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)
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Morning Sitting
Volume 43, Number 5
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS |
|
Page |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
Budget Debate (continued) |
13281 |
L. Popham |
|
Hon. P. Bell |
|
M. Elmore |
|
E. Foster |
|
A. Dix |
|
Hon. M. de Jong |
|
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2013
The House met at 10:02 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Prayers.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Polak: I call continued debate on the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
L. Popham: I'm sure the members on the other side could hardly sleep last night, thinking that I was going to be continuing the agriculture plan that we'll be doing in May — on May 15.
Yesterday I talked about a three-point plan that we'd be implementing if we were to become government this spring. It's a plan that the agriculture community in British Columbia is very excited about.
[D. Black in the chair.]
One of the things that I've done as Agriculture critic…. Because we lack the standing committee on agriculture in this Legislature, we have no way of bringing stakeholders in a meeting on both sides of the House. That's really part of our Grow B.C. plan: to talk about the policies that support farmers and the land base. It's critically important. I've really treated the province of British Columbia and all the stakeholders like they're members of the standing committee on agriculture.
That's how you get work done. These aren't ideas that I've come up with on my own and that we've come up with as a party. How we've come up with them is that we've gone out and we've talked to the community. That's how you consult when you're talking about a plan for the province. I don't think the current government does that enough. That's the feedback that I've been getting.
The Grow B.C. plan supports extension services, field services. You know, that's one of the things that the agriculture community has been very critical of. For ten years they've been calling for extension services and field services. This is a way of engaging with farmers, coaching them, as new farmers come into that field as a profession. It's something that the employees within the ministry know is missing. To turn a blind eye to that — as the current government states that they support agriculture — is really baffling to me. The Grow B.C. part supports farmers on the land base.
Then, as I started to talk about yesterday, we move into the second part of the plan, which is Feed B.C. This is a procurement policy — the idea that institutions like hospitals would have a policy that, when they're purchasing food to run their system, they would purchase up to 30 percent B.C.-grown food. This is something that's very exciting to the agriculture committee. It really solves a lot of problems that we're facing. I'll be getting into that when I lay out a specific example of how the Feed B.C. part of the plan would address particular stakeholders.
The third part of the plan is Buy B.C. This has been a contentious issue in this House for over a decade because the current government doesn't support a provincial marketing plan, as we do on this side of the House. The Buy B.C. plan is something that encompasses the whole province when we talk about marketing. It encourages consumers to think about purchasing B.C. produce, B.C. products.
It's not something that is just an idea that the New Democrats have put out there. This is something that's a shift that's happening within North America. There's a lot of talk about an idea like the Ten Percent Shift. If you consider putting a certain amount of your income towards provincially produced products, it really changes the outlook in communities. It's an economic driver for communities, and it supports a lot of the small businesses that the current government claims to support. This is actually a way of consumers supporting those businesses.
That three-point plan has a lot more detail in it, but we are putting that out there as the plan to the agricultural community, and the feedback that we're getting is very positive.
One interesting thing about the Feed B.C. part of the plan, which is the procurement policy part, is that through consultation with stakeholders it has been revealed that this government doesn't support a procurement policy plan like that. They believe that it's the institution's responsibility to figure that out for themselves.
It's almost like there's no connection to the fact that it's our tax dollars — every citizen's in British Columbia — being used to purchase the food within the hospital systems. We acknowledge that. We believe that it's actually…. When using our provincial dollars, you have to make smart decisions, especially when times are tough. That's something that I think is a definite difference between the government side of the House and the New Democrat side of the House. We're thinking about how to spend moneys wisely.
When you look at the three-point plan and you take an example of a particular stakeholder in the agriculture community, we can look at people that raise livestock and do meat production. Agriculture is something that needs long-term planning. The piecemeal plan that the current government puts out is really damaging to the agricultural community. Some of the things that they've supported have merit and possibility, but really, when you put it all together, it doesn't have the long-term vision that the
[ Page 13282 ]
agriculture community is craving.
The B.C. budget failed to address the field extension services for agriculture. Now, extension services and how they would affect meat production would really aid in growing the livestock capacity in the province. As we see slaughterhouses and abattoirs being supported, we really don't address the capacity of livestock that would go into the model of production to make it a sound business plan.
That's one of the struggles that the agriculture community is having. There really aren't the resources within the Agriculture Ministry right now to address that — how to move people into animal production. Having the supply to support the abattoirs is a well-known hurdle, and it's something that I've heard for four years. I think the attempt to fix the meat regulations that were released two weeks ago addresses it partially. But again, it's a piecemeal plan.
Field and extension services are critical tools to advise farmers and assist them in long-term planning, and the educational aspect of this is essential to incent new people to enter into the business of food production. That would fall under the Grow B.C. part of our plan.
An example of how extension services can address meat production is the SlaughterSafe course. The SlaughterSafe course is a one-day course and does not include a practical slaughter day at this moment. It's a textbook course. The farmers and people in meat production are really asking for it to be a two-day course so that there's a live slaughter day and people can have practical experience.
That's something that I think is very reasonable, and for that not to be included into this budget, again, means that the current government is not listening. It's something that I've heard loud and clear. It's embraced by farmers, and it's been embraced by people in the meat production business, because they want to be able to say that they've taken this course and that they're producing a safe product.
That's the whole idea around the SlaughterSafe course. It should be a requirement for all class D and E licensed producers. They don't disagree. It would also address the skill development and lost skill set that we have seen over the last eight years.
Having the skills to do work like that is important. When you have eight years of a debacle that's really disincented people from going into that profession, you lose the skill set, and it's not something that's easily brought back. The SlaughterSafe course would definitely address that.
Eight years ago it was a devastating decision by this government to disrupt our meat production in this province. It disrupted our food security and our food sovereignty. People right across the province do not disagree with that. The consequences that happened due to incompetent governing, in my view, are that people have walked away from that profession, and it's very difficult.
One of the consequences is that people who are really trying to save that business have invested heavily in class A and B licences, and this is millions of dollars invested in bringing a facility up to the level that would be acceptable for meat production. We've gone far away from farm-gate sales.
Under the direction of the B.C. Liberals, business people invested heavily to upgrade their abattoirs, only to be launched into a government-produced unstable environment for meat production. This government claims to be business-friendly, but they're absolutely business-unfriendly when it comes to agriculture. I'm not here just to criticize, because I'm going to tell you what could be done.
A better role for government would be to participate on the demand side. The New Democrats' commitment to local procurement in our hospitals — the Feed B.C. part of the plan, which I've told you about — is an obvious example of how government purchasing power could help support class A– and B–licensed facilities by purchasing meat products for our provincial patient base. This stability would create the type of environment that's crucial for agricultural success.
Finally, the provincial marketing plan called Buy B.C. would remind consumers to buy B.C.-produced food while recognizing how purchasing locally adds to our economy. Buy B.C. creates more demand, therefore making room for more supply.
This is a long-term vision with a plan for success. It is void of partisan politics, and it addresses issues that the agricultural community has been calling for, for years. The piecemeal solutions to the meat regulations that the B.C. Liberals have trotted out does not have enough meat on the bones.
That was a joke. Did you get that over there? But it's very true. It really has to have consistency for it to work for agriculture, and I've heard that loud and clear.
The idea that agriculture is a business is something that I've heard. I think that agriculture has not been treated as the economic driver that it could be treated as. And the idea that climate change is coming and that it may affect the food supplies from other jurisdictions we currently source from is an idea that we're now accepting.
In order to be prepared for a situation like that, we need to produce as much food as we can in British Columbia. Not only is it for our own food security, but it gives us opportunities as far as exports. We are doing exports right now, and we're supportive of that, but there's so much more opportunity out there. We can feed the people in B.C., but we can also feed people out of B.C.
Yesterday when I began my budget debate, I talked about my relationship with Corky Evans and how he has been an incredible mentor for me in my role. He told me that an Agriculture critic does not sit at their desk. The office of an Agriculture critic is the whole entire province.
