columbia who read that document, heard about the language in it and was offended. They had a right to be offended by the language in that document. It was wrong, and I'm very, very sorry that it was ever created. I want to start by offering that personal and very sincere apology.

Second, I want to make very clear that this was a very serious mistake and that I am taking responsibility for this mistake. When mistakes are made, small and large — and this one was large — we have a responsibility to confront the mistake, accept responsibility and do everything that we can to try and address it.

Let me finish by answering the member's question. Over the last few days John Dyble, the chief of the public service, has begun his review of exactly what happened. The most important element of that review is determining that no taxpayer money was expended for the wrong purposes.

I don't know what else will result from that review. There may be new details that emerge, things that we don't know now. Certainly, when that review is delivered, I will act on the recommendations that he offers, because British Columbians deserve to know that not only am I sorry but that I am prepared to accept responsibility and make sure I do whatever is necessary to address the mistakes that were made.

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

A. Dix: I agree with the Premier that the language in the document to which she is referring is wrong. It is wrong. But we're not just talking about language here. This was part of a plan that was implemented over time.

Mr. Dyble has, from the opposition, a copy of a similar document produced on December 8, 2011. It was produced as a result of a meeting involving a very significant number of the Premier's senior staff, including her deputy chief of staff at the time, her director of outreach, her senior outreach coordinator and her current ministerial assistant. One of the items, just to point this out, under the "Quick wins" category, "Research community-focused wins, e.g., historical wrongs" was directly under the lead of the Premier's office.

The Premier has asserted: "There was no suggestion that anyone in my office had any hand in crafting it at all." I want to ask if that is still the view of the Premier today.

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, Mr. Dyble is conducting a review. I have no new information to add to what I said on Thursday. It may be that new information emerges. I do not know the answer to that. The review is entirely independent, being conducted by a group of senior deputy ministers in the government.

With respect to the issue of historical wrongs, let me say this. Historical wrongs should be righted. When the government, no matter how many years ago, wronged people, we have an obligation to do what we can to make that right. And historical wrongs are not something that can be righted or should be righted for political purposes.

[1405]

When we address historical wrongs, it is something for all of us to do together. I cannot say how deeply I believe that the language used to describe that in the document was absolutely wrong. It doesn't in any way reflect my view of what needs to happen. As I said, righting historical wrongs is an obligation that belongs to all of us, and it's something that we can only do together.

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

A. Dix: Well, that is undoubtedly true, and I think it's particularly important when some of those historical wrongs occurred at a time when politicians, some of whom have sat in this Legislature, sought to take political advantage of views that we would view as completely unacceptable today and were unacceptable then. There weren't very many heroes on some of these issues at that time. We all have to acknowledge that.

I think, though, the question is just very simple for the Premier today. It's very simple for the Premier today. We have documents here that show her staff taking the lead with respect to better coordination between party, government and caucus at meetings that included staff of party, government and caucus — the Premier's staff.

The Premier has made a categorical assertion not weeks ago but days ago that this was not the case. Now, I appreciate that new information may come forward and that the Premier may feel she was incorrect a number of days ago. But that information clearly was wrong.

What we need from the Premier today, I think, is at least an acceptance, an understanding that what was said, that the assertion that was made by the Premier that this did not involve her staff — it involved somebody else, but not the Premier's office — was incorrect. Will the Premier confirm that today?

Hon. C. Clark: This is indeed a very, very serious issue. What happened was wrong. Characterizing historical wrongs as anything other than something deeply felt and deeply serious is wrong. I would ask the member to be careful to characterize what I said, which was that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that my staff was involved in this. As far as I know, my staff were only involved in creating it. That is what I said, and that remains true.

As I said though, Deputy Minister John Dyble is collecting information and conducting a very thorough review. It may be that new information, which we do not possess at the moment, can emerge that suggests that. If the member has evidence or has documents that confirm otherwise, he should please make sure he gives them to Deputy Minister Dyble. That should absolutely form part of his review so that we can make sure that we get absolutely to the bottom of this.

British Columbians want to know because they know that a very serious mistake was made. They want to know that the government will take responsibility for it, which we are, but much more importantly, that we'll address it. We will only be able to do that when we are in possession of all of the information that we can gather.

C. James: I'd like to inform the Premier that those documents have gone to Mr. Dyble. All of those documents were there. But these are documents directly from the Premier's office. These are documents that show a list of staff from the Premier's office that were directly involved in a planning meeting on this outreach strategy.

Just to review again the list of staff at this meeting: former deputy chief of staff, Office of the Premier; director of outreach, Office of the Premier; senior outreach coordinator, Office of the Premier. It stretches anyone's belief for the Premier to state that she had no involvement and that her office had no involvement in crafting the document.

My question is again to the Premier. Given that your senior staff were a direct part of putting this document together in the planning meeting on this document, how can your claim of no involvement stand?

[1410]

Hon. C. Clark: We will know the answer to that member's question more precisely when Deputy Minister Dyble reports. He will have the full range of information. He will have a chance to have spoken to many of the people that were involved in the creation of the document. I'd ask for the member's patience on that, because we will be able to get a full answer to her question when that report is released.

I think it is important that we make sure we have the right information, that that report is done in a non-partisan way, that it takes the time it needs to take to do it absolutely properly so that we can get to the bottom of this. I would also, though, remind the member that my deputy chief of staff has resigned with no severance and accepted responsibility for it. If there are further actions required, they will be taken once we have the full report from Deputy Minister Dyble.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: With all due respect to the Premier and the actions that have occurred, I think the public expects the Premier to be accountable. The public expects the Premier to be accountable for this.

I want to review a few of the topics that happened at that meeting where the Premier's staff were attending. Under the to-do list it includes "better coordination between party, government and caucus"; "build lists"; "secure funding — caucus or party"; "political asks, as the election nears."

This to-do list shows public dollars being used for partisan purposes. Remember that this meeting included
[ Page 13245 ]
the former deputy chief of staff, the current ministerial assistant in the Office of the Premier and the director of outreach.

I want to read back to the Premier again her quote from simply a few days ago. "It was distributed by someone in my office, but it wasn't crafted by them." So while I respect that there is a review going on, while I respect there is an investigation, I believe that the public expects the Premier to be answerable for the use of their tax dollars.

Again my question is to the Premier. How can she continue to claim no involvement?

Hon. C. Clark: I said on Thursday what I knew to be true at the time, and I have no reason to believe that it was not true.

As I said, though, when Mr. Dyble reports, we will have full information. The deputy is gathering information, which I think is probably not available to the opposition or to the government, and is reviewing that. He will issue a full report and will have a very complete answer to her question.

As I said, when the member talks about accountability, she's right about that. The public wants to know that the government is going to be accountable for this. People in this province want to know that staff who were responsible are going to be held accountable for it.

People want to know that we are going to take action to address it, and we are. It began with the resignation without severance of my deputy chief of staff, the individual who was most clearly responsible for overseeing the distribution of the document.

The second step in that is the creation of the review team, led by Deputy Minister John Dyble, with access to all documents and all individuals involved. The third element is a commitment on my part to take further action when all of the information is known.

Those are the steps that we are taking to ensure that we are fully accountable for this. The public expects that the government will be accountable. I agree with that. Serious mistakes were made. We need to confront those mistakes, accept responsibility and do everything that we can to address them. That's what I'm doing.

M. Farnworth: The Premier has stood in this House and said she had no involvement. The documents show considerable involvement by very senior members of her office and within the B.C. Liberal Party.

At the meeting that took place on the eighth of December…. It was referred to as a coordinated-effort meeting. I'd just like to read out for the Premier, because she said that this was prepared by somebody way down the chain on Friday: "…in attendance way down the chain crossed the line…."

[1415]

Anyway, in attendance at this meeting were the deputy chief of staff, operations, Office of the Premier; director of outreach, Office of the Premier; senior outreach coordinator, Office of the Premier; outreach director at B.C. Liberal caucus; executive director at B.C. Liberal caucus; communications officer, B.C. Liberal caucus; MA to the Premier's office; executive assistant to a former cabinet minister; an executive assistant to another cabinet minister; outreach manager, Liberal caucus. That's some chain, hon. Speaker.

My question to the Premier is this. She claims that she had no involvement. Did she have knowledge that these meetings were taking place? Did she have knowledge that this strategy was in fact being developed?

Hon. C. Clark: It is the responsibility of government to make sure that we are reaching out to every member of our community, including members who may not consume English language media or who may be from a multicultural community. That is part of government's job — to make sure that we're doing that in a way that speaks to individuals and includes them in our democratic process as fully as possible. That is the right thing to do.

This document, and the direction it took to try and execute on that idea, was wrong. Had I known that this document existed, I would have put a stop to it immediately. The individual in my office who did know that it existed…. Clearly, Kim Haakstad was that person, and she has resigned without severance. That was the right thing to do, because that document should have been stopped in its tracks. Let me say that first.

Second, let me add this, because the member…. Again, another member in this question period has misquoted me — I'm sure without intending to. But the member should be careful about how he characterizes what I have said, because this is a very serious issue. It deserves…. It is serious enough that a team of deputies is reviewing it thoroughly. That is the right thing to do so that we can ensure that we get to the bottom of it. I'm sure that that member and other members across the House would not want me to prejudge the outcome of that review, given the importance we all attach to its conclusions.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

IMPLEMENTATION OF
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

M. Farnworth: Well, we know the deputy chief of staff is gone. We know the minister responsible is gone. We know there's a very serious investigation underway, hon. Speaker. The Premier has denied any involvement.

Given the fact that all these people have gone and that the Premier has denied any involvement, does the Premier stand by her statement from last Thursday that no public money was spent in this appalling strategy?
[ Page 13246 ]

Hon. C. Clark: As I said on Thursday, that is an issue about which we need to be concerned. There is no evidence that public money was spent, but it is possible. And if it was spent, John Dyble is going to find out. That is one of the critical issues that he is considering in the course of this review: was the Public Service Act violated? Was any public money spent for partisan purposes? And a range of other issues. But that is one of the central issues that we need an answer to.

It seems apparent at the moment that most of that document — particularly the things that most of us, including me, find most offensive — was not acted on. But as I said, we are going to wait and not prejudge the outcome and see what Deputy Minister Dyble concludes. When we have all of the information, we will act on it, because the creation of that document was wrong. Many of the ideas in it were wrong. The language in that document was wrong.

We need to get to the bottom of it, and we need to do that so that we can address it.

[1420]

J. Kwan: The Premier refers to the Liberal government's leaked multicultural outreach strategy as a draft. Yet according to leaked documents, signing off on the hiring of partisan outreach staff from the Premier's office, from the former Minister for Multiculturalism and the Liberal caucus was completed as of December 8, 2011. So it appears that the leaked documents show that all the internal hurdles have been checked off.

Can the Premier advise who, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, signed off on this abuse of power and abuse of taxpayers' money?

Hon. C. Clark: I appreciate that the member is willing to prejudge the outcome of the review. I am not prepared to do that. It is a very serious issue, so it is going to require real answers, not prejudgments, not suppositions. So I'm going to await the outcome of that review. I'm sure that the review will answer that question as well as many others.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: I'm referring to leaked documents. Based on the leaked documents, the plan has moved along to the point that at least two of the partisan outreach staff had already been hired by December 8, 2011.

So will the Premier please tell this House just when her cabinet was first briefed on the hiring of the staff, and when her caucus was briefed on this. Was it before December 8, 2011, or was it after the hiring had already been initiated?

Hon. C. Clark: I can say that I never saw the document and I was never part of the creation of the strategy, although I will say it is certainly a legitimate role for government to coordinate outreach to multicultural communities. I think that's the responsible and right thing for government to do.

In terms of the document itself, the ideas in it that are offensive and the language in it that is offensive — I never saw that information. As I said, the member is going to have — we will all have — a real fact base to work from when Deputy Minister Dyble releases his report. The member may not be, but I am very cautious, given the seriousness of the situation, about wanting to prejudge that outcome.

POSSIBLE RELEASE OF PERSONAL
INFORMATION TO B.C. LIBERAL PARTY
BY GOVERNMENT

M. Elmore: According to leaked documents, the plans called for collecting lists and names that would feed into the B.C. Liberal voter contact database. The director of communications for the ministry for Multiculturalism, Brian Bonney, was put in charge of creating partisan staff positions to support this. It is not legitimate to harvest information for political purposes.

Will the Premier confirm that names were collected for the B.C. Liberal Win 2013 campaign database using the public service?

Hon. C. Clark: There are absolutely crystal-clear rules around the sharing of that information. Sharing of that information outside of government is not permitted, nor should it be permitted.

Deputy Minister Dyble is looking at whether or not any of that information was shared. It is my understanding that none of it was, that that recommendation was never acted on. But again, we will await the results of Mr. Dyble's report, and then we will have more information and more facts from which to work.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Elmore: This plan is very upfront about using the ministry for Multiculturalism, government communications and intergovernmental relations to help the B.C. Liberal Party build its contact database. Will the Premier inform this Legislature if she has asked the B.C. Liberal Party if they have received names from the public service arising out of this plan?

Hon. C. Clark: I have. They have not. There is no evidence that that recommendation was ever acted on. Again, Mr. Dyble will report back. We will get more information as a result of that report.

Again, there are clear rules about that. Anyone who shared that information would have been violating those rules of the public service. It would have been absolutely
[ Page 13247 ]
wrong for that to happen. I don't believe that it did.

[1425]

When Mr. Dyble reports, we will find out the full facts on this. As I have said, when we confront the full facts, we will take further action, in addition to having instigated the review and accepted the resignation without severance of my deputy chief of staff.

INVESTIGATION INTO PARTISAN
ACTIVITIES RELATING TO
MULTICULTURAL OUTREACH STRATEGY

J. Horgan: I think the Premier has hit on the big challenge for John Dyble. He doesn't have access to the B.C. Liberal Party. He doesn't have access to the B.C. Liberal caucus. He doesn't now have access to Kim Haakstad. I imagine that he will have access to the Premier.

My question is to the Premier. Has she been interviewed, and if she hasn't been interviewed, when she is interviewed, will she have counsel?

Hon. C. Clark: I haven't been asked to do that. Certainly, I would if I was. And the member is wrong. Deputy Minister Dyble has been talking to Ms. Haakstad.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, it speaks to the reach of Mr. Dyble as the head of the public service when we're not just talking here about the public service.

It's bad enough that the deputy to the Premier and three other senior deputies are taken away from the public's business to see if they can clean up the mess that's been created by operatives in the Premier's office, but the challenge we have is that Mr. Dyble is a public servant. He has no access to the Liberal caucus across the way. He has no access to the B.C. Liberal Party. If Ms. Haakstad chooses to not participate in an investigation, he has no access to her as well.

I would further add that Mr. Dyble has no access to private e-mails. Mr. Dyble has no access to information that's being stored in the east annex.

Again, my question to the Premier: does she not realize that although Mr. Dyble is a very capable public servant, this job is beyond him, and it's time now to find someone independent to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. C. Clark: I do agree that Mr. Dyble is a very competent public servant. I'm glad that the member is finally coming around to that view, because he is a very competent, independent public servant. He has spent 20 years in the public service in various roles and served the province of British Columbia well.

He is undertaking this review with other deputies across government and will be reporting back. I'm confident that he is going to have the information that he needs to make that review. If he does not have the information that he needs, I can assure you that he will say that in his report.

He does certainly have access to Ms. Haakstad. She's been talking to him extensively. As has anyone else that he or any of his fellow deputies have sought to interview with respect to this, because this is an extremely serious issue.

The language in that document was wrong. Many of the ideas that were contained in that document were wrong. We have an obligation as a government to make sure that we respond not just to the concerns that people have but to make sure that we are doing the right thing — to make sure that we are addressing the very real needs of multicultural communities out there, and doing it in a responsible and ethical way.

We take full responsibility for what happened. We are addressing it. Ms. Haakstad has taken responsibility for her role in overseeing it. Mr. Dyble is reviewing it, and when that review is complete, there may be more action necessary.

I would urge members of this House to ensure that they do not prejudge the outcome and that they do not decide, on an issue that is incredibly serious, to start suggesting there will be conclusions that may not be there. We will see what he reports at the end of the day. When he does report, I will be accountable for that, and I will act on the recommendations that he delivers.

[1430]

L. Krog: Well, I'm rather surprised that the Premier doesn't seem to get the point here. Mr. Dyble has no lawful authority to conduct an investigation. He is not statutorily charged to conduct an investigation. He is not a police officer. He doesn't even have the status of a lawyer in a civil lawsuit who could demand that the other side produce documents and examine under oath the other party to the proceeding.

Mr. Dyble is in the difficult position, having been a career and much-admired public servant, of having to ask questions of people he has worked with. He has no lawful access to B.C. Liberal Party records. He has no way of compelling anyone to give him the evidence that is necessary. That is clear to everyone in British Columbia who understands this issue.

My question to the Premier is very simple. Given his complete lack of legal authority other than the request made of him by the Premier herself, will the Premier not agree…? In order to ensure that the public interest is protected in this matter, that we get to the bottom of this matter and that all the evidence that should be made available is in fact made available, will she not agree it is time to appoint an independent investigator and relieve Mr. Dyble of the obligation she's placed on him which he simply is unable to perform appropriately because he lacks that statutory and legal authority?
[ Page 13248 ]

Hon. C. Clark: I want to be really clear. John Dyble has served the public for over two decades. He is an absolutely independent, incredibly capable man who will do this free of any political influence. He has his own reputation as an independent public servant to preserve.

Despite the words of the critics and some certain members of this House, I believe that he is going to be able to conduct this investigation, this review, absolutely thoroughly. If, at the end of the review, he feels — as a non-partisan, independent, thorough reviewer of the facts — that further review is required, he will most certainly say that in his report. But there is no reason to think that this review will be anything less than thorough, anything less than independent.

I promise you this. We will act on the facts and the recommendations when he provides them.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

K. Krueger: I rise to table a petition signed by many hundreds of people. I haven't counted the signatures, but the constituents who gathered it say that it reflects the view, they believe, of 98 percent of the people who live along Highway 5A near Kamloops.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: I have a petition signed by 2,500 residents of the Westbank First Nation calling on the government to immediately repay homeowners residing on the Westbank First Nation lands the carbon tax rebate for 2011 and 2012 as well as any future years in which the carbon tax rebate is provided.

C. Hansen: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Hansen: There's a group that couldn't join us for the normal time for introductions today, but they have since come into the House. I'd ask the House to welcome 38 grade 11 students from Prince of Wales Mini School, the two parent volunteers with them, and their teacher, Mr. Andrew Humphries.

J. Horgan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is Coun. Mike De Guevara from the Westbank First Nation. Mike is down and has been down for the past number of days meeting with the Tsawout First Nation and other First Nations leadership in the south Island to share notes and compare how we can move forward on land claims and treaty rights settlements across British Columbia. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I, too, would like to seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: We're just doing introductions over. Proceed.

S. Chandra Herbert: I would like to join with the member for Vancouver-Quilchena to welcome the students from Prince of Wales. I'm an alumni — alumnus, I guess it would be — and I'm really glad that they have joined us in the House today.

