2013 Legislative Session: First Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 4

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

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2013

The House met at 1:37 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, on behalf of all guests, it gives me great pleasure to welcome all our guests to Victoria today and to this very special place. Thank you for joining us.

Tributes

GARDE GARDOM

Hon. S. Anton: I rise today to pay tribute to a former member of the House who left an indelible mark on this great province — the former Lieutenant-Governor and former Attorney General, the hon. Garde Basil Gardom.

The hon. Garde Gardom was born in Banff, Alberta, but his life's work was dedicated to the betterment of British Columbia. He was elected to this Legislative Assembly for the first time in 1966, and he would go on to be elected by the people of Vancouver–Point Grey five more times.

His work has astonishing breadth. He was Attorney General from 1975 to 1979. He was chair of the legislative committee and B.C.'s first Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

He helped establish the Ombudsman, the Auditor General, the right to sue the Crown, and Hansard. He initiated CounterAttack against drinking and driving in 1978 while Attorney General, a program that is still performing vital and life-saving work more than 30 years later.

In 1985 he became responsible for the official visits program for Expo, and in 1986 he became B.C.'s agent general in the U.K. and Europe until 1992.

In 1995 he was sworn in as the 26th Lieutenant-Governor of the province he loved so much. In 2002 he was a recipient of the Order of British Columbia.

Simply stated, the hon. Garde Gardom was a leader in every sense of the word. I did have the fortune of knowing the hon. Garde Gardom personally, as did many in this chamber.

In his picture outside my office, the Attorney General's office, he has a big smile. He always had a big smile. He enjoyed life. He was a positive champion for British Columbia, a loving member of his family and a great Canadian. He will be missed. [Applause.]

[1340]

A. Dix: It's an honour for all of us to reflect on the really extraordinary career of Garde Gardom. He was elected — as the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, said — in 1966. The first three times he was elected, he was elected on the opposition side. Then the next three times he was elected, he was elected on the government side. As the Minister of Justice has suggested, he achieved a lot in both places.

Some of the things — Hansard and the Ombudsperson…. These were reports of legislative committees, of an active legislature in the Barrett years, when everyone was respected and involved. Some people even crossed the floor, like Garde Gardom did.

It was an active and interesting time, when everyone was involved. Garde Gardom, I think, reflected that time in politics, when we could have strong debates but we could also work together on things, and his career reflected that.

He had great achievements on the government side, as we know, as minister of intergovernmental affairs during a period when constitutional debates were at the centre of Canadian political life. Garde Gardom was very much part of that. They were important times for the history of Canada, and Garde Gardom, like many people, spoke out strongly — both in western Canada, when this idea was broached, and with respect to Quebec — about the importance of a united Canada.

His service to British Columbia continued, as everyone knows — agent general in London, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. But also, he was a sort of indelible figure — a representative of Vancouver–Point Grey, knew his community, was respected in his community, elected first as a Liberal, then as a Social Credit MLA.

He was a larger-than-life character. We miss him, and we pass on all the very best to his five children and 11 grandchildren. [Applause.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. de Jong: To everything there is a season, and as we celebrate the birth of a new parliament, the day must not pass, this your first full day in the chair, the birth of the Speaker herself….

Happy birthday, Madame Speaker, from all of the members. [Applause.]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

VOLUNTEER ACTIVITIES
OF ELINOR RHYNAS

R. Fleming: I rise today to pay tribute to Elinor Rhynas, an outstanding woman in our community who passed away unexpectedly but peacefully in her home a few weeks ago.
[ Page 26 ]

Elinor Rhynas spent her entire adult life in the service of the communities in which she lived. For the last two decades she provided a continuous support for the revitalization of the Quadra village area of Victoria, where she resided with her husband, Michael Hemming.

Elinor understood the critical importance of people working together to create a strong and vibrant community. She worked hard to bring neighbourhood residents, commercial businesses and government together to serve a unified vision of neighbourhood improvement that strengthens the entire community and benefits people from every walk of life within it.

As any good leader does, Elinor provided mentorship and encouragement to others in the community. She was a tireless promoter of the principle that volunteerism is essential to building a strong neighbourhood, and because of her, the Quadra village area today is now recognized as one of the strongest and best communities in Victoria.

Elinor was a lifelong educator, with a passion for and dedication to promoting literacy. She volunteered extensively with the Victoria READ Society and believed literacy was a basic right of any citizen in our society.

Whatever endeavour Elinor took on, it was done with great enthusiasm and commitment. Elinor always went above and beyond the call of a volunteer. She was truly an extraordinary and valued elder in the community. She will be greatly missed by many people.

Last December I had the honour of acknowledging Elinor's many contributions and presented her with a medal for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. I would ask the House to please recognize Elinor's many contributions over her lifetime and pass on condolences from the House to her family.

ACTIVITIES OF NORTH SHORE RESCUE

J. Thornthwaite: British Columbians love to get out and enjoy nature. It's not surprising when you see the diverse natural beauty we have all across the province and in particular on the North Shore. These activities, however, come with a measure of risk, from avalanches in the winter to people simply getting lost.

On the North Shore we have one of the oldest search and rescue teams in Canada, North Shore Rescue. They've earned a reputation for excellence through the countless stories of people whose lives they've saved, stories that could have otherwise ended in tragedy.

[1345]

Last Friday night I was privileged to review their Mount Seymour station during the 60th-anniversary Korean War peace ceremony and 24-hour hike. I also attended the Ride for Rescue, a Rotary club fundraiser for North Shore Rescue at Cypress Mountain, a couple of weeks before.

I'm always reminded at these events of the important role North Shore Rescue has in our community. Their exemplary record will be recognized by the Justice Institute of B.C. later this year when they receive the Dr. Joseph H. Cohen Award for their outstanding contribution in the field of public safety. This award is well deserved, so I offer them my congratulations. They really do deserve our appreciation for their dedication to our society. Thank you, North Shore Rescue.

GINGER GOODWIN WAY
AND MINEWORKERS' RIGHTS

C. Trevena: Early in the Liberals' mandate they removed the memorial name on a stretch of the inland Island Highway known as Ginger Goodwin Way. The attempt to erase a piece of B.C.'s and Canada's history, the history of the people, didn't work.

It was 12 years ago, but it hasn't stopped people gathering every June just below the road at the Cumberland Cemetery to commemorate the killing of Ginger Goodwin and the deaths of hundreds of other miners.

Miners from Quinsam Coal and from Myra Falls stand along with other union members from across the province and, oftentimes, other countries. There are, in fact, three separate cemeteries: one for the white miners, divided into Catholic and Protestant; one for the Chinese; and one for the Japanese. Many of these graves go unmarked. Many are mass graves, because of the devastating accidents in the mines. It's a poignant ceremony, but also one of hope.