As I'm out there travelling around, I often get a call
[ Page 13283 ]
from Corky, and he'll ask me how I'm doing. Once in a while he'll call me and talk about his days. Currently, Corky is farming, which is really incredible — that he's doing something that he loves.
He phoned me up one day, and he told me he had some good news. I asked him what that was, and he said he had just harvested 1,000 pounds of potatoes. I said that was good news, and he said: "Actually, that's not the good news. The good news is that I sold them." That's the whole point about agriculture in B.C.
Agriculture is a business. It needs to be embraced as such, and that includes the smallest stakeholders in agriculture and food production up to the big players. It is all part of the puzzle as far as the agriculture plan goes.
The New Democrats have a clear plan for agriculture. It's a three-step plan. It will be a change for the better, and we're going to do it one practical step at a time.
Hon. P. Bell: This is likely my last speech in this wonderful place. I may get a few questions over the next few days — I'm not sure — or not, but it will likely be my last opportunity to speak in this format. I wanted to reflect on the last 12 years that I have been here, and I wanted to thank a few people in particular during my comments on the budget speech. Of course, I'm very supportive of the budget speech and the balanced budget this year in 2013-14.
Many things have changed over the last 12 years. When I arrived in this House, I was 40 pounds heavier, and it was not all additional hair. In fact, very little of it was. What I had was still dark at the time. I think this place has taught me many, many lessons, and I've certainly cherished the opportunity to have been able to spend the last 12 years here. Although for some health reasons I've chosen not to run again, I look back with fond reflections.
Madam Speaker, for me it's been, to a degree, non-partisan in terms of enjoying friendships and relationships with members from both sides of the House. I actually think we've accomplished lots of good work together. The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill and I spent lots of time working on the very challenging times in Burns Lake and, I think, had some great success in Burns Lake. We've seen tremendous progress as a result of that.
The member for Vancouver–West End and I have often tangled and sparred in terms of different files that we've had different responsibilities around, but at the same time, I very much admire the work that he has done. I think he's going to be a great legislator for our province. I think he has a long and productive future in politics. I really admire his work ethic and the research that he's done. While it always hasn't been 100 percent accurate, I think that he's been able to bring real value to the House in terms of the work that he has done. I congratulate him for that, and I think I'm going to be an eager bystander to watch his career.
The member for Cowichan Valley is a passionate individual who has taught me new language. "Jiggery-pokery" was not part of my repertoire up until he entered this Legislature.
I remember, actually, that a few years ago I had an act that I brought forward that was intended to protect forest workers. I was listening to the second reading comments of the member from Cowichan, and he had spoken about how this was going to create some challenging issues with regards to a certain element of the workforce, the United Steelworkers. As I listened to him I thought: "Gee, that isn't kind of what I had thought this legislation was about. I'd better go and check and find out if, in fact, that was the case."
When I went and engaged with my staff and asked, they said: "No, that would be the potential impact." So we talked about it for a while and figured out how we were going to deal with it. We actually defeated a section of the bill as a result of his comments, and I think we're all better for it, actually. I think the bill is better for it. I think the people that were intended to be protected are protected still today, and the error in the drafting process was corrected as a result of his work.
There are many, many other individuals on the other side that I've had the opportunity to work with over the years, and it's been a real honour for me. I think it's been different than what I expected. When I came into this House 12 years ago, I didn't know what to expect. In fact, I'd never set foot in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia until I was first elected. I didn't know where it was. I was shocked at the time at the $48 cab ride from the airport to get here. I thought: "Hold it. I thought this was in Victoria. I thought the airport was in Victoria." I didn't realize that's where it was.
So coming from Prince George down here was interesting. I spent the first year or two trying to find the washrooms and gradually, I think, worked my way through and, hopefully, have been able to add some value.
None of that would have been possible without my family and my support team. I want to thank some of those individuals in particular — my wife in particular. Brenda has just been a tremendous support to me over the last 12 years. We've been married almost 35 years now — 35 years in another couple of months. We've been blessed with three wonderful kids, one grandchild now.
I don't think it would be possible for any of us in this House to be here without the support of our partners or our spouses. I think it's just way more challenging on all of them than it is on us, because we kind of sign up for this, and when things are written about us in the media or said about us in public, we have each other to kind of pull together. You know, we can talk to each other about the comments that were made, and you work through
[ Page 13284 ]
those things. But for the spouse or partner that's left at home in places like Prince Rupert…. The member for North Coast; in my situation, from Prince George; the members for Peace River South and Peace River North up in the Peace district — very difficult on those spouses.
Brenda has just absolutely done everything she could to support me over the last 12 years. I think it's strengthened our relationship, interestingly. We've always had a very strong relationship, but I think it's made it that much stronger. I look forward to the next 35 years, hopefully, with her, when we'll be able to continue to raise grandchildren, spend time with our kids and enter into new things in our lives that are yet to be explored that we hadn't even thought about yet. So I think it will be interesting times.
I need to mention my constituency assistant Charlotte Groot, in Prince George, as well. Charlotte has been with me the full 12 years, since I was first elected, and has just been a tremendous individual to help support me and work through the issues of our constituents. I remember saying to her when I was first elected: "We need to celebrate our victories, because I'm sure many people will remind us of the things that we don't do well." So we have a little thing that we do — not every week but every now and then — when we get a constituent file that achieves a successful outcome, where we have a little celebration and we cheer about it. Oftentimes those are the little things that really make a difference.
I've told this story a few times, Madam Speaker, but I cannot begin to tell you the number of times I've been stopped in an airport or in Costco on the weekend or around town. Someone comes up to me and says: "Pat, Pat, I really want to…." I guess I'm allowed to call my own name out. I'm not sure if that's allowed or not. I did it anyway, and you didn't stop me, so that's good. "I really want to thank you for everything you did to help me through this health issue," or "you got me registered for this," or "my son got into this trades program," or this happened, or that happened, "and I just really want to thank you."
Now, this is an individual I have never met before in my life. I have no idea who they are. But I just say, "Thank goodness for Charlotte Groot," because she was the one that made it happen. We get the credit for it, as all members of the House do, but it's our constituency assistants that really make this work. To have Charlotte put up with me for 12 years is exceptional. I very much appreciate her willingness to do that, and I wish her best of luck. She's a friend — not quite a neighbour, but they don't live far from us. I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of her and Harry into the future. She is a very special person, cares deeply about the constituents in Prince George and has done a fabulous job.
Judy Jackson is my other constituency assistant, came on board with me just five or six years ago. She had just gone into retirement, and I managed to pull her out of retirement. It shows that there are career options well into your late 60s and early 70s. But again, she has just been a tremendous individual in terms of the overall support in the constituency, and she's such a fun person to be around. We all know those individuals, where you walk in your office, and you don't need electricity because the room is just lit up with her. Again, tremendous, someone that has been very, very supportive.
Bev in my Mackenzie office has done a great job for us as well. I really appreciate everything that she has done up there. Mackenzie has been very well served through her leadership. We have seen lots of good things happening in the community.
Moving down to Victoria, there's a young fellow that…. Kind of an interesting story I have to share. Brenda and I were at an event maybe six months ago. Someone came up and said: "Oh, I met your son's girlfriend the other day." We actually, at the time, didn't know that our son had a girlfriend. So we thought that was interesting. We were kind of playing coy and said: "Oh, yeah, Salena. Okay, yeah." We had the Salena that had worked for us, so we, maybe, assumed that our son Doug had started dating this girl.
So we kind of were playing along with it, and after a while we realized that actually it wasn't our son's girlfriend. It was my ministerial assistant's, who has worked with me for 11 years in this place. TJ Parhar — it was his girlfriend. We always teased TJ that we've adopted him, my wife and I have adopted him. So he's accepted that adoption notice, and now officially has become, I guess, our son. So he had introduced his girlfriend as being related to us, which was, you know, a funny story.
TJ has followed me through a number of different ministries. He worked for me when I was Deputy Whip, and he has been just a great friend and team player. We've travelled to China many times. He has always been there whenever I needed anyone.
Cameron Ehl has been with me for about five years as well — just a high-energy, young guy. I know he's going to be very, very successful whether he continues on in this place or moves somewhere else. He's one of those individuals that you just know is going to have tremendous success down the road. Certainly, I've enjoyed working with him.