[1435]

The member for Surrey-Whalley also wanted me to mention that he was from that school as well.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. M. MacDiarmid: I am pleased to continue speaking about Budget 2013. I had the opportunity to start speaking at the last sitting of the House and to speak a bit about my riding. I want to continue on to talk about the budget and what it means to the Ministry of Health.

We are a government that understands that every tax dollar is important. In health care there are some things that that means. It means minimizing duplication and overlap, keeping administrative costs low and slowing the rate of growth to ensure sustainability. We are doing all of those things.

When we took office, there were 52 health authorities in British Columbia. That meant 52 separate entities, each with their own board and senior administration. One of our first acts as government was to reduce the number of health authorities down to six.

We have also, over the last few years, dramatically reduced the rate of growth in health expenditures, reducing it by more than half. Before the worldwide economic crisis health funding was growing by about 7 percent per year. In our last budget growth was down to around 3 percent.

Health authority administrators and health profession-
[ Page 13249 ]
als are certainly doing their part, using lean techniques to maximize existing resources. They're finding savings through consolidation, shared services and bulk purchasing that will save the system more than $200 million by the end of 2014.

Our efforts are leading the country. A Canadian Institute for Health Information study in 2009 found that administration costs right here in British Columbia in our health authorities were the second lowest in Canada at 3.8 percent. That was down from nearly 5 percent just two years earlier. We're doing this all without diminishing our services for patients. CIHI also shows that our per-capita health spending is the second lowest in Canada but that our health outcomes are among the best. I'll talk a little more about that later.

With respect to this budget, health spending growth will increase by $374 million in 2013 to $16.6 billion. In this budget we are protecting and maintaining health authority budgets while also ensuring that the health services that British Columbians rely on are maintained.

Over the next three years health authorities and regional services, which is the front-line care for patients, will still see an average annual growth of 3.2 percent. We are using strategies to hold the line on PharmaCare and MSP expenses, and their growth will be a more modest 1.1 percent annual growth.

In Budget 2013 we are maintaining the health services that British Columbians rely upon, but we're finding savings and efficiencies by reducing what the ministry pays for some services, including PharmaCare cost savings through the use of generic medications; savings through the reform of laboratory services, something that's been very successful in this province already and across Canada; setting a clear mandate for further discussions with the B.C. Medical Association on holding the line on overall expenditure on physician services; and also increasing the use of pay-for-performance or patient-focused funding.

Health spending was growing at an average of 7 percent per year between 2005-06 and 2008-09 before being reduced to an average of 4.4 percent annually during the subsequent four years.

[1440]

First and foremost in this budget, as I've said before, we are protecting and maintaining health authority budgets, while ensuring that the health services that British Columbians rely upon are maintained.

I'm going to speak more about our operations budget, but I want to take a moment to talk about capital projects around the province, which are extremely important to people wherever they are.

As noted in the budget speech, we are continuing to move forward with the following capital health projects: the redevelopment of B.C. Women's and Children's hospitals in Vancouver; a new Surrey Memorial Hospital emergency department, which should open later this year, and a critical care tower.

Work is underway for a new Interior heart and surgical centre in Kelowna, the replacement and expansion of north Island hospitals, the redevelopment at East Kootenay Hospital in Cranbrook, the replacement of Lakes District Hospital in Burns Lake and the replacement of Queen Charlotte–Haida Gwaii hospital. There is also work underway to redevelop the Royal Columbian Hospital, the Vernon Jubilee Hospital in Vernon and the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops.

Part of the way that the Ministry of Health and our government have been able to bend the cost curve in health expenditures is using lean techniques, by doing things differently. There is a substantial innovation and change agenda throughout the ministry and throughout the health authorities which is providing true patient-centred care but being very respectful and careful with the resources that we have in terms of tax dollars. Our use of lean techniques across the health care system is significantly reducing patient wait times and is maximizing efficiencies that can then be redirected into patient care.

I want to give a couple of examples. A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to visit the Vancouver General Hospital and the UBC Hospital, where they told me about actions that they've taken with respect to total surgical wait-lists. Over the last year, through simple and creative techniques, they have been able to reduce their total surgical wait-lists by nearly 25 percent. Every single surgeon who has patients on wait-lists in those two hospitals has seen their wait-list decrease. They have been able to shift surgical procedures between hospitals to take advantage of operating room efficiencies, they have made better use of their operating room capacity by coordinating patients better, and they have made a concerted effort to regularly monitor and analyze wait-lists.

With these different techniques and with everyone participating, it was truly inspiring to see what had been accomplished in a relatively short time. These kinds of innovative changes are things that can be transferred to other health authorities as well.

Another example of amazing innovation and change is at the Jim Pattison Outpatient Care and Surgery Centre in Surrey in the Fraser Health Authority, another place I had the opportunity to visit. I spoke with members of the team, which included physicians, pathologists, surgeons, plastic surgeons and radiologists. It also included other members of the team: nurses, booking clerks and technologists — all of them working together so that during a single visit a woman who has an abnormality, whether it's a mass in her breast or an abnormal screening mammogram, can have imaging, cytology and physical examination, all on a one-stop-shopping basis.

Women are informed of their appointment, and they are informed that it's not clear how long that appointment will take. It may be an hour that day, or it may be much longer. But during that time the collaborative care
[ Page 13250 ]
and working together as a team allows for very thorough provision of services to those women patients. Procedures that were taking many, many weeks, sometimes months, are now taking two to three weeks on average. Amazingly better care for the women patients and, of course, benefiting their families as well.

In the Northern Health Authority the amount of time that it takes for patients to be referred through the Prince George home and community care office, until they actually receive long-term care support, has been reduced from an average of 68 days down to 14 days. And there are many other examples of lean techniques that are really making a difference around the province.

I mentioned the fact that although we are the second-lowest in terms of per-capita expenditures in our health care system, we have some amazing achievements, some outstanding achievements in this province. I want to outline a few of those.

[1445]

We have the best overall cancer survival rates in Canada. According to the 2012 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Society's Canadian Cancer Statistics report, mortality rates for all cancers combined are lowest in British Columbia. We have the longest life expectancy in Canada. We have the lowest heart attack rate in Canada.

We have been able to accomplish, working across all health authorities, thousands more surgeries. Since 2001 we have increased the annual number of knee replacements from about 3,000 to over 7,000; hip replacements, from about 2,800 to 5,100; cataract surgeries, from 31,000 to 51,000. There are a number of other surgeries where there have been substantial increases in the number of cases done.

Overall, the total number of surgeries received by British Columbians last year was 531,000. Over half of those patients, Madam Speaker, were never on a waiting list. This is an increase of 26 percent from the 420,000 surgeries that were performed in 2000-2001.

We have the best HIV/AIDS care in the country. We are the only province in Canada that is actually showing a consistent decline in HIV diagnosis. HIV/AIDS-related deaths have decreased in British Columbia by more than 90 percent since 1996, and I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the Centre of Excellence at St. Paul's Hospital under the leadership of Dr. Julio Montaner.

With his extraordinary team, the dedication that they have shown has led to these extraordinary outcomes. But this is also spreading beyond British Columbia's borders, across Canada, throughout North America and around the world. Dr. Montaner and his team have travelled to every continent, and the techniques and the things that they have developed, the research that we have all gained from, is now being exported worldwide. We should be very proud of that.

Another accomplishment is that we have thousands more doctors and nurses in the province today than we did in 2001. We have more than doubled the number of medical students that are being trained. Two years from now we will have 288 students graduating each and every year. We have increased the number of practising nurses to more than 50,000, which is an increase of over 13,000 practising nurses since 2001, and we are training more than twice as many as we did back in 2001.

I have also talked about the capital investments, but let me say that we have better patient care, through excellent infrastructure, having invested more than $8 billion in health capital over the last ten years.

Our PharmaCare expenditures are another important area that British Columbians really count on. We are maintaining the health services that British Columbians rely upon in Budget 2013, but we're finding savings and efficiencies by reducing what the ministry pays for these services. One of the important things that we are doing is the new generic pricing regulation that was introduced in the spring of 2012. Our PharmaCare program has been evaluated and has been found to be one of the most comprehensive drug programs in Canada.

Where else are we investing, Madam Speaker? Well, we are investing in smoking cessation — tobacco use being one of the single most preventable causes of disease and death in British Columbia. We are proud that we have made great progress in reducing tobacco use prevalence in the province. We have the lowest smoking rates in Canada at approximately 14.2 percent. We are committed to reducing that further and protecting British Columbians from the danger of second-hand smoke.

As part of this commitment and our commitment to healthy families, we are investing between $15 million and $25 million annually in British Columbia's smoking cessation program, which offers smokers the choice of coverage of nicotine replacement therapies or prescription drugs. By doing this, we are making the healthy choice the easy choice for people who are smokers. By reducing the number of people who smoke, not only will we prevent or delay the onset of diseases like heart attacks and cancer but also avoid the millions of dollars of cost on our health care system.

The innovation and change agenda is something that is not new, but some extraordinary new programs have been rolled out in the last little while. Last week I met with a group of family doctors and health providers. There was one patient representative present for the announcement we made about integrated primary and community care. These are not just words on a page. This is an approach that is being embraced by family doctors, by people who work in health authorities and by the ministry.

[1450]

What we talked about was a program which includes something called Home is Best, where people who are in hospital for acute care are able to return home instead of going into residential care. There was a young woman
[ Page 13251 ]
called Vivian, who attended the event on Friday and talked about what it meant for her grandparents who had been married for over 65 years and were facing separation. They were facing the fact that Vivian's grandfather was thought to be too frail to live at home and that he would need to go into residential care.

The proposal was made that the Home is Best program would be tried. Services were brought into the home, and this couple is able to be together in the home of their choice. That is really what this program is all about.

It's also about keeping people out of the emergency department, where that is possible, and keeping people out of the acute care hospital setting. Quite frequently patients are leaving hospital earlier than they otherwise would have because of the coordination of care between their family physician, home and community care nurses and other important providers, so that they can be home where they would prefer to be. It's been demonstrated very clearly that the healing process is better, that they're stronger and that this program has been extraordinarily successful.

Another program that we recently talked about is A GP for Me, which is a program that supports our government's promise that by 2015 everyone in British Columbia who would like to have a family doctor will have one. This work is something that we have been doing in partnership with the B.C. Medical Association, rolling out a comprehensive suite of supports and incentives to improve primary care in B.C. The work is supported by $132 million in funding, and a significant proportion of that is from the existing physician master agreement, which was negotiated between government and the BCMA in 2012.

There have been some successful pilot programs around the province in White Rock, South Surrey, Prince George and the Cowichan Valley. I'm happy to say that this program started in June of 2010. There are over 9,000 patients that did not have a family doctor at that point who have a family doctor today.

New family physicians have been recruited, and other health providers are also included in these communities. We are rolling this out to the entire province, including divisions of family practice, so that the family doctors in a community can look at the unmet needs of their community and then decide how best to meet them.

In different neighbourhoods of the province, it may be increased access to a registered nurse or a nurse practitioner or perhaps a pharmacist. In other cases, special clinics have been developed for maternity patients, for patients who don't have physicians. Who knows where the innovation will lead us with this excellent new program. It certainly has made a difference for patients so far in this province, as I said, with over 9,000 of them that didn't have a family doctor in 2010 having a doctor today.

At the event where we talked about this, a family came, and they spoke about what a difference it had made for them to have a family physician in their community. Again, a young woman came to speak, and she talked about the fact that not only could she and her husband and their children have access to a family doctor, but that family doctor actually said: "Do you have any other family members in White Rock–South Surrey?" Her parents are now receiving care from that same family physician — so three generations of the same family. In White Rock–South Surrey today if you want a family doctor, there is no wait at all.

We are also investing in health research. Over the last 12 years our government has invested more than $900 million in health research around the province, including places like the Vancouver Prostate Centre, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, six leading-edge endowment fund chairs, Genome B.C. and the Centre for Drug Research and Development. That's just to name a few.

I want to just take a moment to talk about why we invest in health research. Research can definitely help to keep our health care system sustainable. Using the valuable data we have here in British Columbia, we can find ways to improve care and reduce spending, allowing resources to be redirected to direct patient care.

The research sector, importantly, also provides economic benefits and great jobs, and attracts research dollars from many sources. The research funding that we provide to institutions like the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research and Genome B.C. is levered sometimes five, ten or even more times by the private sector in some cases and by other research funders across Canada and around the world.

I wanted to speak briefly about other ways that we are doing things differently here in British Columbia. First I'd like to talk about our very successful nurse practitioner program.

[1455]

In 2005 nurse practitioners were established as an important part of health care teams in B.C. In fact, we were the first in B.C. history to establish a nurse practitioner training program. We currently have 252 nurse practitioners who are registered with the College of Registered Nurses of B.C. and the ability to train up to 45 nurse practitioners annually.

Last year we announced that we would be funding 190 nurse practitioner new positions over the next three years. This is a $22.2 million initiative, and it is net new funding over and above the current $17 million provided annually to health authorities for nurse practitioners.

We heard a number of announcements recently about the communities who are going to receive nurse practitioners. In fact, in some cases those nurse practitioners are already providing care. They help to meet the growing need for primary health care, including management of chronic diseases. They perform the full range of nursing functions as well as some functions that are similar
[ Page 13252 ]
to what physicians do, such as diagnosing and managing common, acute and chronic illnesses; prescribing; ordering diagnostic tests; and referring to specialists.

In my home community of Trail, when I left the community, my partners were not able to recruit a family physician, and a nurse practitioner joined the team. She has been an extraordinary addition to the team. Other nurse practitioners have come through for training in our clinic — my old clinic. The nurse practitioner in the clinic provides very important care. She does office visits. She does chronic disease management. But she's also part of the palliative care team and chronic disease management, and she provides valuable support for her patients and the clinic's patients by doing house calls.

It has been demonstrated that this kind of care very frequently can help us to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations and emergency visits, and again, it feeds into the whole idea that home is best for people.

I also wanted to talk about our midwifery program. Canada was the last developed country to legally recognize the practice and profession of midwifery. A few months ago I joined in the celebration of the ten-year anniversary of the establishment of UBC's midwifery program. Midwives were first registered to practise on January 1, 1998. Today in this province midwives are providing about 11 percent of all deliveries. In some cases they're doing these deliveries of babies in hospitals. In other cases they are home deliveries for selected low-risk pregnancies.

High-quality maternity care is vital to our health care system, and the midwives provide maternity care from early pregnancy through labour and birth until six weeks postpartum. They are now a firmly established part of B.C.'s health care system. They're practising evidence-based, women-centred maternity and newborn care, and they do give healthy, low-risk women the opportunity to give birth at home or in hospital.

In 2006 there were 2,376 midwife-assisted births, but in 2010 that number grew to 4,393. The option of using the services of a midwife is growing amongst British Columbia families, and midwives are in high demand.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that at that celebration it was clearly demonstrated that midwives also know how to have a good time. It wasn't a raucous party. It wasn't a wild party, but they certainly were celebrating thoroughly the success they've had over the last ten years. It was really a fantastic opportunity to be there to celebrate the anniversary with them.

These are just some of the ways that we are successful with our innovation and change agenda, demonstrating very clearly that it is possible to provide choice. It's possible to provide service and care for people in their homes, and it's possible to support primary care and specialty care and to be excellent, as is clearly demonstrated by the number of health measures where we are the best in Canada — something to be very proud of.

So I am strongly in support of this budget, Budget 2013, and it's been a privilege to have an opportunity to speak in support of the budget.

J. Trasolini: It is an honour for me to rise to respond to the government's budget and fiscal plan. But first, I would like to thank the citizens of the Port Moody–Coquitlam riding, which includes the villages of Anmore and Belcarra, for trusting me to be here representing them.

[1500]

I also want to thank my wife, Cecilia; my stepdaughter, Helena; my two sons, Phil and Darren; and my four grandchildren. I think we can all agree that it is a sacrifice to be here and missing your family.

Now I want to go back to the 2009 budget, because there are similarities with today's budget in both content and process. In 2009 the Finance Minister tabled a pre-election budget stating that there would be a deficit of $495 million. After the election the deficit exploded to almost $12 billion. This led directly to the Liberal government HST fiasco that has afflicted the business community and British Columbians for the past four years.

Now let's look at the 2013-14 budget. For the past year the B.C. Liberals have been talking about a balanced budget for 2013-14, even though in the past four years they have produced four consecutive deficit budgets and quarterly reports showing deficits in the past year. However, the government has continued to talk up a balanced budget.

Guess what. February 19 comes and — poof! — as preordained, like pure magic, a so-called balanced budget is tabled. It has been called a fantasy, incredible, unrealistic. I call it a bogus budget.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The 2013-14 budget is a deficit budget. I do realize that it's easy for anyone to simply claim that this budget is a deficit budget. However, I will, within the time that I have, clearly point out the specific areas in this budget that point to an unmistakable conclusion of a deficit budget.

The Liberal government budget includes unrealistic shortsighted, ill-conceived real estate sales from sales that have not been realized, yet the revenues are on the books. It also includes annual B.C. Hydro dividends, which gives the mistaken message that B.C. Hydro has made a profit where none exists. They also include unrealistic cuts to the health budget and B.C. housing, cuts in forestry and cuts in post-secondary education and skills training, to name a few.

There is no mention of the film industry, mining, climate change and the environment. The HST — incredibly, not mentioned. Not a word about money from the prosperity fund, the central theme of the throne speech.

First, let us take a look at the real estate sales component of the government asset liquidation. The plan in-
[ Page 13253 ]
cludes the sale of land worth $475 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year and up to a total of $625 million for the two years. Let me say that there may be sound reasons for government to, at times, sell surplus real estate properties. That has happened. However, the systematic wholesale liquidation of Crown-owned real estate of this magnitude is not a normal occurrence, nor is it a sound decision.

These actions by the B.C. Liberals are a one-time fire sale designed to bolster their political fortunes in the May election. The sales have not been completed. How can the government be sure of the sale or the proceeds of such transactions?

As respected economist Don Drummond stated…. He advised the Ontario government that if assets have not been sold, never incorporate the revenues from such planned sales into the budget prior to the sales. Yet this is what the Finance Minister has done, and in a big way.

[1505]

Why sell? What is the hurry? Where's the compelling reason? It is my opinion that this is a shortsighted political gimmick. In a growing Lower Mainland and throughout this province useful real estate needs to be managed properly. Government land holdings need to be reserved for all British Columbians.

Once sold, these assets will be gone forever, and if needed in the future, government would be forced to pay much higher prices to get them back. Serious economic decisions require this forward-looking perspective, but this government is acting in a shortsighted way, and they're only motivated by politics.

There seems to be a B.C. Liberal fixation on appearing to have a balanced budget prior to the May election. That is not good reasoning. There are better choices to make sure that the financial future of British Columbia is assured.

If the Liberals really had the best interest of British Columbians in mind, they would explore better, more economically sound options for these so-called surplus lands — options that would ensure land ownership remains in government hands and, as well, options that would secure sustainable, yearly, long-term income for the government.