The tragedy is that so many miners have died doing their job, workers getting the resources our society depends on. Wherever it happens — here in Canada, South Africa, Chile, China — it's so often because companies are putting profits before the people who work for them. Miners have been in the forefront of the fight for union rights internationally, and they've often been the targets for right-wing governments.

Ginger Goodwin was killed when he was fighting for those rights — the right to work in safe conditions, to work reasonable hours, to have pensions, to work for a fair wage that won't be cut because shareholders want more — the rights that are being steadily eroded here in B.C. and across Canada by right-wing governments who, too, put profits before the people they're supposed to serve.

The hope comes from solidarity, because while workers come together to organize, there is a chance for a better tomorrow for everyone. The people united will never be defeated.

AWARD RECIPIENTS IN
BOUNDARY-SIMILKAMEEN AREA

L. Larson: From Boundary-Similkameen I would like to take this opportunity to extend congratulations
[ Page 27 ]
to Maxwell Nicholson, from Grand Forks Secondary, who won first place in the Discover Trades B.C. contest. Maxwell has won a Mac Pro for himself and $2,000 for his school, to support trades and technology education.

The Lieutenant-Governor's Awards for Excellence in B.C. Wines recognized 11 wineries this year. Eight of the 11 are in the Boundary-Similkameen riding. Awards will be presented to Eau Vivre Winery in Cawston; Burrowing Owl, Church and State, Inniskillin Wines, Stoneboat, and Hester Creek from Oliver; and Stag's Hollow and Wild Goose Vineyards from OK Falls. One hundred and nine wineries submitted 402 wines.

Finally, special thanks to the tour staff here at the Legislature for welcoming Ms. Kim Bartlett's class from Christina Lake Elementary and Ms. Cathy Pankoff's class from Greenwood Elementary to the Legislature.

BURNABY BOARD OF TRADE SUPPORT
FOR FILM AND TELEVISION INDUSTRY

K. Corrigan: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to highlight an initiative of a very important organization, the Burnaby Board of Trade, who, "in the interest of a strong, innovative and diverse creative economy, is calling on government to increase their support for British Columbia's film and television industry by finding ways to increase the tax competitiveness of the industry."

B.C.'s film industry creates over 20,000 jobs and contributes over $1 billion annually to the provincial economy through production spending, much of it flowing in from outside the province. In Burnaby, specifically, where 62 percent of the Lower Mainland's purpose-built studio space exists, the industry injected over $400 million in direct and indirect spending into the local economy last year and employed 2,400 residents, who earned almost $33 million over that period.

[1350]

Through its board of directors and government relations committee, the Burnaby Board of Trade calls on government to address current industry concerns by finding ways to increase the tax competitiveness of the industry and to better support the growth of film and television production in B.C.

We on this side of the House couldn't agree more with our local board of trade on this matter. We believe, as the board of trade in Burnaby obviously believes, this industry — which is green, which has well-paid direct and indirect jobs and a very robust economic spinoff effect, and for which we have highly qualified and talented people as well as extensive investment in state-of-the art infrastructure — is an industry well worthy of support.

I'd also like to recognize the Burnaby Film Office, which helps production companies access city services and obtain the proper permits.

Finally, kudos generally to the Burnaby Board of Trade, which does a great job in Burnaby, where it represents over 1,000 local businesses, organizations and entrepreneurs.

OCEANSIDE HEALTH CENTRE

Michelle Stilwell: Today I salute a recent health care investment in my riding of Parksville-Qualicum with the opening of the Oceanside Health Centre on June 24. While I was unable to attend the opening, I would like to thank the Minister of Health for being there to represent our government. I also want to express my sincerest gratitude to former MLA Ron Cantelon for being a tireless advocate for this project.

I would like to recognize all of those at the Vancouver Island Health Authority for their hard work in making this project a reality, and thank you to the Nanaimo regional hospital district for their support in making this almost $17 million project happen for the community.

Built to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards, the Oceanside Health Centre is providing patients and families with immediate and accessible health care. The centre's various health care services are staffed with an integrated community primary care team working seven days a week, and include environmental health, specialty care, medical imaging and out-patient laboratory services equipped with advanced technology. The urgent-care ward will open in September, providing year-round emergency services and procedures. In addition, the medical day care ward will open in September, along with the primary care ward.

This long-anticipated project, a necessary facility, has a huge impact on the Oceanside community. Instead of travelling out to St. Joseph's General Hospital or the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital, the Oceanside Health Centre will reduce both travel time and wait time for patients and families.

This investment supports our government's family-first agenda. As a mother and a longtime Oceanside resident, I'm glad to see this much-needed facility open up. I ask all members to join me in thanking those who have worked tirelessly to make the Oceanside Health Centre a reality.

Oral Questions

NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION LINE
PROJECT COSTS AND OVERSIGHT

A. Dix: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Yesterday B.C. Hydro acknowledged a $342 million cost overrun on the northwest transmission line. A simple question to the minister: how could the government's estimates have been so massively wrong? How could this project, in a couple of years, run $340 million over budget?
[ Page 28 ]

Hon. B. Bennett: Thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for the first question of this session. Perhaps it's a dubious honour to get it, but I'm honoured to get the first question, as difficult a question as it is, quite frankly.

We're not pleased with the additional cost to the northwest transmission line that was announced. It's $144 million. That's the additional cost that we didn't know about until very recently.

[1355]

I can tell the hon. member and all members of the House that I will be meeting often, quickly, with B.C. Hydro to determine how this happens. Our government does not support this way of managing capital projects, and we will get to the bottom of it.

Having said that, this is a nation-building exercise. This project will open up the north half of the province of British Columbia. That would be the half that the Leader of the Opposition did not go into during the election campaign.

The costs of not doing this project are much more of a threat to the people of British Columbia than what we are facing today.

Again, having said that, we do not take this announcement or this news lightly, and we will be going to work to figure out how it happened.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Let's get this straight. The Minister Responsible for Core Review, the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, doesn't have any idea, not any idea, how they could go $342 million over budget.

People in B.C. support the northwest transmission line. They don't support this government's incompetence in this matter. Maybe one of the reasons why is that government, in its arrogance, exempted this project from the B.C. Utilities Commission process. Maybe that's one of the reasons why.

So perhaps the minister, when he's getting to the bottom of a $342 million blunder on the part of the government, one they didn't tell us about before the election…. They said it was $561 million before the election, and now suddenly, magically, he discovers another $170 million in cost overruns now to tell the people of British Columbia about.