Kim Sawatsky has been with me downstairs as well for — gee, I think about six or seven years now — five years for sure and has always been someone that you could count on, that you knew was going to make sure that you were always well looked after.
Then, Matt and Shannon are newer-comers in the office but both key players in my life and individuals that I very much appreciate.
At the risk of identifying any individual MLAs in the room as being people that have become very, very good friends over the years…. I know I will miss many, but
[ Page 13285 ]
there are two in particular that I want to touch on. The first is our Minister of Justice and the MLA for Prince George–Valemount. She and I had not met, actually, prior to running for the nominations back in the year 2000. I knew of her because she had been playing a political role in Prince George, but I'd not had the opportunity to meet her. She and I have become incredibly good friends, as have our spouses.
This is an individual that works beyond anyone's imagination in terms of the hours in a day, but also, the excellence of work that she does is exceptional. She has held a wide variety of portfolios, coming straight into cabinet in 2001, taking on the very difficult role as Minister of Advanced Education; doing a stint in Health, which was a very important stint for her; taking over as the Minister of Education for four years and, I think, did a fabulous job in that portfolio; on to Transportation for a couple of years.
I remember her saying to me: "What do I know about transportation?" "Shirley," I said, "it doesn't matter what you know. You are a strong leader, and you will achieve great things." She really did in Transportation — a tremendous asset to the province.
Moved on, of course, originally as the Solicitor General — first female Solicitor General in the province of British Columbia; then took on the role as Attorney General with a combined portfolio — a very large portfolio, a large portfolio for anyone.
I remember the criticisms about her in the early days. One of the criticisms: "Well, she's not a lawyer." Well, thank goodness she's not a lawyer, because it's brought a fresh breath, I think, to the Attorney General's office. It's caused her to ask more complex questions that have served us in this province very, very well as a result of her leadership.
So I want to again thank the member for Prince George–Valemount. She has been a very good friend. I know we will continue to be friends well into the future. I think that this province has been incredibly well served under her leadership.
The other individual that I want to mention is the member from Kamloops — originally Kamloops–North Thompson, and he switched ridings in the last election and took on Kamloops instead. He and his wife and Brenda and I have become very, very good friends. He was Whip originally, and I was Deputy Whip, so that's where we started to spend time together.
Although he has often been criticized in this House and in the media — probably justifiably so at times; I'm sure he would agree that he's earned some of the accolades that he's got — this is a guy that would jump in front of you to take a bullet. That is the way he is. He would do it for any member of this House. It's not partisan for him. That is his life. It is a life of public service. It is a life of commitment.
His passion occasionally gets him in trouble, but I think that's actually okay. I think that when you're that passionate and when you perhaps make a comment in ways that display that passion, occasionally people will be critical of you. If that's what it is, then I suppose that's what it is.
I think all of us, when we think back on the 17 years that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson has been in this House, will have some fond memory. There will be a few, I'm sure, on both sides of the House that will have other memories. My memories will only be fond.
He is a committed, dedicated individual. He's a family man. He's a man of God. He believes very strongly in the Lord and all of the good things that come from that. He uses that as his spiritual light.
I very much admire him. I know that he will do very well in the future for British Columbia, and I want to thank him personally, as well, for that.
In my remaining time I want to talk a little bit about what this budget really is built on. It's built on the successes of 12 years of our government.
For me, I kind of thought I would look at what each of those successes is on an international level, on a provincial level, on a Prince George level and on a Mackenzie level. Mackenzie certainly is a big part of my life and has been for the last 12 years and, I hope, will continue to be in some way. I hope I can continue to play a role in Mackenzie and help Mackenzie move forward.
When I kind of step up to what I think of as our most significant international accomplishment over the last 12 years, I really do think about the success that we've had in China. I know that members on the other side occasionally roll their eyes when they hear me name China as a country that has had some success. But I really do think that we've had some exceptional success in China. We have created a relationship in China that I hope will be enduring and that will serve our province and our country very well.
It's not just about British Columbia. It is about the forest industry in Alberta. It's about the forest industry, actually, in Washington State and Oregon. They're all benefiting from what we've done as well. It's about the oil and gas industries, about the mining industries, about international education. It's about tourism. It's about relationships. That, I think, is what is really important for me.
You know, China is this amazing country. For those that have not visited it, they should. It's not what you think it is. When they hear the words "communist China," people make the assumption that people are wearing dark green outfits and wandering around in dirty streets. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is the most free enterprise society that I have ever witnessed, actually, even though they use the term "communist." I'm not sure why it's still there, but it is the most free enterprise society that I have ever witnessed. It is an
[ Page 13286 ]
amazing country, where people are happy. They're growing. Things are going well for them.
They have challenges — environmental challenges for sure and some developmental challenges. But I think that they will regain the place that they held for much of the last 5,000 years as the largest and most impactful economy on the planet — just in the next few years, certainly in the next ten or 12 years. I think that's a good place.
For British Columbia, I think it's a particularly important place for us because of the natural resource base that we have. The opportunity to be a gateway for China into North America I think is absolutely critical.
I think the work that has been done by our government over the years…. Although I often get much credit for it, I actually think that it was the work that was done in the early years that was important. I happened to be around when we saw big growth numbers, but the Finance Minister and the Minister of Energy, petroleum resources and gas and housing and all good things in the world were the gentlemen that really did the bulk of the work to establish the framework that was necessary.
When British Columbia goes to China now, people pay attention to us being there. They know that we're there, they know that we're important, and they know that we have something to offer. That relationship is not something that you build overnight. I think that's a legacy that, as I leave public office in the next few months, is something I'm very proud of that our government has done. It will be an achievement that will serve British Columbians well for a long, long time.
Moving to British Columbia. This is going to be one that the member for North Coast should pay attention to here. I don't think he would have guessed, or I don't think most members…. I know the member for Kamloops–North Thompson would probably guess that this is the one that I am suggesting is kind of the next most significant accomplishment, at least of our government, at a provincial level. It's the work that we did on Haida Gwaii.
I remember actually going up to Haida Gwaii and just having this very difficult environment that they were operating in, where communities were fighting amongst each other. Non-aboriginal communities and aboriginal communities were fighting amongst each other. People were not getting along at all. They were fighting over a diminishing resource base that was being extracted and removed from the island with little or no value being retained on the islands.
I met with two leaders from the Haida Nation, Guujaaw and Arnie Bellis, for the first time back in…. I guess it would have been about 2006 or so — 2007 maybe. I remember sitting in the room with them, and I just sensed that something was different, that Guujaaw and Arnie were really wanting to change the environment that they were working in there. They didn't know how to do it, and they were reaching out and looking for help.
So I took a personal interest at the time in the islands. I know that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has spent a lot of time up on the islands as well.
Over a period of three years or so we were able to go from a place where there was really a lot of challenging dialogue around the islands — people were very uncomfortable; there was not a good working relationship — to a place where the three main communities — Queen Charlotte, Port Clements and Masset; Sandspit's not incorporated, but it's another key community — really have started to work together collaboratively. The Council of the Haida Nation has pulled together the two First Nations, the Old Massett and Skidegate bands, and has shown extremely good leadership.
They've all come together under this one umbrella on Haida Gwaii now, where we are for the first time seeing real economic value being generated on the islands for the benefit of islanders. That's really exciting for me. I think that's something that will be perpetuated. It will go on for a long, long time. As a result of the work that went on up there, the lives of 5,000 people, I think, into future generations will be better.
It's not something that a lot of people paid attention to. I don't think it made a headline in the Vancouver Sun or the Province. I don't think Vaughn Palmer wrote about it, or Mike Smyth, but it's something I'm proud of because I think we had a positive impact up there. I think the people up there will benefit from that, and I look forward to watching that well into the future.
Going down to Prince George next. For me, lots of…. I started writing out my lists of accomplishments, and many, many…. It's difficult to kind of come to a single thing in Prince George that I think is a real legacy or will have a positive impact over the long term.