Selling real estate assets for one-time revenues to attempt to balance an operating budget is not sustainable for government, nor is it sustainable for business. One-time revenues should only be used for one-time expenses. Nobody would argue with that.

A better and more financially sound option would be to utilize surplus real estate by first upzoning land for highest and best use and making lands available for lease opportunities that would be presented by investors like pension funds and business investors to capture sustainable, long-term rental income. This fiscally prudent action would have resulted in sustainable yearly revenues that could and would be used as operating funds in the budget.

I'll give you some examples of where this plan would be very useful. Take a look at the Little Mountain lands — a large acreage in a growing area; close to transit; suitable for mixed-use development, different housing forms, including affordable housing; as well as retail space and commercial space.

Take a look at another site, the 25-acre Pearson hospital, Dogwood health care on 52nd and Cambie — again, in an area where it is served by public transit. Where growth is needed, similar opportunities would exist. There are 14 other sites ID'd in the 2013-14 budget and then another 65 unknown sites that have been identified as surplus lands in the following years.

I wouldn't be standing up here speaking about something that I don't have any experience on. I will give you some ideas. I'm not speaking about opportunities that are groundbreaking, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about what is commonplace.

[1510]

In my experience as mayor for the city of Port Moody for 12 years, we faced a financially uncertain future over the 12-year span. I and my council did exactly what I'm suggesting the Liberal government ought to do here as a sustainable financial alternative to selling real estate. We negotiated deals on city-owned lands to secure long-term sustainable revenues. I'll give you some examples. For a small city of 33,000 people, these are some of the examples.

We leased land at Rocky Point Park to a restaurant, which brings in $240,000 per year. That is happening today, and it will happen into the future. There was an affordable housing site. Again, we leased the land, and we are receiving $150,000 per year. We rented office space on a parcel of land that we built, and we are receiving $100,000 per year from some tenants.

These are three perhaps minor opportunities, but the point is that there are ways to invest in those lands so that future generations would take advantage of it, and future taxpayers would be able to have their taxes defrayed because of the income.

Those were done years ago. The city is currently enjoying these benefits right now. The income, because it is sustainable, can be used for the operating budget. That is what sound business decisions look like. For a government that claims to have business knowledge, it is sure making poor business decisions. Or is there in fact another motive — that is, a selfish, shortsighted plan to sell as many real estate assets as possible in the attempt to give the illusion of a balanced budget to bolster the political fortunes in the upcoming May election?

Regardless, either motive points to a government that is not doing its job, not looking after the interests of British Columbians. Counting on $475 million of one-time land sales in the 2013-2014 fiscal year — sales that have not taken place — is neither looking after the interests of British Columbians, nor does it point to a bal-
[ Page 13254 ]
anced operating budget.

This huge item alone demonstrates that the 2013-14 Liberal budget is truly a deficit budget. There is more, much more, like the item about the Finance Minister is counting on dividends from B.C. Hydro, giving the mistaken message that B.C. Hydro is profitable. The taking of $245 million from B.C. Hydro as a dividend is not realistic, as B.C. Hydro borrows large sums of money and then pays dividends to the tune of $245 million so that, I guess, the Liberal government can give the illusion of a balanced budget.

The Liberal government is employing the deferral account method, which was denounced by the Auditor General a year or so ago, and taking the $245 million from B.C. Hydro's profit, where there is none. This is not a prudent action, nor, may I suggest, is it sustainable for the government. There will be a day of reckoning. This action is taking from future generations, and it's taking away from our youth.

[1515]

Now I want to talk about some unrealistic cuts in this budget, and I want to look at housing, my critic area. The service plan for B.C. Housing does not include a single change in the ministry's goals, priorities or strategies relative to housing.

The ministry service plan does not reflect the situation that too many B.C. families face, particularly the working poor, seniors, homeless, First Nations and vulnerable people suffering from mental health issues, addictions and other challenges.

I want to make a point that without adequate housing help, these people will continue to suffer and put more pressure on emergency shelters, hospital emergency wards, public safety services and volunteer organizations, to name a few, and will, in the end, result in more budgetary pressures on the government.

Recent reports are showing that there are 200,000 households in B.C. living in core housing need — that is, spending more than 30 percent of income on housing. Overall, homelessness is increasing across B.C. Recent homeless counts have shown that even though street homelessness has been reduced with the increase of homeless shelters, overall homelessness numbers are still up over the previous year and increasing. This is likely to continue over the next few years, due to the recent recession and the expectations in the economy.

There is a serious shortage of housing for people living on low incomes, and there are three- to five-year waiting lists for B.C. Housing. The government is way behind schedule on its single-room-occupancy projects, which it first promised in 2007. Over the last five years the Liberal government has only created a net increase of 280 social housing units. Yet the government has put little focus on the importance of housing for low-income families who have the hardest time finding affordable housing options in B.C.

I know this firsthand. I have been around the province for the past six months, and let me tell you, the story is not pretty. I have visited cities in the Okanagan, the east and west Kootenays, the Cariboo area, all over Vancouver Island and throughout the Lower Mainland. The stories make me feel that there are forgotten people out there — seniors, young people, women at risk, low-income, marginalized people. They exist, and they are waiting for housing throughout this province, and not much is being done.

Recent budgets have illustrated that housing is not a priority for this government. For example, the overall budget for B.C. Housing in 2012 was cut by $139.4 million, or 18 percent, year over year. Housing subsidies were cut by 26.9 percent.

The 2013-14 budget offers more of the same. Despite the number of homeless and persons requiring assistance being 5 percent and 7 percent respectively, the operating budget has been reduced by $2.4 million.

B.C. Housing plans to spend $30 million less in the 2013-14 budget. B.C. Housing capital funds are reduced by $11 million, in spite of affordable housing needs provincewide. The number of new beds proposed, including priority areas, has been reduced by 250.

[1520]

B.C. Housing, by reducing its target for the number of homeless who will remain housed after six months from 85 percent down to 75 percent, is predicting that homelessness will worsen. Yet this government is doing less and, with this budget, is planning to do even less.

Now let's look at the Health budget. The 2012-2013 Health budget that was forecast from last year called for a 3.7 percent increase for the 2013-14 budget, yet the budget just tabled has lowered that increase down to 2.6 percent. This is a decrease of $236 million.

Within the 2.6 increase we need to account for 1.5 percent inflation, population growth, aging demographics and funding for hiring nurses, which is a government contractual obligation.

Well, the most junior accountant would spot something wrong with this lack of accountability. This begs the question: what does the Liberal government plan to cut within the health services to match this cut in funding growth?

Waiting lists will go up. Emergency wards will overflow. Mental health service care will deteriorate even further. If the government doesn't agree with this list showing the impacts on health services delivery, then the government needs to give British Columbians the list that they have. What do they anticipate?

They need to tell British Columbians what impact this budget will have on health care provincewide. Is the Liberal government willing to accept the overall deterioration of health service? That is what this budget plans for.

A couple of words about forestry. The $35 million cut in the forestry budget further negatively impacts forest
[ Page 13255 ]
re-inventory, replacing and managing the forest resource. Forestry is an important resource industry in this province. This Liberal government's forestry policies have contributed to the loss of thousands of jobs in this province. Now it seems the government has given up entirely.

The film industry. No help for the film industry. B.C. lost 3,500 direct and spinoff film and television production jobs during the year ending March 31, 2012, while Ontario gained 8,000 jobs, according to the Vancouver Sun report last week. In dollar value, that is a loss of $134 million to the B.C. economy.

B.C.'s share of Canadian film and television production fell by 8 percent, to $1.58 billion. The future of this vital B.C. industry is deteriorating rapidly. This Liberal government is happy to pay $11 million to host the Times of India Film Awards — prior to the May election, may I add — while our TV and film industry is struggling to survive.

A bit about post-secondary education and skills training. Without exception, business leaders that I have met throughout this province ask with a common voice that the province fund post-secondary and skills-training programs. And 80 percent of jobs in the near future, if not presently, will need some sort of post-secondary education, yet the Liberal government is cutting operating funds for post-secondary education.

There is a $46 million cut to the Ministry of Advanced Education over the next three years, adding to the $50 million in cuts in the last budget. Educators in a united voice are condemning these cuts.

[1525]

Again, Don Drummond, the noted economist I mentioned earlier, has stated that if you are looking for places to cut the budget, advanced education is not the place to cut. This Liberal government thinks that it can gamble the future of our youth and with it the future prosperity of British Columbia.

Now, there's an obscure item which calls for selling of financial instruments. The government plan to sell public assets also includes the disposal of millions of dollars worth of some mysterious financial instruments. The Minister of Finance alluded to this action in the budget presentation last week but only in a brief, cryptic reference.

A report in the Vancouver Sun newspaper, following an interview with the minister, has the minister confirming that the Liberal government plans to sell such mysterious financial assets to realize income of $125 million in the coming year. The minister is quoted as saying: "These financial instruments are things the ministry of the government from time to time sell." He would not elaborate, he said, because "they are very, very market-sensitive and more disclosure could compromise the selling price on the open market."

Further information released — later, I assume — spoke about these assets as bonds, derivatives or promissory notes. The $125 million profit resulting from these financial asset sales means that hundreds of millions of dollars worth of these instruments would have to be sold. I ask: how realistic is that?

I believe that I have carefully outlined some of the key areas that point to the undeniable truth that the B.C. Liberal 2013-2014 budget is a deficit budget. It is the fifth consecutive deficit budget for this government.

The only question remaining is: what would the amount of the deficit be if this budget was to be adopted? Well, we may never know the answer to that question.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

J. Les: It's an honour for me to be able to rise this afternoon to respond to the budget. This will be my last opportunity to do so. Given that, I am particularly pleased that I am able to respond to a budget that's balanced.

Listening to the comments from members opposite, one thing that strikes me right off the top is that the same writer has written all of their speeches and didn't have an original thought from beginning to end. It is simply the same thing regurgitated over and over again, regardless of how wrong it might be.

This budget is truly balanced, and numerous commentaries from people who study these things bear that out. We've taken a very cautious and a very prudent approach to the budget. We've even gone so far as bringing in outside experts to verify the revenue projections and adjusting those accordingly. I think we can certainly say to British Columbians that not only is this budget balanced, but it was carefully balanced, and it was done in a way that withstands scrutiny.

Now, it is actually very important to me personally as a legislator, as a father and as a grandfather to be able to say that the budget is balanced. I am tired, frankly, of governments almost everywhere taking such a casual approach to deficit budgeting.

Deficit budgeting is nothing more than robbing the future to pay today's needs, taking from our children and grandchildren so that we can have things today. That's what deficit budgeting is, and it's been engaged in far too often by governments everywhere.

[1530]

I am pleased that British Columbia is now the second province, post-recession, to be able to say that we have a balanced budget.

We see governments right across Canada, provincial governments to be sure…. Alberta, for example — billions and billions in deficit. Manitoba, an NDP government — billions in deficit. Ontario, frankly, has billions upon billions in deficit, with no idea how they're ever going to get back to a balanced situation. The Quebec government — I'm not sure if they even remember when they last had a balanced budget. And on it goes.

All of those bills, though, are either going to come due, or subsequent generations are going to have to continue
[ Page 13256 ]
to pay the interest on those ever-accumulating deficits, further restricting the policy options that governments of the future are going to have at their disposal. That is the tragedy of ongoing deficits.

Look at the United States. They're currently adding about $1.4 trillion a year to their deficits, to their accumulating debt. Frankly, there is no plan as to how to get out of that vicious cycle. Their policy options at the city, state and federal levels in the United States are very quickly narrowing. As I said, they really don't seem to have too much of a plan as to how they're going to get out of it, short of bankruptcy.

Balancing budgets is extremely important. Over the last decade we have balanced a number of times. Of course, the members of the official opposition take no end of delight in pointing out that the 2009 budget went deeper into deficit than was originally anticipated.

Interjection.

J. Les: Yes, it did.

Now, British Columbians, I think, are fair-minded people. They will also readily understand that we were then in the midst of the greatest recession since probably the 1930s, and our budget indeed went from a deficit of $495 million to a deficit of $1.8 billion. For sure, it did.

When you compare that to the extreme worsening of fiscal conditions that happened in other jurisdictions, I think you'll easily come to the conclusion that it wasn't nearly as bad as it might have been. It was the careful financial management that had preceded those years that allowed us to not go as deeply into deficit as we otherwise might have done.

So here we are. We're dealing with the budget of 2013-2014. Happily, it's back in a balanced situation, and it also anticipates the two subsequent budgets beyond this fiscal year being balanced as well.

Now, I see members opposite making light of the fact and thinking this is all very humorous. We know that their leader has already dismissed the importance of balanced budgets. Their Finance critic has said: "Oh, maybe we would balance, if we were government, in four or five years. Whatever. It's not important." The Leader of the Opposition has said one of the first things that he'd be interested in would be to repeal the balanced-budget legislation.

It's not important to balance the budget, to members of the NDP. We saw that in the '90s. Most of their budgets were in deficit. They had six credit-rating downgrades — six credit-rating downgrades while the NDP were in office.

We had to work awfully hard since 2001 to undo all of those credit-rating downgrades to where we today enjoy — and we continue to enjoy — a triple-A credit rating here in the province of British Columbia. The members opposite can heckle all they like, but those are the facts — credit-rating downgrades under the NDP and a triple-A credit rating under a B.C. Liberal government.

So how do you achieve a balanced budget? Well, I can tell you it's not easy. It involves saying no a lot more times than you would say yes to different spending ideas. Basically, what we have said is that we're going to constrain spending.

Spending in this budget is up by 1.5 percent, which might sound familiar. It's roughly equal to the current rate of inflation — a pretty responsible thing to do. Actually, it's 1.5 percent and then your revenue growth, which we have in this budget, of about 3 percent, so revenues continue to improve. Although somewhat modestly, they are improving.

[1535]

We have a 3 percent increase in revenue, a 1.5 percent increase in spending. In a few broad strokes, that produces for the province a balanced budget. But as I said, it's not easy. There are a lot of other things that…. I'm sure if members opposite could sit down, as they often do, and suggest areas where we need to spend more money, soon you'll be spending billions more.

Although members opposite have been a little unclear from time to time — very unclear, actually — in terms of what their policy options would be, sometimes it's interesting to listen to their friends and supporters. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, I find, often echoes the policy preferences of the NDP.

One of their staff, a person by the name of Iglika Ivanova, was speculating on the budget, I think about a month ago, and suggesting what she thinks would be appropriate policy options. I listened fairly clearly as she was speaking and thought this might be as close as I'll ever get to understanding what the plans of the NDP opposition might be.

She suggested that there should be approximately another $3 billion worth of taxation levied on British Columbians. I thought: "Oh, that's interesting. That sounds to me like it could be a 10 percent provincial sales tax when we get back to the PST." That's roughly what that would equate to.

I wonder how excited British Columbians would be at the notion of a 10 percent provincial sales tax, because if their cousins in the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives had their way, you would need about that kind of revenue to fulfil their spending ambitions. I think it's just important to reflect on that.

Members opposite, as I said, give us precious little in terms of specifics. We heard from the member who spoke before me that it is unwise to sell government properties, although NDP governments did that in the 1990s. And where we have surplus properties, we continue to dispose of them. But I guess the member opposite and I have a slightly different philosophy in respect of that.

He related his experience when he was mayor of Port Moody. I was mayor of Chilliwack for 13 years, and when
[ Page 13257 ]
we had surplus property to dispose of, we indeed did dispose of it. Private sector investors invested in that property. They started paying property taxes on that property.

They continue to pay property taxes on those properties — very nice restaurant properties, very nice office buildings in private hands, producing private sector revenue, private sector jobs, property taxes for the municipality, sales taxes for the provincial government. I would suggest it's a very sustainable situation. It gets the provincial government — or, in that case, the civic government — out of the necessity of managing a large real estate portfolio, which they really don't need to be doing.

This is a budget that I think continues along that philosophy of government creating the conditions in which the private sector can expand and thrive. It controls spending. It focuses on growing the economy and not on growing government.

You'll see modest reductions in staffing where it's possible to do that. We think that's the responsible way to grow. Bigger governments do not necessarily at all translate into bigger economies. Usually it's the opposite.

Members opposite have their particular points of view as to: what about this budget? But there are independent validators across this province. I know that members of the opposition from time to time quote these exact same people, so I'll quote them this afternoon as well.

From the Vancouver Board of Trade. They represent thousands of businesses in the Lower Mainland, and they assigned what they characterize as a B-plus rating to the 2013 provincial budget, based on the criteria of debt reduction, spending restraint, tax competitiveness and the overall economic vision. These aren't my words. These came from the Vancouver Board of Trade.

[1540]

We saw this commentary in the Globe and Mail. The Premier and the Finance Minister "deserve praise for a sober pre-election budget which does not attempt to buy the voters with their own money" — not my words, the Globe and Mail.

John Winter. As members opposite will know, he's the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. He said: "Good on them for living up to the commitment to balance the budget. It's hard to do, but I think it's realistic."

We also heard from Roslyn Kunin. Members opposite, I'm sure, are quite familiar with Roslyn Kunin from the Canada West Foundation. She said: "It's probably more balanced, in all senses of the word, and more realistic than any budget that I have ever seen." I thought it a pretty interesting validation from Roslyn. She's not particularly a political person but calls them as she sees them, so I was very pleased to see that.

We did have to implement a couple of modest taxation increases in the budget. It's not something we've been known to do as a B.C. Liberal government, where we've prided ourselves over the years on maintaining amongst the lowest taxes in all categories in all of Canada, if not North America.

We have increased the taxes on tobacco by $2 a carton. There is a 2.1 percent increase on net income over $150,000 per individual. The general corporate tax is up by 1 percent for two years, and the small business rate, of course, stays where it is.

I would suggest to you that these are modest increases. In the case of the general corporate rate, it has a two-year sunset clause attached to it. They're modest and responsible, and they are certainly helpful in balancing the budget and making sure that we stop the flow of red ink in the province of British Columbia and not add to the debt of future generations.

Again, I'm not going to take too much more time. I find it comforting that in British Columbia we're no longer adding to the debt. We have a set of economic and fiscal conditions in the province that will allow our private sector economy to grow, to continue to create jobs.

The job creation record here in the province of British Columbia has been one of our country's best over the last decade. It also sets the stage, by wise investments in skills training, to make sure that we have the workforce to support the exciting new industries that are opening up, particularly in the northeast and in the northwest of this province. I'll have more to say about that in my response to the Speech from the Throne sometime in the next number of days.

All in all, as I said before, each of us would have a wish list, I am sure, on which we would really love to spend more money. But when your spending is constrained, when you're forced to act responsibly….

I think this budget is a great reflection of the current realities and the current situation that we find ourselves in not just here in the province of British Columbia but globally around the world. These are very troubled financial times, with many governments, frankly, with no idea as to what tomorrow is going to look like for them.

In British Columbia we do have a future, and it's a very clear future of investments in the economy that are going to enable revenues to flow to the provincial government in a very healthy fashion in years ahead so that we can continue to support important programs like health care, like education, like post-secondary education and many, many others that are so important to British Columbians.