Can he give any explanation to ratepayers and taxpayers for this, frankly, outright incompetence on the part of the government?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, first of all, the Leader of the Opposition claims that the opposition does support this project when in fact the NDP member from that area has said that this project, the electrification of Highway 37, is a waste of time.

On this side of the House, while it's true that we are definitely not happy about the $144 million that we became aware of very recently, certainly after the election, we think that this project is about nation-building.

Red Chris Mine. Now, I know that the opposition has trouble with mining, and I know that the mining industry is petrified of an NDP government — part of the reason that they lost the election. Red Chris Mine will employ 350 people. Many of those people will be First Nations people. There'll be Nisga'a. There'll be Tahltan. There'll be other First Nations people. They're excited about this opportunity, and this opportunity does not exist unless we have electricity up that highway.

Madame Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Apparently, on a $342 million cost overrun — $342 million…. That could pay for quite a bit. It could pay for quite a bit, you know. It couldn't pay for the overrun on the convention centre. I agree with the Minister of Health. But it could pay for quite a bit in health care. It couldn't pay for that, but that's a lot of money. The minister is only talking about $144 million. This is $342 million over budget. He's the minister responsible to this House.

B.C. Hydro is blaming skills training. They apparently didn't know in 2010 there was a skills-training crisis in British Columbia when they did that.

Perhaps the minister could provide some explanation. If he can't explain the most recent $144 million overrun on the government's watch, how about the first $200 million in the overrun? Can he explain that to this House?

[1400]

Hon. B. Bennett: While it's true that I and everyone on this side of the House is very concerned about the extra $144 million that we've just learned of, at least this investment by B.C. Hydro is taking place in British Columbia and not in Pakistan. I am advised….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: I am advised that there are a number of reasons for this most recent cost overrun — reasons such as B.C. Hydro was slow to get started on construction because they had an obligation to negotiate economic benefit agreements with all of the First Nations, and there are several, who are impacted by the line. Those economic benefit agreements have been negotiated. The First Nations along the line are actually quite supportive. In fact, First Nations are involved in the construction of this power line.

That delayed the start point of the construction. I'm advised — I'm telling you what B.C. Hydro has told me — that, in fact, the slow start caused them to put additional
[ Page 29 ]
resources in at the front end of construction, which ended up costing them more money.

They've also told me that with a 340-kilometre transmission line…. Now, hon. Members, that's like going from Vancouver to Kamloops. They're building a line, and the geography is a little different between the Skeena substation and Bob Quinn. The Leader of the Opposition probably doesn't know where the Skeena substation would be — Meziaden. He probably doesn't know where Bob Quinn Lake is either.

In any case, they've done ten times more blasting than they expected to do, and the costs have been higher. Is that an excuse? No, I don't think that's an excuse, but that's the advice I've been given.

K. Corrigan: A big part of the problem is that this government knee-capped the B.C. Utilities Commission, and there is no more oversight — no oversight of $12 billion worth of projects. Now we're $342 million over budget and a year late.

Can the minister please explain why this government prevented the B.C. Utilities Commission from ensuring this power line was in the public interest?

Hon. B. Bennett: It sounds to me like the opposition is questioning whether the project actually is in the public interest, and so I would like to respond to the member by explaining that, in fact, that part of British Columbia doesn't have electricity. Electricity in that part of British Columbia is generated with dirty diesel fuel. One of the reasons, actually, that this line is being built is to facilitate the construction of three clean energy projects, one of them a very….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: We've got at least another three or four weeks, hon. Speaker, so the member doesn't need to be quite that eager.

There are at least three clean energy projects that we have on the books today that will be tapping into that transmission line. They wouldn't happen without the transmission line. There is the Red Chris Mine that is going to provide high wages — probably in the average of $90,000 to $100,000 to $110,000 a year — for 350 people, mostly First Nations. If that's not in the public interest, I don't know what is.

K. Corrigan: Well, given the fiscal mess that we are now in with regard to the northwest transmission line, my question is simple. Why does the minister think that it's a good idea not to have had this project go before the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think that the current debate about this project is probably a good platform to compare this side of the House with that side of House.

[1405]

We have determined, on this side of the House.... And we don't shrink from that. We've decided that getting electricity into the northwest corner of this province.... It's a big corner. Half of British Columbia, for those of you who don't know and have never been there, is north of Prince George.

We made this decision to have this transmission line constructed into the northwest after a great deal of thought, after a great deal of consultation with First Nations, with industry and with the public. Frankly, we stand behind the project, on this side of the House.

This is an incredibly important project to the future of British Columbia. We're going to build it, and it's going to be a great success. It's going to provide hundreds and hundreds of jobs to British Columbians. It's going to help us achieve the goals that, as a province, we want to achieve. And we've got — I should remind members — four more years to work on those goals.

NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION LINE
PROJECT COSTS AND ELECTRICITY RATES

N. Macdonald: I guess there we have it. The B.C. Liberal road to a debt-free British Columbia comes one $342-million overrun at a time. That's the reality that we're talking about — one mistake after another. So sort that one out.

The planning process for this project was completely inadequate. That's clear. It's precisely the reason why we have a utilities commission. It's there to protect the public. Can the minister answer a fairly precise question? How much will residential hydro bills increase to pay for this overrun?

J. Horgan: Point of order.

Madame Speaker: On a point of order.

Point of Order

J. Horgan: Yes. I'm wondering if the Sergeant-at-Arms can advise if guests in the precinct sitting on the outside, not members of this Legislature, are entitled to pass notes to ministers. I know I've certainly not seen that in my time in this place. I know that there are people seeking election, but you have to get elected to be active in this place, and passing notes to ministers is the wrong way to go.

Madame Speaker: I'll remind all members that the practice of this House is no points of order during question period.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, if I may, we have some-
[ Page 30 ]
one who's not a member of this place passing notes to a member of the executive council. I would suggest that's an extraordinary circumstance and worthy of a ruling — certainly, some understanding of why the Sergeant-at-Arms does not act upon it.

Madame Speaker: I'll take up this matter after question period with the member.

Debate Continued

Hon. B. Bennett: We have said yes to this project. We have said yes on this side of the House to electrifying Highway 37 and opening up a wonderful future of opportunity not only for the people who live in the northwest but also for all British Columbians. We believe that providing electricity up Highway 37 to Bob Quinn will open up opportunities for clean energy projects. Then the extension from Bob Quinn to Iskut will obviously provide electricity to the Red Chris project.