As I contemplated what it was, I did land on the northern cancer centre and the northern cancer strategy. That opened about five or six months ago now, I think, roughly. It was a long build. It took a long time. It spanned two elections and would have almost spanned three, except our previous Premier said: "No, we can't spend three. It needs to spend two at the most, so let's get it built."
It is having a huge impact on the citizens of northern British Columbia. It's not just about Prince George. It has changed the referral patterns in northern B.C. You're seeing people from the Peace starting to come down to the northern cancer centre in Prince George.
We've just opened the cancer lodge last Friday — just a tremendous place that will accommodate up to 36 individuals from northern British Columbia that are needing cancer treatment. People from out west, from Prince Rupert and Terrace, are starting to be referred.
What's really neat…. Originally, there were two linear accelerators, the radiation machines that they use in the facility. The original plan was to only have one of them operating for the first six months. But because of the change in referral patterns, it's been so busy that they've
[ Page 13287 ]
had to have both machines operating at 100 percent capacity. It shows the demand and the desire.
It's changing the quality of people's lives in Prince George. I think that's a very, very positive thing. That will be something that will last forever. It would not have happened if there had not been significant political commitment to that.
Statistically, people would have shown you that it wasn't as efficient to have a cancer centre in northern British Columbia, that there were only 300,000 people, that it wasn't practical. We found a way of doing it.
One of the biggest criticisms — one of the ones that we heard most frequently — was that you wouldn't be able to staff the facility. We've proven that wrong as well, because we have a group of highly qualified individuals now working at the facility. I think it will become a facility that others will look at around the world and see as being something that they can model after.
Then finally, kind of stepping down, I think about Mackenzie. I think of all…. There are many, many things I think about in Mackenzie — positive things — but the reopening of the pulp mill in Mackenzie, for me, was probably the biggest one.
I got very emotional, actually, the day…. I didn't even realize that that was going to happen. I had no idea. I just went to the event feeling good about it and became quite emotional. I think it was just such a draining experience, because I knew that so many people were counting on me personally and us collectively in this House to make that happen.
It was not easy. It was a similar experience to what the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, I'm sure, has been going through in Burns Lake. Although the facility isn't reconstructed yet, I think that will be another great celebration that we'll all be able to look to and celebrate.
You know, a lot of people counted Mackenzie out. I remember the dialogue. Some of it was political, I'm sure, but some of it…. I think people genuinely felt Mackenzie was going to disappear. It didn't. And it didn't because of the very strong leadership of the mayor, Stephanie Killam — I was able to help a bit along the way — and strong leaders in the union movement in the area, with Carl Bernasky being one of the key leaders as well. So I think it was that people came together. When I think about that as a significant accomplishment, it is something that will last for a long, long time in Mackenzie.
I know my time is limited, so I do want to spend my few final minutes just reflecting on the future of British Columbia and where we're going now. I really think — and I hope that people take this seriously, Madam Speaker — that the future of British Columbia…. We are at a pivotal time in our province, where we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reach out and grab a new industry, the liquefied natural gas industry. But it will not come easy.
I want all members to hear this. I want members on this side of the House to hear it. I want members on that side of the House to hear it. We are at risk of losing it because we're in a global competition. This is not a political statement. I need everyone on both sides of the House to hear this, because this is important.
If we don't reach out and grab it, if we are not aggressive, if we don't go out and fight with Australia and fight with the United States and fight with Russia and fight with Qatar to earn the right to have this industry, it will be lost forever. That'll be a shame, because the opportunity exists today to reach out and grab an industry that will pay for the services that my grandchild, our kids — grandchildren and kids from all over this House — will be demanding for the next ten, 20, 30 years.
We can't take it for granted. If we take it for granted, we will lose it. It will not happen. We're in a competition. Everyone wants the investment. We need to treat it that way. We can't look at this through a political lens. We have to look at it through a competitiveness lens. The price is worth it.
If we reach out and take advantage of this opportunity today, people 30 years from now will be looking at liquefied natural gas in the same way that we look at the B.C. Hydro system today when we think about what W.A.C. Bennett did, what Ray Williston did, in the 1960s to build the two-river system. That created a legacy for us, an enduring legacy that will last forever.
The LNG opportunity is exactly the same. That's why I think it's a non-partisan issue. I think we need to get beyond the partisanship of it, but as I said…. I'm glad additional members have come into the House. I know I'm not allowed to identify who they are, so I won't. But what I said was this: we're in a competitive environment. We cannot afford to not chase this aggressively.
If we say we're not sure how we're going to power it, if we say we're not sure whether we like fracking, if we add all those elements of uncertainty, then those billions and billions of dollars of investment will go elsewhere. It'll go to Qatar. It'll go to the United States. It'll go to Australia. What that will mean is future generations of British Columbians won't have access to the services that we've had access to and that we all want.
I know I'm in my final few seconds, Madam Speaker. I will say this: it has been an honour for me to serve the citizens of Prince George and Mackenzie for the last 12 years. It's one that I have cherished. It's one that I'll never forget. It has been a personal honour for me to help serve all of the people of British Columbia. Thank you so much for those 12 years.
M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to stand and take my place and give my response to the budget. I'm rising today to speak against the budget. But before I get into that and outline my concerns that I have with the budget, I'd
[ Page 13288 ]
like to start, first of all, by acknowledging and thanking a number of MLAs, representatives on both sides of the House, that have announced that they'll be retiring and won't be running again. I want to thank them for their service and for their commitment and dedication that they have shown here and how they have served their communities.
It's often a great…. I know that members on both sides of the House have sacrificed a lot and also have dedicated themselves to public service. I'd like to recognize that and thank all the retiring members for their commitment, their service to B.C. I wish them the best. I wish them well in their future outside of politics. We may see some of them returning in the future.
Moving on, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Vancouver-Kensington, who I am so honoured and privileged to represent. I want to talk a little bit about the strength and the diversity of Vancouver-Kensington and what a great community it is and talk about the impact of the budget on them and what some of the priorities are for constituents.
I'd also like to thank my constituency assistant staff, who work very hard and are very dedicated and who really do a great job serving constituents on my behalf. We have a terrific team in our constituency office. They're incredibly dedicated. It's not just a job for them. They also, from their heart, have a real commitment to serving the community. They do a great job, and I'd like to thank them for all their hard work and commitment.
As well, I have to thank my family and also my partner, Angelina, for her support. Doing this job, there's a lot of time away from home. It requires a lot of understanding and support, so I appreciate that. I wouldn't be able to do the job and commit myself as fully if I didn't have that full support. So I'm deeply appreciative of that.
I'd like to just talk about, I think, the richness and diversity in Vancouver-Kensington and talk about the strength of a number of the organizations and the community, then go into talking about the impact of the budget and how I see the budget falling short in terms of addressing their needs and also the needs of British Columbians.
Vancouver-Kensington is one of the province's most diverse ridings. It's characterized by many different ethnic groups. Over 70 percent come from different ethnic backgrounds. On the one hand, it's a great opportunity, and there's a real richness of diversity there. But there are also challenges in terms of having the community participate fully and also encouraging that interaction and integration of such a diverse community.
I think that the strength of community organizations and the local business associations and individual neighbourhood groups really contribute to creating a very strong social infrastructure that allows the community to thrive and to be one of, I think, the emerging areas and rising communities being recognized in Vancouver.
There's a real richness there. I think that it comes, particularly at the neighbourhood level and the neighbourhood leadership level, from the commitment and dedication of many community organizers, leaders, the community organizations, the Kensington Community Centre, programming out of the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, as well as the local business associations — the Victoria Drive Business Improvement Association and the South Hill Business Association.
They organize a number of activities and events celebrating lunar new year, which is well attended and contributes a lot…. It brings a lot of excitement and also participation from bringing together businesses, communities and constituents for these events and building that sense of community spirit.
We have also seen a number of very strong programs developed out of the South Vancouver Neighbourhood House really looking to support immigrant seniors. There are Chinese seniors' immigrant support groups as well as new programs to encourage more participation from Filipino, Spanish and Vietnamese parents. I think that these are examples on the ground of what a vibrant and successful community…. These are the ingredients for success.