Underlying all of that is, very fundamentally, a solid budget. I'm very pleased to be part of a government that has once again delivered a solid budget on which British Columbians can count to continue to grow the future and prosper.

S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, nearly two weeks ago this government brought down a pre-election budget for 2013 full of promises to take into the upcoming election. On closer examination, it immediately became clear that the budget is in fact empty of the means to fulfil those promises.
[ Page 13258 ]

[1545]

The budget came down a few days after a throne speech that was similar in character. The throne speech contained many promises about what would happen five, ten, 30 years out, based on looking at a crystal ball that saw liquefied natural gas paying vastly increased revenues to support government programs. That throne speech laid out a fantastic future of prosperity funds, renewed services and disappearing sales taxes in the distant future, beyond the next term of government and, frankly, quite unbelievable.

When some in Alberta are musing about instituting a sales tax, this government, sometime in the future, can see in their crystal ball a future when they can go poof, and there'll be no sales tax.

Now with another sleight of hand, we have a budget that this government claims is balanced. The federal government is not tabling a balanced budget. The Alberta government is not tabling a balanced budget. Nor are many of the other provinces, as has been mentioned before me.

Yet this government and its Finance Minister are not only trying to convince this House that the budget is balanced; they are wasting $17 million of taxpayers' money on television commercials to convince British Columbians that the government's budget is balanced.

These advertisements are designed to try to make voters forget that on the eve of our last election four years ago this B.C. Liberal government brought in a budget that promised a deficit of only $495 million. Once that election was over, the deficit turned into a gigantic $3 billion of red ink, and we haven't seen a balanced budget since. This is the fifth consecutive deficit budget that this government has tabled here in this House.

These same B.C. Liberals have almost promised in the previous election budget that year that we wouldn't have a harmonized sales tax. That was another broken promise, and it was broken in spectacular fashion. Just in case anyone forgot, the PST in four weeks will be returned. Our businesses and consumers will have to go through another difficult tax change that flowed from that broken promise.

Now we are on the eve of another election. We have another pre-election budget from this government, and it is unbelievable. It tests credibility entirely that we could have gone from the last deficit of $1.2 billion that was promised for last year — at least $1.2 billion in deficit — to a $200 million surplus this year.

During five years of recession, one that this government did not prepare British Columbians for, they have suffered with reduced opportunities, fewer jobs, higher fees and diminished levels of service from this government. Beyond the soothing words about levels of low income taxes is the reality of higher taxes that have hit working British Columbians hard. The prime example of this is the skyrocketing Medical Services Plan premiums, which will go up again under this government's plan for the coming year.

British Columbians know better than to believe that this budget will be balanced — not from a government that regularly promises balanced budgets and, in fact, legislates balanced budgets but fails to deliver more often than it has succeeded and not from a government that has failed to balance a budget in this current mandate.

[1550]

Unfortunately, this charade will be executed in the worst possible fashion. That's by selling off capital assets to pay for operating costs.

Selling off capital assets to pay for operating costs is not sustainable. This fire sale of assets smacks of desperation. Again, it is a strategy, to put it kindly, that is not sustainable. It's a strategy that may not even succeed on its own terms.

The Finance Minister says a total of $800 million will accrue from this fire sale of our assets. My colleague from Surrey-Whalley has quoted Don Drummond, a bank economist, warning against counting chickens before they are hatched in such asset sales.

The centrepiece of this government's fire sale hits close to home for me and my constituents in Surrey–Green Timbers, as a parcel of land strategically located near the geographic centre of the city of Surrey is up for sale. The Minister of Health hoped to see this 13-acre site used for hospital expansion. It's a good location for future health services, located by a central traffic route and major public transportation routes.

Right now there is an expansion underway at Surrey Memorial Hospital, after many, many delays. But the population of Surrey, now at over 400,000, is growing by 10,000 to 12,000 people a year, and the value of the land that is to be sold by the government is growing along with it.

There is plenty of reason to think that the day is not far away when a substantial expansion of health care services will again be needed for Surrey. Surrey Memorial is the only hospital inside the Surrey boundaries. But this government is so desperate to appear to balance its budget that it wants to sell this land and ignore the consequences. I have spoken of this matter before in this House, about the importance of this piece of land.

On the day he presented his budget, the Finance Minister went on television and told the media that this was a good example of surplus land sales. Not true. Just not true. What makes this fire sale sadder is that the proceeds will go to help pay for this government's relentless delivering of taxpayer-financed partisan advertising, advertising that is trying to convince the people of British Columbia that this bogus budget is actually balanced.

This government is spending money on partisan ads when the money would be better spent providing more child care. Child care remains one of the biggest issues facing British Columbia families today. Across the pol-
[ Page 13259 ]
itical spectrum people are understanding that this is an economic issue, allowing women and men to go to work and know that their families are being well cared for.

For 12 years this government has done nothing to help B.C. families looking for better child care. Instead, it has made child care more expensive and harder to find. Eleven years ago this government took $40 million away from child care and never restored it. When the Conservative government in Ottawa cancelled federal transfers for child care, this government was the only province in Canada that passed those cuts along to families and service providers. Child care in B.C. is in a crisis.

It was no surprise to hear big promises in the throne speech that opened this session, but the promises were not matched in the budget. In the coming year the government will spend an additional $6 million for child care services, less than the money being spent on partisan ads. More money is promised for child care in later years, but we know what happens to pre-election promises that are made by this B.C. Liberal government.

When this budget promised some modest tax benefit of $55 a month per child for families, those that are eligible can use this money to help with child care. But today many families are paying more than $1,000 a month or more for child care, so this benefit won't make a significant difference.

[1555]

This benefit doesn't take effect for another two years. Again, this is another promise that can vanish without a trace once the election is safely over and done with.

After this budget B.C. families are still looking for change, from growing waiting lists and higher fees for child care. It will take years to repair the damage this government has done to child care in this province. This budget is disingenuous in the extreme to be saying to the families of B.C. children that this budget will make it easier to find affordable, quality child care.

The outstanding health care measure of this budget is a 4 percent increase in Medical Services Plan premiums, a tax that is too regressive for other provinces. The policy of this government previously was that the medical services premiums would not be higher than the increase in the health care budget. This increase means that the government will take in $2.39 billion from this tax from hard-working British Columbians — more than the government takes from corporations.

As for health care services, tight money continues. I wonder whether health care authorities will be asked again, like they were after the last election, to make further cuts in badly needed health care services by the B.C. Liberals.

When children go to school in the education system, they will find that nothing has changed, because there's nothing in this throne speech to improve our schools. Education is again frozen.

There is advanced training and skills training. Now, when this government's partisan advertising campaign isn't showing falling dominoes, it's talking about skills training that British Columbians need and want to get ahead in today's economy. So what is there in this budget to back up the television ads? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

In fact, this budget contains fewer student spaces in colleges and universities, cuts to student assistance and less money for advanced education. There's no new money for apprenticeships or industry training. So much for partisan public ads.

This budget is also silent about climate change when we need to take action to face up to this problem. This government is silent. We have a carbon tax, and it could be used to fund transit and other measures to reduce carbon emissions.

Then again, there is a problem whose growth will always be associated with this government: poverty. We need a poverty strategy to address this problem in a province which has some of the highest poverty rates in Canada, yet the budget is silent.

The silence on these important matters shows that the government is out of step with the realities faced every day by British Columbians. This budget is the final one of this government's electoral mandate. The four years that have gone by since the last election have been a dead loss for British Columbians looking for leadership and for help from their provincial government.

The first two years of this mandate saw this government attempt to implement a major tax change that they didn't dare talk about in the last election campaign. Soon that tax change will be consigned to the history books, but not until we get through one more round of economic and bureaucratic dislocation.

In the past two years a new Premier has tried and failed to get British Columbians to forget about the errors committed by this government. Now the government is running out of credibility. It is desperately looking for quick fixes and quick wins. With an expensive barrage of government advertising claiming this budget is balanced, the members opposite are once again trying to convince British Columbians that they are worthy and should be re-elected.

[1600]

The voters are also growing to appreciate the leadership of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and his colleagues on this side of the House, who are offering a new vision and a new set of practical policies. Soon the voters will render their verdict on this government and this budget. I'm sure that the verdict will be a condemnation of this worn-out government and this empty budget.

D. Horne: It's with pleasure that I stand again in the House today to speak on Budget 2013. As Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services during last fall's budget consultations, it's with
[ Page 13260 ]
great pleasure that I see that the budget is balanced. It was one thing that I was very proud of in last fall's report. That was that we did get a unanimous report, meaning that both this side of the House and that side of the House agreed on the importance of balancing the budget.

[D. Black in the chair.]

That's what we heard throughout British Columbia as we toured from the Lower Mainland, on the Island, central British Columbia and the north. We heard it over and over again. It became one of the central themes of our report and what we heard over and over again.

It's interesting, because since we've had that report…. The member for Surrey-Whalley, the Finance critic, sat on that committee and agreed to that recommendation. It seems that he has now come to the position that he believes that it's far too difficult to balance the budget and achieve what British Columbians would like.

I also find it interesting, as the member for Chilliwack said earlier as he was addressing the House…. It's interesting, because as we listen to the opposite side of the House, they seem to…. It's the same thing said over and over and over again. One of the most unique things that I find quite humorous, actually, is that each of the members…. The member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who just spoke, actually attributed this comment to the member for Surrey-Whalley rather than to Drummond, who actually wrote the report in Ontario.

Each and every one of the members on the opposite side has quoted a portion, recommendation 3-5 of the Drummond report in Ontario, which talks about the sale of assets. Actually, the Drummond report more holistically talks about the sale of assets overall. It talks about….

Ontario is contemplating selling off some fairly significant operating assets, including their gaming operations and a number of other operating Crown corporations. The difficulty is that there's a difference between selling off operating assets and selling off capital assets like property and land and buildings. The difficulty is when you take the report and you take a certain portion of it and don't sort of deal with the entirety of it. It's interesting that you can reach the conclusions.

Obviously, what the members opposite have said over and over, repeatedly, is that if assets are to be sold, you don't incorporate the revenue. It goes on to basically say the reason why you don't do that is because there's uncertainty over the accounting treatment and the ultimate market value and a number of other issues which go, really, more to an operating asset than a capital asset.

It's interesting, because oftentimes what the members opposite will do is they'll talk about the fact that…. They'll read the Drummond report and say that you can't incorporate it. Then they'll talk about the Little Mountain property, and they'll make a point of the fact that that was included in a budget previously — trying to say that it might not be able to be included this time. But it's an interesting thing because members opposite fully understand.

The most unique part of the whole exercise, though, is that the members opposite fail to read the first part of recommendation 3-5. Given their absolute excitement and their willingness to sort of completely embrace the Drummond report, I find it very, very interesting that the first few sentences of recommendation 3-5 in the Drummond report haven't been mentioned by a single member on the opposite side.

I feel it's important that perhaps I read that. Recommendation 3-5 from the Drummond report says: "Do not hang on to public assets or public service delivery when better options exist. Consider privatizing assets and moving to the private delivery of services wherever feasible. We suggest pursuing this course only when the public can get better value for money spent without compromising access to services, not for ideological reasons."

[1605]

It's interesting that the members opposite never read the first part of the recommendation. It's the second part. The other half, I guess, fits within the message that they want to deliver. Obviously, that's very important for them to incorporate into their messaging. But the first part, perhaps, isn't so much on what they'd like to do.

The report actually goes on, and it mentions time after time…. The member for Port Moody–Coquitlam earlier today said: "Oh, well, we need to hold on to these assets. We need to make sure that we hold on to them forever." Even the member for Surrey–Green Timbers mentioned the fact that we purchased a piece of property in Surrey to build a health facility. That health facility is now being built on another location, but all of a sudden we need to keep that asset forever.

I find the most humorous part of it is that the member from Port Moody–Coquitlam actually used to make money…. His occupation was in property development, actually building things and moving things forward and in that business. So for him to go from a point where that's how he used to make his money to basically saying, "No, no, no, let's never sell a piece of property again," I find very, very humorous.

The other issue that's brought up from time to time on the other side is the treatment by B.C. Hydro, of its accounting — how it operates and the use of deferral accounts. I find this interesting as well, because person after person has gone up on the other side and said, "Oh, my gosh."

I think that one of the members, if my recollection is right, actually stood up and called this a made-in-British-Columbia accounting practice — something that our government has made up and something that we're using to sort of cook things, making it so that we show profit where profit doesn't exist.

I did a little bit of a study, a little bit of a look into the
[ Page 13261 ]
use of deferral accounts. I actually spoke to an analyst at a large firm, a large investment banking firm in New York. He found this quite humorous, actually, because the practice — surprisingly enough for those on the opposite side of the House — is actually fairly widespread.

I'll read a comment from the annual general meeting on May 4, 2012. This appears on page 12 of the Fortis annual report, and this is what the Fortis board says. Now, I'll also remind people that Fortis continues to pay a dividend. Actually, Fortis's dividend this year is one of the largest dividends that they've ever paid. But this is the point they make: "Cash flows from operating activities were $328 million for the quarter, up $26 million, driven by favourable changes and working capital largely associated with regulatory deferral accounts and higher earnings."

It's funny, because the people on the other side of the House, the members opposite, they go on and on about this use of deferral accounts. They say: "This isn't fair. This isn't proper. This isn't right." Well, here we have Fortis who uses it. We have Hydro One that uses it. We have Duke Energy that uses it.

This is commonplace for utilities. This is something that utilities do all the time. And for those opposite, one of two things: either they fundamentally don't get it, or they just don't want to get it.

This is a sad issue, because this is a group that purports to be able to be in a position to actually take over the government of British Columbia. This is the opposition, who say that they are in a position to be able to govern British Columbia, yet they don't get and don't have a grasp on simple financial accounting practices that go fundamentally to their ability to understand the books and be able to manage British Columbia in a prudent fashion.

It's very, very disconcerting. I can mention many, many other companies. Perhaps the members opposite in their subsequent speeches will have gone and done a little bit of research and realized that there are many, many companies around the world that continue to do this.

The other comment that was made is that, basically, B.C. Hydro isn't profitable. Well, the fact of the matter is that B.C. Hydro uses IFRS, which are internationally accepted financial accounting standards. In those standards and by using those standards, they showed a profit in their last annual report of March 31, 2012, of $558 million.

I'm not certain if the members opposite just don't know how to read a financial statement, have no clue on what a financial balance sheet looks like, don't know what an income statement looks like or where we're at.

[1610]

The difficulty is that by repeating over and over again the same thing, there's this fundamental belief that it becomes true. As one member just talked…. During the member for Chilliwack's statement, he said: "Well, 72 percent of British Columbians don't believe this is a balanced budget." The difficulty is that if enough people just constantly say, "It's not balanced; it's not balanced; it's not balanced," I guess there are people that will believe that. But the people that actually do some research, the people that actually look into it, the people that actually understand…. You know, this is a very carefully put together budget.

One of the members opposite also made the point that many other provinces in Canada aren't balancing their budgets. He mentioned that Ontario is not balancing their budget. Not only are they not balancing their budget; they have an absolutely massive deficit. Even Alberta has a large deficit, and Alberta is a province that many look to right now. Many look at the financial acumen that they have because of the wealth that they've created through the oil and gas sector and the choices they can make.

I sat down and had dinner with the Speaker from Alberta at a recent function. One of the points he was making was that although the Alberta budget is not balanced, they actually have enough in their heritage fund to basically cover the difference. So while they're not balancing the budget, they're not borrowing money to be able to achieve that. That's an enviable position. That's something that many would like.

It's one of the other issues we have as we go through here and talk about this budget and the government's commitment to the liquefied natural gas strategy. That is the opportunity that British Columbia has in the not so distant future if we actually seize the opportunity, if we seize the moment to be in the same position some years from now that Alberta is in — to basically be able to make the choices and to be able to make the financial decisions that will allow us to perhaps, as we said in the throne speech, get rid of the PST or to do many other things but to have the financial flexibility to be able to make those choices. It's by making the decisions on these things, by moving these projects forward, that we will have those choices.

Well, the opposition…. One of the things the member for Surrey–Green Timbers said at the very end of her speech was that we have a new set of practical policies that British Columbians will embrace. Well, it would be very, very nice if British Columbians understood what those were, because British Columbians have no idea what those "new set of practical policies," to quote the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, are.

It would make some sense if the members opposite feel that they really are a wonderful set of practical alternatives…. Perhaps they should tell someone. But the difficulty is that I don't think they will. I don't think they have any real belief that at some point they're going to do that.

It's all about attacking. You listen to some of the members. You'd think that the province was in a horrible position. You'd think that economically we were in a bad spot. Many sort of talk about the doom and gloom of
[ Page 13262 ]
where the province of British Columbia is. Well, I can tell you this government, our government, has achieved a triple-A credit rating. Under the NDP government there was successive downgrade after downgrade.

I hate to tell you this, but if we were to be downgraded again, if we were to be downgraded by the number of downgrades that the NDP did so well to achieve during the 1990s, we wouldn't be paying 1 percent more interest than we are now; we'd be paying several percent more interest, perhaps, than we are now, depending on where interest rates go. Even a 1 percent of interest increase is a significant amount of money. It would represent the entire budget for several of the departments within our government. This really does not allow us to have the choices, not allow us to have the flexibility that we enjoy now without having to pay those interest payments.

The difficulty is that the bond-rating agencies are not partisan. The bond-rating agencies are an indication of the fiscal management of this province, and the bond-rating agencies are saying that this province is doing a very, very good job, this province has strong fiscal management, and this province is on the right track. Whether the members on the opposite side like it or not, that's the position that we're in.

[1615]

Basically, we've managed this province very, very well, and we've put ourselves in a very good position. I mentioned during my throne speech reply how British Columbia actually has a higher credit rating at this point than the United States of America. I think that's a huge achievement. If you take a look at the United States of America…. If you were to have said ten years ago that British Columbia would be more creditworthy than the United States of America, people would have laughed at you. They'd say: "What are you talking about? That's absurd." But today that is the position we find ourselves in, and that's because we make tough choices, and we make difficult decisions.

The last issue that we really need to understand…. One of the other things that's constantly said by the members opposite is on the advertising, and I want to hit this head-on because there are two points of this that I think are quite difficult.

The advertising budget is a fraction of what it was at the same point under the NDP — a fraction. It's actually less than it was in any year — not an election year — that the NDP were the provincial government.

The other difficulty with it is that if you take a look at some of the ads around the budget, one of the main ads that's running right now has to do with the $1,200 payment to families for their registered education savings plan, which basically takes the commitment that the government made a few years ago in 2006 and basically allows that money to be paid out into a registered education savings plan and tells British Columbians of that benefit.

One of the things I'm wondering, as I hear the members opposite constantly say, "Well, this advertising is wrong; it's not the right way," is: are the members opposite intending on taking that away? Is that one of the ways that they're going to have more money to spend? Are they going to try to figure out how to tap into that fund and use that money elsewhere? Are they not going to give that $1,200 to British Columbians? Is that their intent? Going back to sort of understanding where they stand on these issues, I think it's important for British Columbians to know how they intend to move forward.

I think the last point that I'd like to make is one of the points that the member from Chilliwack made, and that's understanding better where it is that those opposite are going. I find it interesting….

People always quote polls, and they say: "This is where the polls are going," and "That's where the polls are going." To sort of highlight the ability to have a poll show anything you want…. The Centre for Policy Alternatives — a couple of weeks ago the member from Chilliwack was mentioning this during his address — put out a report. They basically said, as the member was mentioning, that the British Columbia government needs an additional little bit over $3 billion in revenues. They were exploring ways of achieving that. They basically had done a poll.

The poll said that a majority of British Columbians were in favour of paying more taxes, that a majority of British Columbians were quite fine paying more taxes. So they were using this as justification to their argument that we are going to increase…. It wasn't just higher income taxes. When they were talking about it during their media time, they were making it very clear that they intended to raise the taxes of all British Columbians. This is the Centre for Policy Alternatives, a centre that's funded by the labour movement, the same group that funds the NDP to a huge extent and, quite frankly, has some significant influence within the opposition's party.

This is a group that basically said: "We intend to increase taxes across the board, and we have a poll that says that British Columbians are in favour of that." The fact that they do a poll like that just shows you….

Quite frankly, I have been knocking on doors over the last few weeks, and I can tell you that I haven't run into anyone at the door that said: "Hey, Doug, what I really would like is to pay more taxes." I haven't run into that, Madam Speaker. But there may be a door. I may find one soon, but I tend to doubt it. It certainly wouldn't be half of the doors or over half of the doors, as was suggested by the poll conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The difficulty in government and the difficulty in everything…. We've heard over and over again about all of the problems, about all of the negativity. It's about the positives.

[1620]

In British Columbia we look at health care. We're spending about $2.4 billion more on health care over the
[ Page 13263 ]
next three-year budgetary cycle.

Over and over again, I've heard many members on the other side talk about how $2.4 billion is actually a cut. A $2.4 billion increase is a cut because it's not increasing at the same level as it has been in the past. But I look at British Columbia. The difficulty in government is…. One would think that at some point, as people within the Legislature and as those that are elected by the people as the holders and managers of this great province, it's about goals and achievements and actually achieving what we intend to do, not how much money we spend getting there.

I think health care is a perfect example of that, because here's a situation where our health outcomes are among the best in Canada. If you have cancer, the best place to be in the world is British Columbia. Our health outcomes in cardiac and in many other areas are among the highest in Canada. That being said, on a per-capita basis we actually spend among the lowest amounts in Canada. That proves that while we can achieve great outcomes, we're spending less money. It's about choices. It's about making the right choices for the right time.

Now, I also like to tell a story when it comes to education because — and I've said this a couple times in the House — two-thirds of British Columbians actually believe, after they've heard over and over again about cuts to health care, cuts to education, that the health care and the education budget have actually been cut over the last ten years. Both are significantly higher than they were. On the education side, the budget is actually significantly higher at the same time that the number of students is significantly lower.

Actually, I had one of the most interesting times during the Finance Committee meetings. We had a very passionate gentleman who came before the Finance Committee. He was a teacher. He really cared for kids. And you have to give credit where credit is due. He really was very, very passionate about education. But during the course of his presentation to the Finance Committee, he used the words "cuts to education" about 34 times.

At the end of his presentation, I made the comment that despite the fact that we had tens of thousands less students than we had ten years ago, we still spend hundreds of millions, actually $1.4 billion more than we did ten years ago, on education. His response to that was: "I respectfully disagree." At that point, I sort of said: "You respectfully disagree with what? With the facts? Or with the fact that I put the facts on the record?"

This is the difficulty with many of these discussions. If we're not willing to sort of have an intelligent discussion based upon facts, based upon the reality, and we take the little sound bits, which is what we keep hearing over and over again, and you just keep repeating them without the actual substance of what's behind them, we all lose track of the reality of the situation.

I like to tell this story, so I'm going to tell it as I end things. The budget and budgeting and how we deal with these things are just like running your household and your family and everything else. The decisions are much larger, but quite frankly, we take money in, we spend money, and there have to be decisions where there's a yes and there's a no. Unfortunately, much like many households, the no is more often than the yes.

I'll take a good example. A young son comes up to his father and says: "Dad, my allowance has been $10 for an awfully long time. I really need some more money because my friends are going to a movie every Tuesday night. It's $5 for a movie, and I really want to go with them to a movie every Tuesday night."

So his dad says: "Well, our budget is really tight. We need to think about that, and we really need to make a decision on what we can do." About a day later his dad comes back to him and says: "You know, I've given this some thought. Unfortunately, I can't increase your allowance to $15, but I can increase it to $12. I know it's been a long time since you've had an increase, so I'll give you $2 more a month."

[1625]

The kid goes: "Oh, that's great. So now I have $12." He thinks about it, and he thinks: "Well, I really want to go to this movie, but I don't quite have enough. But I've been buying a milkshake for 3 bucks week after week. Every week I go and buy a milkshake. If I didn't buy a milkshake, I could actually go to the movie, because I have 12 bucks now." He makes the decision. He decides: "I'd prefer to go to the movie." He decides, goes to the movie. He starts going to the movie.

Now, the difficult thing, and this is where we all sort of have to step back for a second, because it happens over and over again…. Is that an increase of the movie or a cut of the milkshake? Both are true. Both are correct statements, but it's the way you look at things. It's about the way you make decisions on what's best for you, what's best for those around you.

In this budget it's about what's best for the province of British Columbia. I think this is a well-thought-out budget that makes a lot of sense. It's balanced in many, many ways, and it's the right budget for the right time with the right decisions being made.

B. Routley: I must say that I am particularly grateful today to have this opportunity once again to represent the special people in the Cowichan Valley. Since the last time I spoke here, I've had open-heart surgery and a new mechanical aortic valve, so I checked with the doctor to make sure that…. I admitted that I sometimes get a little animated or excited. The doctor said, "Yeah, you're good to go," so I don't want anybody to worry about me.

I also want to start out by saying that I thank God for the amazing care I received, first at the Shawnigan Lake clinic, then at the Cowichan District Hospital and finally at the Victoria Royal Jubilee Hospital in the cardiac unit.
[ Page 13264 ]
We are indeed blessed here in British Columbia to have a dedicated group of some of the best health care professionals on the planet.

I want to offer a truly heartfelt thank-you to all B.C. care professionals who helped me, and I want to thank all of you in the B.C. health care system — the workers, professionals — who do incredible life-saving work every day. Thank you seems so little, but that's what I can offer up. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart.

I want to turn now to my job as an opposition MLA and do a little surgical work on the government's budget speech. After all, it's our job to hold government accountable.

I think this bogus budget plan would actually make the most hardened snake oil salesman blush. This budget is based on a virtual smorgasbord of jiggery-pokery. This government says, "Just believe we have a new multi-billion-dollar prosperity fund that's on the way. Well, it may take years to actually see a dime, but it's coming, and it's going to be just like Christmas" — millions or even billions wrapped up in a bow in some kind of Liberal promissory note: "Just trust us." Yet we know these claims are really just phantom finances.

Without the public even being told what all is being sold off, they also in this budget provide this magic trick to guarantee the sell-off of assets of British Columbians to the tune of $800 million — the B.C. Liberal liquidation sale plan.

[1630]

Even the corporate tax increase. Hon. Speaker, I could hardly believe my ears and eyes. Oh my, my. How interesting. They have abandoned their long-held political beliefs. This government has totally reversed itself on its belief and common talking point that basically all taxes on corporations and on the rich are bad — now, apparently, not so much. This is clearly evidence that this government knows…. They now know that they've gone too far in cutting corporate taxes. This in an admission that they will add a corporate tax effective almost immediately.

They once said that when we give tax breaks to corporations, it will almost certainly result in investment, jobs and even prosperity. Where have we heard that before? Now even the Liberals don't believe their own rhetoric, not anymore. And the timing of all this is interesting. This has been announced, these corporate tax increases and taxes on the wealthy, all at the same time while this centrepiece of planning, the jobs plan, is being foisted on the people of British Columbia.

Clearly, they really know that through their actions they're now admitting, really, that all of this talk and rhetoric about corporate taxes and the impact and certainly taxes on the wealthy was basically all horse feathers. Now we even have a Liberal tax increase for the rich, the very people that they said over and over were the job creators — again, not so much, not anymore. It's okay to tax the wealthy. Now the new Liberal way is to go ahead and tax the big business friends. Go ahead and tax the wealthy. My, my.

To add to all this fun, we've got this backdrop of this dreamed-up prosperity fund. Again, they just want us to believe. Yet this is the same group, the same government that said, "We will not sell B.C. Rail," and then they did. They said, "We will not rip up collective agreements," and they did. They said, "We will not bring in the HST," and then they did.

In this budget one of the issues this government now says they will take some action on is child care. However, it's a matter of too little, too late for the children, parents and child care workers in Lake Cowichan, in my constituency.

The Kaatza Day Care Society has been forced to permanently close. Kaatza was the only licensed child care facility in the Lake Cowichan region, and now it's closed after 37 years. My own kids went to Kaatza when they were young. So 37 years of providing quality child care service to families in the Lake Cowichan region.

The jobs of the licensed child care workers should not have been lost. These families should not have been abandoned. The Kaatza child care facility has died a death of too many Liberal child care cuts and other Liberal changes that have resulted in less and less support for B.C. families needing child care.

British Columbia has experienced years of being among the provinces with the highest child poverty population in Canada. Lake Cowichan is one of the areas where families have been hit particularly hard, with mill closures and logging operations being curtailed.

I think Jenny Court, who was the treasurer of the now-closed Kaatza Day Care Centre, put it best to me at the closure meeting: "So much for families first." She added: "These are the children who are supposed to be taking care of us in our golden senior years. They could be our future doctors, nurses, teachers, law enforcers, political leaders, yet this is how they're being treated right now."

Sadly, as a result of this government's action and inaction, the community has lost one of its main resources that helped children and families in the Lake Cowichan and surrounding areas.

[1635]

Just down the road in the community of Youbou…. Hon. Speaker, you're not going to believe this, but it's true. This community — well, you're going to believe this part — once had a thriving sawmill, for decades. I worked at that mill for 16 years, and it was a wonderful place to work with wonderful people. Now in Youbou not only have they lost the mill; every day the community suffers the insult of dust and mud caused by logging trucks mostly headed for the log export market.

These trucks are rolling right through the middle of the town, right through the main road in town. I've had constituents come in and tell me of taking their baby in a carriage out to go for a walk on the main road and hav-
[ Page 13265 ]
ing their carriage and their baby covered in dust, of seniors and residents heading for the post office or heading for a walk anywhere on the main road in Lake Cowichan getting covered in dust or mud from these logging trucks. Their houses and cars are covered in dust and mud.

Then we see this government paying millions of dollars for self-promoting ads, and I think of how a tiny fraction of that could actually help a community. Youbou is a community that literally contributed millions for decades into the B.C. economy through employment and industrial taxation. Yet this government has failed to act to help even in a small way a community that's suffering.

At one point all they wanted was about $30,000 or less for a truck wash so that they could try that. Nope, nothing came forward from the government at all. This community has been treated like yesterday's news, left in the dust of a government who could have helped them yet failed to act.

While we're talking about budget items that are needed in the Cowichan Valley, the Cowichan Hospital also needs replacing. I am told that the community has saved some $40 million towards that project. We need a provincial plan that creates fairness. And is it replacing hospitals in a fair sort of way? I am not convinced that that is happening right now.

This government claims to have a B.C. jobs plan, but we have actually lost jobs in the private sector since September 2011, when the Premier started the plan. We have lost 37,000 private sector jobs over the life of the plan. Part of the reason for this is it turns out that the plan seems to be either created or made in China.

Yes, the Premier announced 6,700 jobs for B.C. in November 2011. She made that announcement from Beijing. What she didn't say was that all those jobs weren't being planned for all British Columbians. No, the government was perfectly happy to allow many of these jobs to go to temporary foreign workers, workers who come here from China with virtually no citizenship rights and, effectively, no labour rights and no workplace rights either.

Workers have been offered wages that are very high by Chinese standards but very low by ours. We know that the moment any one of those workers stands up for their rights in the workplace, their rights to safety and a healthy workplace, that worker would be placed on the first plane home. We've seen that happen here in this province, and we've seen it happen elsewhere in Canada.

It's just plain wrong. It's wrong that this government wants to help drive down B.C. workers' wages, and it's wrong that it wants to allow foreign-owned corporations to exploit low-paid workers to do work here in B.C. with no rights to even the minimum standards, the standards that are normally given to people in B.C., including the right to join a union.

[1640]

Even worse, the government has been pulling the wool over the eyes of British Columbians over this issue. The Jobs Minister said that these firms looked high and low for workers and that they came up empty-handed. That wasn't true. We were told that no one in Canada wanted those jobs. That's not true either. We now know that some 315 people applied — Canadians and British Columbians, many of them highly qualified.

What we need in British Columbia, in this province, is a real jobs plan. We need a plan that will ensure to restore training and apprenticeships where they rightly belong.

We need to see these programs that government has cut put back so that people in the province can have the opportunity to train for good-paying jobs right here in B.C. We need a government that will stand up for British Columbians by ensuring that companies train and hire British Columbians and give them the opportunity of jobs here in B.C.

I have to say: what kind of a jobs plan…? I went back and dug out the jobs plan document, and I was surprised. This is what I, at least, experienced. There's no mention of our B.C. unemployed or underemployed in the jobs plan. There's no clear plan to focus on helping our B.C. First Nations, who in my community have some of the highest levels of unemployment anywhere in B.C.

Shouldn't that be a clear focus? Yet this government just has a plan to bring in foreign students and foreign workers and, in my view, to sell out B.C. workers in favour of bringing in these temporary foreign workers to do jobs British Columbians could do.

They do seem to have all the time in the world to go over to China and cut sweetheart deals to bring in temporary foreign workers to take B.C. jobs, with no thought or conditions that B.C.'s underemployed or unemployed and our First Nations should have first right of refusal for these jobs.

As I understand it, the company that was doing the hiring in British Columbia even put in a condition that the worker ought to speak Mandarin. That's what I've been told, and I assume that that's true.

For the B.C. unemployed, this Liberal jobs plan is about as useful as an expired gift certificate. This so-called jobs plan has no clear vision for our underemployed or unemployed or even for students. I read an article from a student who said: "I went and got a degree, and I can't find a job. There's no help in the jobs plan." That was right there in the Cowichan Valley just last week, a student actually talking about what she had experienced.

This government wants us all to just relax. They tell us now they've recently discovered that Canada starts here. I'm not sure how that works, because the sun doesn't go up on British Columbia; it does start at the other side. But they've discovered that it starts here. Now, there's some real news.

Let's look at what this government does, as compared to what they say they will do. This is the same government that just couldn't wait to eliminate B.C. government
[ Page 13266 ]
workers' jobs. They were the first to turn out the lights on thousands — I want to repeat that, thousands — of B.C. jobs. That was at the beginning of their mandate.

It's interesting that now they want to talk about a jobs plan, but back then, in 2002, this Liberal government laid off 11,700 public sector workers. Black Thursday the workers called it. That was back when they were clearly against at least public sector jobs.

Of course, now we're supposed to just forget all that unpleasantness. Just forget that. They now want to spin a message about how they claim they care so much about jobs, but we all know it's just talk and spin.

[1645]

Ask the 35,000 forest workers who have lost their jobs all over B.C. under the Liberal government, particularly the manufacturing and value-added workers, what they think about watching the export…. Ask them what they think about watching logs rolling through town, truck after truck, being exported from British Columbia and not creating the manufacturing jobs, not only in mills but in pulp mills and value-added plants. They're all lost.

The multiplier effect of all of those jobs created tertiary jobs, the additional jobs that are created in the community — the tire shop, the mechanic, the welding shop, the machinists, and on and on. All of those jobs have been lost in communities all over British Columbia, and the best that this government can offer is to ramp up log exports and maybe add a little tax that they think is going to do something and we know is not on.

Logs that once created sawmill and value-added manufacturing jobs. Under this bunch, there's been a fivefold increase in raw log exports. It's just shameful that any government could, with such abandon, basically ignore what the public feels and what communities feel about log exports.

Look at what these Liberals have done. David Gray was here just the other day. David Gray was here. He was thrown off the timber export advisory committee. Actually, he wasn't thrown off. He quit the timber export advisory committee. Why did he…?

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

B. Routley: You look at what happened with the timber export advisory committee. Since the early 1900s…. Did you know that it's actually illegal? You're not supposed to export logs from British Columbia unless they're surplus to our needs.

The whole purpose of that law was to try to ensure the maximum manufacturing, value-added. They actually used to have a list of all of the various kinds of operations that were generated out of B.C. logs.

Now we've even got the spectacle…. I was shocked to see that David Gray felt so strongly that he would actually resign from the timber export advisory committee. Why? Because he sees what's going on.

It's a very small percentage, after all, that was actually being provided to mills right here in British Columbia, particularly mills on the Fraser River. Historically the raw logs used to go into the Fraser River. That was the traditional log market for a lot of mills in the Lower Mainland. Now the government decided….

Again, this is very questionable. It's almost another scandal, in my mind. Somebody ought to be doing an inquiry about this one. How is it that a single company can reach so far into government that now government has changed the longstanding practice of the timber export advisory committee?

They've ignored their own timber export advisory committee over and over, which is really outrageous when you think that some of the major companies that produce logs…. I understand that TimberWest has a representative on there. A lot of the major companies are involved and sit on the timber export advisory committee.

People that actually export logs sit on there. When they have a unanimous recommendation to government and it's absolutely ignored, it's just not good enough that government…. Again, it's questionable. You really have to sit down with yourself and say: "Wait a minute. What's really going on?"

I thought government was supposed to act for the benefit of all British Columbians. You've got more British Columbians on that timber export advisory committee than you do in the one head office of a major forest company, Western Forest Products. It's outrageous that we find ourselves in the situation that laws are being made for the benefit of a single company. That's certainly how it appears to me.

Instead, what do we get from this Liberal…? Just more spinning media coverage. They say: "Look into our million-dollar media ads."

[1650]

It's interesting that they used dominoes. Suddenly it came to me the other day. I was sitting there minding my own business, and there are all of these dominoes that fall, and then there's one domino left. I was thinking: "Most people like to see success, and if they're watching…."

People actually go on YouTube to watch all of the dominoes fall down. I think they're sending a subliminal message. I really do. They're onto some kind of strange message to British Columbians. All the dominoes fall, and then they stop right here. All you've got to do is go and look at YouTube. You won't find a single YouTube on dominoes that leaves a bunch of stuff standing at the end.

I don't know what that's all about. It's different than the Stickman. We could have seen Stickman again. That would have been too harsh. That would have been too hard for us, so I thank those powers that be that they
[ Page 13267 ]
didn't foist the Stickman on us again. They did come up with something different, but again, it's a very strange message indeed.

Sadly, there's a lot of no-show and no go when it comes to this government. Whether it's the bogus budget plan or the mystery prosperity fund that, given the fullness of time, we're supposed to just believe…. In fact, they've put numbers to it — $260 billion over the next 20 or 30 years. They're quite precise about how they come out.

It's fuzzy math, to say the least, especially when you look back. And for the life of me, I don't know why they insisted on doing this. In 2009 we had already started to have the meltdown of the economy. We had all kinds of outrageous things happening in North America. I've heard some of the Liberals give their excuses as to why the "$495 million and no more." They say: "Well, it was because we were hit by this strange tsunami. We had no idea."

Well, come on. Go back and read the newspapers. All you had to do was pick up a single newspaper anywhere in British Columbia, and it would tell you about the major problems that were going on. Why, just before an election, wouldn't they at least be honest enough to say: "We've got these events happening that are impacting the economy in North America, and we know that there will be unforeseen circumstances"? They could have said that.

Why not say: "It's not going to be '$495 million and no more'"? That was repeated over and over again. I don't know why. To me, it mirrors some of what's going on now.

They came up with a prosperity fund. Now they've got the spin doctors working overtime on a prosperity fund. This is their idea of a budget stabilization plan. Maybe we could just shorten it up to a BS plan, a budget stabilization plan.

You look at what's going on, and really…. Let's not forget that this is the same government that laid off 8,000 health care workers — 8,000 health care workers. And you know what they did for their jobs? They drove down the cost to the point where workers were working for a little more than ten bucks an hour. That's their record. They claim they've got some kind of jobs plan and they've got some renewed interest in jobs.

Well, the reality is that a lot of these service jobs all over British Columbia are not family-supporting jobs, and this government is directly responsible. They drove out 8,000 health care workers. I talked to them. Some of them are the most caring people you can imagine anywhere in the world — the most caring people. This government cruelly and ruthlessly went after them and dumped out on the street 8,000 health care workers.

[1655]

They now want us to forget about the caring, very high-quality health care workers who were heartlessly cut and terminated by this government. You know what they did with those jobs? They outsourced them. They outsourced them to — guess what — for-profit facilities.

Again, I'm happy to end up. It's good to be back. It's good to have the opportunity to share.

But I do see new levels of jiggery-pokery. I'm waiting for an explanation. I have yet to get a single explanation from a single Liberal on why they have been involved in so much jiggery-pokery. Maybe they could tell us. We know where some of it is going on.

In any case, thank you, hon. Speaker. It's been wonderful to have the opportunity to come back into this place, to be among friends and even people who, I'm sure, are not trying to destroy the province of British Columbia, but they do have their ladder on the wrong wall.

Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. member had clearance from his doctor. It gave the Chair some comfort to know that.

R. Cantelon: I first want to say that I want to echo the member for Cowichan Valley's endorsement of the health care system. It served me as well as it served him. I think this debate would be some hours shorter had it not been for the excellence of health care that we both received.

I will say at the outset that he has much greater faith in his cardiologist than perhaps I do. I don't know if I'll be able to sustain the passion that he has always shown in this House for as long as he did in this last half-hour, but I admire him for doing that.

I was hopeful — and he did not fail my expectations — that we would hear that famous phrase "jiggery-pokery" echoing through these halls. It's a phrase unfamiliar to this side of the House. Perhaps at some other point you can explain it to us.

I do want to thank the people who cared for me. We do have an excellent health care system. Certainly, we are both, thankfully, living examples of that, living testaments to that. We both received excellent health care, and British Columbia has the highest outcomes in cardiology and in cancer outcomes as well.

I would also like to thank my family and my constituents for their forbearance as I recovered and their tolerance for my diminished capacity during that period. Some would say that my diminished capacity is unrelenting, but nevertheless, I'll carry on.

We're talking today about the budget. I've talked about it as being, basically, a boring budget. It's kind of boring because it doesn't hold forth great financial expenditures and basically is founded on the principle of fiscal prudence.

The phrase "fiscal prudence" isn't something you want to slap on your bumper sticker. It's not a battle cry with which to go into an election, yet that's the necessary mode. That is the necessary tack that we must take in this current economic situation. It's not a catchy phrase, but it's a budget for our grandchildren.

Again, I sit somewhat in awe of the member for Chilliwack. I have but two grandchildren, Shay and
[ Page 13268 ]
Eliana. The five children that I have, have some ground to make up to be anywhere near to catching up to the member for Chilliwack. After all, my youngest is only 18. I think I have to have a little tolerance and temper my expectations, although I hope to be well blessed as time goes on.

I've spent my whole life in sales. We have a phrase in selling: "Keep it simple, stupid." In this budget we try to do that. We try to reduce it to simple elements. It's really simple. Spend less than you take in.

We don't allow for the fact that: "Oh well, wait a minute. We can borrow a little now and maybe a little later, and we'll support this program or indulge ourselves with this favourite expenditure." No, you can't do that. It requires fiscal discipline. That's something that's not easy, nor is it popular.

[1700]

I had the privilege of sitting on Treasury Board for a couple of years. Many on the opposite side of the House, and perhaps in the press gallery, decried the balanced-budget legislation — that it didn't really work. But it did, I want to tell you, impose a severe discipline on Treasury Board and those in government, throughout caucus. The basic answer, when you were looking for expenditure, was: no, no and once again no.

Hold the line. That's something we have to carry on forward. If we want to leave a province with opportunity for our grandchildren, we must hold the line. Discipline is not easy. I have to immediately thank the generosity and the wisdom, really, of the public sector, which agreed to a zero percent increase in the public service.

But 2008, as the member opposite previous to me had mentioned, was bad news. It was like the Harry Nilsson song — bad news on the doorstep. And every day it was worse news. The news kept getting worse, and on Treasury Board every week we would chase the numbers downward in a downward spiral. And who knew where it would stop? Who had it right? Who got the right answer?

The member opposite said all you had to do was look at the paper, but the papers didn't predict the extent of the debacle, of the economic disaster. Few people saw what was coming. We now know and look back at what happened to Greece, what happened to Ireland, what happened to Spain. The euro dollar is under siege, and it's not over yet. We saw recently in the Italian election — more uncertainty as they rebel against the restraint measures that have been imposed by the Italian government. They rejected, basically, the bureaucrat they put in power for the righting of that economy. And it's not over yet.

We've seen south of the border that they approached the fiscal cliff and dodged that bullet. But now they're undergoing something called sequestration, which is basically automatic, very painful cuts to the people south. Norfolk harbour, the great American naval base, has ships idling in the harbour. I think most importantly right now and critical…. One of the major economic engines of the United States, the city of Detroit, is bankrupt — a $14 billion deficit.

Now, fortunately, we here in British Columbia don't have that same risk with our municipalities because by law they are required to balance their budgets on an annual basis. But they're going to have to bail out that city. So it's not over yet. I think the new legislation where we have the auditor for the municipalities is going to be very helpful to municipalities in adjusting and adapting to these times.

We recognized that in moving forward and planning the next budget over the next fiscal period. We have taken a very conservative position of 1.6 growth next year, followed by 2.2 and 2.5 percent growth in the GDP in the outgoing years while we're holding spending expenditures at 1½ percent This will help maintain, as we have maintained, our triple-A credit rating and an 18.3 percent debt-to-GDP ratio, which is absolutely critical.

Now, when you are in the constituency, as I often am, talking to people in the business community, they don't expect any great turnaround. They don't expect to see 5 and 6 percent growth. So I would challenge the members opposite when they say: "Well, we'll just even things out over the long run. It's okay to run a deficit this year because sooner or later the economy will rebound. We'll have the good years to offset the bad years."

Hon. Speaker, I would submit to you and to this House that this is the new normal. This is the new reality. We're not going to see explosive growth here in North America. They're not seeing it in the United States. They're certainly not seeing it in Europe, and in fact, there are signs of further contraction in the economy. This is what we have to deal with, and we better adjust our expectations and our budgets accordingly, and that's what we have done, both on the spending side and on the revenue side.

There are tough decisions that we have to make. That's why I think our balanced budget legislation…. And we're going to achieve a balanced budget this year and move it slowly into a surplus situation. It's what we must do if we are to leave the solid base for economic growth for our children and grandchildren. Fiscal discipline is the way of the world, and I think we've taken the leadership here and shown international leadership with this.

The concept of "Throw out balanced budgets; don't worry about it…."

Interjection.

R. Cantelon: Thanks, Member.

[1705]

Anyway, we are speaking about the…. We can't just expect that there will be all of a sudden bonus good years. They're not going to happen. Talk to any business person. It's going to be a tough slog. We're going to inch our way back, and there'll be incremental growth.

Certainly, we've shown how this can be done. We have
[ Page 13269 ]
to diversify our markets. We have to focus on specialty markets and certainly go after our new customers and new markets. You have to listen to your customers. I've been in sales all my life. You have to listen to what they want and respond to what their needs are.

The member opposite spoke about the 2007-2008 credit collapse, as we know, of the United States, which greatly affected the housing market. The members opposite often talk about all the forest jobs that were lost, but they don't often tie it to the fact that the housing market in the U.S. absolutely collapsed. It crumbled from over two billion starts to half a million starts. It absolutely evaporated, and that was our major market.

We responded by diversifying, by going after markets. I think that's a sales job, and I'm a salesman. I look across the way — and I honour the sales profession — but I don't see many of my colleagues on the opposite side. Is this who we're going to entrust to take the word of our great potential, of our marketing opportunities? Who's going to take it to the world?

I think the ministers we've had have been very, very capable of doing that and very capable in expanding our markets, particularly in cooperation with the federal government. We've seen great improvements.

The Asia market is now 41 percent of our markets, our exports, versus 21 percent in 2001. China has been a huge, huge story. We've seen our market share grow 20 percent. Our softwood lumber is 32 percent from China now, so 32 percent of our market, our softwood lumber, goes to China. In the U.S., it's 42 percent.

So we've diversified, and we've received accolades from the forest companies. The Canfor CEO, Don Kayne, says: "Over the last decade the return on investment has been obvious and staggering for our province, and we thank government for their founding presence and continued investment from 2002-03 to today. As we make the transition to wood-frame construction in China, the potential for continued growth is tremendous."

Right now we're basically shipping form lumber, essentially, to China, but we see that expanding into a wide range of engineering products, frame construction, as their middle class expands and the increased demand for better housing improves throughout the Chinese market.

India is a smaller base, but we've seen the market increase there by 60 percent. This is where we have to look. We could stop log exports. That's true. But will that really improve anything? Certainly, it'll cancel out a lot of harvesting jobs. Up to 50 percent of the jobs are in harvesting the timber. It's essential that we maintain the core because in that area we're losing companies. We're losing jobs as the industry ages out to a certain extent. It requires more investment, and it requires more training, which we're certainly doing.

We need to continue to do what Western Forest Products are doing. In their Alberni Pacific division they're focusing on a niche market where they make a beautiful 4-by-4 clear hemlock for Japan. Now, hemlock is a wood that was disparaged by many people and seen as a lower-class wood. Well, kiln dried and cut perfect, planed and cut, it makes a beautiful light-coloured wood — a finishing material, really.

They've specified their market for Japan, where they've listened to the customer and responded to give them what they want. They've just invested $6 million in that mill to make sure that the jobs stay there, to make sure that the workers have a future, to make sure that we have a lumber future in Port Alberni. And they're succeeding with that market.

Now, I've heard the member opposite talk about his travails in Youbou, and I sympathize with the workers there. They face a similar situation at Harmac, at Nanaimo Forest Products. I happen to know a constituent who was the general manager of the mill. I know them from another movie, so to speak. When the mill went into bankruptcy, I volunteered: "What can I do? How can I help?"

I went to visit with them. I did more than that. I went to court with them. There was nobody from the opposite side volunteering to help them. I went, and I appeared in court several times with them, really for moral support as much as anything. But then I engaged the Solicitor General at the time. He made the case to the court that said: "This is more about assets. This is about jobs — jobs in the community."

[1710]

I hope in some way that turned the tide, because of course, Nanaimo Forest Products became a huge success of an owner-bought business. Now they're successful, and with the dollar down, slipping to 97 cents, they breathe a sign of relief because that will improve their marketing opportunity.

We did help them out. It wasn't a lot — it was in the tens of thousands of dollars — but we gave them enough money to do the very complex legal work that was required to put the shareholder-owner agreement together. There's a different feeling in that mill, and I believe that's the future.

I think the member for Cowichan Valley could even embrace this. We could talk together and say we can work together. There is an opportunity for millworkers to become mill owners and move the industry back and move it forward. They're doing it there, and they're succeeding.

With federal funding, they've just adapted their hog fuel to create energy. Instead of being a mill, which is notoriously a big user of hydroelectric power…. On the Island, of course, we don't supply all our hydroelectric power needs, so it's an even more acute situation. Now, in June, they will be pumping power back into the hydroelectric grill.

They are looking at new products. I sit regularly with their management. Basically, my line is: we wait 400 million years and pump trees out of ground. By then it's
[ Page 13270 ]
called oil, and you can refine it. Refining is done in an oil refinery, but wood refineries are called pulp mills, and there's a myriad of products that we can use, that we must exploit, that we must develop. We must encourage these companies to develop.

It's interesting to sit at a table with these former union workers, now union owners. They're keen for new products; they're keen for new developments. We've seen other mills, like Coulson mill, go to Asia to learn new ways to basically make veneers, to develop a simple but very effective idea to peel a log more evenly, more cleanly, and get a better product.

The unfortunate part is that we still ship that veneer to the United States to make the engineered product. We have to do more of that here, and we have to get together, working with the unions and with the companies who create the investment climate that will get these products made. We have the wood; we have the ports.

There is a bright future, I believe, in the forestry industry, as we adapt and change. It was a major blow to see the United States housing market collapse. But we should have seen that was going to come sooner or later, and it did. It happened. Now we're better and stronger and more fit for meeting the new challenges. We've adapted.

We've seen the relief for the agriculture industry, with the greenhouse industry, to provide 80 percent relief for the greenhouse industry. I'm happy to see that coloured fuels will also be exempt from the carbon tax, because that will encourage more growth of foods. We need to grow more of our food, particularly on Vancouver Island.

The small business rate remains unchanged, and the small businesses are the engine of our economy. We have a great history of that. I'm from another era — another place, I would say, and another era indeed. British Columbia is very much driven by small entrepreneurs. That is the heart's blood of our business, and small companies become big companies, big sawmills. We need to encourage that, and we will encourage that.

We are adjusting the corporate tax rate, as we gave notice we would, from 10 percent to 11 percent, but that's still 33 percent less than it was in 2001, and it's still one of the most attractive, as was noted by The Economist magazine, in North America.

The personal income tax — yes, there's a slight increase there for those making over $150,000, but that's a two-year thing. Nevertheless, taxes are still 37 percent lower than they were in 2001 and the lowest in Canada for those making up to $122,000.

There's much here for families as well. I'm encouraged. I'm sure my family will take advantage of the B.C. training and education savings fund. We were investing $1,000 for every new child after 2007. Now we're going to put that money to the families themselves and give them a $1,200 stake in investing in their children's education. That's a good start. We hope they support that and match it.

As I said at the outset, I am not sure…. My voice is telling me that I don't have the endurance that the new pumper has given to the member opposite. I admire him for his…. We respect him, and we're happy to have him back, as I'm happy to be here to listen to him.

[1715]

I support this budget. It's a budget for the future. It's a realistic budget. It respects the fact that the new normal is moderate-to-slow growth, and you better trim your expenses accordingly, because there is not going to be any big bonanza. We're going to slug our way out of this, and we're going to proceed to succeed.

We certainly see a great future in the lumber industry as we adapt and develop new products. The great forests of Vancouver Island, this great green island that I live on, will provide much wealth and prosperity for people and our children and our grandchildren.

With that, I take my chair. It has been a privilege to speak to this budget, and I certainly will heartily endorse it.

J. Kwan: I am very delighted to be here to enter into the debate about Budget 2013. Before I get into the details of all of that, though, I would like, first of all, to just say a thank-you to many of the members of the House who are now not going to be here because they're retiring after the next election, projected to be on May 14.

I've had the pleasure, actually over 17 years in this Legislature, of working with many members on both sides of the House. There are times when we don't agree on some things with the government — well, sometimes on a lot of things. But there have also been times where we have been able to cooperate and find ways to resolve, particularly, constituency issues, and I would like to acknowledge that for just a minute.

I see that the former Minister of…. I wanted to say Community Living B.C., but really it's the Minister and Ministry of Children and Family Development. There are so many acronyms for all the very many changes over the 17 years with the names of ministries. I do want to acknowledge her as an example, because we worked together on a number of very difficult case files involving her ministry at that time, and the minister was actually very sincere and involved in finding resolutions. In some cases, we found resolutions, and other cases, not so much. But that said, I appreciate the minister's effort, and I think that sincerity actually means something in the life of politics.

I want to also say a thank-you to a number of other MLAs. I'm now running the risk of naming names, but I just want to highlight a few people because of the work that we've done together. We did make a difference, I think, or at least attempted to. The Minister of Jobs, for example. In the case of Aveos, he and I know we worked very hard to try and save those jobs for our community, to build up the job opportunities in the future for that
[ Page 13271 ]
industry here in British Columbia. The effort did not yield the result that we had hoped for, but that said, the effort was there, and we worked again collaboratively on that front.

I want to also acknowledge the people on our side of the House. Over the years we've had humour. We have shared laughs and sometimes some intense conversations as well. The MLA for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, the MLA for Delta North, the MLA for Coquitlam-Maillardville and yourself, Madam Speaker, in terms of the work that you have done both on the federal side as a federal MP in advocating for change, particularly for women in our community, and then, of course, as the MLA for New West.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate that and, really, the work that all of the members of the House who are retiring have done in contributing to all British Columbians.

Now I want to get into Budget 2013, because this is what this is about in terms of the debate. The government says Budget '13 is a surplus budget. They say that in the document itself. It reads that it provides for $197 million by way of a surplus. Of course, we on all sides of the House combed through the budget document very carefully and looked to see whether or not that number is really going to hold true given the projection and some of the expectations that the government has put into the budget document itself.

[1720]

I just want to touch on a few of those items to really say why I don't believe that this is a balanced budget at all. I've seen many, many budgets over the years, with my 17 years in this Legislature. I'm particularly challenged by this budget when the government says that it's a balanced budget.

One of the items that the government looks at would be the sale of land assets — assets that belong to British Columbians, land that we value for potential future development, for important needs in our community, whether it be for schools or for hospitals or any such use that would be required.

Set that issue aside for a minute, in terms of selling land off that might very well be needed — especially in growing communities where, if government goes back to buy the land years later, it would cost that much more and you may well not have the resources to do so. Set that issue aside for a minute, and let's take for a moment what we're doing here in terms of the land asset sale.

For the last couple of budgets, the government had actually projected, for example, the sale of Little Mountain. This is a major project, though not in my riding. But it's right near where I am in East Vancouver. It is probably one of the last major parcels of land which we own in that way in the city of Vancouver — very valuable land. It is on Main Street, crossing at 36th Avenue or thereabouts.

The government wanted to get into land speculation to sell that parcel of land, which formerly housed people who are in social housing. It was a parcel of land that provided social housing for people in our community.

Now, a couple of years later…. The projected sale was supposed to yield revenues for the government, and even in that last fiscal update those revenues did not come in as the government had projected them to come in. As a result, in the last fiscal update the government had to readjust those numbers to show a larger deficit number. That's just from one site, the Little Mountain site.

Here we are in Budget 2013. We have that asset on the block for sale and then projected to bring in revenues again. This will be going into — what? — the third or fourth budget in which the government had accounted for Little Mountain as an asset that was supposed to yield revenue.

I have to say, sometimes on these items, especially on things like asset sales, wouldn't the government be wiser not to account for those dollars as though they were money in the pocket and then waited for the sales to have completed, at least a final agreement signed, before they actually put those revenues in the column of projected revenues? But that's not the case, as I understand it, although nobody has seen the actual agreement itself with respect to Little Mountain. It would be really good to see what the deal is, but we haven't seen it.

That said, though, the government has made several projections now for Little Mountain, only to show that the revenues have not come in. Yet in Budget 2013, as part of an attempt to balance the budget, to give it this so-called $197 million surplus, we have land asset sales to provide for that.

The Little Mountain one is not the only one. We have in total over $600 million worth of land asset sales that the government is putting in Budget 2013 as a means to balance the budget, right? The government had accounted for that. You've got to say: "Really? Is it actually going to come in and balance the budget, based on their projections and their experiences?" If nothing else, if you just look at Little Mountain itself, the government has already proven to be wrong in the projected numbers.

That's for this year. They say they're going to bring in this balanced budget, the surplus budget, with the asset land sale. Think about next year, because this budget provides for a three-year projection out, right? Think of the future years. When you sell a parcel of land, once it is sold, and assuming that it might even magically really be sold and the money would actually come in, what happens next year? The ongoing costs and the operating costs don't cease from year to year; they continue on from year to year.

[1725]

When you rely on asset land sales to balance the budget, as the Liberals have done in Budget 2013, you actually have a situation of creating what's called a structural deficit.
[ Page 13272 ]

Interjection.

J. Kwan: If members of the House, Madam Speaker, want to rise and enter into debate, they're very welcome to do so.

On the asset land sale issue, I've just got to say this. The government is creating a situation where there is going to be a structural deficit. I've heard over and over again from the government side where they say that they want to ensure that their children are taken care of — right? — that they don't create an environment where they have to pick up that debt or that deficit. But by virtue of what the government has done in this instance, putting land asset sales as a means to balance the budget, they have created that debt for future generations, without even so much as to acknowledge that's what they've done, Madam Speaker.

That, to me, is a very challenging piece. If you're going to do it, admit what you are doing. Say openly what you're doing. Say what the issues are going to be and own it. But that's not what the government is doing. It's certainly not the case in Budget 2013. So we are going to have a structural deficit in this instance created by the government knowingly. Knowingly they're doing that.

The budget I find challenging because we have other areas as well. You will recall that the government talked about how the provincial government would…. In fact, they announced in 2005 that all the at-risk schools that are needed for seismic upgrading would be upgraded or replaced by 2020.

I just had the pleasure of meeting the Vancouver school trustees, the Vancouver school district representatives from my area, from our communities. They came forward to say: "We're nowhere near that plan in meeting the target that the government had set out back in 2005."

We're now in 2013, and we have a school in my riding, Strathcona Elementary School, one of the oldest heritage schools in our city. It is a school that served many generations of people in our city on the east side of Vancouver. That school there is in desperate need of seismic upgrading. If it doesn't happen, frankly, the children in that school will be at risk.

I've received many, many letters from parents who've written to me, very worried about their children. That is a number one priority, in terms of seismic upgrading, for the school board for many years, for as long as I can remember. Yet is it in the government's agenda to actually fund this project, to give it the capital that is required to seismically upgrade Strathcona Elementary School? No. The answer is no.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The government says that they've got their priorities right, that they actually care about the children in our education system. Very basic and fundamental to that, they're missing their own target. In fact, they've missed it so much from an announcement back in 2005 that in year 2013 they're nowhere near achieving those targets.

There are still 42 remaining high-risk schools which have not yet received funding, and this is just from Vancouver alone. There are many, many other schools, of course, all across the province of British Columbia that require seismic upgrading and the attention of the government. Have they paid any attention to that? The short answer is no.

[1730]

When we look at them, the issue around the projected debt…. I find this quite interesting — really, quite fascinating — because I know that the Liberal government prides itself on their capacity and ability to actually balance and manage the taxpayers' money. Yet we find, aside from the structural deficit that the government is creating on the debt side…. Let's just actually put this down, for the record.

The total debt projected for 2013, in Budget 2013, is to grow by $6.6 billion to $62.7 billion. By the end of the three-year fiscal plan it would be at $69.4 billion. Just for the record, when the Liberal government took office in 2001, the total debt for the province of British Columbia was only $36 billion. I think it is very important to actually put this on the record.

To spend money to build needed infrastructure — there's nothing wrong with that. But you will remember, Madam Speaker, that every time the New Democratic government invested in building schools and hospitals for the province of British Columbia, you would hear members on the other side screaming — screaming — that it was a colossal increase in debt and, therefore, not the right thing to do.

Yet under their watch, they have actually increased the debt by more than double. That's only on the ledger side, where it is actually reported out on the taxpayer-supported debt. If you go to the P3 side of things, it tells another story in terms of the debt that, ultimately, British Columbians would have to carry on that. The P3 projections are actually somewhere to the tune of some $90 billion.

The figures are astounding. There is no question about it. Again, I only ask for this: for the Liberal government and members of the Liberal government to own up to it, to say that this is what they've done and not try to create an illusion of what reality is out there, which seems to be the constant practice of the government MLAs.

Now I want to move to some of the other items that are of importance to the people of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant more particularly. As their local MLA, I looked at the budget this year, and I looked at the housing piece. I represent one of the lowest-income ridings in all of the province. There's no question that we have many, many challenges each and every day.

Perhaps one of the biggest challenges that we have right now in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant centres around
[ Page 13273 ]
housing. We have a major challenge of people needing safe, secure, affordable housing. Yet they can't get access to it.

It's not just people who are single. There was a time when people believed it to be just men who were single and that somehow that was okay, even though it is absolutely not okay.

Now the demographic shift is such that you have single men, young and old and those in between, who are homeless in our community, who cannot find safe, secure, affordable housing. We have families. We have families with children. We have single moms who cannot secure safe, secure, affordable housing, and because of that, their children have been put at risk. They've been at risk of losing their children as a result of that. And we have seniors who are living in poverty, who cannot get access to affordable housing.

So every single time a budget comes out, I look to the budget to see what the government's plan is in developing a comprehensive, affordable housing program. I see in 2013 that it is simply not there. What is even more dismaying about all of that is that the government is actually cutting the housing budget. It's decreasing, in fact, mostly from the building repairs and maintenance component of the budget, by some 15.8 percent year over year.

Madam Speaker, this is significant. Do you know why that is? We have an aging stock. The existing housing right now was built many years ago, some as far back as the '70s, the '80s with the federal government when they were still at play in doing a national program.

Of course, the federal government has pulled out since 1993. We no longer have a national housing program. The New Democrats continued to do an affordable housing program when we were in government, but now that's all lost.

[1735]

As a result of that, you see more and more people who are more desperate. The wait-list has increased significantly, to the point where some agencies have even stopped taking names. They cannot take any more names to put on a wait-list for which they have no housing to provide. That as an aside.

You also have a major problem that the government fails to see and does not acknowledge in Budget 2013 — the building repairs and maintenance dollars that would be required for this aging stock. Without that money, those buildings would be…. Well, they already are in significant trouble, to the point where agencies are having to up the rent so much that those buildings are going to be out of reach in terms of the low-income population.

It was meant to provide affordable housing for people who are at the lower end of the income scale. But because a lot of the agencies cannot meet the demands of doing the upgrades and the maintenance and the costs — the insurance costs, and so on, and so forth — they've actually been doing away with the subsidy. In a lot of the cases, the subsidy actually comes from the non-profits themselves in trying to fundraise, because the government subsidy over the years has dwindled more and more.

In the face of all of that, you have an environment where you have an aging housing stock and the government is actually not putting resources into it to repair and to maintain that stock. That is creating a deficit of another kind — not necessarily a financial deficit but a deficit that is going to be felt in the communities all across British Columbia.

I look at Budget 2013. One of the things that we're all so privileged in this province to have is the opportunity to really see our natural resources and the abundance of the natural resources in supporting our community. We have an environment where now in the forestry sector there are major challenges. The government actually initiated a bipartisan Timber Supply Committee. Members of this side of the House along with the government's side of the House went on a tour and did a lot of work on that.

I would have thought that in Budget 2013, coming out of the committee's work, the government would have acknowledged the importance of investing in that land base — the land base that belongs to all British Columbians, that actually supported us over the years in terms of our economy and in terms of the workers. I would have thought that the government would have put some importance on that in Budget 2013, but they did not.

I cannot tell you how dismaying that is, that the government did not invest in our very land base that built this province, that supported this province. We need that land base. We need to invest in that land base for future generations. That's what the government should have done. That's what I thought I would have seen if the government was actually going to govern on behalf of British Columbia and not be busy about campaigning throughout.

We have an environment where we talked about the importance of generating economic activity. We identified for the government that there is a major problem with permit backlogs — right? When those permit backlogs are jammed up, then applications are not coming through, and then you don't create the economic activity that is required.

Now, the government says that they've done something about it, and they sort of, kind of did a little bit of something. But in Budget 2013, where are we at? We actually see a cut, and it is strange. It actually makes no economic sense for the government to do that.

You're creating, again, an environment where, without the ability to process the applications, you will not have the economic activities that you're hoping for. By that action, the government is creating yet another form of deficit that will be carried on by future generations in the province of British Columbia.

I have the privilege of working with people from, really, all walks of life — particularly, in the last while, with my
[ Page 13274 ]
colleague the member from the Sunshine Coast and the critic for Community Living B.C., who's been out there advocating for families, and in many instances, families without a voice. It's to effect change.

We did a lot of work in this Legislature here. I've worked with many families on that front, and I look at this budget particularly to see what the government has learned from those lessons, those stories that wrench your heart when you hear about how desperate families are. The government said that they're going to do something about that and they're going to change it. What have they done in Budget 2013?

[1740]

Well, the overall budget — yes, there was a slight increase of 1.1 percent. When you look closely, though, at the information, you will note that there is a serious decline, a reduction, in the per-client cost for Community Living clients — the adult Community Living clients — over the next three years. In fact, you've got to also project, not only around the budget itself, the number of people that are increasing in terms of caseload and what that would be like.

When you add those two things together, the projection is going to be that, very likely, individuals who are getting the personalized supports in the government's initiative under Community Living B.C. may show a drop of some 50 percent per client.

That is significant. Just imagine that for one minute. You're dealing with disabilities, and you're dealing with challenges, and at a time when costs are going up, not only do you not see your supports increasing at the rate of inflation, but you're actually seeing a decrease, a 50 percent reduction in terms of the supports. I don't know how those families, quite frankly, would be able to manage, yet that's the reality of Budget 2013.

On the question around inequities…. We're going in that direction, really, after talking about the economy a little bit. It's the whole question of inequality in the province of British Columbia. The fact is — and that's a big issue in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — that people are struggling. Why? It's because they're living in poverty.

We often say this: children don't live alone. Yet British Columbia has had the highest rate of child poverty across the country for not one year, not two years, not three years but for year after year for five years. How do they survive? How is it that the government can say that they care about children? How is it that the Premier can say she cares about future generations, yet we don't see a plan to address child poverty in the province of British Columbia?

I am not asking for the moon. I didn't just get dropped on my head or anything like that. I know we're in tough times, but all that I'm asking is for the government to show an indication that they see the problems as they exist for the families, that they acknowledge it and that they would invest in it and devise a plan. Be practical about it, be sensible about it, be positive about it, and do it in such a way that it can be non-partisan, to bring everybody together to invest in the people of British Columbia, who are, ultimately, the most important resource.

I know there are many other people who want to speak, and I'm just going to close with this. You hear all sorts of mythology that's out there, and some of it is — may I say? — generated by government members. But I want to put this on the record just to be clear. The government likes to bring back the 1990s and all of those things. Let me just put a couple of facts on the table.

Under the Liberal government, the B.C. economy has actually grown more slowly than when the New Democrats were in government. They created fewer jobs and attracted fewer people to B.C. than we did under the New Democrats when we were in government. Under the B.C. Liberals, B.C. was a have-not province not one time, not two times, not three times but five times, receiving payments of $2.4 billion from the federal government, versus just once under the New Democrats, receiving $125 million.

Interprovincial migration to British Columbia during the 1990s, when the New Democrats were in power, totalled 130,000 people. Under the Liberals, less than half of that — just over 65,000 people. Average annual GDP growth in the 1990s, 2.8 percent; under the Liberals, 2.5 percent. Those numbers I didn't create; they were from Stats Canada. Also, recently there was a report that came out of the Business Council verifying some of this information.

I would ask the members of the House to actually look at this information and at the facts as they present themselves. And we will know that under the New Democrats, yeah, there were some things that we actually did quite right and, in fact, outperformed the B.C. Liberals.

That said, the global economy is at play. There are many, many factors that we need to take into consideration, and there are going to be challenges ahead. That's why, under the New Democrats, we are going to take on these challenges. We're going to be practical about it, and we're going to do it bit by bit — one positive, practical step at a time.

[1745]

H. Bloy: It's a pleasure to stand today, but when I start, I want to introduce my daughter Katie and her husband, Travis, who are in the audience today. Katie and I came to Victoria in 2001. She went to school to get an education, and I came here. She met her husband Travis here, who is the proud winner of the People's Choice in the Vancouver chef association for the last two years. They helped me start off my speech. They didn't know I was speaking today. I thought I was speaking tomorrow.

I just want to say that you can't do this job without a lot of support from a lot of different people, and the first is your family. You run for office, and you stand up and
[ Page 13275 ]
you say what you think, but some of the abuse that family members have to take is pretty shameful, coming from this press that we have in Victoria.

My children. My son, Jeremy, and his wife, Jennifer, and two great grandchildren — James, who's nearly five, and Jackson, who's nearly two — bring so much love to me. It's so different being a grandparent. It's way more fun, way more entertaining, and I get to go home. I've spoken of Katie and Travis here. I'm really happy you're here today.

Candice, my daughter…. On March 16, I'm having an engagement party at home for her, and she's getting married this long weekend in September. For Candice, this is the next step in her very successful life. I wish them both well, since I won't be here in September. I'm looking forward to all of the family excitement.

As I started to say, this job is so hard on people around you, family and relatives. I'm going to speak personally about what has happened to me in my time frame here, news coverage that I've received from the press in this House — how only half-stories are told, how stories are written about you and they never once ever speak to you. They never once ever ask you a question. They call you many different names, pathetic names, but they've never talked to you. They don't even know who you are.

They call us backbenchers. I'm a private member, but they call me a backbencher. One of the press once called us…. We're backbenchers. We're like lambs waiting to be slaughtered, sitting in the back. Vaughn Palmer. This is pathetic — the words that they call us. It's not me. I'll stand up and take it. You can call me that. You can call me lots of things, and if you knew me, maybe you'd have some truth to them. But they don't even know who I am.

But when you have children up here and other family members that have to live with that and read it and then get cued by where they work or where they're at school or maligned because I'm a B.C. Liberal…. I'm proud of it. I'm a federal Conservative; I'm a B.C. Liberal. I'm proud of this. But when the press take it out and go after your family members, that is totally wrong. The media is there to report the news. They're not there to make the news, and that's all they want to do. They're in opposition, and the people on the other side sit there saying: "Wow, this is so great right now. Aren't they attacking the B.C. Liberals?"

Well, just remember back to 1999-2000, how they were our friends attacking you, members on the other side. You can be well prepared. They won't be your friends if you're so lucky to win in the next election that's coming up.

I'm so disturbed by how the reporting goes. We're pretty mild. I was in Toronto just a few weeks ago. It doesn't matter what press you talk about in Toronto. They all go after the mayor of Toronto — good or bad, but it's the unfairness. Maybe we're a little lucky in some way.

There are lots of rumours going around this House right now that I never hear reported. There's a member in the opposition who lost his driver's licence, supposedly, for so many speeding tickets. The press know about it, I'm told, but they don't report on it. I wonder why.

There are a lot of things that go on, so this is an opportunity when we get to speak. I'm telling you how I feel from my heart and what's going on. I'm proud of the work that I did around here.

[1750]

I want to move on to thanking all of the members who are retiring after the next election, from both sides of the House, for their contributions. There's a whole new world out there. I'm looking forward to it. Volunteer work. I'll maybe work on my couple of old cars. I hope to do a little more work for Scouting.

After family, there are friends — the people you knew before you were elected and after you were elected. They're the ones that help you through this on the day to day. They're the ones that encourage you to keep going on. They're the ones that want to work with you. They want a better British Columbia. I've met so many great people who only want a better British Columbia. It's not about the politics; it's about what we can do to make it better.

Some individuals say that I may ask for a lot, but I want the government to lead the province into the future. I just want to read a few names of people who have helped mentor me and who have meant so much to me over the years. You've got Peter and Kay Legge; Joe and Rosalie Segal and their sons Loren and Gary.

Phil Hochstein has become a very good friend, who some members on the opposition may not agree with. Even some members on this side think that Phil has a different opinion than other members within the industry, but that's what makes this world go. You've got Jim Allard and Colleen Talbot. You've got John Park, a Korean lawyer who I travelled with to Korea many times. We've become friends over the years, but just an amazing individual that many of you'd never hear of that contributes so much to the society of British Columbia. You know, Charles Kim, Chiharu Sato, Angela Mackenzie.

Senator Yonah Martin, a Conservative senator who I'd known before politics, is just an amazing lady who travels across this country, working so hard for the people of Canada and who has done such a great job.

There are people from the ethnic community, from the Japanese community — Mari, Debbie and Laura Saimoto, the Japanese Language School. There are so many different ethnic groups that have come to British Columbia and have contributed so much. I've had the privilege and pleasure of working with so many different groups — from the Filipino community, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Korean, the Japanese, the Hungarian, Germany and Switzerland.

British Columbia is so lucky. We might be a little smaller in the number of people we have within our ethnic groups, but we are the most multicultural province in
[ Page 13276 ]
Canada. We do more and we work better together. British Columbia has to be so thankful for what we have here in this great province that we live in.

We have friends and we have names that I could go on calling out all day. We have political friends, people that have helped on every election. I want to thank some people that have truly helped me and that I've known in the community of Burnaby and worked with for many years: Brian Bonney, Mark Robertson, Bob Davies, A. Nick Kovenich, Robin Ross, Jan Carole, Mark Hilford — individuals that have truly helped me in my passion to run for politics to represent the people.

None of the work gets done in the riding if it weren't for staff that you have in the office. I've had lots of staff in my office. I figure the job is good for two to three years, and then it's time to move on and grow. I've had lots of students in my office. I've had six international Chinese students, here on a co-op program, work in my office. I've had four or five SFU students, in their co-op program, come and work in my office. Actually, four of them were at an event that I held the other night. It's so rewarding to see these relationships that you build with young people.

In my office I have Barbara Spitz, Ed Sem and Laura Yin, another international student.

When you run for public office, you have a group of people I would call supporters. All of these people that I talk about are all equal in the life of a MLA and what they contribute to it. When I first started and you're running an election, one day 20 people come out to help you go door-knocking or whatever, and then two weeks later, you've got 50 people out there. These people, without ever knowing you, come out and contribute so much time.

[1755]

For me, that was so heartfelt and warm within my heart. That these people who don't even know me but believe that they want a better government or they want to help elect somebody because they believe in what they think was very rewarding to me.

Of course, there's always all the constituents that vote for you that you would never get to know within your riding. My hope is that in the future we can get more people in all of British Columbia to come out and vote each time. Last time was the lowest turnout ever in the history of British Columbia. It was just under 50 percent.

In Australia they have laws to make people vote. I don't know if you need laws to make people vote, but we need something to encourage more people to come out and more young people to come out to contribute to this democratic process.

We have to encourage a lot of the ethnic people that come here. Some people don't want to participate because they've come from countries where they're fearful for their life if they go and vote, if they don't vote for the right person. I'm hoping that over time we'll be able to change a lot of that.

I'm going to talk a bit about the budget today, because the opposition wanted me to talk a bit about the budget. But when we talk about budgets, I've heard this same story over and over again for every seat: "You're wasting money on 16 point…." Oops, I'm running on a scale. I guess I'm running low, but I'll move it up a bit.

We're running on a scale of $16½ million that we're spending in advertising. I'm just going to bring this back to the press. They report it and report it — how terrible, and what's going on.

You have to be able to tell a story, but the facts are clear. Let's get the real facts out there. I just wonder why the press never report any of the actual facts out there.

There are numbers like the NDP spent $28 million, $22 million, $18 million, $19 million, $29 million in the years they were in power. Why does nobody talk about this? We just tell one side of the story: you've got a number, so that's bad.

I could understand that if your numbers were only $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, and then we spent $16 million. That would be bad. But with inflation, when we spend half of what you spent some years…. You know, I think it's bad. I think that's where the stories are wrong.

Will the press ever print this? Are you kidding? It doesn't benefit them being opposition, because they're out there selling now. The press only sit in this House for question period. They don't do anything else, and they hang out in the hallways trying to attack people to get things done.

Then we have a balanced budget. I guess one of the reasons I ran in 2001…. There were a few of them. People had asked me to run, and I was thrilled and honoured, and my family thought it would be good at the time.

I can tell you, over the years, that my family wasn't very keen when I ran a third time. They thought that I should stop. They wanted me at home more. I appreciate that.

I ran because of the health care. I never had a heart attack, but I had a heart operation in the mid '90s, and there was no money there for it.

At the time, as they get frustrated on the other side about advertising…. I wrote a letter to Dr. Perry Kendall, who has been the health advocate, or whatever, for the province of British Columbia forever and a day. I got back a bureaucratic response. It was all about the advertising that the NDP were doing, saying what a great job they were doing in health care. They were running full-page ads.

I sent him the ads, and he says nothing. It was nothing. That was one of the things that started to motivate me to run for public office — because of the waste.

As we move along, we have a budget…. I guess I can talk about a lot of things.

[1800]

They talk about the budget and what happened in 2009. They say how it ballooned four times. That's fair. That's accurate reporting.

They forget to tell you that we're so lucky to live in
[ Page 13277 ]
British Columbia because of the economic base that I was part of, that we built in British Columbia — that we were better than any jurisdiction in North America with our credit rating and the amounts of money we had.

They would have never have done it, because they would have been in so much deficit before it even started. When we've had our credit upgraded four times, this is something to be proud of. This saves our province millions of dollars.

I'm proud of the work that our government has done over the years and where we're at in British Columbia. In 2001 the NDP left a structural deficit of $3.8 billion. That's when the economy was on the upswing. That's when the economy had been growing all over North America, except in British Columbia — an ineffective government that was just trying to get re-elected and that ran both of their mandates to the absolute end.

Even when they won in 2006, they had less popular vote than the opposition party. The opposition got more support from the people, the constituents, of British Columbia than the governing party did.

The province was growing through all of that time. You can talk about the unemployment rate and what it was. It was higher under the NDP. You name just about anything else that was happening in the province, and it was bad under the NDP and good under the B.C. Liberals.

There are lots of good things that have happened, lots of accomplishments. Just the other day, I guess, the latest accomplishment was the Fallen Firefighter statue monument that I've been very pleased to work on over the last number of years. I was really pleased that the firemen presented me with a firefighter hat with my name on it. They recommended that I not fight any fires, but I was pleased about that.

The monument was non-partisan. It's there for everybody in British Columbia, for all firefighters — professional, volunteer, forest fire fighters. This is a monument that will bring a lot of people to British Columbia, and we're hoping to add a few more things to it over the next few years. I hope to be able to continue my work on that with them.

With firefighters, there's the cancer presumption, which I started working on in 2002, when I first met Mike Hurley, who's now president of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters. Then he was the president of the local Burnaby Fire Fighters Association. We started working on it. We got a number of cancer presumptions, and we've been able to add to it over the years.

When you see a firefighter out anywhere in this province and they're collecting money with their Dalmatians…. Whatever the cause is, they volunteer. They don't get paid for it. Every hour they spend, they spend because they want to better the community they live in.

In Burnaby — and no relationships for the member across the way…. They provide food snacks to many of the schools in Burnaby. I'm so fortunate. I get to play Santa Claus, I guess, 19 times this year. Don't tell any children. I can tell you that the Burnaby firefighters are usually at the schools making pancakes every morning. You see them out in the community doing lots of great work.

Another area I've been thanked in. I wear my Scout uniform into the House. I was in Scouting as a child. My family…. Katie here was in Brownies and Guides, and even at the University of Victoria she volunteered as a leader for a couple of years.

My son was in Scouts, and I'm really proud. After I retire, I'm looking forward to going with him. He's brought his son now to Beavers, so it's continuous. Maybe I'll end up volunteering there instead of just trying to raise money for Camp Byng.

[1805]

There are lots of good things that have gone on in this world. I had the privilege to serve in cabinet on two occasions. I took it very seriously. I worked hard at it. I was proud of the work that I could start to accomplish. I didn't get to finish a lot, but I was proud of the work that I did there on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia.

For 12 years I've given a book to every kindergarten child in my riding. I don't read the book to them — I read at lots of schools — but I give it to them to encourage them to go home and read. Many children do not get read to by their parents at home. If you're a parent that goes to the PAC meeting or Guides or Scouting or sports and are involved in your day-to-day activity, the odds are that they're reading with you at home. They're asking you what you did at Scouts or Guides, or what you did at school today.

I remember when Katie started dance. I watched her twirl and twist so that her skirt could spin out for hours at a time, but that's part of being a parent. There are new-immigrant parents and lots of parents that are under more stress today and don't have this.

I give them this book to encourage them to go home and read with a family member. I can say that with every school and every teacher, I've been very well received and encouraged. I've gotten to know many of the teachers over the years of going back for 12 times.

Another accomplishment — I won't be there to see it finished in three years — will be the Evergreen line that's coming along now and that will join Lougheed Town Centre and Coquitlam Centre together. It'll help those shopping, because the two biggest destination stops for the SkyTrain lines in British Columbia are Pacific Centre and Metrotown, which drive shopping. I know that it'll help to spread the shopping throughout the province.

I'm going to end, as I'm not sure what else…. This is a speech from my heart, on what I've done. I guess there are a few names I missed here on another piece of paper. I'll read them out, because they're amazing. There's Garth Evans and Pamela Gardner, and there's a retired doctor from Burnaby Hospital, Paul Wright, who's just an
[ Page 13278 ]
amazing individual and is now a world-renowned photographer.

When we come to this House, we know everybody and we have colleagues here. We really don't know much about them on either side of the House — what they're all up to and where their lives have come from and will go to. But there are some people that make a difference in my life, that have been supportive to me.

I consider everyone here a friend. In the House I consider everyone here a friend, but I consider three that I've remained very close to and have enjoyed the privilege of working with over the years. They are Patty Sahota, Al Horning and Karn Manhas.

I want to say that when I walk out of this House, I will hold my head high. I am proud of the work I have accomplished, and I am proud of the accomplishments of this government.

I want to say thank you to the constituents of Burquitlam and Burnaby-Lougheed that I had the honour and privilege of representing for 12 years. It has been an honour.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

L. Popham: It's an honour for me to rise in the House and speak on the budget this year. Although I'm standing for about 20 minutes this evening, I really feel that in my four years of representing Saanich South I haven't been given the amount of time that I would have guessed I would have received representing a constituency of 50,000 people.

I think the opportunities that we've had to rise in the House have been very minimal, and I regret that. There are a lot of things that are important to my constituency, a lot of things that they write to me about and wish for me to bring forward. The amount of days that we've sat over four years has been a disappointment to myself and also to my constituents. But I am honoured to rise this evening.

[1810]

One of the things that I've noticed while listening to the members respond to the budget from the government side is that they continue to have the same, I think, notes in front of them. Not all of them, mind you, but a lot of them have the same themes. They repeat the same phrases. They have a lot of general ideas that they throw out, and then we get criticized for not putting forward ideas.

My budget response will be fully dedicated to the Agriculture budget that was presented. I know that there have already been some comments that have gone back and forth — that I must be very supportive because there's been an increase in the budget for agriculture.

I'm going to lay out a plan of what we would do and why what happened in the budget for agriculture under this current government is not acceptable to the agricultural community. There are some good things about an increase in the budget, but really, what we have is a long-term vision and a stable plan for agriculture.

I have to go back to when I first became the Agriculture critic. I was really handed over the reins by my colleague Corky Evans. Corky Evans was a champion for agriculture and someone who I looked up to immensely. The words of wisdom that he passed my way are words that I'll never forget.

One day in his office he said to me that he thought he had really failed in his years as Agriculture Minister. For me to hear this from someone who I adored was very difficult to hear, until he spent time explaining to me why he thought he had failed. A lot of it was that he didn't think that he was able to instil in the province the vision he had.

He had travelled the province. He had spoken to farmers and foodies and everyone involved in the food system, and he'd heard what they wanted. He tried to present that at the provincial level, but there really wasn't the appetite at the time that he was doing that.

As I listened to him and as I listened to his ideas, they're ideas that people are now accepting. So I don't think that Corky failed on his path as Agriculture Minister, but I really think that time failed him. It was the time that he was working in.

I think the time is now for agriculture. I think that over the last ten years there has been a lack of vision. Unfortunately, there's a lot of work to do to catch up. But on the New Democrats' side, we have a plan for agriculture that's a simple plan. It's practical, and the agriculture community really likes what we're saying.

So I don't want to hear that we don't have a plan for agriculture. I don't want to hear questions from the other side saying that we don't have a plan and we don't know how much it's going to cost. We have a full plan, and I'm going to talk about that right now.

Interjections.

L. Popham: I'm going to talk about that right now. Okay.

You know, the members are getting very excited, but I think if they'd been listening to the members on this side of the House, they would have heard a lot of good ideas.

Unfortunately, with the partisanship of this government, it's like wearing earplugs for this government. They don't hear the good ideas, and it would be very good….

Interjection.

L. Popham: The member is yelling at me: "How much?" How much for what is what I'd like to know. Why don't you listen?

Maybe the member could listen to what I'm going to say.

Interjections.
[ Page 13279 ]

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Member, your remarks through the Chair, please.

Other Members, I need to hear what is being said.

L. Popham: Thank you. I would really like the members to listen.

One of the things that's critically important to agriculture is stability. The first part of our plan is called Grow B.C., and it encompasses everything that supports farming policy and the land base.

One of the things that the Liberal government tried to fix over the last eight years is the meat regulations. In this budget there's $5.6 million dedicated to provincial inspectors that will have to take over at the end of this year, once the federal inspection system ends for British Columbia. That in itself…. You could see that as an increase in the budget, but really, it's inevitable that we would have had to invest that because there was no choice. The federal system was ending.

When I talked to the Minister of Agriculture — and I have to say that I think he has put in a lot of good effort on this file — I said to him that the priority was to have that money in place and from that place. Then you look at how to fix the regulations to make it work for farmers in B.C. If that money is not in place, there's no way that we can go forward — so $5.6 million dedicated to provincial inspection costs.

[1815]

There was also an announcement that came about a pilot project in one of the regions and plans of financing a mobile abattoir in another region of the province. My question at this point, knowing that there's such partisanship on the other side: is this decision being made to solve the problem, or is it being done for partisan reasons?

Both of the places where there are dedicated solutions to the meat regulations happen to be in B.C. Liberal ridings. What does that mean? I'll tell you what it means. It means the rest of the province stays in a holding pattern for another two years. That doesn't work for agriculture. Yes, it might work for those two regions, and it will be very interesting to see what happens in those two regions. But what about the rest of the province?

I can tell you that on the Saanich Peninsula, which is a prime agricultural area on Vancouver Island, we don't have a red-meat abattoir. What that means is that the farmers there who wish to raise cattle or sheep — any red meat — have to travel their animals to an abattoir. That could land them in the Cowichan Valley. That means we would have to travel over the Malahat.

Some people are okay with that, but some people don't believe in travelling their animals that far. Not only is it expensive; it doesn't make for a very good business case. It really stops meat production, and it has stopped meat production on the Saanich Peninsula. It just doesn't make sense. The Saanich Peninsula could have used one of those pilot projects.

There are a million questions that arise when you wonder why only two regions got a pilot project. To me, it leads to being partisan.

The pilot project in Vernon is the wait-and-see model of problem-solving. The Vernon area will undertake a pilot that will allow class D and E licences to be established and work in conjunction with established A and B licences. For two years the Vernon area will wait to see if that works out.

We've already had eight years of wait-and-see, and what we've learned is that it's extremely harmful to the agriculture community to have that type of philosophy. It has already been proven over eight years that wait-and-see, one-size-fits-all does not work in the province of British Columbia for meat production. Each region has different needs, and it's a shame that only two regions are getting the attention of this government.

The long-term planning that's needed in agriculture really comes under the Grow B.C. part of our plan. It's necessary to have a foundation for success.

The B.C. budget this year also failed to address extension services. Extension services are another thing that would fit under Grow B.C.

The lack of agrologists and field services within the Ministry of Agriculture is so devastating that it's almost funny. But we're so far past it being funny that we don't have soil scientists dedicated in the Ministry of Agriculture.

The agrologists are minimal. The Agricultural Land Commission has to contract out to use agrology services, which is bizarre since the Agricultural Land Commission is mandated to protect our agricultural soil base. That doesn't make sense. The Agricultural Land Commission is also something that fits under the Grow B.C. part of our plan.

I actually found something quite curious in this year's service plan for the Ministry of Agriculture. There's a footnote. The footnote reads: "Changes in the 2013-14 through 2015-16 budgets reflect an increase in support to the ALC for its new regulatory fee and revenue structure." This is a very curious point to find in the service plan, because if you look anywhere else in the budget, you can't see it reflected, except for the fact that it's supposed to be bringing in money to help the commission be self-sustaining.

Where is the fee structure? I've been asking where the fee structure is since the last set of estimates that we did. For the Agricultural Land Commission, it's built in that they can collect fees and have a new revenue structure. Where is that? That's a question I'd like to ask the other side of the House. What's their plan?

[1820]

They're hiding it, and you know what? The Agricultural Land Commission doesn't even know what it is. They'd like to know as well. So if anybody on the other side
[ Page 13280 ]
would like to tell me their plan, I'd appreciate that, and so would the Agricultural Land Commission. That's something that we would support.

I've been thinking about this for about a year now. Where is this fee structure, and why is it having such a problem being presented to the public? Why? Is it because part of the government doesn't believe that there should be a fee structure in place? It's curious. Maybe the oil and gas industry could be charged a fee of, say, $3,500 every time they use and access agricultural land reserve land.

An Hon. Member: Is that policy? We're hearing policy?

L. Popham: The government side wants to know if that's our policy.

According to the service plan for Agriculture, it's the government's policy. Apparently, it is. Footnote 5, right here. Footnote 5 — that's the government's policy. Yet they don't lay it out — vague, vague ideas.

Interjection.

L. Popham: What's our policy, they want to know.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please direct your comments through the Chair.

L. Popham: Sorry. Thank you.

It's a vague policy. It's words. There's no structure. The policy is that the Agricultural Land Commission could charge a fee for applications to use agricultural land, like the oil and gas industry when they use agricultural land reserve land to do their business.

Right now they aren't charged a fee, but if these fees were actually established and a structure was laid out, then perhaps the Agricultural Land Commission could become self-sustaining. We're very interested in that idea over here — very interested — and we'll be pursuing that.

Why don't we see a structure laid out? Is there a problem with the members on the other side of the House deciding whether they philosophically believe in that or not? I don't know. It could actually raise up to $2 million for the Agricultural Land Commission.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When this government says that it has aided the agricultural commission by increasing its budget by about $900,000 and it puts something like this in the footnote, the budget doesn't make sense. So anyone on the other side of the House that is voting yes on this budget is voting on something that they don't understand and they don't know, because it has not been presented.

As far as I'm concerned, the Agriculture budget is a sham. That's what I think about…. The Agriculture budget is about $86 million. I'm pretty sure that we can work with that, as long as you actually say what you're going to do. And we are saying that.

If the government wants to know how much our budget is for Agriculture, it sounds to me like it's about $86 million, as long as you have a way of the Agricultural Land Commission collecting fees. I'd like the government to lay out their plan for collecting fees.

That's not all I have to say about this budget. It's going to be very disappointing for the members who thought that I might be supportive of this budget because of Agriculture, but it's actually not true.

The Grow B.C. portion of our plan is something that I've started to talk about. I think the government can take some of that away. They can cease saying that we don't have a plan. That's part 1 of the plan.

The second part of the plan, which is extremely exciting for most people in the agriculture industry, is called Feed B.C. Feed B.C. is a procurement policy so that institutions like hospitals that would be purchasing food to run their systems would be buying up to 30 percent B.C.-grown food. That's a policy — 30 percent.

Interjection.

L. Popham: The member said: "Where would they buy their coffee?"

We don't grow coffee in B.C. Just thought I'd let you know. You might want to ask the Agriculture Minister about that.

Up to 30 percent of the budget for food would be grown-in-B.C. food. It doesn't make sense to the members on the other side of the House, I know. It seems so quaint to them, I'm sure. But it makes a lot of sense to people in British Columbia. They like it.

[1825]

It's money that we're spending already in the Health budget, and it's found revenue for communities in British Columbia.

I'll reserve my right to continue speaking and move adjournment of this debate.

L. Popham 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 6:26 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