I can tell members on both sides of the House that I've been in the mining file before in a previous life or previous session here. I've spent extensive time tramping around in the northwest. There are literally dozens and dozens of mining projects that are so exciting for British Columbia's future. The Red Chris copper-gold porphyry deposit is one of the ten richest mineral deposits in the world. And the members are saying no.

N. Macdonald: Well, the point is, of course, that you bungled this exercise. You bungled it completely. It was supposed to come in at a set amount. You promised it would come in at a set amount. It's coming in at $342 million more — almost 80 percent more than you promised. You announced most of that or much of that post-election, as you often do with your post-election surprises.

[1410]

The question was: what is this going to ding ratepayers? You didn't answer that. Here's another question. Where are you going to put that? Are you going to hide it in deferral accounts, like you often do? If you do put it into deferral accounts, then where? How much is that going to cost in interest? Maybe you can tell that to the ratepayers. How much is that going to cost to ratepayers?

Madame Speaker: All members are so advised to direct their comments through the Chair.

Hon. B. Bennett: This is the second member that has suggested that members of the government knew about the extra $144 million before the election. Let me make it very clear to that member and to all members of the House — that no member of this government knew there would be an additional $144 million of cost in this project before the election. We have discovered this, to our dismay, quite recently.

In terms of the second part of the member's question, there is a tariff.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Bennett: Perhaps they don't want an answer.

The second part of the member's question goes to the cost and how the cost of the transmission line will be paid for. There is a tariff that has been developed that will enable the users of that power line — the mines, the clean energy projects — to pay the final capital cost of this project.

J. Horgan: I heard the Minister of Energy say that this is somehow going to achieve the objectives of the government. I'm wondering if debt-free just became a debt spree, because we've just added $350 million to the debt, and we're not done yet.

I'll remind members that the line is not due to come into service until the earliest of May 2014. We may well get to half a billion dollars, so we can rival the convention centre as the biggest boondoggle on the B.C. Liberal record sheet.

My question is a specific one to the Minister of Energy. It follows on my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke. This is not Monopoly money, Minister. There is going to be a rate consequence to this. Can the minister tell us what it is?

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, I should remind the member that the federal government is injecting $130 million into the capital costs of the project; that AltaGas, the company that is constructing the clean energy project at Forrest Kerr, is injecting $180 million into the project; and that Imperial Metals, the company that owns the Red Chris mining project, will also be injecting some capital into the cost of that power line.

In case the member missed my previous answer, there is a tariff that has been developed that will be utilized to recover the full capital cost of this project by the users of that line.

J. Horgan: I know the minister is new to the file, but the tariff that was negotiated in November of 2012 was based on a capital figure that was much, much lower than what we've got today, and we're not yet done. It's my opinion — and, I think, backed up by energy experts — that the tariff that was agreed to will not be sufficient to meet the capital requirements. Further, AltaGas that you referred to is one of those lucky independent power producers that got a 60-year power purchase agreement, the largest and longest power purchase agreement, so they could access the line.

The $180 million you are talking about is $90 million up front and $90 million over 60 years. Again, debt-free or debt spree? Just because you put it in a deferral ac-
[ Page 31 ]
count, Minister, doesn't mean it disappears. My question is quite simple. What is it going to cost the people of Surrey, Kamloops, Langford, for your fiasco on capital projects in the northwest?

[1415]

Hon. B. Bennett: I just want to be clear. My critic, who I have great respect for…. He's been on this file for a long time. I'm actually glad to see him back in his critic's role. I want to be clear about what he is saying. I think that what I hear him saying is that, first of all, the NDP does not support clean energy. That's the first thing that I hear him saying.

Secondly, I hear him saying that B.C. Hydro, government, should just pay cash for all of their capital projects. That's ridiculous.

Any capital project that is built by the province, whether it's the Ministry of Transportation…. For example, Highway 1. If you're going to invest a billion dollars in Highway 1, you're probably going to borrow that money at low interest rates because of the triple-A credit rating that this side of the House has. You're going to borrow that money at low interest rates. Then you're going to amortize it over many years and pay it back over time, which is what these regulatory accounts actually do.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING

M. Elmore: Three years ago my office was approached by Migrante, a community outreach group, with concerns about the safety of a Filipino woman named Leticia who was working in Vancouver under the live-in caregiver program. Fast-forward three years and a Vancouver man has been found guilty in the trafficking and enslaving of this very same woman under the guise of hiring her as a nanny.

In light of this shocking case and the countless other victims of human trafficking, what is the minister going to do to step up enforcement and ensure women like Leticia aren't exploited any further?

Hon. S. Anton: The decision that was rendered is a significant one. It's the first of its kind in Canada. Our government has taken human trafficking very seriously. It's a serious offence, and it's serious around the world. Sometimes we don't think it's serious here, but it's serious here as well.

In order to deal with the issue, earlier this year we launched B.C.'s action plan to combat human trafficking, which sets out our priorities and actions for the next three years in the fight against human trafficking. We also have an office to combat trafficking in persons which works to provide help with temporary residence permits, coordinate services for trafficked persons and advise community agencies on how to best meet the needs of trafficked persons.

This is an issue that we take very seriously indeed, and I thank the member for raising it.

M. Elmore: This case and this decision really exemplifies that there are many more cases in British Columbia. Many have been reported to me. It's an under-reported crime. The record of this government is they have cut services to the office to combat human trafficking in persons. They have a record of cutting services to these victims. They have cut a 24-hour protection line that would ensure that victims across the province would be able to access services, and a website has been cut. This is a travesty in British Columbia.

From 2007 to 2011 the office to combat trafficking in persons had received accolades as a leader in combating human trafficking. Yet in 2011 this government cut its budget in half and cut three-quarters of the staff positions.

While B.C. was once recognized as a leader in combating human trafficking, we're now at risk of falling behind. There are many other women in British Columbia, women and men, who haven't received justice and who don't have access to the services they need. Why is this government cutting services at a time when we should be increasing them?

Hon. S. Anton: This is a matter of great seriousness and import to this government, which is why we are a leader in the country on the issue. That is why we opened the office to combat human trafficking in persons, which has assisted over 160 people in the few years that it's been open.

This continues to be a priority for us. It's important to all of us in this society, and it continues to be important to this government. It's a priority in our ministry, and I'm very proud of what we've been doing to date.

[1420]

PAVING OF ROAD TO ZEBALLOS

C. Trevena: Can the minister tell us when the road to Zeballos will be paved?

Hon. T. Stone: I will take that question on notice.