These longstanding community organizations work hard to make the South Hill area a dynamic and close-knit one. They organize many activities and festivals. One very successful festival, the South Hill Festival, is celebrated every year.
We also have great programs. I'd like to share and recognize the example of South Hill Connectors. This is an initiative where they encourage neighbours, each neighbour on each block, to be connectors who welcome newcomers and pass on neighbourhood information to new people who arrive on the street and really provide for that integration at the community level.
I think that's key and important in terms of really ensuring that the community is close-knit and inclusive and there's that initiative and that proactive leadership to break down barriers — sometimes there are barriers — and we really see that at the community level in Vancouver-Kensington.
As the critic for ICBC, I was also very pleased that the South Hill community group has come together to form a traffic safety group where they can discuss safety issues and help compile comments from neighbours into one central file.
Just before Christmas one of my constituents, Leonida Tumanda, was fatally struck by a hit-and-run driver steps from her home, just a few blocks from my office — a very tragic event. It was members of the South Hill neighbours who were among the first to come forward and offer a lot of support to the family. I'm also pleased that they're also taking proactive action to hopefully prevent future tragedy in our areas.
[ Page 13289 ]
Over the past four years, I've been really fortunate to have the opportunity to work with so many organizations, community groups, neighbourhood associations, which really have a genuine commitment to building and strengthening the community, being more inclusive, providing services, being supportive and building not only a strong community but a successful community, promoting South Hill and promoting the area as an area for families to move into and also for businesses to thrive.
I think it's really, at the community level, a model of success in terms of what I've seen and the opportunities I've had to meet with groups and organizations and really see firsthand the hard work and commitment they do on the ground.
Hearing from constituents on doorsteps, at community cultural events and talking with businesses of all sizes, what's clear and what I've been hearing is that people have serious concerns about the path our province is on. There's the need to address substantial issues around affordability for families that I hear — a very consistent theme — and also the need to create better ways to train our future workforce and to fix the growing issues of health care, education and many more.
Given that I think the environment and the community of Vancouver-Kensington, the constituency, is a very vibrant and growing and successful community, the budget falls short in addressing concerns and laying out a positive vision. The budget fails to offer the support and the direction that the community, my constituents of Vancouver-Kensington and, I think, British Columbia require for success. The budget doesn't serve the interests of folks in my diverse riding of Vancouver-Kensington.
I'd like to outline some of my concerns with the budget that was tabled. There's a claim that it's a balanced budget. I have a number of concerns about this claim. First of all is the credibility that the government has tabled a balanced budget. Their record of balanced budgets…. On the one hand, they have a good record of claiming balanced budgets, but their last four budgets have been deficit budgets. We're aiming for…. I would expect, post-election, we will see another deficit budget.
So I don't think the claim of a balanced budget withstands that scrutiny. I would characterize it as a bogus budget, a pre-election budget, for the following concerns.
This 2013 budget relies on a number of dubious claims and arguments to support that it's balanced. I'm concerned about the claim that the budget will be balanced on the basis of one-time asset sales. The sale of valuable public lands and assets is not a practice, number one, to balance a budget — to rely on in a balanced budget as a general practice. For this budget the Liberals are claiming to sell off $800 million in assets. The concern is that it's a one-time sell-off.
[H. Bloy in the chair.]
There are also concerns that it's not realistic that these sales will be completed. There's a problem that many of the sales will be booked and be included on the revenue side but haven't been completed. So there's a big question in terms of relying on these one-time asset sales.
I'm also very concerned about the budget and questionable accounting to justify that it's a balanced budget, a balanced document. The accounting is questionable in terms of sales of previous assets, particularly Little Mountain, that have been booked in two previous budgets, and we're seeing it again on the ledger to account for a $300 million revenue. That would be three years consecutively, now, that we have seen this being included on the revenue side. So that's a concern we have — a reliance on one-time asset sales, over $800 million.
We have questionable accounting in the budget, and we also have substantial cuts to public services and programs, which I think are unrealistic.
While the budget claims to be balanced on paper, when we look at these aspects, in reality we're seeing that a large deficit is being hidden. The bogus balanced budget of 2013 bears some resemblance to the pre-election budget that we saw in 2009. I think that voters, certainly constituents in Vancouver-Kensington, see a pattern in terms of the pre-election in 2009 where it was claimed the deficit would be not greater than $495 million. There were many claims. But after the election we saw it was nearly $2 billion.
That directly led to the HST being introduced, even while it was promised that it wouldn't, and it also led to drastic cuts in health care and really drastic cuts across the public sector, cutting many programs and services.
This is, I think, a repeat of that pattern in terms of budgets. It raises questions, and it also questions the credibility of the claim of the Liberals that this is a balanced budget that we're seeing today.
In terms of the challenges and the questions on the claim that 2013 is a balanced budget, we have over $800 million in asset sales. We have questionable accounting in terms of expenditures being booked again and expenditures moved around to make the budget look balanced.
We also have the inclusion of profits from B.C. Hydro. The amount of $545 million is being included in this budget as a revenue. The difficulty, and part of the accounting trick, is that B.C. Hydro has a growing debt. The problem is that that's not shown on the ledgers because it's in deferral accounts. So on the one hand the government is claiming dividends from B.C. Hydro, $545 million, but pushing to the side the growing debt in deferral accounts, so it's not included on the ledgers. The Auditor General has objected to this practice, saying it creates the appearance of profitability where none actually existed.
Also, a problem with the credibility of the budget is that it underestimates the cost of a number of programs to artificially create a balanced budget. We are going to
[ Page 13290 ]
be seeing cuts to front-line services for some of the most vulnerable citizens, and in particular, the shortfall in the health care budget. While there's an increase of $233 million, that is $233 million less than the projected increase in the previous budget, which will result in cuts across the system.
So we have a claim of a balanced budget, but there are underlying questions of credibility in terms of not having a…. In actual practice, the budget doesn't balance and will not meet that test. It falls short, taking that critical view.
These are my concerns: the claim that it's a balanced budget, that it is a direction for British Columbians to move forward on. The comparison of this budget to the 2009 pre-election budget is also quite startling and concerning. I think it calls into question and challenges the…. It brings out, I think, and exposes the myth that it's a balanced budget. It is, in fact, a bogus budget.
It also exposes the myth that the Liberal government and Liberal Party are fiscally responsible managers. I think it lays bare that myth. The constituents of Vancouver-Kensington and British Columbians are also coming to that realization.
Besides the questionable accounting and claims that this is a balanced budget, in terms of fiscal management and economic competence we have seen that the Liberal jobs plan has also been a failure. The claims of the Liberal government that they are fiscally responsible, that they are adequate managers of the financial resources of British Columbia and that they are competent managers of the economy fall short in terms of their claims of balancing the budget but also in terms of basic measures on which we gauge and judge economic performance in the province.
The jobs plan, for example, has been a failure. Since the jobs plan was introduced in September 2011, B.C. has lost 37,000 private sector jobs, which is the worst in Canada — and, in January, the loss of 16,000 jobs. Overall job growth has been stagnant since the jobs plan was introduced.
We're seeing mismanagement, fiscal mismanagement, of B.C. resources. We're seeing that the budget is in fact not balanced and that the Liberal Party have not been competent managers of the economy, looking at analyzing the budget, looking at the growth of the economy, the creation of jobs. Also, under the Liberals, B.C. has a record of being a have-not province five times, receiving payments of $2.4 billion, versus…. Compare that to, under the NDP governments, just receiving one designation of being a have-not province, receiving $125 million.
We have seen, additionally, that this budget falls short of expectations, and I think it falls short of meeting the needs of constituents in Vancouver-Kensington. I have been approached by and have talked to many constituents over the last year who have wanted to upgrade their skills, have wanted to take post-secondary training, take college courses and upgrade their skills. They've had to take adult education courses to either complete their grade 12 equivalents, complete that requirement to have access to apply and be admitted to post-secondary institutions, or they've had to upgrade their English skills or other skills.
I just met with three students who are here in Vancouver, studying. They've graduated high school from Windermere high school, but they've had to upgrade their courses. They're taking additional courses in adult education on Main and Terminal to be able to qualify for entry into Simon Fraser University to take accounting and business administration and also at BCIT for aerospace mechanics and repair.
I've had many meetings with students who attended the South Hill Education Centre, which delivers adult education programs to folks who have graduated from our high school system but need to upgrade their skills, and also with new immigrants who've arrived. Often they have professional credentials from another country which aren't recognized, or they need to improve their language skills. They need to upgrade those before they're eligible to be accepted to colleges — Vancouver Community College, BCIT, SFU or UBC — or to many other certificate training programs. They were shocked to hear that their courses had been cut.
They were very pleased to work with those students and have the Ministry of Education recognize that access and support for adults to upgrade their skills so that they can transition and move to and have more opportunities….
These individuals have a great desire to learn, to apply themselves and to be successful. They're willing to do that hard work, to make the sacrifice but also need to have the recognition that support for the provision of these adult education courses is an important component of allowing them to be successful. So I was disappointed that there was not a recognition of that in the budget and feel that that's an area that needs more emphasis, that needs to be improved.
As well, the whole area of access to post-secondary education is a huge priority. I think that the budget has failed to address that, to recognize that. As the Deputy Chair of the Finance Committee, travelling British Columbia, that was the single largest concern and theme that came out, that we heard right across the province in all communities — from educators, from students, from businesses, from mayors and councils, and industry — the need for more skilled workers. There are jobs available today, but there's a shortage of skilled workers.
On the other hand, there are also many British Columbians who are willing to take that training and to transition into those jobs. But there needs to be a recognition, and I think the budget falls short and really doesn't
[ Page 13291 ]
understand that challenge and the need to support post-secondary education. We've seen a cut, the second consecutive cut to the Ministry of Advanced Education. This is the wrong view. I think it really is shortsighted. It's not the direction we need to go.
Another priority that faces my constituents that I hear a lot about is that there's a need for investment in public transit. I know that many of my constituents use the transit system, which is reliable and strong in British Columbia, but there's a need to invest in our public transit system. There's a need for more buses, and the budget falls short on that measure.
The budget falls short on ensuring that students in school and high school are supported. We've seen a cut of support teachers, English as a second language, multicultural workers, librarians, counsellors, special needs teachers. The budget falls short in terms of addressing the need to support students and their success in school. I'm very concerned about that. I meet with constituents, and that's a priority that the budget falls short, does not meet, which is also a disappointment.
There's a lot more to say on the budget, but those are the main points that I wanted to bring forward, questioning the credibility of the budget, that it actually is not a balanced budget. It's a bogus budget. It repeats the pattern of the 2009 pre-election budget, and it doesn't meet concerns and priorities for constituents in British Columbia, does not lay out a vision for British Columbia and does not chart out a positive vision for British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the budget.
C. James: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Deputy Speaker: Proceed.
Introductions by Members
C. James: I have today in the gallery a school group visiting. Christ Church Cathedral School was here with 22 grade five students, parents and their teacher, Ms. Julia Borzoni. Would the House please make them very welcome.
R. Fleming: In the precinct are 24 students from Cloverdale Traditional Elementary School, in my constituency. They are here with their teacher, Ms. Emily Barrieau, and three other adults, getting a wonderful tour through the buildings. I faced a grilling from these grade 5 students earlier in the rotunda — very good questions from the students.
There's something significant about Cloverdale Traditional School and this group of schoolchildren. These kids were in kindergarten when their school was threatened with closure. The school district and the community rallied behind keeping that school open. They changed the format of the school to a traditional delivery and the first public school in our district, district 61, to have a traditional curriculum and format.
So these kids that are in the precinct today, the grade 5 students, are the first graduating class from Cloverdale Traditional School. I'd like the House to make them most welcome.
Debate Continued
E. Foster: As is traditional when members speak to the budget and the throne speech, we all say nice things about our riding and our staff and our friends, so I'm not going to break with that tradition. I'm disappointed that the member for Surrey-Tynehead isn't here, because I wanted to just quickly speak about one of the greatest schools in British Columbia, which is in my riding. It's the Cherryville Elementary School.
I was out there last week. It's a small school in a very rural community that's very vibrant. They're doing a great job, the staff there. The parents get involved. The students are involved in all sorts of things in the community. So to my friends at the Cherryville Elementary School, I just wanted to say good morning.
As is also traditional, we thank our partners, our spouses. In my case, my wife, Janice, has been a huge supporter of me and of my political career, certainly my life for the last 25 years. When I first ran for local government — actually, they called us aldermen in those days before we were called councillors — back in 1985 in Lumby, my wife, Janice, was very supportive then. She ran around and hung posters up for me and all sorts of things. She's been on the political team since day one in 1985.
And a couple of comments about my constituency staff. My constituency assistant, Min Sidhu, has been with me since I was elected in '09 but prior to that, through two terms with Tom Christensen, who preceded me, and April Sanders, who was the MLA from Vernon in the late '90s. So she's been there for 16 years now and does a tremendous job — well respected, well-known in our community and certainly in the political community. Sue Grandy, who is a part-time assistant in our office, has been with us a few years and also does a great job.
I'd like just to mention a number of people who have been staff in the Whip's office. I've been in the Whip's office, both as a deputy and the government caucus Whip, since I arrived in '09. Kevin Dixon, who has been there for quite for a few years, is now down in caucus management. He's been a great help.
Cameron Ehl, who is in the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training now, was the fellow who, I remember — the minister mentioned him as well — mentioned that when you first come to this place, it's hard to find your way around. I headed out of my office one day without a
[ Page 13292 ]
jacket on during the time the House was sitting, and fortunately, he grabbed me by the belt and said: "Oh no, no, no. No walking in the halls without your jacket on." I'm a logger by trade. I didn't even own a suit jacket. I had a sports coat to go to funerals before I arrived here.
To all the staff that I've worked with here over the last four years and plan to work with over the next four years, too, just in case there was any doubt about that…. They do a great job. I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House. The political staff in this building go well beyond what we would expect of employees. So to all the folks that have worked in the Whip's office — Kevin, Cam, Rick, Rob and Julia, who are in there now — I want to thank them very much for all their support.
The member that spoke before me had a few comments about people who won't be reoffering in May for the election, so I'd just like to think them for the efforts they've put in. I just want to…. It's sort of a special comment to families, and I know the member for Prince George–Mackenzie mentioned this — how important it is that we have the support of our families.
I want to especially reach out and thank those members of this House who have younger families. It's difficult for those of us whose children are grown and away to, you know, balance your family life and your political life and the travelling and so on. It must be extremely difficult for those of you that have younger children, trying to balance that on top of it. I just want to say thank you to all members of the House for all the hard work they do and the dedication they put in, and the sacrifices that you have to make for your family.
I'd like to speak to Budget 2013 and how proud I am to be able to stand up and endorse this balanced budget. As a government we've had to make sacrifices, constraints, struggling through where the money has to go in order to balance the budget, in order to maintain that triple-A credit rating that we are so rightfully proud of.
We need to move forward. We need to look at selling our goods on a global scale. We need to open new markets. We need to work with the folks in private industry in this province to help them succeed, because as they succeed, so does the government in that we have that money — that cash flow, if you will — to provide all the social programs and the education, and so on, that we need to.
Members opposite have and will continue to offer criticisms. Sometimes they have some suggestions, but more than not, they don't. It's part of the job of opposition, obviously, to criticize. But it would be nice to hear some real positive suggestions from them sometime.
We could continue to run a government at a deficit. Many governments do. But just because we can, doesn't mean we should or that we will. As my colleague mentioned last week, it's simply and plainly the wrong choice, not just for today but for the future of our province and for the generations yet to come.
It would be selfish to move forward without ensuring our children and grandchildren have a strong foundation for a prosperous future, and that is why I stand strongly behind Budget 2013. With it we can ensure a brighter future for our children.