MAYORS COUNCIL POSITION ON
REFERENDUM ON
TransLink REVENUE SOURCES

G. Heyman: The Metro Vancouver Mayors Council has voted against this government's plan for a referendum on transit funding. Today's News strongly reiterates and reports on that opposition. The chair of the Mayors Council said it was "clearly a deflection of the government's responsibilities." The White Rock mayor called
[ Page 32 ]
it "a total abrogation of responsibility," and the mayor of Richmond called the referendum "a shortsighted, unwise decision." Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said: "We just really need to stop politics and get the job done."

My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The Mayors Council is clear that this referendum is not a resolution for transit issues in the Lower Mainland. When will the Minister of Transportation listen to the mayors of the Metro Vancouver region and toss this ill-considered referendum?

Hon. T. Stone: I thank the member for the question. I want to, first off, say that as a Minister of Transportation from a key transportation hub in Kamloops, I couldn't be prouder.

Now, I want to say, on behalf of this government, that we are absolutely committed to working with the Mayors Council and with the TransLink board. In fact, I welcome their input. I welcome the input that was received earlier today.

But I want to make something very clear to the Mayors Council and to the members opposite and, most importantly, to the taxpayers of the Lower Mainland. There will be a referendum. We believe that the taxpayers of the Lower Mainland have a right to weigh in, have their voices heard, on an important question of new funding options for transit and transportation improvements in the Lower Mainland.

Madame Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Fairview on a supplemental.

G. Heyman: "Ridiculous." "A recipe for disaster." "An absolute, utter and total mistake." These words have been spoken from mayors across the greater Vancouver region who strongly agree this referendum is a deflection of your government's responsibilities.

Today's News reports also talked about the high proportion of commuters who choose to drive because they cannot get to work and back in a timely manner with inadequate transit and inadequate rapid transit. When is this minister going to get the job done and work with mayors across the greater Vancouver region to find solutions for transit in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. T. Stone: While the members opposite might be looking to take their orders from the mayors, we will take our direction from the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Now, on this file, over the past couple of years this government has delivered what the Mayors Council has asked for — everything that they've asked for. They asked for changes, improvements in governance. This government is committed to working with the Mayors Council to improve governance.

[1425]

The mayors asked us for a renewed commitment to pursuing new funding options. This government has said yes. We are willing to work with the Mayors Council on new funding options.

The Mayors Council has asked for more public consultation and engagement with the public, and this government has said we are absolutely committed to that as well.

The added overlay on this is that we also believe that the people of the Lower Mainland have a right to a say in any new funding options. They will get that say when a referendum is held on this matter.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order
(Speaker's Ruling)

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I thank the Opposition House Leader for his point of order. Please note that pursuant to Standing Order 47A, points of order asked during question period are best deferred until question period has been completed.

With respect to his point of order, I will note that although the guests on the floor of the House cannot participate or disrupt proceedings in any way, there are no restrictions prohibiting them from communicating with members informally in verbal or written form. However, I would discourage the practice.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, further information on that point of order, again it strikes me that you have an unelected Premier sending in plays from the sidelines. I think that's an extraordinary circumstance that is outside the standing orders as you've just described them to me. Perhaps we could review this in more detail, rather than in the scant minutes we've had since I raised the issue, at another time in this Legislature.

Madame Speaker: Please know that we will follow this up directly.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that this House at its next sitting resolve itself for this session into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Presentation of Estimates

ESTIMATES OF SUMS REQUIRED
FOR THE SERVICE OF THE PROVINCE

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: Estimates of Sums Required for the Service of the Province for the fiscal
[ Page 33 ]
year ending March 31, 2014, and a supplement to the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014, recommending the same to the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. M. de Jong moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I move, seconded by the Attorney General of British Columbia, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply.

Budget Debate

Hon. M. de Jong: In February I stood before this House and presented balanced budget 2013. I described it then as a modest budget — somewhat unconventional by traditional pre-election standards — intended to accomplish three broad objectives: firstly, to support our economic recovery and create jobs; secondly, to maintain the services that people rely upon in British Columbia; and thirdly, to respect the very basic principle that government should not spend more of the money than it receives from taxpayers.

I said at that time, in February, that if this government was returned after the May election, we would reintroduce the same budget for debate and discussion, and complete the formal process of authorizing the government, on behalf of the Crown, to collect and spend the public's money.

[1430]

There were certainly critics who challenged the sincerity of that pledge and those who challenged the achievability of our objective to balance.

Well, here we are, perhaps to the surprise of some, and it is genuinely my sincere pleasure to reintroduce balanced budget 2013 — the same budget, the same taxation measures, the same spending allocations. The estimates have been adjusted to reflect the new government's ministerial reconfiguration, and we've included updated economic and revenue forecasts, which I'll get to in a moment, for the benefit of members. Little else has changed.

Let me assure the entire House that this government's commitment to prudent fiscal management remains firm. In fact, I say, I suppose immodestly, that we now have an even stronger mandate to maintain the discipline that got us through the worst of the economic downturn, because this is the same budget that was before the people of B.C. when they were engaged in that great democratic shareholders' exercise in May.

This budget has been analyzed. It has been studied. It has been scrutinized. It has been criticized. British Columbians had a choice, and they exercised that choice. They said yes to balanced budget, they said yes to disciplined spending, and they said yes to the Premier's and the government's vision of working towards a debt-free British Columbia.

With this budget, we're taking the next steps in that direction, reasserting our commitment to fundamental principles that underlie our three-year fiscal plan — revenue growth that will outpace spending growth, targeted investments in areas such as skills training and infrastructure that will support the B.C. jobs plan and strengthen the economy, and new support for families that will help with the cost of everything from child care to post-secondary training and education.

We'll continue to have amongst the lowest tax burdens of anywhere in Canada, and we are on track to deliver back-to-back-to-back balanced budgets, starting with a small surplus in the current fiscal year.

In February I went through the balanced budget in detail — what it contained, what it didn't contain and, to the best of my ability, why. The House spent some time debating those provisions, and it is not my intention today to repeat what I said in February.

It is my intention to share with the House updated numbers, numbers that incorporate the latest economic forecasts and fiscal data and the impact those numbers have on the fiscal plan. In that regard, I have to offer my thanks to an agency that you don't generally hear Finance Ministers thanking on budget day: the opposition — the Opposition House Leader, the opposition critic and the independent members of the chamber, who have kindly offered their support to try something that I don't think has taken place in a Canadian parliament before.

[1435]

In preparing for what is essentially a fiscal update, it did occur to me that once again our friends in the media, sequestered away in their little lockup, would be receiving a far more detailed information package and data than members of the assembly. That doesn't seem right to me.

I'm grateful to all members and you, Madame Speaker, that we would have an opportunity to try to make use of technology to share with this assembly the same information the media received about an hour ago. We've agreed that the hon. opposition critic will have the same opportunity to augment his presentation on Tuesday. Thereafter, as an assembly, we'll assess to what extent the experiment was worthwhile.

[Slide presentation begins.]

So if I can, let's begin with the first slide. I wanted to alert members of the House where we believe — when the public accounts are released in a few weeks for 2012-2013 — we are, exactly. Members will be interested in a couple of lines on this chart.

First of all, when the budget in 2012 was released, you
[ Page 34 ]
will know that it anticipated a deficit of $968 million. In fact, that has grown. At one point it looked like it was going to grow to almost $1.5 billion. Through expenditure control, we were able to deal with that, wrestle with that, reduce that. Although these are not final numbers — they will be finalized when the public accounts are released — we believe that the final number for 2012-2013 will be $1.146 billion.

Now, the other two bits of information that I think will engage the interest of members is on the top line revenue. In Budget 2012 it was anticipated that there would be revenue — $43.1 billion. In fact, that didn't materialize. The shortfall is about $900 million.

That is significant, and that forced some adjustments. Members will also see that over the course of the fiscal year we reduced expenditures from what was anticipated in the budget by over half a billion dollars. Not easy. No magical solutions there except discipline.

That's the gap we have to bridge in order to achieve our target of a balanced budget. Now, we look forward in providing this fiscal update as part of the budget. We rely, of course, on forecasts. I don't make the forecasts. There is an Economic Forecast Council that does that. The Ministry of Finance, through their professionals, takes that information and works with it. We take averages.

Let's go to the next slide, and I'll show you how that has changed.

When we tabled the budget in February of this year, the Economic Forecast Council — those 12 or 13 eminent economists from across the country — were talking about growth of 2.1 percent. We, through the ministry, inject a measure of prudence in that and use a number of 1.6.

What we know now, and some members will know from what they have already heard publicly from agencies like the Conference Board and various banks, is that that number has been downgraded to 1.6. As a result, for the purpose of the budget that is being introduced today and for planning and forecasting revenues going forward, we have downgraded to 1.4.

What members will see is that that drives a whole bunch of the methodologies and formulas and impacts in a negative way the revenues that we anticipate flowing to government. I'll show that to members and how we purport to try and deal with that in the days ahead and in the year ahead.

If you go to the next slide, I thought I would share with members, in a few key areas of interest, what the data is telling us is happening and likely to happen. On the employment front, in a general way, of course, the trend has been very good over the last three years — almost 110,000 new jobs.

[1440]

There's another message in this graph, however. That is that we have more work to do, because of late the trend has been less satisfying. The upshot of this is that employment growth that was being forecast at 1.1 percent in February is now being forecast at 0.7 percent. The importance that the government attaches to projects — like LNG, the mineral sector, the economy — and moving ahead with those projects is revealed here in the desire to have that graph continue climbing in the right direction, because it represents jobs for British Columbia.

The budget has been developed on the basis of that downgraded number, from 1.1 to 0.7, and is something that clearly the government holds as a priority in terms of improving that number going forward.

We'll go to the next slide: retail sales. Again, for members, generally a pretty good story, but based on the projections that we are getting from the forecast council around general growth, growth lines, the decision has been to reduce the anticipated growth in retail sales. That, as members would expect, will have an impact on revenues and taxation revenues to government. I'll quantify that in a moment for members so they know precisely what we think the impact of that will be.

Next slide. The average 28,000 or 29,000 housing starts — we're below that. Though, as I shared with some of my colleagues — and I don't say this to be mischievous — since the middle part of May I may anecdotally or intuitively think that there is additional activity taking place and additional investment or accelerated investment that does not reveal itself in the numbers.

We will not budget on the basis of intuition or anecdotes. We will budget on the basis of what the numbers reveal, and thus far those numbers indicate that it is necessary and prudent to reduce, by between 800 and 900, the anticipated housing starts for the balance of the year. We are budgeting on that basis, as well, as a way of trying to ensure the accuracy of the numbers going forward.

These are all important indicators. I happen to think that housing starts generally are a pretty good indication of how the population is feeling and the measure of confidence. So this is something that, obviously, we'll be keeping our eye on and trying to drive the numbers up in the right direction.

If we go to the next slide, this is kind of the bottom line in terms of what the impact of this is and then how the government in this budget intends to deal with that. I'll deal just with the column under 2013-2014. You'll see there that in the February budget we were anticipating a surplus of $197 million.

For some of the reasons I've just alluded to, tax revenue is anticipated to be down by just over $200 million. The resource sector and, ironically, the natural gas sector are outperforming what forecasters thought they would. I'll come to that in a moment. We have to be cautious about that. But that provides us with some relief as a province from the reduced revenues.

Federal transfers are down modestly, and there's another grab bag of revenue items that are actually up a little bit. The bottom line, though, when you add it all up, is a
[ Page 35 ]
reduction in revenues of $123 million. If we did nothing further, that would leave us with an anticipated surplus in the budget of only $73 million. It's already a modest surplus. That is too modest, in my view.

Here's what we are proposing to do and what the budget sets out. We'll draw down on the $200 million forecast allowance. That's 25 percent of the forecast allowance, and we're 25 percent of the way through the fiscal year.

[1445]

In terms of the risk associated with that, I believe that is responsible and that is plausible. I still don't think that that gets us to a level that is required in order to present a balanced budget, so we're going to have to save some more money — $30 million. That is a task that will accrue across government.

To put that in some kind of perspective for members, that is 0.07 percent of a roughly $44 billion budget. I can put it another way. If we were a family — and I like to think of us as a family, some days, perhaps — earning $60,000, that would mean we have to find an additional $42 in savings.

Now, that sounds easy. It's not actually that easy, because we have been finding savings and holding the line on expenditures for some time now. I don't want to underestimate the challenge, for members, associated with finding an additional $30 million in savings, but I also want to confirm for you my belief that in an operation the size of the government of British Columbia, finding that amount of money responsibly should be possible. That is our objective.

There were a couple of other areas that engaged the interest of members, as I recall — those who were here in February, the budget speech.

We'll go to the next slide.

I thought I would provide members with an update on the sale of surplus assets. I do not intend to revisit the rationale or the arguments that we marshalled in support of bringing surplus assets together and marketing them and getting them back into the hands of the private sector. What I do want to do, though, is alert members to where we are on that program.

This is the 2013-14 objective, and 25 percent of the way through the fiscal year we are 38 percent of the way to our target. To be sure, a good chunk of that related to the sale of the sinking funds from the Transportation Financing Authority, which you see referred to there as the financial instrument that was sold.

If we go to the next slide, I can show members….

By the way, Madam Chair, there will probably be some concern about reading this. With the permission of the House, I intend to table the material so everyone can have access to this and they can see it clearly.

There are the properties listed for which sales are in place, contracts are in place, or they've already been sold. The next nine and so…. What I can tell members is that with respect to the properties that have been marketed and sold, we're actually about $7 million or $8 million ahead of what our anticipated revenues would be.

This is a work-in-progress, of course, but at the moment I can advise the House that we are on target and proceeding with the sale of assets that are surplus to the needs of the Crown. I can also tell members that it is our objective to have all of the properties slated for sale in this fiscal year on the market by the end of October of this year.

I mentioned natural gas. There's a delightful slide, which members will have, that's a bit busy but speaks to what has happened there.

When we had this discussion in February, there was, as members recall, criticism levied against the government by someone we brought in, Dr. O'Neill, about the methodology that had been employed and, quite frankly, didn't serve us very well in the last fiscal year, insofar as revenues were off considerably.

He recommended a much more conservative, cautious methodology. We employed that and are employing it again, but the price has gone up, and the forecasts have gone up. I wouldn't say dramatically; I would say significantly.

So we have adjusted, but members should know that we are continuing to rely on a number for gas that falls in the bottom 20 percent of the percentile range from the forecasts. I believe that is an approach that can leave the government, the people and members of the House with some confidence that target, the revenue target from gas, will be achieved.

[1450]

Then the final graphic that I have for members in the House is kind of a summary, because it occurred to me that having said that the budget is the same one, members would want to know, specifically, how it compares to what was before the House in February.

Both are balanced. The surplus, to be sure, is reduced from what it was in February. I'm not thrilled, and I don't think anyone will be thrilled about that. But that's what the numbers indicate. I have described the mitigation steps that we're taking to try and address that.

The debt-to-GDP peaks in this fiscal plan at 18.5 instead of 18.3 and then begins to drop. I am advised that that is largely a product of the application of the denominator with the lower projected growth.

I can tell members it is not the result of projects being added to the capital envelope, but rather, the result of the application of the denominator. It results from the lower projections around economic growth.

We have to watch this. The government and our members take very seriously the achievement of the triple-A credit rating that British Columbia boasts. I have learned over the years — and more particularly, over the last year — that this is something that the bond-rating agencies watch very closely.
[ Page 36 ]

We secure real, tangible benefits for British Columbians as a result of the triple-A credit rating that we enjoy, and we are going to be vigilant about maintaining that for British Columbians.

Spending was pretty minimal in the budget in February. There is no new spending in the document that members are getting today. The capital plan has no changes in it. The forecast allowance I have referred to — we've drawn down $50 million in this fiscal year and reduced it by $25 million in subsequent years. The contingencies envelope in each of the years covered by the fiscal plan remains the same.

[Slide presentation concludes.]

That's the information I wanted to summarize. Again, I'm grateful to members for the opportunity to do so in, by parliamentary standards, a rather unique way.

I will, then, begin to bring my remarks to a close by reminding members that the budget we introduced in February was — and I think I admitted it, at the time — not your classic pre-election budget. There were no big, grand promises, schemes, gold rush of goodies.

There was a lot of old-fashioned fiscal management. That hasn't changed, nor has our commitment to the key fundamentals. Balanced budget 2013 is focused on controlling spending, building the economy and, as our fiscal situation improves, providing more support to families.

That, in and of itself, may not be exciting, but as we continue down this path, it will provide us with the kinds of opportunities that shape a generation. We're moving forward to develop our potential with new investments from business and industry, new development in every geographic region of the province, new markets, new products, including a brand-new liquefied natural gas industry that will boost our revenues and help support new investments for children in the early years.

New supports for parents, for families; new opportunities for skills training; new approaches to education. And with our B.C. training and education savings grant, a new-found confidence that every child who lives in British Columbia today will finish high school with money in the bank for college, university or vocational training in British Columbia.

[1455]

Just as today we look with pride to the foresight of leaders half a century ago, I believe that history may well remember this time as a turning point in British Columbia. I hope that years from now when people reflect on the work of this 40th parliament, they will recognize that this is the year we redoubled our efforts to ensure the books were balanced and as a necessary step towards achieving our long-term vision of a debt-free British Columbia.

Will it be easy? It'll not be easy; that I can promise you. It will demand continued discipline. It will demand an unwavering focus on meeting our targets, achieving our goals and making sure this province continues to have an edge in attracting investment. That is the key to succeeding in today's uncertain global economy. It's the key to our future, and it's the key to decades of growth, opportunity and prosperity. As I said in February, it all starts with balanced budgets.

Now, in welcoming and congratulating all members of this new 40th parliament, I say: let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work. [Applause.]

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise today and to give the initial budget response. I'd like to take a moment to thank my colleague the Finance Minister for this innovation. I understand he recognized the Opposition House Leader and myself on that. While I will not be using slides today, I want to assure the House that come Tuesday, when I resume my remarks, I will not only be using slides but will be in a position to talk with my glasses, as opposed to the script with which I have to read today.

It is indeed a pleasure to rise and respond to Budget 2013, the financial update. Budget 2013 wasn't balanced before the election, and with today's update, it still isn't balanced. In fact, things are getting worse. Economic growth is down.

I do hear some muttering on the other side, hon. Speaker, but it's a fact. Economic growth is down. It was forecast at 1.6 percent. Now it's down to 1.4 percent. Retail sales are down. Projections have dropped 1.7 percent in the last year — half of what they were in February.

Housing starts are down 13 percent. People are leaving B.C. for Alberta and other stronger economies. That's nine straight quarters where more people have left than arrived. So many people have left that federal transfer payments are down. The government's jobs plan is failing, with 31,300 private sector jobs lost.

Things are getting worse, yet this fact-free government continues to insist that their budget is balanced, just like they continue to insist that they're bringing down the debt — "Debt-free B.C.," they say — and just like they insist they're creating private sector jobs. The jobs plan isn't working like they say, but repeating slogans over and over doesn't make it so. The government has lost credibility on its claims. It has no credibility in its budget, and it is not balanced. It wasn't balanced in February, and it's not balanced today.

But instead of owning up to their fifth deficit budget tabled in a row, the government clings to its slogans. And who will pay the price? British Columbians. It's British Columbians who will suffer the consequences through cuts and reductions of vital services that they depend on.

[1500]

We've seen this movie before, in 2009. After the 2009 election the government revealed a massive deficit and then proceeded to make drastic cuts, especially in health care. Under this budget, British Columbians will see wait
[ Page 37 ]
times grow longer and fees and rates increase.

Just ask seniors who need a wheelchair. We have already seen a sign of this, where this Premier and her government intend to take us — as I said, Christy Clark's wheelchair tax. That's a shameful way to treat our seniors, and that's just the beginning. This budget still has completely unrealistic projected spending levels for vital services, especially health care.

Only this week Vancouver Coastal Health reported an anticipated $27 million shortfall. We see a complete disconnect between the rhetoric of yesterday's throne speech and the realities in this budget. The throne speech talked about a commitment to skills training and a ten-year plan for skills training, yet what do we see in this budget? A $45 million cut to post-secondary education and 5,600 fewer spaces. The Industry Training Authority is being cut as well. Say one thing; do another.

The throne speech talked about caring better for the well-being of our province's most vulnerable citizens, yet in this budget we will still see unrealistic spending levels in key ministries such as Health. Last year's budget forecast that for this year what was required to maintain and barely improve services was a 3.7 percent lift, yet this budget continues to cling to an unrealistic 2.6 percent lift. Say one thing; do another.

The throne speech talks about a debt-free B.C., yet in this budget we see B.C.'s debt climbing yet again — faster than under any other government in B.C.'s history. Say one thing; do another. That's this government's MO.

If you take a look at the capital plan, it's very interesting reading. This is a capital plan that goes out to 2019. If you're from Kelowna, you'll find your hospital in there — surprise, surprise. But if you're from Penticton — and I recall the Premier making a big deal about the Penticton Hospital during the election campaign — good luck finding any mention of your hospital in this budget.

When this government's actions do not match its words, it's British Columbians who suffer. The economy suffers, and vital services are cut. The government is going to make $130 million in cuts over the next three years, cuts that will be felt by B.C.'s most vulnerable citizens.

This budget isn't balanced. It wasn't balanced in February, and in the context of a slowing economy and a failed jobs plan, it isn't balanced today. It is a budget that defies the rhetoric of this government's throne speech, and it's the most vulnerable citizens who will suffer as a result.

I will have more to say about the budget and the province's mounting debt at the next sitting. For members on the government side who are concerned about the figures in this budget, there will be slides to help illustrate the point. I look forward to continuing my remarks on Tuesday.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of debate.

J. Horgan: Point of order, hon. Speaker.

Madame Speaker: Continue.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that we'll be reviewing the passing of notes from Premier to ministers later on, but I think we should remind guests that although they may spontaneously want to rise and applaud the Minister of Finance, that's frowned upon as well, and we should remind everyone of that next time we're here.

Madame Speaker: Thank you.

[1505]

Motion approved.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2013

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2013.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I move first reading of Bill 2.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 2 consists of two parts. Part 1 amends nine statutes in order to implement many of the legislative amendments necessary to give effect to Budget 2013, as updated in this June 2013 document. Part 2 contains a transitional provision which validates that the estimates and other documents tabled today are ones to be used for the 2013-14 fiscal year.

In part 1 the Income Tax Act is amended to increase the general corporate income tax rate to 11 percent, effective April 1, 2013, and to establish a new, temporary top personal income tax bracket with a rate of 16.8 percent for income over $150,000. The tax rate for charitable donations over $200 is not changed. The new personal income tax rate and bracket are effective January 1, 2014, and will apply for the 2014 and 2015 tax years only.

The Tobacco Tax Act is amended to increase the tax rate by $2 per carton of 200 cigarettes and by one cent per gram of fine-cut tobacco, effective April 1, 2013.

The Carbon Tax Act is amended to provide, effective January 1, 2014, an exemption for coloured gasoline and coloured diesel fuel purchased by farmers for the same purposes that farmers are currently authorized to uses coloured fuel under the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

The Land TaxDeferment Act is amended to expand the property tax deferment program for families with chil-
[ Page 38 ]
dren. The expansion will allow eligible homeowners who financially support a dependant child of any age to defer their property taxes if the child is enrolled in an educational institution or is disabled. The Land Tax Deferment Act is also amended to allow certain partial disposals of property without triggering the end of the tax deferment agreement and, therefore, the requirement to repay previously deferred taxes. This amendment is effective on Royal Assent.

The Home Owner Grant Act is amended to ensure that homeowners who are issued a notice of disentitlement on or after January 1, 2011, may receive the benefit of the grant despite having claimed it on the wrong property.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to expand the exemption for transfers of family farms on the death of the owner to ensure transfers to family members are exempt, as intended.

The Hydro and Power Authority Act is amended to authorize B.C. Hydro to pay grants in lieu of property tax to taxing treaty First Nations that host B.C. Hydro facilities. B.C. Hydro currently pays grants to local governments and makes payments to non-treaty First Nations but does not pay grants to taxing treaty First Nations.

The Provincial Sales Tax Transitional Provisions and Amendments Act, 2013, is amended to clarify the transitional rules for the reimplementation of the provincial sales tax for legal services, related services and telecommunication services.

Finally, Bill 2 amends the Forest Act to enhance the act's revenue audit compliance provisions.

In part 2 Bill 2 identifies the post-election estimates tabled today as the new main estimates for the 2013-2014 fiscal year and establishes the new main estimates as the ones that apply for the purpose of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act and the Carbon Tax Act. Part 2 also establishes the carbon tax plan and other documents presented with the new main estimates as the ones that apply for the purpose of the Carbon Tax Act.

I move that Bill 2 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation 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.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I have the pleasure to rise and table the budget, the Budget and Fiscal Plan 2013/2014–2015/2016, which fulfils the requirements of section 7 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. The Budget and Fiscal Plan also contains the carbon tax plan required under section 3 of the Carbon Tax Act and other documents required under section 4 of the same act.

I also table, on behalf of the ministers responsible, the government's overall strategic plan and service plans as required under the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

[1510]

The service plan documents are presented in two binders. The first binder contains service plans for the Office of the Premier and 18 ministries. The second binder contains service plans for 30 Crown corporations. The second binder also includes a list of organizations that are exempted from the service plan requirements under section 13 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Finally, I ask leave — which I think was included in the bucket of stuff there — to table the PowerPoint presentation included in my budget speech so that it can be available to all members.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, with leave of the House, may I withdraw the previous motion to adjourn and substitute it with the following: that the House at its rising stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 2, 2013?

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: And on that basis, I move the House do now adjourn.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House at its rising stands adjourned until 1:30, July 2.

The House adjourned at 3:11 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