We have been working towards and have been successful in diversifying our markets. Let's remember that in 2001, 70 percent of our exports went to the United States. Let's take a look at it now. Trade to the United States accounts for about 45 percent of our exports, and 41 percent of our exports are now purchased by Asia. This is significant. We can't ignore the 60 percent increase in India. These are the markets that we must build a relationship with now before they are poached by other countries.
The demand for natural gas is increasing, and right now we can only sell to the United States. Again, we need to act now. We need to develop our liquefied natural gas now. Asian economies are in need of the energy. The Indian market, with one of the fastest-growing middle classes, can benefit from our resources. We have an opportunity to outsource our resources to an economy in need of our energy. We can help out and, in turn, ensure a prosperous future for British Columbians.
As I just mentioned, I spent my life in the forest industry. Through high school I worked part-time. I put myself through university, working in the summer in the logging industry, and have worked in the forest industry my whole life, up until I came to this place. We have seen some rough times in the forest industry. The American market, of course, went in the tank. Luckily, we were able to, through a lot of hard work by our government, develop very prosperous markets in China. Those markets in China have helped to keep the forest industry alive over the last few years.
Last spring and summer I had the opportunity to travel with the committee on the timber review with members of this House. We saw a lot of things that you don't see if you don't get to go on those types of tours. We worked hard on a document that we unanimously sent to the House.
I want to thank all of the members of that committee, and I see a couple of the members of the committee are here in the House. I want to say thank you to them for the hard work. My friend and colleague from Cowichan Valley — he and I don't always agree philosophically how we need to get to the other end of things. One thing we do agree on….
Coming out of the forest industry, having put our whole lives into the forest industry, we both agree on how it's important for us to build a future in the forest industry, protect what we have, diversify our markets and keep things going. Again, to my colleague from the Cowichan Valley, no one was happier than I to see him arrive in the House, getting over some of his difficulties
[ Page 13293 ]
over the last while.
The forest industry in British Columbia has been central to our economy since the beginning of time here, and it still plays an extremely important role in our economy. We're moving forward with it. We're seeing, again, the diversified markets, the opportunities in Asia and China that will enable us to keep that industry vibrant.
I agreed to cut my time here short, so I'm jumping through my notes a little bit.
I also worked in education — again, involved with the forest sector. I taught forestry at the high school in Lumby, a vocational program for individuals that were not high academics. It was a great program, and we invested heavily in it. I was brought on board to develop a woodlot to help finance the program.
In the 15 years that I spent with the forestry program at Charles Bloom high school in Lumby, I got to learn a little bit about the education system and the investment that this government has made in the education system.
Certainly, in my riding we have two brand-new schools. Coldstream Elementary replaced a school that had been on that site for over 100 years. Now they have a brand-new, green, naturally lit, gorgeous school for K to 7. Just over this past 2012 Christmas break the new Vernon Secondary School was opened. Students were able to start classes there right after Christmas. So two big investments in education in my riding alone over the last few years.
One more thing I'd like to touch on quickly here is the transportation and the highway corridors and the investments that this government has made in transportation over the last number of years. As just an example, in the Thompson-Okanagan region $1.3 billion in highway upgrades and improvements — $1.3 billion, a huge investment in highways in our area.
Mr. Speaker, as I look at my watch, I see the time is coming close. I want to close by saying that I'm very proud of this budget. This is the budget that the people of British Columbia needed. We need a balanced budget. We cannot afford to spend our communities' hard-earned tax dollars sending interest payments off to other parts of the world. We don't need our credit rating downgraded.
I take my leave now in support of Budget 2013 and thank the House.
A. Dix: When I spoke a few weeks ago in the throne speech debate, I acknowledged members of the House who are not seeking re-election. Since that time we've heard from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie that he is not seeking re-election. I know he spoke today on the speech, and I just wanted to express my appreciation to him for all the work he has done and to all members of the House. The work we do together here…. Often the work is together here — more often, I think, than people realize. The work that he has done here has been a great contribution to his constituency, which is the most important thing, and to the people of B.C.
I have — and my colleagues on the opposition side are going to find this both enjoyable and interesting — ten minutes to speak to this budget, by agreement with the government. We're going to be voting on the budget shortly — something that I'm sure all members of the House are looking forward to.
So I just wanted to say a few brief comments in summary of this budget, the direction the government is taking in the province and the different direction that we think the province needs to go in the coming years.
Firstly, I think what we have here is a budget that, frankly, lacks vision for the province. The main argument the government has made on its own behalf is that the government claims the budget is balanced. Of course, it's pretty clear, on the face of it, that this is the fifth deficit budget in a row. Proposed… A $197 million claimed surplus but, also, $150 million moved from one fiscal year to another and $800 million in asset sales.
Recall the views of Don Drummond in his report for the Ontario government, when he said, with respect to asset sales: "Do not count chickens before they are hatched. If assets are to be sold, never incorporate any revenue from such planned sales into a budget before the fact." I think the point here is that the entire balanced budget depends on asset sales that the government is claiming in advance.
One of those asset sales, as members of the House will know, is the Little Mountain project. It's very significant. Without the Little Mountain project, the budget would be in deficit on its own. The government claimed that money last year in its budget, when it came in with its deficit target. It's claiming it again this year. They weren't able to realize that last year, and who knows what they'll be able to do this year. So $800 million in asset sales. This proposal of a balanced budget is totally and really solely dependent on those asset sales.
What else is it dependent on? The member for Juan de Fuca recently reviewed the government's presentation of its energy plans. We don't get that information through the BCUC because the government has generally avoided that sort of scrutiny.
But we know that over the next four years B.C. Hydro is facing $1.2 billion in losses on energy projects that are surplus to our needs and which we will pay expensively for. The government in this budget, as deferral accounts climb dramatically, is again taking very significant money from B.C. Hydro one more time, without which the budget would not be balanced on its own.
Then, of course, on top of that, if you can believe it, the government is making claims with respect to budget savings which they have not detailed and which are plainly not realistic — $233 million against the budget tabled last year by the former Finance Minister with respect to health care, with no explanation as to how we might ar-
[ Page 13294 ]
rive there.
Just to put it in context, put it in detail…. As everyone knows, when one is claiming cuts, they involve significant impacts on people. Just look at the material assumptions, for example, for an organization such as Community Living B.C. Those in residential care, over the plan of the budget, will each lose 10 percent of their funding, on average. Those people in day programs will each lose 12 percent of their funding, on average. Those people in the personal supports initiative will each lose, on average, 60 percent of their funding.
These are not programs where you can make haste with economies of scale. We are talking about funding for individuals in need, often, of comprehensive care. No suggestion — none provided — on how they could possibly meet these targets.
So what we have here…. I know that this is largely a communications exercise. I know that.
On Sunday night I was watching the hockey game. In the third period the Canucks lost the lead and actually lost the game. It was unfortunate. There were one or two bad calls.
But the worst call, in the third period, was the decision of the government, at a time when they are presenting a budget that cuts supports for people with developmental disabilities, to run government ads claiming a balanced budget for a budget that is not balanced.
I think that this budget is tough on adults with developmental disabilities, is tough on seniors in the health care system, is tough on students and is limiting access in terms of skills training.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
But it is not tough on the Liberal government, which is running ad after ad and which is spending — as we all know, at a time when they say resources are scarce — $11 million on an awards pageant just before the election. This is a government that at this time in its mandate — a government that has had, as all governments do, successes and failures — deserves some time in opposition.
I think that, clearly, whoever wins the next election — and that may be the Liberal Party; that may be the New Democratic Party; it may be somebody else — is going to face a difficult, lousy fiscal situation that they're going to deal with. This forces all of us to act in these times with prudence — not the prudence of running re-election campaign ads paid by the taxpayer but real prudence.
We've got to lay out where we see the priorities for British Columbia to be. I think, in these times when we see growing inequality and the lack, for most businesses in the province, of access to the skilled workers they need to grow and to achieve greater prosperity, that that should have been a key item in this budget. Instead, we saw the opposite.
The opposition has made clear that it will be a priority. We've put out specific proposals about why we think it's a priority and how we would make it a priority. We've said how we're going to pay for them. The government, in contrast — and this is unfortunate — is advertising on skills training while proposing cuts to the ITA over the next three years, the actual budget to the ITA, and cuts to post-secondary education.
This is, I think, a key debate for our future. At a time when our resources and our ability as a government to redistribute wealth is limited because of the fiscal situation of the government, we have to ensure that young people, in particular, have the means to pre-distribute wealth, the means in the labour market to succeed.
This budget does the opposite of that. It takes away opportunity when we need to be ensuring opportunity. Our future prosperity depends on it. For young people, it's a critical priority.
I heard the thoughtful comments of the Minister of Jobs earlier, about the importance for us, in natural gas, to upgrade our resources. I agree with those comments. It is important that we do that, and LNG is an important opportunity for British Columbia.
That opportunity, of course, because of the laws we put in place in this House, depends on our willingness and ability at the same time to address our responsibilities around climate change. We need to do that.
But I would say this. A successful economy also depends on a successful forest industry, a successful tourism industry, a successful mining industry, a successful film and television industry. The idea that you would put all of your eggs in one basket is not the right idea, and history tells us this every time we seek to learn from it.
It's not one opportunity but many that make a successful society, and it's not one opportunity but many that ensure a successful economy. We have to remember that this is about people and their opportunity — their ability to access this opportunity.
Unfortunately, at the end of its mandate the government has lost sight of this. But we haven't. We haven't on this side of the House, and we are going to continue, in the days and weeks to come, to show a different path than this.
We know that this deficit budget, this financial situation that we will inherit, limits some of the opportunities that government can bring. We are not deterred by that. We think that this is the time now to ensure that young
[ Page 13295 ]
people have the full range of opportunities in the future.
This is the time now to ensure, as members on all sides of the House said in the Timber Supply Committee report, that our forest health — which is so much a part of our opportunity for the future — is maintained. This is the time now to ensure that young people are not denied fundamental opportunities because of a high child-poverty rate. This is the time now to act on these priorities as well, consistent with our means, consistent with our principles, consistent with the goals of this province.
Hon. Speaker, we will be voting against this budget because it does not address the future of the province in a credible way. But I'm sure we will have more debate on that in the days and weeks to come.
Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance closes debate.
Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to the debate, and to all members of the chamber who over the course of the past couple of weeks have stood and contributed to the discussion around that all-important document, the budget.
Some of those members, as has been pointed out, have chosen not to seek re-election and will not be returning to the House. To those who have made that decision, let me also say thank you not just for the contribution to this debate but to public life in British Columbia and the development of public policy over the course of their sometimes lengthy tenures in this place.
May I also say quickly that the budget documents, whatever one's perspective on them may be — I think all members will acknowledge — represent the work and the efforts of a great many people who apply themselves within the public service diligently to the task of providing the information upon which elected officials like us make decisions. I hope all members will also join me in extending our thanks to those very diligent and professional public servants who have contributed to the presentation of the budget this year.
I am, as I said, gratified to have heard the comments of all members. I suppose I might say that I'm slightly more gratified to hear the comments of those who recognize and characterize the budget for what I believe it is: a responsible and reasonable articulation of fiscal policy going forward that balances our desire to achieve legitimate ends through the levers that are available to government against the limited ability that taxpayers have — taxpayers who are ultimately responsible for providing the means to achieve those ends — to pay for it.
In so doing, I acknowledge, as I did at the initial stage, that this budget resists the always-present temptation to go on a pre-election spending spree. That is also an important distinction that many members who spoke acknowledged in this budget.
I, as is customary as Finance Minister, began the discussion with a presentation of the budget. The opposition critic then began the process of critiquing the document. So I thought I'd take a moment to consider what the opposition said.
What, if anything in particular, did the opposition do to take advantage of this opportunity not just to criticize but to lay out a constructive alternative — a constructive alternative that British Columbians very shortly will need to consider in making a very important decision? And with apologies to a great statesman, I don't think I'm unkind in observing that on that front, rarely in the annals of this Legislature have so many taken so long to say so little. We didn't hear much of anything in the way of an alternative vision.
I did learn one thing today, and I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for this. I knew it could only be a matter of time before the opposition was blaming the government for a Canucks loss, but we have seen that. We have seen….
Mr. Speaker: Minister, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but pursuant to schedule 2 of Standing Order 45A, I'm required to now put the question.
A. Dix: May I suggest, by unanimous consent of the House, we allow the minister, who has agreed not to speak too long, to have an opportunity to finish his remarks. Can we ask that by unanimous consent?
Leave granted.
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm obliged to the House and to the leader and will conclude my remarks expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, I heard no critique from the opposition around the growth projections, probably because they, in their hearts, know that they are accurate. I have heard from the opposition criticism of the steps we are taking to control spending. Apparently, $2.4 billion additional for the health care budget is not enough. I have heard nothing from the opposition about what they deem to be a sufficient amount. A 2.6 percent growth — insufficient. No indication from the opposition as to what is sufficient. This is an important discussion.
I thought we would begin to see a little bit from the opposition about what their plan would be. We did not. So it is left for British Columbians to hope that at some point the opposition agrees to present the details around that. We heard virtually nothing from the opposition, though we know from remarks outside of the House that they have some plans on the taxation front. We have heard from certain members that the increase in the corporate income tax would be significantly higher under the NDP.
Surely, this is the discussion in which British Columbians are entitled to hear in detail what those alternatives would be.
I suppose most importantly, Mr. Speaker, as we consider the choice today and, ultimately, the choice in May,
[ Page 13296 ]
it has become clear in the course of the discussion that has unfolded here that not only does the opposition not believe it is important to respect taxpayers by balancing their books; there is no attention whatsoever being given to how that might be achieved.
Time and time again they have stood and discounted and dismissed the measures the government has taken to achieve those on the revenue front. On the spending front, I don't think I could pick an area in the budget where a member of the opposition has not stood and said: "There should be more money spent." They don't compute, unless you are resolved to commit and condemn the province to year after year of deficits.
That is not our choice. We believe that responsible government requires difficult choices and requires that we respect the taxpayer by presenting a plan that will ensure we are not spending more than the taxpayer can afford to provide to its government in Victoria.
Today we have that choice between a clear vision that incorporates notions of spending discipline, that admittedly makes tough decisions, that does not engage in a pre-election spending spree of the sort that historically may have taken place in British Columbia. That or a choice of sorts, because it is a choice that the opposition refuses to fully disclose at a time when it is important to do so.
I know that members in making that decision today will be guided by their beliefs and guided by the positions that their parties have taken. But Mr. Speaker, in just a little while, British Columbians will be confronted by a different choice.
I still believe this. I still believe that the vast majority of British Columbians look to their government to exercise the kind of responsible management and balanced management of their finances that this budget represents, which I characterized a few weeks ago — and will do so again — as being, in every sense of the word, balanced.
I move, seconded by the hon. Premier of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 45 |
||
Thomson |
Yap |
Sultan |
Stilwell |
Yamamoto |
Chong |
Lake |
Letnick |
Stewart |
Abbott |
Falcon |
Barnett |
Lee |
McNeil |
Hawes |
Lekstrom |
Bloy |
Krueger |
Cantelon |
McIntyre |
Reid |
Cadieux |
Polak |
Bell |
de Jong |
Clark |
Coleman |
Bond |
MacDiarmid |
McRae |
Bennett |
Hansen |
Horne |
Thornthwaite |
Dalton |
Rustad |
Hogg |
Hayer |
Les |
Howard |
Huntington |
Pimm |
Foster |
Slater |
Coell |
NAYS — 38 |
||
James |
S. Simpson |
Corrigan |
Horgan |
Dix |
Farnworth |
Ralston |
Kwan |
Fleming |
Lali |
Popham |
Austin |
Conroy |
Brar |
Donaldson |
D. Routley |
Hammell |
Trevena |
Elmore |
Bains |
Mungall |
Karagianis |
Chandra Herbert |
Krog |
Trasolini |
Simons |
O'Mahony |
Fraser |
B. Routley |
Macdonald |
Coons |
Chouhan |
B. Simpson |
van Dongen |
Black |
Thorne |
Gentner |
|
Sather |
Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.
Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada