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)

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 1, Number 5

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

TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2013

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Speaker's Statement

SECURITY INCIDENT
ON LEGISLATIVE PRECINCTS

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, on Sunday evening I was informed by the Clerk that a threat to the parliamentary precincts was planned for July 1. Immediately I authorized the RCMP to continue its investigation here, in collaboration with the Sergeant-at-Arms. Through combined efforts of policing and security agencies, two people were apprehended yesterday in Abbotsford.

On behalf of all Members of the Legislative Assembly, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to the Sergeant-at-Arms and his security staff, the RCMP, Victoria city police, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Clerk and others who were involved with this matter throughout the weekend.

[1335]

As a result of this collaboration among the policing and security agencies, Canada Day celebrations were able to take place yesterday on the front lawn of the people's House and throughout the city of Victoria without any threat to public safety.

It is shocking to think that our parliament, the symbol of representative democracy, has been the potential target of violence. As Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, I say to members of the House, those who work here and the public that I remain vigilant regarding their personal safety and that of these magnificent buildings.

What has been demonstrated yesterday is that our parliamentary democracy remains vibrant and strong. This fine institution, in which all members serve, continues to conduct the people's business. I am proud of our Canadian protective services and the outstanding manner in which they conduct their business on behalf of all citizens in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Anton: Thank you for those remarks. Madame Speaker, I rise today to inform the Legislature of a national security investigation that has resulted in arrests and charges against two individuals. These individuals, both residents of British Columbia, have been charged with conspiring to carry out a terrorist attack. In fact, it has been reported by the RCMP that they took steps to build explosive devices and place them here on the legislative grounds where crowds were gathering for Canada Day.

As Attorney General, I will limit the comments I make today to safeguard the integrity of any prosecution process that might ultimately arise from this matter. The file is being managed by federal prosecutors with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. This matter is of significant concern to British Columbians, and I echo the words earlier today of Premier Clark that we are back to work, undeterred and unafraid, and our parliament stands strong.

The police conduct their investigations independent of government. As this is a significant matter, I was rightly informed at an appropriate point in the investigation in my role as Attorney General, and I was briefed by the RCMP on Monday, as the investigation was concluding.

The RCMP have assured us that the public was never put at actual risk by the conduct of the individuals in question and that there is no continuing risk to public safety arising out of their conduct. In fact, I know the RCMP's primary focus during the investigation was on the safety and protection of the public.

This was a coordinated multi-agency investigation by the RCMP-led Integrated National Security Enforcement Teams in British Columbia. These teams include the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, our own legislative security and other law enforcement and security partners at all levels of government. British Columbians can be proud of these organizations and the often dangerous work they do to keep us safe.

We join together today in thanking the RCMP and other police partners and all of the national security partners for the hard work they have put into Project Souvenir. And in particular, I would like to thank our own legislative security team for their assistance in the investigation, through you, Madame Speaker, and for what they do every day to keep us safe. Thanks to them, thousands of British Columbians gathered in peace and safety with their families and friends to celebrate the 146th birthday of our wonderful country.

A. Dix: I thank the Attorney for her statement. I know I join with it strongly in expressing the appreciation of the opposition and, I think, of all British Columbians for the work of the RCMP and other law enforcement services who brought this matter to a close without harm to anyone.

I think it's fair to say that violence needs to be opposed in all its forms. And a safe, generous, open society requires that all of us speak against and work against violence in all its forms. We also, I think, are reminded today of the importance of an open, robust, participatory democracy. That is what we are taking part in today, and that's what we as legislators surely need to encourage every day.

[1340]

There have been in my family two significant terrorist acts that affected their lives. One was Air India 182, and the other was the bombing that occurred over Lockerbie, Scotland. In both of those cases, the individuals — the victims and their families — did not receive satisfaction from the justice system. But I would say this: that all of them…. What I admire about those people so much is their continued commitment to democratic institutions, to the rule of law, even when, for them, they had reason to feel betrayed.

That should inspire us to speak out in favour of freedom of association, to ensure the continuation of a fair and open society, including our justice system, and to use this as inspiration to work and to support our democracy. That's what we need to do. That's what I hope we'll do today in our actions, and that's what I hope all of us will work together to do in the future.

Introductions by Members

S. Hamilton: In the gallery today are two individuals from my constituency. I'd like to introduce Kim Kendall and her husband, Isaac Kendall. Kim is my constituency assistant, and I hope the House will make her welcome.

B. Routley: I'm delighted today to have with us here in the House Debra Toporowski, who is the chief constituency assistant for the Cowichan Valley. I would ask that you join me in making her feel welcome.

D. Routley: It's my pleasure to welcome three guests to the legislative precinct today.

The first is Jeff Solomon. Jeff Solomon is one of the initial organizers of the "save the Colliery Dam Park" society. His partner, Roblyn Hunter, is also an initial organizer of that great effort by community members to respond to a challenge to a vital community asset: a park which has been put at peril by the assessment of the dams which create the lakes of that park being assessed at an extreme risk level. They are here today to hear a statement. They are here today to bring members' awareness to this issue.

Then it's a great pleasure, too, to welcome to the House Chief Doug White III, Kwulasultun. Kwulasultun is Chief of the Snuneymuxw First Nation. The Snuneymuxw First Nation is demanding to be heard in consultation on this issue, when it comes to the planning and implementation of any steps that could affect the habitat and the resources in their territory.

It is my great pleasure to welcome these three people to B.C. Legislature.

Hon. S. Bond: On behalf of my colleagues the members for Prince George–Mackenzie and Nechako Lakes, we're very delighted to welcome two special friends to the gallery today. Charles and Susan Scott are visiting with us. They are significant contributors in our community and our region. They're here celebrating their 12th wedding anniversary and getting a bit of a break, but we're very glad that they were able to join us. I would ask my colleagues in the House to give them a very warm welcome today.

Hon. C. Oakes: It is truly my great privilege today to introduce a longtime colleague and friend of the chamber. Mayor Mary Sjostrom is here today in her capacity as the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and we'll be meeting with her later today. I know from many of you who have worked in local government that Mary has been a tireless worker on behalf of local government. She sets the bar extremely high. She's a good friend, a strong mentor, and I kindly ask the House to welcome her today.

Tributes

JOE EASINGWOOD

C. James: I rise today to acknowledge the loss of a broadcasting legend in our province in the passing of Joe Easingwood, someone I know that many members in the House have faced. He was a familiar voice on radio for over 50 years — CJVI first and then CFAX following.

[1345]

Joe really was a part of our community and, for many of us in greater Victoria, part of our family. He was my very first interview when I ran for school board. It was with Joe Easingwood, and I was warned by people to be ready and prepared because Joe Easingwood was going to take you apart. He was my grandmother's very favourite talk show host, and although she was very proud of me, I have to tell you that I think she felt I really made it when I went on Joe's show. I think that was probably the time that she felt I'd really made it as a politician.

Joe was generous, he was kind, he was curious, and most importantly, particularly for someone who was a talk show host, he loved his audience. I think that's what came across so well. Joe was never one of those individuals who had to wait for the calls to come in. The calls came in always for Joe, because people had such respect for him.

So I would ask the House to recognize and send our condolences and our thoughts to his wife, Dawn, to his family and friends. He truly will be missed in greater Victoria, missed in the broadcasting world and missed around our province.

Introductions by Members

Moira Stilwell: I rise today to introduce a guest from my constituency, a friend and small business man,
[ Page 41 ]
Narinder Nijjer. Would the House please make him welcome.

M. Elmore: I see a number of familiar faces and friends today. I would especially like to welcome my friend Mary Lee Jetko. It's her first visit here to the Legislature. She has resided in Victoria for a number of years. She's very active in the community, well-known. She is currently the president of the Victoria Filipino-Canadian Seniors Association. She is an adviser to the Victoria Filipino-Canadian caregivers, immigrant workers and temporary foreign workers, an association that is a great advocate for people and immigrants.

I'd also like to offer congratulations. She's newly retired, so she has a lot more time to put into her volunteer efforts. Please make her feel very welcome, and also my other friends from Vancouver.

J. Darcy: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some very dear friends of mine to the House: Dr. Margaret McGregor, a very strong health care advocate; Dr. John Price, a prof at the University of Victoria; Sharon Saunders, long-time health care advocate and health and safety advocate; and Bill Saunders — a long history of standing up for working people in the community. Please, I ask my fellow members to join me in making them feel welcome in this House.

Tabling Documents

Madame Speaker: I have the honour to present the Auditor General's annual report, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014–2015-2016 service plan.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

PACIFIC COAST UNIVERSITY
FOR WORKPLACE HEALTH SCIENCES

S. Fraser: In 2007 one of the only bipartisan or non-partisan initiatives that I have ever been involved with in this Legislative Assembly was undertaken. A private bill was brought to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences Act was unanimously supported by all members of this House, both sides of this House. We now have a beautiful new building and campus in place in Port Alberni.

The world has taken notice. Eighteen countries have adopted the principles and practices of disability management being developed through the university and established by the National Institute of Disability Management and Research, also known as NIDMAR.

On June 10 at the new Port Alberni campus, Secretary General Hans-Horst Konkolewsky, on behalf of the International Social Security Association, or ISSA, signed a memorandum of understanding with Wolfgang Zimmerman, representing NIDMAR and the Pacific Coast University. I was honoured to attend and witness this historic event.

The Pacific Coast University for Workplace Health Sciences in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island is now recognized as the centre of excellence by the United Nations for disability management. The strategies of disability management developed here in British Columbia are playing a pivotal role in the development of the global best practices guidelines being released at the World Social Security congress in Doha, Qatar, this fall in November. Such is the social and economic value of disability management that the Conference Board of Canada will also be hosting two major national conferences this fall.

[1350]

My hope is that the province of British Columbia will join the world community and embrace these strategies here in B.C. I look forward to working closely with the new minister responsible for Advanced Education in a non-partisan manner to help make that happen.

TRAPPING IN B.C.

M. Morris: I'd like to introduce this House to British Columbia's oldest profession — that of trapping. Yesterday was Canada's 146th birthday, and this profession was the cornerstone to the economic development of this country.

Today trapping still contributes millions of dollars annually to the British Columbia economy. In 1926 British Columbia was one of the first jurisdictions in North America to establish a registered trapline tenure system, a system that is still envied by many jurisdictions both in Canada and North America.

There are approximately 2,800 registered traplines in British Columbia today, providing the owner of the registered trapline an area-based tenure in which to harvest his fur and sell wild fur. Canadian wild fur is well regarded around the world for the professional standards that we have developed in fur handling and pelt preparation, and our Canadian fur auction houses attract thousands of buyers from around the world.

The British Columbia Trappers Association was established in 1945 and has worked tirelessly every year on behalf of B.C. trappers. Today the B.C. Trappers Association represents around 1,000 trappers in British Columbia. The B.C. Trappers Association plays an integral role, in partnership with the province of British Columbia, ensuring that all trappers are compliant and using only approved trapping devices as stipulated under the agreement on international humane trapping standards, which Canada became signatory to in the 1990s.

The B.C. Trappers Association administers and deliv-
[ Page 42 ]
ers the basic trapper education program, mandatory for any person in British Columbia who wants to trap. The B.C. Trappers Association has also developed a wildlife conflict operators training certification program to train first responders on how to respond to wildlife in conflict with an urban environment.

B.C. trappers are stewards of the land and play a key role in British Columbia's wildlife management.

COLLIERY DAM PARK IN NANAIMO

D. Routley: I rise today to tell the House about a significant problem facing the city of Nanaimo and its inhabitants. I referred to it earlier. It's the problem of the Colliery Dam Park.

The problem is that these dams are supporting a beautiful park that the community values for recreational and historical significance. The dam safety branch of this government has rated those dams as some of the most at risk in the province. The city council of Nanaimo responded appropriately and made plans to remove the dams to mitigate and eliminate that risk. But the community responded.

What makes a community? We often don't know until that thing or that element is put at risk, and in this case a hastily organized meeting of only five days notice brought over 600 signatures on a petition, the signatures of the very people who would be threatened by the inundation. Our First Nation, the Snuneymuxw First Nation, were being consulted, but after this response the city council reversed their decision and has now moved to replace the dams. The city and its inhabitants are at odds over this issue.

The province can play a significant and positive role here by stepping in and offering expertise in planning and facilitating the replacement of these dams. Risk-mitigating steps can be taken — dewatering the dams. Other steps can be taken to protect the community — an evacuation plan. There are fisheries issues at stake. First Nations consultation issues are at stake.

I'm calling on the provincial government to step forward and help the city of Nanaimo, help the Snuneymuxw First Nation and help my constituents save a park that they highly value. This may be the last opportunity for a constructive and collaborative approach to this problem. So I make a plea to the provincial government to be a positive participant in the discussions around this issue.

GRADUATES OF
AGASSIZ CENTRE FOR EDUCATION

L. Throness: Two weeks ago I had the privilege of attending an unusual high school graduation in my riding at the Agassiz Centre for Education, a public school for alternative education. Twelve adult Dogwood certificates were granted.

[1355]

I want to congratulate the following graduates: Austin Belanger, Cody Feil, Patricia Geerts, Tyler Jacobi, Tessa Kucheran, Jackie North, Dwayne Reynolds, Tara Ryder and Amanda Sevigny. Three other students were deserving of special mention: Maureen Baker, Adriana Peters and Kay Eddison stand out because they are seniors. Maureen is 76, Adriana is 80, and Kay is 89 years old. Kay Eddison, in particular, is the oldest person ever to graduate from a high school in B.C. and perhaps in all of Canada.

These three women joined a program for seniors that began just this year. Why did they do it? As Maureen Baker said: "Because I can." They inspired other students by doing the same work as them and encouraging the younger ones to stick with the program. These successful seniors showed younger people that graduating from high school is both important and possible, and they are an example to all of us that learning is a lifelong pursuit.

Thanks to the Royal Canadian Legion in Agassiz for hosting this heartwarming event, and congratulations to administrator Sandy Balascak, teacher Ray Steigvilas and their team for giving seniors a chance to achieve.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
PREVENTION OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING

M. Elmore: On June 26 the employer of Leticia Sarmiento, a Filipino domestic worker, became the first person in this province to be found guilty on charges of human trafficking by the B.C. Supreme Court. Human trafficking is often referred to as a modern form of slavery, and Canada is identified as a transit and destination point for it. Data shows that 80 percent of those trafficked are for sexual exploitation, and 20 percent for forced labour.

Among those most vulnerable to becoming victims are migrant workers, especially women, that come under the low-skilled category. Many cases of human trafficking, especially for forced labour, are underreported and now increasing because of the expansion of the exploitive temporary foreign worker program.

The temporary foreign worker program creates conditions that give rise to human trafficking because it ties employees to their employers, has weak regulations and weak enforcement of any measures designed to assist temporary foreign workers. There are an estimated 70,000 temporary foreign workers now in B.C. and in urgent need for services to help them, especially for those who are victims of human trafficking.

The B.C. office to combat trafficking in persons, established in 2007, was recognized internationally for the great work it was doing. It had a dedicated 24-hour hotline and website to assist victims of human trafficking. Both these services were dismantled when its budget was cut and staff reduced.

The B.C. government must provide adequate sup-
[ Page 43 ]
port for services for victims and their advocates. More research needs to be done to understand trafficking for forced labour. It's incumbent…. I also call on the provincial government to urge the federal government to ratify the UN convention on migrant workers' rights to help address trafficking for forced labour.

To conclude, I believe that the recent human trafficking conviction in B.C. is an alarm bell alerting us to the urgent nature of this problem. I call on the B.C. government and all of us to listen and respond.

PEACE ARCH HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

G. Hogg: There are times and events in the course of our lives and the lives of our communities that are seminal, that serve to shape and to define our futures. For British Columbia, one such event was the building of the railroad that connected us as a country and helped to define us as Canadians.

One such event for our community was the connection drawn when a meeting of women was held in 1948. They began holding meetings because of the need for a community hospital. The first two resident doctors, Dr. Blades and Dr. Hogg, had arrived in 1946. The closest hospital was in New Westminster.

The women held bake sales and started a superfluity shop, and they galvanized the community behind their vision. Their efforts resulted in a hospital opening in 1954, and the Peace Arch auxiliary is still going strong.

Today there are over 400 members, and they have raised over $11 million for the hospital. They continue to serve and to connect our community. They created an identity which resulted in the creation of a city. But their greatest gift has been the gift of character — a character of giving and caring — and 65 years later that spirit and commitment, which fostered our nature and our growth, continue to serve and to guide us.

Congratulations and thanks to past and present members of the Peace Arch Hospital Auxiliary. You have positively shaped and defined our community and our future. I ask this House to join me in wishing all the very best on the 65th anniversary to the Peace Arch Hospital Auxiliary.

[1400]

Oral Questions

COMMENTS BY PREMIER ON
NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION LINE
AND ELECTRICITY RATES

A. Dix: Over the weekend the Energy Minister finally admitted that B.C. Hydro customers would be facing significant rate increases. Can the minister please tell this House by how much and when B.C. Hydro customers will find the bad news from him?

Hon. B. Bennett: No one should be surprised, certainly here, that there is upward pressure on rates at B.C. Hydro. I don't think that that's a surprise. It's been discussed, certainly, here in this House many times. It's been covered by the media over the past several years. Its roots, frankly, are in the 1990s, when all investment in B.C. Hydro assets was deferred at that time. But I can say to the member that certainly my commitment as a minister and the commitment of everyone on this side of the House will be that we will keep those rates down as low, and constrict the increase, as much as possible.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, really, those are extraordinary remarks from a minister who expressed surprise that there had been a $342 million overrun on the northwest transmission line. This weekend the minister said that everyone in government recognizes that rates are going to have to go up. Yet the Premier on AM 1150 in Kelowna told the people of Kelowna that Liberal mismanagement of B.C. Hydro, including the said transmission line overrun and the costs associated with this, "won't go onto ratepayers." Can the Energy Minister tell this House who's right? Him? Everyone in government? Or the Premier?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, the Leader of the Opposition is in for a rough ride if he thinks he's going to somehow see disagreement between myself and the Premier of this province. He might want to look around over there on his side of the House to look for that. You're not going to see it on this side of the House.

The leader of our party and the Premier of this province has made it very clear, and you can look on the website and see what my letter of instruction, my mandate letter, states. My leader has said: "One of your jobs is to make sure that Hydro rates don't increase any more than is absolutely necessary." And we agree. Everyone on this side of the House agrees with that. That's my mandate, and that's what I will be doing my very best to do.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, far be it from me to suggest that there would ever be any disagreement between the Minister of Energy and a Premier. But let me just say to the minister that the Premier's remarks were extraordinary. The Premier was suggesting that there is a massive overrun and that that won't be borne by ratepayers, when she knows and her chief of staff, who was chair of the board of B.C. Hydro when this was going on, knows…. Everyone knows — at least, after the election they know — that large rate increases are coming.

Does the minister agree with the Premier, who told
[ Page 44 ]
the people of Kelowna before the by-election that they won't have any impact on their rates and other rates in British Columbia? Does he agree with the Premier that the overrun on the northwest transmission line will not affect rates?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think it's important for members on both sides of the House and perhaps more importantly for the public to know that B.C. Hydro has a three-year capital plan and that my advice from B.C. Hydro….

[1405]

I met this morning with the chair of the board of B.C. Hydro and also the president and CEO of B.C. Hydro. Their advice to me is that they will in fact meet their three-year capital plan targets. Obviously, the northwest transmission line is over budget, and as I said in this House last week, we're not happy about that. How could you be happy about a cost overrun of that size and scope?

But I also think it's fair to say that B.C. Hydro has recently completed several projects in the province — major projects — that have come in under budget, which I think is good news.

Overall, I think what the public cares about is whether or not they are going to be able to make their three-year capital budget, and my advice is that they are.

M. Karagianis: Christy Clark said: "We are going to be able to make sure that the new ratepayers, Red Chris Mine and some of the big operators in the northwest that will be served by the line, will be picking up the additional costs of this." Well, the minister knows that the tariff agreements on this were made last November, and that was about $200 million ago.

The reality is that the Premier is out telling the voters in Kelowna that Imperial mines will be picking up this tab. But I'd like the minister to tell us the truth in here. He knows that the ratepayers of British Columbia will be picking up the tab. How much and when?

Hon. B. Bennett: To the point that somehow or other the tariff that was created by B.C. Hydro will not be capable of picking up the total cost of this project, that is not correct. The Energy critic stated that in the House last week, and I actually forgot to correct him on that. That is not correct. The tariff was developed in such a way that it will cover the complete capital costs of this project.

I know, and all members of this side of the House know, that the NDP do not support the northwest transmission line project. They have said so. They don't support it. The Energy critic has said that there is no business case. The Energy critic actually has taken offence at the fact that a mining company and a clean energy company may actually make a profit with their businesses. I have the quotes here. "On that basis, somebody might make a profit. We shouldn't build this transmission line."

The point is that this line will open up about 25 to 30 percent of British Columbia that currently does not have electricity. We're going to get rid of all those….

M. Karagianis: Well, you know, it's interesting. Last week in here the Energy Minister appeared to have less information than the morning newspaper. These are outrageous cost overruns on the northwest transmission line.

Let me just ask another question. Given the fact that Brad Bennett sits on the B.C. Hydro board committee that oversees capital projects and spent the entire election sitting right next to the Premier on the B.C. Liberal debt bus, it seems incredible that this information was a surprise to anybody.

Perhaps the minister can tell us: was the note that Christy Clark passed to him last week in this House…? Did that contain an explanation that she had received from Mr. Bennett as they rode around making false promises on the B.C. debt?

Hon. B. Bennett: There are several questions in the question, hon. Speaker, and I don't think you would allow me enough time to try to answer all of them. I can assure the member…. The member is asking…. And it's a fair enough question. I think it's important for me to answer the most important part of her question, which is: when did government know about the cost overrun for the northwest transmission line?

I don't remember the date. I've got it written down somewhere, but it was a week or maybe ten days ago. I got a call from B.C. Hydro as minister, and they let me know about it. They called me on a Sunday. For my colleagues here, they found out when the budget was announced last week.

[1410]

Is that satisfactory to this government, to have that kind of a surprise? No, that isn't satisfactory to this government. That's why the board chair and the president and CEO were over here today. I can say that we have some initiatives afoot that I think will improve communications between the major shareholder, or the only shareholder — the government of B.C. — and B.C. Hydro.

But again, this side of the House says yes to opportunity. This side of the House believes that the northwest transmission line is not only going to open up the northwest part of the province but is going to benefit all of British Columbia. The best mining opportunities that we have for the future in this province are in the northwest. Some of the best clean energy opportunities that we have in this province are in the northwest, and none of that opportunity is possible to bring to fruition unless you have electricity up Highway 37. We believe in it. You don't.
[ Page 45 ]

NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION LINE
PROJECT COSTS AND ELECTRICITY RATES

J. Horgan: Again I have to marvel at the minister's precision: "I learned about it maybe seven, eight, ten days ago — somewhere in that range." That's the type of precision that the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro want to hear when you're throwing around hundred-million-dollar bills as if it was, again, Monopoly money, not their hard-earned dollars.

Now, I appreciate that there are a number of people involved in B.C. Hydro that are now involved in government. We have, of course, Dan Doyle, the chief of staff to the Premier, a former chair of the board for a number of years. Larry Blain, the former CEO of Partnerships B.C., is also on the board, a good friend of the B.C. Liberal Party.

So let's focus in on Mr. Blain and the role of Partnerships B.C., if we could. Is it true that interference by Partnerships B.C. to try and find a way to give the private sector more ratepayer money, more public wealth transferred to private hands…? Is it true that Mr. Blain and his Partnerships B.C. participation drove the cost up even further than it would have otherwise had to be?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I think the problem with the northwest transmission line is not too much private sector principal but not enough private sector principal, and it answers very specifically the member's question. The answer is: absolutely not. It's a ridiculous assertion. In fact, AltaGas, private sector — big, bad private sector — probably make a profit. Well, they're taking $180 million of that profit, and they're putting that into the capital cost of the northwest transmission line. The federal government is also investing $130 million into the northwest transmission line.

As I've said before, we have a tariff that has been developed that will ultimately pay the full capital cost for this line, and it will come from industrial users. It will come from Red Chris. It will come from the AltaGas project at Forrest Kerr. It will come from the other mining projects that open up.

I've heard the Energy critic say: "Well, you know, these mines are cancelled, and there's no mining that's going to take place up there." That's true if you don't have electricity, hon. Speaker.

Again, this side of the House believes in this project. We believe it's in the best interests of all British Columbians to build the northwest transmission line. We regret that we've gone over in terms of the cost. I'm going to continue to say that. I don't like it. We don't like it on this side of the House, but we're going to take some initiatives to fix what caused that.

J. Horgan: We on this side of the House would have some sympathy for the minister's regret if his government hadn't appointed every single member of the board for the past 12 years. We would have some sympathy for that position if the B.C. Liberals hadn't been driving B.C. Hydro into bankruptcy for the past 12 years.

The minister makes reference to AltaGas putting forward a contribution, a generous contribution, to the completion of the line. That was after B.C. Hydro, directed by the B.C. Liberals, signed a 60-year private power agreement with AltaGas — pay it forward.

[1415]

Pay it forward, hon. Speaker: "You give me a 60-year deal at this much, at $120 a megawatt hour, when the market price is $40." That's B.C. Liberal math. And at the end of the day the people who will pick up the bill are the taxpayers of British Columbia. When will they know how bad it's going to be?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I really don't know whether the Energy critic has been north of Prince George. I know his leader hasn't. If you go north of Prince George and you take a look at the opportunity in the northwest for us to create jobs or have jobs created…. Government can't create jobs; businesses create jobs. But government can make investments that will facilitate the generation of investment and job creation. That's what this is about.

When all is said and done, this power line is going to open up thousands and thousands of square miles of resource-rich territory. Now, I honestly don't understand why the NDP is opposed to this. I really don't. They have members in the area. There is the highest unemployment in the province in the northwest. This project is going to help — maybe that's why they're against it — our government achieve its objectives through the jobs plan.

It's going to help our government train people in the northwest, primarily First Nations people. I don't know what the opposition would have against training First Nations people to work in mines and in clean energy projects and in LNG. This is an important component of developing the economy in British Columbia and meeting our targets under the jobs plan.

TIMBER SUPPLY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND
FOREST INVENTORY FUNDING

N. Macdonald: On May 16 of last year the all-party Special Committee on Timber Supply was struck, and hundreds of thousands were spent in an intense and expensive consultation. The recommendations from the committee were made with an expectation of action. But not only were these recommendations ignored; the budget that was presented again in the House cuts in exactly the areas where the committee said that investments were needed — a $35 million cut in inventory, in tree planting, in community and First Nations consultation.
[ Page 46 ]

So the question for the minister is: why does government have these expensive and ultimately phony exercises, when recommendations are going to ultimately be ignored anyway?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to recognize the very important work that the mid-term timber supply committee did last year — and I've commented on this before in the House — and to thank them for the work that they did and the time they took out of the summer to provide those recommendations.

The government has responded with the action plan in response to all of those recommendations. We are moving forward on those recommendations. That's why we've announced a ten-year, $10-million-per-year inventory plan, to do the important inventory work that's required. This is now the right time to do that.

Now that we have seen the mountain pine beetle impact start to run its course, now is the time to do that inventory work. That is why we have seen a $900 million investment in the industry over the last two years. That is why we are seeing billions of dollars of increased export activity in the industry. That's why we saw 3,000 new jobs in the industry last year.

The forest industry is a sunrise industry — not a sunset industry — and is one that is here to stay in communities all across British Columbia.

Madame Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: Well, it's only a sunrise industry if you invest in the land. It's only going to have a future if you invest in the land, and the government is not doing this. The government is making a conscious choice to cut $35 million in the areas that we said need to have investment. That's what the committee said. We had four B.C. Liberals, three NDP; there was a unanimous agreement.

Now, the minister talks and puts out figures such as $10 million for inventory. Let's talk of what forest professionals say is needed: $15 million to get accurate inventory. What did the NDP spend in the '90s, if you want to talk about the '90s? On average, $21 million to get accurate inventory information.

[1420]

What the minister has done is change the parameters for accurate information and moved it from ten years out to 35 years out, so the inventory information on over three-quarters of this province is 35 years old. It is said again and again that you cannot plan properly with that sort of information.

The question to the minister: why do you have these expensive consultation processes, where 650 people come and give recommendations — you fly us around in helicopters; we do all of that work; we give you recommendations — and on each and every one of them, they are ignored? Why do you do it?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, as we have announced, a ten-year, $10-million-per-year inventory program. This is a typical kind of response from the members opposite when they say that just because you spent that money in the past, that's what you should be spending now. To go back and say that because we spent that money there is exactly what you should be spending now…. That is why you have the situation where they were proposing continued deficit budgeting — because that's the approach they take to budgeting.

The issue is that the inventory plan recognizes new technology, new approaches to inventory — $10 million per year over ten years. That will get the critical inventory work done that we need to do to ensure that we make informed forest management decisions in the future.

H. Bains: If the minister had all the answers, why set up that committee and spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars? We went around the province and heard from 650 presenters. Citizens from all across the province came and made presentations orally, and many of them left detailed submissions in writing. Not a single presenter suggested there should be less investment in forest health — not a single person. Yet what we see in this budget is a $35 million cut.

My question to the minister is this. Why did the Liberals spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this public relations exercise when they never had any intention of doing the needed work to adjust the forest health?

Hon. S. Thomson: Again, I want to recognize the important work the committee did. It was very important work, important recommendations that were brought forward. We have looked at all of the recommendations. We have provided a response to those recommendations, an action plan that deals with all of the recommendations in the plan. We are moving forward on those recommendations, and we are making new investments that address those recommendations new — investments in inventory.

We continue to focus on forest health. We have looked ahead and recognized that there will be additional dollars required in silviculture. That is provided for in our platform commitments.

We will continue to make the investments in the industry to ensure that we make good, informed management decisions on the land base and that we continue to see growth in employment, that we continue to see new investment in the industry — $900 million in investment in the last two years, 3,000 new jobs, export market growth based on diversification of market.

We will continue to ensure that the fundamentals for this industry are sound and that they will continue to make an important economic contribution to British Columbia.
[ Page 47 ]

H. Bains: What we're talking about is the future of our industry. We are talking about restoring our forests so that they will be productive for generations to come, which this government and this minister don't realize. That's why all those presenters came. That's why the committee members toured the province — 18 communities, travelling in cars, planes, even renting helicopters. None of those people — not the licensees, not the contractors, not First Nations — thought they were participating in a Liberal public relations exercise.

[1425]

Why did the minister set up this committee if he knew his government had no intention of following through on its recommendations?

Hon. S. Thomson: The committee, as everybody in the House knows, was set up to address a very critical situation through the mountain pine beetle area — communities from Merritt and Kamloops all the way through the mountain pine beetle area. It was important work that the committee did, under the leadership of the member for Nechako Lakes and the co-chairmanship of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Important recommendations were brought forward. As I said in my previous responses, we are addressing those recommendations. We are providing additional resources for inventory. We are planting more trees in the coming year than we have in previous years — 50 percent more trees being planted in 2013 than 2012.

We will continue to make sure that we respond to the recommendations and to make sure that in doing that, the forest industry contributes to ensuring that we have a balanced budget here in British Columbia.

COMMENTS BY LIBERAL CANDIDATE
AND PROTECTION OF
SHAWNIGAN LAKE WATERSHED

B. Routley: Before the election the B.C. Liberal candidate for the Cowichan Valley, Steve Housser, said this about a plan to dump 100,000 tonnes of contaminated soil annually into the Shawnigan Lake watershed: "Not only is the site above a major aquifer that supplies drinking water; it is also right beside a stream that flows directly into the Shawnigan Lake. This is lunacy," he declared. "It is incomprehensible to me that a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Environment could authorize such a potentially poisonous travesty."

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Do you agree with the Liberal candidate's assessment?

Hon. M. Polak: There is no question that when it comes to the development of our natural resources or dealing with hazardous materials, these can all become very emotional issues, especially in a province like British Columbia where people care so deeply about the environment around them. On both sides of this House we care deeply about our environment in British Columbia.

What I can assure this House of is that our government believes in depending on expert advice and, most importantly, ensuring that there is a proper process followed when we make decisions. In this case, a statutory decision-maker — not the minister — will pore over the 300 or more submissions that were received and will return a decision that is free from political interference, unlike some of the examples we've seen on the other side.

Madame Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.

B. Routley: Right after the election Steve Housser landed a cushy job as manager of strategic planning, working out of the Liberal spin-doctor shop. Maybe that's why he has been so quiet about this toxic waste dump since the election.

Will the Minister of Environment ensure the protection of the Shawnigan Lake watershed, as was promised during the election by their candidate turned communication adviser?

Hon. M. Polak: I can assure this House that we will make a decision based on the statutory decision-maker outlining their reasons. They will provide that decision to the people of British Columbia, to the people of Shawnigan Lake.

I can confirm to this House that that will not be interfered with by the minister. In fact, I can assure this House that we will not be pulling a sudden decision out of our hat that the rest of our team doesn't know anything about.

[1430]

COMMENTS BY LIBERAL CANDIDATE
AND PAVING OF ROAD TO ZEBALLOS

C. Trevena: Like Mr. Housser, the North Island Liberal candidate during the election, Nick Facey, now has one of the Liberal's highly paid political appointments. He's chief of staff to the Minister of Health. But during the election he promised that the 45-kilometre gravel road to Zeballos would be paved by the Liberal government. So I wondered if the Minister of Transportation or the Minister of Forests could answer this simple question. Will Zeballos get that paved road promised by Mr. Facey, or were all the funds promised used on a jobs plan for failed Liberal candidates?

Hon. T. Stone: I will thank the member again for the same question that I took on notice last week. We'll start off by making it very clear that safety on our highways is the number one priority across British Columbia. Zeballos is approximately 40 kilometres from Highway 19. I'm certain the member probably knows every kilo-
[ Page 48 ]
metre of that road.

The first 35 kilometres are a gravel Forest Service road under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources. The last 4½ kilometres are under the jurisdiction of our ministry, with the first 3.4 kilometres being gravel and the last 1.1 kilometres through the community of Zeballos being paved. I will confirm for the hon. member that at this point in time there are no plans to pave this road to Zeballos.

Orders of the Day

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Farnworth: I appreciated that last answer from the minister, because I think it just about sums up the state of this budget, as well as this government, which is: say one thing before an election and something else after the election.

The government tabled a budget in February, a budget which was not balanced, which resulted in cuts to important areas of programming that British Columbians depend on not only today but for the future and long-term well-being of our economy — skills training being one of them.

The Minister of Finance stood in this House and gave us a financial update which basically reintroduced the same budget but with both much tighter forecasts on the revenue side and interesting forecasts on the debt side, particularly after we had witnessed an election campaign where Debt-free B.C. seemed to be the main slogan of the governing party.

Budgets are important because as much as they are financial documents, they're also indicative of the economic situation facing the province and speak to the government's attempts to improve or manage the economy here in the province of British Columbia.

The minister, as I congratulate him on the budget update today, took a new and innovative approach to help make the government's case around the numbers in the budget by the use of slides and a media presentation. Those figures and facts within the budget I think were informative to this House. But I also think it's important they did not tell the whole story to this House.

[1435]

I think it's important that on this side of the House we also take the opportunity, through Budget Update 2013, in our response from the opposition, to be able to explain some of the key and important points about this budget to British Columbians that I think the government neglected to comment on, or if they did, it was in a much more cursory examination than they deserved.

With that, I am ready to start the budget update response, and it's nice to see the technology is, in fact, working.

[Slide presentation begins.]

Hon. Speaker, a key part of the government's financial documents we're taking was to improve the economy. In fact, in the run-up to the election the government spent tens of millions of dollars touting how great things were here in B.C., that their jobs plan was a key component of the economic situation in British Columbia, and the budget was a key part of that.

Well, I think it's important that we look at job growth since the B.C. jobs plan was launched, and it says some very, very interesting figures.

Since September 2011, when the jobs plan was launched in this province by Premier Christy Clark, B.C. is the only province to have a net loss of private sector jobs over the past 20 months.

J. Kwan: How many?

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asks: "How many?" I have to tell her that it is not a good number. It's 31,300 fewer jobs than in September 2011. It's the worst record in the country for private sector job growth.

I see some members on the other side smiling. These are facts. These are Statistics Canada facts, not facts that occurred in a factory campaign but Statistics Canada facts. It's important to keep that in mind.

Between April and May B.C. continued to lose jobs, while there were large job gains across the country. So this fiscal framework tabled by the government takes place in a context of 31,000 fewer private sector jobs at the same time as other provinces — Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba…. Ontario, which the government often likes to point to as having a terrible fiscal situation, and we do not want to emulate them in any way, shape or form, has an increase of 106,000 jobs; Quebec as well; even the Maritimes. The government trumpets its jobs and growth record.

So private sector jobs have been lost, but let's look at some other sectors of the economy.

Forestry. We had questions in question period today around forestry. A key component of forestry and the forest economy in this province is having an understanding of the land base, is having an understanding of the inventory — the types of trees that you have, the age of those trees, the health of those trees, the species of those trees — and what the impact of issues such as the pine beetle, for example, has been on the health of the forest. It requires money to be able to assess that.

You would think that in an industry that has been of such historic importance to this province, that would be
[ Page 49 ]
reflected in the budget. The sad fact is it's not reflected in the budget. Maybe that's one of the reasons why, when you look at since 2001, we have lost more than 30,000 forestry jobs in British Columbia — 30,000 forestry jobs in British Columbia — most of them in smaller communities on the coast and in the Interior.

The lack of attention to that into this budget, in terms of the forest industry's health, does not speak well to the long-term health of the forest industry in British Columbia — not short term but long term. Those are the kinds of decisions that we were looking to see in this budget, and they're not there.

In construction, since 2008, when construction activity in this province peaked, the province has lost 37,400 construction jobs in British Columbia. Construction is not at the peak that it was in 2008. Again, that's a cause for concern, a great deal of concern.

[1440]

What's been part of the effect of this? Well, again, in the run-up to the election campaign and in the pre-election talk around the budget that was tabled in February: "Everything is fine. We're the best place in North America. We're standing tall." Well, those numbers paint a different picture.

But there's more. There are more slides that I think people need to see…

An Hon. Member: Show.

M. Farnworth: …and my colleague the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition asks me to show.

I think one of the ones that we need to look at is: are people coming to British Columbia, or are they leaving British Columbia? What's really fascinating is that since 2011, when Premier Christy Clark became leader of the B.C. Liberal Party and Premier of British Columbia, some 10,388 British Columbians have left this province for other parts of the country, a net loss for nine straight quarters in a row — people leaving this province for greener pastures. To use the words of the Premier, families being torn apart while people leave for greener pastures.

Middle-class families are leaving this province because they're being squeezed. They're being squeezed because private sector jobs are down. They're having to leave the province to find work. Despite after 12 years of power and a jobs plan on which millions of dollars were spent being advertised and budget after budget which was trumpeted as, "Things are great in this province," the rhetoric around the budget is not based in the reality that people in this province are seeing.

Private sector jobs down. Unaffordability. The most expensive housing in the country. Fee increase after fee increase after fee increase, whether it's MSP, tuition fees, hydro fees. As we heard today in question period, hydro fees are going to be going up. Is that mentioned in the budget? No, it's not. Was it mentioned in the campaign? No, it was not.

Prior to the campaign the previous Minister of Energy said: "We're going to make sure that it's 3 percent and that's it. If we have to tell the Utilities Commission to bring in…. You name it. There'll be no unaffordable hydro increases taking place." That was before the election.

What's happened after the election? Hundreds of millions of dollars of cost overruns on the northwest transmission project, the sorry state of the deferral accounts coming home to roost and the long-term cost to B.C. Hydro that they're going to commit Hydro to.

Who picks up that cost? Is it the government? No. Honest, hard-working, taxpaying, middle-class, working-class British Columbians across the province have to pick up that cost.

J. Kwan: The Premier's campaign in Kelowna. What is she saying?

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, who asks such insightful questions — she always asks such insightful questions — asks: "What is the Premier saying in Kelowna?" Apparently, the Premier in Kelowna said — on AM 1150, as I recall — that these increasing costs are not going to be borne by the ratepayer.

I don't know. Who is going to bear the cost if it's not the ratepayer? Is she going to hold a giant fundraiser, ask people outside the province to chip in? Is she going to ask Alberta to chip in?

B. Ralston: Sell a railway, maybe.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Whalley says: "Sell a railway." That's already been done, and look what that got the province. It got them a $6 million out-of-court settlement to shut the whole thing down.

[1445]

No, the reality is it's the taxpayers of this province who are going to pick up the cost, the ratepayer, with significantly higher hydro rates, and you can take that to the bank.

J. Kwan: So you mean we shouldn't believe the Premier — what she's saying now?

M. Farnworth: Well, the question is: should we believe the Premier? I think the real question is: should we believe the budget? Should we believe the budget, and should we look at the record of this government over the last number of years to see what they say in a budget and what the reality is — as to why people should be concerned and why we as the opposition are concerned?

I've talked about people leaving B.C. I've talked about the loss of private sector jobs in this province. All of these things impact the economy. And of course, the govern-
[ Page 50 ]
ment says: "No, no. Don't worry about that. Don't worry about that. Things are good. We're in charge. We've got a plan."

Well, let's look at their plan. The budget in February laid out some key indicators around the forecasts that we're going to be taking into account in the coming year. Again, what was said before the election and what was said after the election makes for an interesting comparison.

Real GDP growth in February was projected to be 1.6 percent this year. In June's update it has been downgraded to 1.4 percent. Employment growth, which was projected at 1.1 percent in February, has been downgraded to 0.7 percent. Retail sales growth, projected to be 3.5 percent in February, has been downgraded, as well, to 1.8 percent, and B.C. housing starts growth, already projected to decline by 10 percent in February, is expected to fall even further, by 13.3 percent. Hardly a vote of ringing consumer confidence.

That's something that all of us need to be concerned about, because as much as we are a resource-based economy, we're also a consumer-driven economy in British Columbia.

Small businesses rely on consumer spending and retail spending, and if that's not happening, they suffer. Small towns that have seen, through budget cuts, government services in the dirt ministries pulled out of small communities and regional communities in this province are further impacted by the current state of the economic statistics that we're seeing over the coming year. They will feel the impact.

Prior to the election it was: "Everything's fine. We're standing up tall in this province, and we really have nothing to worry about." The reality is that there is, and this budget does nothing to address the concerns and fears in those communities.

The government says the budget is balanced. They said that prior to February, when they tabled the budget. An examination of the figures that were used, the spending projections that were used, the fire sale of assets that was used, I think, put paid to that.

Most people — with the exception, probably, of the government — understand that that budget was not balanced, and neither is this one. But I do think it's important that we look at this government's record of deficits because that speaks to what they say before an election, or what they say when they table their budget as being balanced in May, and the reality that happens over the coming 12 months.

[1450]

Since 2001 there have been seven deficit budgets. Since Premier Christy Clark came into office, deficit targets were missed by more than a combined sum of $1 billion. The government has repeatedly broken the balanced budget law.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleagues say no, but it is true. They have amended and changed the balanced budget law to suit their own needs. So even though they have said in the throne speech that they intend to toughen it, the reality is when it gets too tough for them, they don't tough it out. They change it to suit their needs.

The real concern is the financial expenditure projections, which you can compare with historical averages in this province, the historical rate of spending under this government. Again, you can see how unrealistic they are, and you can see that what is going to happen is impacts to services that the most vulnerable and the middle class rely on. They say that they won't, but they've already established a core review to take out an additional $130 million that they certainly weren't talking about prior to the election. They certainly didn't mention that prior to the election, just like they didn't mention the need for significant Hydro rate increases prior to the election.

J. Kwan: In fact, didn't they say quite the opposite?

M. Farnworth: In fact, as my colleague says, they said quite the opposite.

But let's just examine the record of deficits. In the last seven out of 12 years — 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 — there have been deficits. In the 2011-2012 deficit, the target of $925 million at the beginning of the year ended up at $1.814 billion, a $889 million difference. In 2012-13 the deficit target of $968 million at the beginning of the year…. The latest estimate of it is $1.146 billion, a $178 million difference. That's some rounding error.

Hon. Speaker, when you start to look at the spending increases in this budget, one of the key ones is in health care. In last year's budget they said what was required to maintain the level of service with some modest improvements was an increase of 3.7 percent. They said: "We're spending $2.4 billion on health care over the next three years." That $2.4 billion is what is being spent over the next three years from this fiscal year. Last year they said that a 3.7 percent increase was needed.

What they didn't tell you, hon. Speaker, is the impact that that is going to have. It's a $235 million cut, roughly, at a time when we know that population growth, particularly amongst our seniors, is increasing by about 1 percent a year; that health inflation is higher than inflation, as an average, for the rest of the province and for the rest of the ministries; that we have to make investments and move from an acute care health care system to a chronic disease management system.

That means being able to deal and implement in key areas of reports that this House has seen around seniors care, for example; home care — all the kinds of investments that need to be made now so that we can deal with
[ Page 51 ]
the long-term impacts of an aging population and reductions in federal funding that we're receiving from Ottawa.

Nowhere in this budget does it take into account some of the key policy areas that health care faces. In fact, at the very front of the budget document, the budget letter states that this budget does not take into account…. What it says is that the physician master agreement negotiations are going to have to be managed very, very carefully, and I bet they will, because there's no money in them for any kind of fee increase. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that physicians will be looking for….

[1455]

An Hon. Member: Doughnuts.

M. Farnworth: Yes, and doughnuts cost money. There's no money in there for physicians to buy doughnuts, never mind anything else.

Issues around the nurses' contract. The hiring of an additional 2,150 nurses over three years. Again, those costs are not really reflected. They're not reflected in this budget and certainly won't be covered by an increase of 2.6 percent, when historically it's been higher than that.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Then there's the issue in the budget letter of the management of pharmacy expenditures. Well, one of the most effective ways of doing that was the therapeutics initiative, and the government's gone and gutted that. What does that say about what the government says in terms of its rhetoric about wanting to control expenditures, when some of the key tools and some of the most efficient tools — in fact, one of the best tools, acknowledged by the New England Journal of Medicine as something that can be a model for other jurisdictions with public health care systems — have ended, never mind just being gutted?

We're already seeing health authorities…. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is already identifying $27 million in shortfall. So the idea that this budget will somehow make improvements in our health care system and will not impact people, will not impact citizens in British Columbia…. We just don't see it in here. We think that people are going to be impacted. They're going to see it in their services, and they're going to see it in a whole range of ministries.

Apart from the unrealistic spending estimates in some ministries such as Health, an additional $130 million in cuts is also going to be felt.

Then there's the issue of advanced education funding in this budget. What's particularly interesting is that, as I said in my opening day remarks, in 2002 the Business Council of British Columbia identified that one of the key economic challenges facing this province was a shortage of skilled labour, that government needed to get serious about investing in advanced education, in training opportunities for young people here in B.C., workers who've been displaced from other industries here in British Columbia. And yet the focus of this government over the last few years seems to be more about hiring temporary foreign workers in this country than about ensuring the training of our own young people and people who've been displaced.

In 2002 the Business Council outlined one of the key challenges facing British Columbia. In the throne speech — and this is what's so stunning — after the election and after the February budget, when this government cut $46 million from advanced education, from training opportunities for young people that resulted in 5,600 fewer spaces…. That was in February. After the election, the throne speech says: "Oh, we need a ten-year plan for skills training in this province." Where have they been for the last ten years? Where has the Premier been? The ten-year plan should have been in place back in 2002. The funding should have been there. Instead, they've taken funding out — the ministry with an absolute, real cut.

That speaks to more than a disconnect. That speaks to a government that doesn't recognize that the people in this province are assets who should be invested in, particularly our young people.

Forest health. I've talked a bit about forest health, a key component of our provincial economy. British Columbians are paying more in fees. Unrealistic health spending estimates. Cuts to colleges and universities.

[1500]

An additional $130 million in other programs to be cut during the core review, which, again, is interesting in the sense that after 12 years in power and $16 million and saying what great economic managers they are in this province, one would have to wonder: "Well, if you're so good, why do you have to have a core review to go and find an additional $130 million? I thought you were already running a lean, mean machine."

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Nanaimo, never short on a quick quip, says that it is mean.

But they're also selling off provincial assets.

The spending issues that I have mentioned are one part. Fee increases are another part. Under this government we've watched MSP rates, which now cost the average family an additional $736 a year. On January 1, 2014, those rates will rise an additional 4 percent. B.C. Hydro rates are up and going to go even higher. The government can't say how or when, but they admit that they will.

Ferry fares are up 53 to 87 percent. Tuition fees have more than doubled. Residential care fees are up. And we've had the Premier, Christy Clark, introduce the wheelchair tax.

Interjection.
[ Page 52 ]

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Whalley says, "Shame," and he's absolutely right.

It really says something when you look at MSP rates for families that have increased 85 percent since 2001. That's a significant impact on many families at a time when wage growth is not keeping pace with inflation, when housing prices are the most expensive in the country, when tuition fees are increasing. No wonder more than 10,000 people left for greener pastures. There's nothing in this budget that is going to bring them back here to British Columbia anytime soon.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague calls it taxation by another name.

The other area of the budget, prior to the election, that caused concern was the record sale of assets. I think this is a particularly important issue that needs to be examined. From 2000 to 2010 approximately $381 million in assets were sold — on average, $38 million a year. Contrast that to their current sale projections of $475 million in 2013-14 and $150 million in 2014-15, for a combined total of $625 million.

It looks good in terms of a "balanced budget" tabled in February, but the reality is that it's not the way to balance a budget over the long term. Once those assets are gone, they're gone. But what's particularly concerning is the sheer number, because if you don't meet that target, that has a significant impact on your budget.

Again, history shows that what they say will be achieved in the budget is not necessarily what happens. In fact, the Auditor General of this province has had a number of things to say around asset sales. In particular, you only book the revenue in the year that you get it. That may be able to explain why Little Mountain Housing was booked, I think, in three budgets — three times. The sale has still not yet been completed, is my understanding. I look forward to, if it has, whether or not it will be included within these numbers. But that particular site is a question for another day.

[1505]

The bottom line is this. The government is selling off record numbers of assets that they deem to be surplus. Now, government, I will admit, does have surplus assets from time to time that can be disposed of. All governments have done that. But in this particular case, the issue is the number, the dollar amount and the rush with which it's being done just to be able to say that they've tabled a balanced budget.

In many communities many of these lands, when you look at them — the list that we've been able to see so far…. A number of them are school sites or school lands that are deemed to be surplus. The challenge with that, though, is how that determination is made, because while many communities in parts of the province are shrinking, other communities are growing. They grow at a significant rate.

Surrey, for example, is well on its way to…. I know some of my colleagues from Vancouver won't like to hear this, but I know that people from Surrey — and living out in the Tri-Cities, we, too — are acutely aware of how fast growth has taken place in that area. As I like to point out to some people, in 1991, when I was first elected, my riding of Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain had 52,000 people, and in 1996, the mid-point through the '90s, my riding had 85,000 people — the largest riding in the province. So growth has been quite significant out that way.

The challenge becomes, from the education point of view, the construction of schools and the identification of land that's required for schools keeping pace with that growth. Are you selling off land that really is needed, maybe not today but in three or four or five years, because we know that growth is going to take place there? Are we selling off assets that are going to be required in the future?

When it comes to education, that's particularly important because there is a history in this province of land being sold and then bought back at a significantly higher price by the provincial government when it shouldn't have been sold in the first place.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague says ten schools are needed in Surrey now.

I know there are schools needed in Port Coquitlam and in other areas. For example, a few years ago there were some schools closed in school district 43 because they were deemed to be in low enrolment. They were closed. But since that time, redevelopment has taken place, the number of kids coming back has increased, and they need to look at reopening a school or finding a new school site.

That's the trap the government finds themselves in and can get themselves into when they rush to dispose of assets without thoroughly having thought them through. That, I think, is one of the big weaknesses in the sale of assets in the way that the government has been going about it.

Finally, hon. Speaker, I think there's a very important issue when it comes to this budget that needs to be addressed, and it's something that the government likes to think that they have taken great pride in. That's the issue of financial mismanagement.

This one is particularly interesting and, again, it speaks to why on this side of the House we have no faith in this budget, why we do not believe that it will be balanced. And I think it speaks to some of the things that we heard today in question period and why this government is clearly repeating the same mistakes over again.

[1510]

Let's just look at a number of projects and what initial-
[ Page 53 ]
ly the government said they were going to cost and what they ended up costing.

The northwest transmission line: cost overrun of $342 million, an 85 percent cost overrun.

South Fraser perimeter road: $464 million over the initial cost estimates, a 58 percent cost overrun.

Port Mann Bridge. In 2006, when the gateway definition report was released, the projected cost was $1.5 billion. The final price: $3.3 billion, a $1.8 billion cost overrun.

The Vancouver Convention Centre: cost overrun of $341 million — oops — 68 percent.

B.C. Place roof: $149 million cost overrun, 41 percent.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: "A relative bargain," my colleague says — compared to some of the others.

But what's really fascinating is the response from the government. Today in question period we heard the Minister of Energy in response to questions on the northwest transmission line state that they're not happy about it. There wasn't enough discipline. You got that right. Clearly, in project after project after project, there has not been enough fiscal discipline. The response is: "We're not happy about it."

The northwest transmission line is the latest that they're not happy about. Were they happy about the South Fraser perimeter road? Were they happy about the Port Mann highway? Were they happy about the Vancouver Convention Centre? Were they happy about the B.C. Place roof?

At what point does the penny — or the debt-penny — drop, and they realize they're making mistake after mistake after mistake on project after project and are able to do something about it to correct it? Or, as they're saying right now: "We're going to take some corrective action." Well, that's an awful lot of billions of dollars that have been spent in cost overruns already for them to finally decide: "You know what? We're not happy about it, and it's about time we started to do something about it." I guess this time they really mean it.

When you look at this budget, when you look at what was tabled, with all of the rhetoric around it, but then you start to look at their record once they actually table budgets and where they end up, you get something different than what was advertised prior to the election — different from what $16 million was spent on in the run-up to the election campaign and what is certainly different than what was printed on the side of the bus of "Debt-Free B.C."

I think this is also a very set of interesting statistics that people should be aware of. In her two years as Premier, Christy Clark has added $10.7 billion to the debt, and her current three-year fiscal plan would add $14 billion more. That means that by the end of her plan, the Premier will have increased the B.C. debt by $24.6 billion, or 55 percent, the biggest increase in the history of British Columbia — the biggest increase. That doesn't sound like debt-free B.C. It sounds like a debt spree in B.C. The Premier ran around going: "Debt-Free B.C."

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Ah, my colleague across the way says they've got four more years. Well, I'd like to remind him of something.

[1515]

Since the updated forecast of when the budget was tabled last year, 2012-2013, it was $55.8 billion. The budget estimate in 2013-2014 is $62.6 billion. Added to the debt so far this year: $6.8 billion. That's per day, $18.5 million; per hour, $771,233; per minute, $12,854; per second, $214; since election day, 49 days, $906,969,863; since budget day, $111,057,534.

The debt per person in 2013-14: $13,411. In 2015-16 it will be $14,616. The debt is going up in this province; services are going down in this province. More people are leaving this province than are coming to it. People in this province are being impacted by cuts to health care services through the inability of stable funding where they said it should be last year. Our young people are being denied the skills and training that have been identified since 2002 as one of the biggest economic challenges this province faces.

[Slide presentation concludes.]

This budget does nothing to address that. This budget will take an additional $130 million over and above what they said was going to happen prior to the election. In short, this budget is not balanced, this budget will impact families, and this budget is a failure. That's why we on this side of the House will not be supporting it but voting against it.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member. Does the member intend to table a copy of the slides he's presented today?

M. Farnworth: Yes, absolutely.

Deputy Speaker: Great.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I'm proud to stand in the House today and represent the people of Vancouver-Quilchena. I thank my constituents for putting their trust in me by electing me to this assembly. The constituents of Vancouver-Quilchena expect this government to do a very important task: to make sure that their hard-earned tax dollars are invested in the programs and the public services that matter to British Columbians.
[ Page 54 ]

This government was elected because British Columbians told us that they want a strong economy and a secure tomorrow for their children. By introducing Budget 2013, this government is opening the path to future prosperity here in British Columbia and confirming that this government is on track to balance the budget in this fiscal year. The budget forecasts and commits us to surpluses in all three years of the fiscal plan — a $153 million surplus in 2013-14, a $154 million surplus in 2014-15; and a $446 million surplus in 2015-16.

Charting our course to a debt-free British Columbia depends upon this disciplined approach to spending. This has not been easy. We recognize that ongoing fiscal discipline and continued tough choices are needed to make sure that our government preserves the public services that are so important to British Columbians.

We've implemented a responsible and progressive tax regime that lays the foundation for investment and job growth. Individual taxpayers and their families are benefitting from low personal income taxes, leaving more money in their pockets to get on with their lives. And we're looking to the future and making the necessary decisions to benefit our children and the generations to come.

As the new Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens' Services, I'm firmly committed to stimulating economic development in our province, and I'm committed to providing leadership across government for the effective and efficient delivery of public services that meet the needs and expectations of British Columbians.

British Columbia's knowledge-based sectors, and technology in particular, are seeing a rise in demand for skilled labour which means real opportunities for good jobs and job creation throughout British Columbia. Because the technology sector has been one of the fastest-growing areas of our economy, it has been identified as one the key eight sectors in the B.C. job plan.

[1520]

B.C.'s technology sector accounts for more than 84,000 jobs, $18 billion in revenue and 10 percent of all of our exports. To help further grow this vital sector of our economy, this government is pursuing a technology strategy with four key elements.

We have committed, first, to accelerate technology commercialization and adoption; second, to build on regional strengths to create new opportunities; third, to develop talent for a knowledge-based economy; and fourth, to expand British Columbia's markets in technology. This government is working with the technology sector to implement these actions and to develop more ideas that can build this sector even further.

This government will continue to support organizations like the B.C. Innovation Council, which has grown a network of business accelerators and entrepreneurial mentors across this province to build the private sector, developing hundreds of new companies at the cutting edge of innovation. With investments in research and partnerships with post-secondary institutions and private industry, this government intends to keep B.C. at the forefront of global technological innovation and growth, leading to prosperity right here in British Columbia.

My ministry not only promotes technology, but it also makes the best use of technology to link our government and the people of British Columbia. We are responsible for service delivery and access to information. Shared Services B.C. is responsible for providing a wide range of cost-effective services and infrastructure to ministries and government organizations.

This ministry acts as the reliable caretaker of provincial real estate, information technology and purchasing services. We continually strive to provide innovative, integrated and sustainable services at the lowest cost to taxpayers.

Service levels continually improve, and savings are being found through innovative new policies like our leading workplace strategy, which allows government employees to make use of flexible working models that reduce our office and infrastructure costs, just as the private sector has done in recent years.

My ministry also includes the integrated workplace solutions division, formerly known as B.C. Buildings Corporation, which has responsibility for the overall management of government's real estate portfolio. Ministry staff have already made good progress in the Ministry of Finance's initiative to release surplus property assets to ensure that those properties are utilized effectively in our economy, to enable economic growth in the private sector.

I'm proud to note the government has already achieved approximately 37 percent of this year's goal for property and asset sales in the first three months of the fiscal year. Sales agreements are in place for approximately $58 million worth of surplus property, and the government has realized a net gain of $123 million on the sale of financial assets related to sinking funds. These sales have already raised combined revenue of approximately $181 million, which puts us firmly on track to balance this budget.

This ministry also has oversight of the Knowledge Network, which is British Columbia's public educational broadcaster. The Knowledge Network receives an annual grant of $6.4 million from the province to provide quality programming to 1½ million viewers, or one-third of the British Columbia population, every week.

Finally, this ministry includes the government communications and public engagement division, which has the responsibility to inform British Columbians about government programs, policies and services, and to ensure that information is communicated in an open and transparent manner.

To ensure that all British Columbians are involved in the knowledge economy, this budget continues our commitment to expand connectivity in rural and re-
[ Page 55 ]
mote communities throughout B.C. We all know that Internet access provides a window to the world and a wide range of information and services. This government wants all British Columbians to share the social, economic and educational benefits of having access to high-speed Internet. That is why we are continuing to invest in connecting British Columbians from all corners of the province to the Internet. Ninety-three percent of British Columbians now have high-speed Internet connectivity, and that number rises every month.

Our strategic relationships have and will continue to leverage investments from the private sector, the federal government and other entities to improve broadband connectivity throughout the province, including the north Island, Haida Gwaii, the north coast, the Interior and the remainder of British Columbia. Soon, through our recently announced initiative with Xplornet Communications, British Columbians in the most inaccessible locations will be able to get more affordable high-speed Internet through satellite technology.

These initiatives will help citizens in every region of the province to capitalize on the opportunities presented by information technology and give them access to on-line services delivered to them directly by the Net.

We are working with the private sector and other levels of government to expand the existing levels of connectivity into communities, while at the same time improving cell coverage along provincial highways.

[1525]

This has a number of benefits. It improves public safety by making it easier for motorists and residents travelling on remote stretches of highway to communicate when they need to. It generates economic opportunities for families by fully engaging them in the information economy no matter where they live in British Columbia.

The province and Telus are jointly announcing a number of highway sections where wireless coverage is newly available, including ten kilometres of Highway 5 between Valemount and the Highway 16 junction, more than 20 kilometres of Highway 5A near Nicola Lake and over 40 kilometres of highways near Kitwanga. Through the work we're doing with our stakeholders, new areas of cell coverage have been opened on hundreds of kilometres of B.C. highways, with more than a thousand more kilometres in progress right now.

We're supporting First Nations in their efforts to close the gap that exists between aboriginal people and the rest of our population when it comes to broadband Internet connectivity. Today 177 of 203 First Nations have broadband infrastructure in place. NetWork B.C. continues to support First Nations organizations and work to connect the remaining communities.

We are working collaboratively with local community organizations, with all levels of government and with both small and large Internet service providers to achieve our goal of 100 percent broadband connection across the province by 2021.

My ministry also is responsible for Service B.C., which is one of the key front-line service providers here in British Columbia. Our government agents deliver a wide range of front-counter services to the public across B.C., from new driver's licences to registration for MSP to income assistance or assistance in finding work.

In some cases our Service B.C. centres have been combined to deliver services from a variety of ministries, depending on the community's needs, making them a one-stop shop for government services and helping to increase the efficiencies for citizens at much reduced cost to taxpayers. No matter what agency is represented in those service counters, signage outside greets clients in 12 different languages, welcoming people of diverse cultures inside to access our many government services.

My ministry is also playing a key role in developing and rolling out a very significant change to our health care and identity management systems. The new B.C. Services Card was launched earlier this year. It will provide the foundation for the rollout of electronic health records, which will improve patient care and protect patient safety.

The new card contains the latest high-security features to counter fraud. The service card also has the capacity for future secure access to an extended range of government services and on-line information. This is great news for British Columbians because it will deliver on our goal of improving service delivery while ensuring that we're able to control costs effectively.

As these new methods of service delivery emerge, we consult closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure that privacy, identity and security continue to be protected when any potential changes to the service card are considered.

We'll be engaging citizens about the ways they want to use this form of identification. British Columbians may want to have secure access to their health records or to register for government programs on line. We'll be consulting them on these options in the coming months. It will be an exciting conversation and truly demonstrates that our government is meeting the demands of the Internet era in creating effective ways for us to work with our population to deliver better service while at the same time respecting the need for protection of personal privacy.

In conclusion, this budget takes a stand for the benefit of both present and future generations of British Columbians. I'm proud of this government's record of sound fiscal management, and we're building on that solid foundation to ensure that prosperity is open to all British Columbians. We're taking decisive action to balance our budget, and we're doing it while keeping taxes low and maintaining our triple-A credit rating.

By keeping our economy growing today and by balancing this budget and the next three budgets, we will
[ Page 56 ]
secure a debt-free future for generations to come. This is hard work, but we are taking it on, and we'll deliver a bright future full of opportunity, not only for this generation of British Columbians but for generations to come.

[1530]

Tabling Documents

M. Farnworth: I seek leave to table documents.

Leave granted.

Debate Continued

J. Darcy: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating you and congratulating all of the MLAs elected to this House on all sides of this House — from the government side, from the opposition side, from the Green Party and independent. I am deeply honoured to have been elected as the MLA for New Westminster, and I rise on their behalf for the first time in this House.

I want to thank the voters of New Westminster for giving me the privilege of representing them in this Legislature and for the trust they have placed in me.

I want to also take the opportunity, as several colleagues across the floor did last week, to thank my brilliant campaign team headed by a very smart and talented young woman by the name of Brynn Bourke. I also want to thank the countless volunteers who worked endless hours during the election campaign and for many months in advance.

I want to thank some of my dear friends who are here today for being a constant source of support to me. And what can I say about my husband of 35 years — we were, of course, teenagers when we first met — and about my wonderful son? They have supported me and encouraged me and been with me every step of the way. As all of us know who are in public life, that's what our family members do. They support and encourage us along the way, and if your family members are anything like mine, they also keep you humble.

I have the great privilege of following in the footsteps of some very remarkable Members of the Legislative Assembly from New Westminster.

I want to begin by referring to someone who is very well known to this House, Dawn Black, who recently retired — the much-loved and widely respected Dawn Black, a woman who exemplifies all that is best in public service; a woman who served several terms in the federal parliament of Canada, where among one of her greatest distinctions was introducing a private member's bill to say that from that point onward every year, December 6 would be set aside as a day to remember and to commit to action against violence against women. She served in the B.C. Legislature with distinction as Advanced Education critic, as interim leader and, most recently, as Assistant Deputy Speaker.

Now, I could go back 60 years in acknowledging my predecessors in the NDP and the CCF. I will spare you that, but I do want to make reference to a few of them. Dennis Cocke, who was Minister of Health in the 1970s, introduced our provincial B.C. Ambulance Service. Anita Hagen, a real pioneer and role model, served as Deputy Premier and Minister of Education. Graeme Bowbrick served as Minister of Advanced Education and Attorney General. Chuck Puchmayr, who served just before Dawn Black, took back the seat after one term from the Liberal candidate who has become history, a legend, in New Westminster, who closed St. Mary's Hospital, for which our community is still paying the price.

New Westminster is a very special community. It's a community with very rich and deep traditions as the Royal City, as the first capital of British Columbia, traditions like May Day and the Hyack Festival. New Westminster stands on the territory of the Qayqayt Nation, which was once a thriving village of several hundred people on the banks of the Fraser. There remains now one family, led by Chief Rhonda Larrabee, who serves with great distinction as a leader in our community.

New Westminster is a city whose population is growing rapidly. It's grown to now 66,000 souls in just 15 square kilometres. So when we grow, we grow up, not out. It's a city that is rapidly changing, attracting new businesses and creative industries and head offices in place of the mills and manufacturing plants that once lined the Fraser River.

[1535]

It's a community that is now home to people from 80 countries across the globe, and that was never more clear than at the New Westminster Secondary School graduation ceremony that I attended last Thursday night when, as the young people tripped across the stage with their graduation caps and received their certificates, there were as many Sandhus, Talentinos and Wus as there were McRorys, Jansens or Blacks.

We are host to the legendary Hyack Festival, the biggest such international festival in British Columbia; the Lacrosse Hall of Fame; as well as home to the seventh annual Nagar Kirtan Sikh parade, which was attended by over 7,000 people in Queensborough just two days ago.

Our neighbourhoods in New Westminster are as diverse as they are distinct, from historic Sapperton, home to the Royal Columbian Hospital and the brewery district as well as the head offices of TransLink — we're glad to have them there; it'll give us easier access to talk to them — to Massey Victory Heights, with its commanding views of the Fraser River; to Victoria Hill, where the Woodlands institution once stood; from the historic Queens Park to uptown and downtown; to the quay; from the Brow of the Hill to Moody Park to the west end; from Connaught Heights across the bridge to Queensborough.
[ Page 57 ]

But I have to say that the defining characteristic of New Westminster is its compelling sense of community. It's a place where people genuinely look out for one another. It's a place where we celebrate each other's achievements and successes. It's a place where we take care of each other when we're in need.

That spirit of giving to the community extends from our local businesses to our health care providers, from our trade unions to our chamber of commerce, from Douglas College to our farmers market to our network of social agencies; from our places of worship to our environmental organizations and to our schools.

In this same vein, I'm very proud to say that New Westminster is also the home of the first government in Canada at any level to have offered an apology to Chinese Canadians. It is also the first municipality in all of Canada to proclaim a living-wage policy, because our municipality believes, our city council believes, that work should lift you out of poverty, not keep you there.

Just last week, I'm proud to say, our school trustees adopted an excellent policy on sexual orientation and gender equity — and the vote was unanimous, I might say.

Our elections are hard-fought, to be sure, and the last one was no exception. We certainly have our conflicts and our tensions. But we also come together as one, and we respect one another, whether we are blue collar or white collar or pink collar or no collar, which is not to say that we do not in New Westminster have our share of problems, some much more serious than others. Last Friday's issue of the Royal City Record catalogued some of the smaller things that define New Westminster life for better or for worse under the Twitter hashtag "New Westminster problems."

Among those listed were: "Telling people there is no extra 'i' in New Westminster" — as in "New Westminister" — a very serious matter in my community. "It's a city so small that you can't burn any bridges unless it's called the Bailey bridge — or maybe the Pattullo." "Having to explain that lacrosse is, in fact, Canada's national sport, thank you very much." And "people thinking that we live in the suburbs" — hashtag "Vancouver was our suburb."

But all joking aside, people in my community do face some very serious challenges. While we come together as a community to support one another, some of those problems, many of those challenges, need a government, need the provincial government, to step up to the challenge.

We haven't seen action from the previous provincial government in some of the areas I'm going to touch on, nor is there any action spelled out in the budget that has been introduced in this House.

[1540]

I want to begin by talking about child poverty, because a few months ago, at the end of a public meeting, a young woman approached me to talk to me about poverty. She had three young children. She told me a story about her son recently having been given a new coat by a local charitable organization.

He was so proud, and he was so excited. When he went home at night, he didn't want to take that jacket off. Eventually she persuaded him he should go to sleep, and he'd get to put the jacket on again the next day.

When he was ready to go to school, she put the jacket on him. He said: "Where are the tags, Mommy?" She said: "Well, I took the tags off." He wept, and he wept, and he wept. You see, he had never owned something brand-new in his entire life. He wanted to go to school and let his classmates know that he finally had a new piece of clothing.

British Columbia has had the highest child poverty rates in the country for several years running. Children are poor because their parents are poor — like this young mother, despite her best efforts. So isn't it time, not as a partisan issue but with people joining together from across this House, that we join together to say that, like many other provinces in this country, it's high time we adopted a poverty reduction strategy for the province of British Columbia?

Speaking of children, where is the investment in our classrooms? Where is the investment in public education in this budget? I can tell you, not just as an MLA but as a parent, that we have special needs children in our classrooms in New Westminster who are not being given the opportunity to learn and to succeed that every child deserves, whether that's children with Down syndrome or children with ADHD who don't have a designation.

The Minister of Energy said earlier that the government of British Columbia believes in saying yes to opportunity, but these children are not being given the opportunity that every child deserves.

I have to ask the Minister of Education, to ask the Premier: why is it that this government has no interest in investing in public education to give these children a real opportunity to succeed, whether they're special needs children or ESL children, and instead sees fit to provoke yet another dispute with the province's teachers, even though time and time again this government's actions have been found to be in violation of the Charter-protected rights to collective bargaining, as they were in the case of health care workers in the HEU, who I was proud to represent.

I'm very honoured to have been appointed by my leader as the Health critic for the opposition caucus. I've been a lifelong health care advocate, a seniors advocate and, as I mentioned, have been proud to represent people who work in the front lines of health care.

I want to come back to the theme of the most vulnerable people in this province when we're speaking about health, as the opposition Finance critic has done, because we are already beginning to see major impacts of cuts on some of the most vulnerable people who access
[ Page 58 ]
health care services in this province. We're seeing those cuts even before the impact of this budget is being felt.

In my community Fraser Health has eliminated funding to the Lookout Society's program that supports homeless people with serious mental health issues, people who are struggling with addictions, people who are marginalized, people whose health is already compromised. Why are they cutting this funding? They say it's not part of their core mandate — as if homelessness is not, by any measure, a social determinant of health. Penny-wise, pound-foolish, I have to say.

[1545]

Vancouver Coastal Health has recently announced it's closing a unique and cost-effective program for immigrants and refugees with severe and complex mental illnesses, a program that enables people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder to access services in the community through ESL programs and life skills programs as well.

Why is that program being cut? Seems we're going to hear the same refrain. It's not part of their core mandate — this in direct violation of the government's own ten-year plan to improve mental health for our diverse communities. Also penny-wise and pound-foolish.

We've seen funding cuts to the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, to the Mood Disorders Association, to the West Coast Mental Health Network, yet these services and programs are far less costly than treatment in acute care hospitals, which is where so many of these people will end up. Penny-wise, pound-foolish.

In some communities, including New Westminster, we're seeing reductions in the hours of home support that is being provided for our seniors to enable them to live independently in their own homes longer and reductions in the standards of bathing, for instance, and other supports that these seniors are entitled to.

Well, it seems to me that we can either decide as a province to support our seniors to live independently in their own homes for longer, or we can see even more seniors ending up in emergency rooms and even more stories like the one that happened a couple of years ago — to have the overflow from the emergency room at Royal Columbian Hospital taking up the Tim Hortons restaurant. The staff who work there can tell you that that's almost a daily and a weekly occurrence. It just doesn't always make headlines.

We can see more seniors ending up taking up acute care hospital beds, when already, on average, according to the Ombudsperson's report on seniors care, at least one in ten acute care hospital beds is being taken up by someone who really belongs in alternative level of care, in ALC.

Not only is this kind of policy penny-wise and pound-foolish; it also robs our seniors of their dignity and of their self-respect. And I want to say — on behalf of the seniors in my community and on behalf of my father, who had to struggle for many years in order to achieve the kind of home support that he needed — that our parents and our grandparents and our loved ones…. They built this province. They built this country. They deserve to live out their last years with dignity and with respect, and we're going to work to make sure that that happens.

There are many more concerns that my constituents have raised with me that time does not permit me to speak to today, but I want to touch on just a few short ones.

The lack of hospice beds in my community or even training in hospice care for staff in our residential care facilities so that people who have lived and loved in New Westminster get to have the opportunity to also die in their own community.

Then there's the Christy Clark wheelchair tax, which so many people have spoken about already — $300 a year in the name of somehow equalizing access, equalizing conditions in public and private residential care. Well, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to recognize that for a frail senior in a residential care bed, the right to a wheelchair is a medical necessity. They should not be denied that because they don't have the money to pay a $300 tax.

Like so many others in this House, I spent the weekend out and about in New Westminster at Canada Day activities, speaking with and listening to my constituents. Boy, did they ever have a lot to say about this budget.

[1550]

They don't believe that a budget is balanced when what it simply does is shift more costs onto them. The students at Douglas College or SFU from New Westminster don't accept this government's claim of a real goal of a debt-free B.C. when they are accumulating some of the biggest debts of any student population in the entire country, with less financial help from government.

My constituents don't really believe that this government is pursuing a family-first agenda when child care fees in our community and across B.C. are often higher than mortgage or rent costs. My constituents are very pleased to hear the government say that we have severe skills shortages in this province — to finally recognize that and to say that we have to do something about it — but they don't see any investments in skills training to overcome those shortages in this budget.

My constituents also know from firsthand experience that what we need in the Lower Mainland is a true regional transportation policy with public transit at its core. In New Westminster we experience literally hundreds of thousands of vehicle trips going through our community every day, without stopping, with huge consequences for congestion, for pollution, for environmental degradation.

My constituents have asked me to express in this House that they want to see government take action so that New Westminster is treated by this government and by the TransLink board as more than simply an inter-
[ Page 59 ]
section.

Let me close today by saying something briefly about my parents. They came to Canada when I was very young, and they faced many of the same struggles that immigrant families face. My father fought with the Allied forces in Europe in World War II and was taken prisoner of war in Dunkirk. My mother was the first in her family in a small town in Denmark to put herself through university. And like so many other Danes, she served in the Danish resistance in World War II.

My parents instilled in me profound values — values of responsibility to others, values of standing up for what you believe in and values of the importance of hard work. Although they passed away many years ago, my parents' memory remains with me every day, including as I rise for the first time in this House.

I commit to them, and I commit to my constituents in New Westminster, that it is the voices of the people of New Westminster who will be heard every time I rise in this House. I take great pride in following in a long line of wonderful representatives of the people of New Westminster.

Michelle Stilwell: It is indeed my pleasure to today to speak in favour of the recently updated budget speech. As a new member of this House from the riding of Parksville-Qualicum, where I have lived for over 11 years, I feel a deep responsibility to my constituents and to the people of British Columbia.

My thanks to all those who voted for me — those constituents who put their trust in me. It's an honour, and I will do my very best to serve you. As a newly elected representative, I will ask the questions that need to be asked and will not be afraid to represent the will of my constituents. For many years I have competed on the world and international stage as an elite athlete representing Canada. It is with that same passion and dedication that I will represent the people of Parksville-Qualicum.

As well, I wish to acknowledge those who played a key role in helping me achieve this honour: a wonderful team with many volunteers who worked tirelessly on my behalf and who provided me with their expertise and their knowledge — people like Jack Doan, Janet Smukowich, Paula Peterson, Deb Tardiff and Wendy Maurer.

[1555]

As well, there were those I know I could always rely on to lend a helping hand: Gord Almond, Sharon and Barry Ainsley, Kay Burgoyne, Michelle Obara, Al Grier and so many more.

A special thanks to my mother and my father, who have instilled in me the morals and ethics by which I live my life today, for teaching me that responsibility lives within yourself and that when you work hard, you get rewarded.

Last but not least, I'd like to thank my husband, Mark, and my son, Kai, because today would not be possible without their support.

I now wish to speak in support of the budget. Governments, like people, can fall into the trap of taking the path of least resistance and moving ahead as if the future is certain. If we sail forward in this manner, we are sure to wind up foundering on rocky shores. This government has shown that it is an able navigator. It has asked the difficult questions, and it has demonstrated a fearlessness in moving forward. We need to keep moving forward every day to make life better for British Columbians.

The budget provides us with a road map in building a strong economy and a secure future for our children and our grandchildren. I hope that all members of this House will work together in ways that benefit the people of this great province so that British Columbia continues to be a place of prosperity.

The citizens of British Columbia are counting on a better future, and I believe our government has outlined a road to accomplish this goal. One important step is allowing people to benefit from their own ingenuity and hard work, allowing people to keep more of what they earn.

This is especially important for smaller business owners. High regulatory costs and high taxes discourage business, discourage savings and thereby discourage capital expenditure and hiring. Reducing B.C.'s small business tax by 40 percent and reducing corporate income tax rates by 10 percent by 2018 will help business owners across our province keep more of what they earn.

Our economy succeeds by producing things that people need, and only an economy of the people can accomplish this. By this, I mean that economic relationships are between people alone, where they live and what their circumstances are. This is not something that can ever be planned or directed. This is the organic nature of a healthy economy. Our business owners can decide how to make capital expenditures, how to hire and what complexities need to be undertaken to deliver the goods and services of people. If these decisions are poorly informed, then the business will fail, and if not, it will grow.

Of course, small business is a very important aspect to our economy, but there is also so much more. Today the modern nation-state has taken on many responsibilities, and for this reason, all levels of government need to be able to plan, implement and evaluate for the benefit of its citizens. This is exactly the approach this government is taking, as outlined in the budget speech.

With a rich abundance of liquefied natural gas here in B.C., all British Columbians have an economic opportunity, one that must be seized. Not every province or country has this opportunity. While LNG has the potential to generate revenue for our province, creating jobs for British Columbians and generating a wealth of income, this abundant resource will not permanently eliminate all of our challenges. Government must be responsible
[ Page 60 ]
in spending and endeavour to save, just like anyone else, for that proverbial rainy day.

Responsible spending will allow our province to succeed in more difficult times, just like were experienced in 2008. This allows our province to borrow at lower interest rates, reducing the burden of debt to our people.

While economies around the world seem to be doing better now, one must ask the question: at what cost? Many nations have taken on radical deficit spending, and although this appears effective in the short term, this does have unintended consequences. Taking on more debt is just a way of putting off the consequences of larger structural problems.

This government, however, has outlined important steps to reduce our deficits, and following this path will give British Columbians more options for the future. The prosperity fund is one mechanism to achieve this. LNG revenue will go toward the prosperity fund and give us an opportunity to pay down the provincial debt and invest in our future.

[1600]

My riding of Parksville-Qualicum includes north Nanaimo, Lantzville, Nanoose Bay, Parksville and Qualicum Beach. The Parksville-Qualicum region relies on tourism, as it is a favourite destination for many travellers. The business sector is dominated by both tourism- and retirement-related industries. Retail, consumer, health and educational services are also in Oceanside. We also have a high-tech industry, with web developers, software developers and engineers.

We boast some of the most wonderful annual events, such as the Canadian Open Sand Sculpting Competition, the Brant Wildlife Festival and the largest Canada Day Parade on Vancouver Island, which I partook in yesterday. We are home to some of the most beautiful, open, sandy beaches on the west coast.

Parksville-Qualicum in many ways represents the microcosm of the demographic situation faced by much of the western world, namely, an aging population and less working taxpayers. In the '50s there were about eight working people for every person over the age of 65. Now there are somewhere around four.

We need new ideas to deal with modern-day realities and demands on our health care system. This is one of the reasons for the development of the Oceanside Health Centre. The Oceanside health care centre project was one that both former MLA Ron Cantelon and the Oceanside community worked for so tirelessly. This is an example of what can be accomplished when people come together to work towards a common goal.

The combined efforts of the Federation of Oceanside Residents Association, led by Tom Davies; VIHA, with the dedication of Sheila Cruikshank; the Nanaimo Hospital Foundation; and the city of Parksville made the health care centre a reality for our community. This facility will have a tremendous impact on the residents of the Oceanside community.

Equipped with high-advanced technology, the Oceanside health care centre is changing the way we provide health care. Doctors, nurses and health care technicians will take a more collaborative approach to health care and provide better quality service for patients and families.

Already, the Oceanside health care centre is helping the residents in my riding by providing accessible and immediate care for patients. This health care centre is a fundamental component to community development and our changing health care needs.

The demographic situation in Parksville-Qualicum has also led to declining enrolment in our schools. In June 2008 the city of Parksville produced a workforce development strategy to help create solutions to solve the Oceanside labour problem.

We need to create jobs to keep young people employed in our communities so that there is reason to stay in B.C. We need to train our young people for the jobs of tomorrow. Education is a critical investment to make towards the young people of my riding.

Vancouver Island University in nearby Nanaimo offers trades programs for those who are hands-on, arts and science degrees for those who are academically focused and fine arts degrees for those who are artistic. Financing post-secondary education can be challenging, whether parents help their children or students finance it themselves. Our government is keeping those future generations in mind.

The B.C. training and education savings grant is another practical investment for our government to make in our future. Our government's $1,200 grant for each B.C. resident child born on or after January 1, 2007, with an RESP, will help families fund post-secondary education for their children. It's a positive step forward.

Our government has created a detailed plan to move forward and work toward a secure and prosperous future. The next four years is a crucial time for our government to grow our economy, with British Columbian families' best interests in mind. If we take advantage of our current economic opportunities, while maintaining fiscal responsibility, we will create a prosperous future for our children and our grandchildren.

I am honoured to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly, along with my colleagues, and especially under the leadership and vision of our Premier, Christy Clark. I look forward to working with all members of this House for the benefit of our citizens.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Vancouver-Fairview.

G. Heyman: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and may I congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker.

I'd like to begin my remarks today by noting that we
[ Page 61 ]
are on the home of the Songhees Nation and to express my appreciation for them welcoming us here to do the business of the people of British Columbia.

[1605]

I'd also like to say what a great honour it was for me the day I was sworn in, and I know it was a similar honour for all new members of the House, on both sides. I'm also sure that it was an honour for members who've sat here for many years. They both remember the time they first entered the House, and they are honoured to re-enter the House.

So let me also say that I want to express my appreciation to my predecessor, Margaret MacDiarmid, for her service to the people of Vancouver-Fairview, for her service to the people of British Columbia as a member of government in a number of capacities. I enjoyed, in the campaign, the fact that, while we disagreed about issues, we fought a campaign based on issues, not on personalities.

I also want to express my deep appreciation to her for the grace with which she handled the turnover in Vancouver-Fairview and for spending time talking to me about what to expect, about issues that she had tried to advance for the people of Fairview, to make sure that I was able to pick up where she left off. It was truly a pleasure to engage with somebody with so much dignity and respect for this institution.

Let me also thank my partner, Joanne Fox, who, besides being a tireless campaign worker for me, will always make sure that no matter how long or how short a time I serve in this House, it will never go to my head. Let me also thank my sister, Jane Heyman, and my niece Jessie Johnston, who kept me company on many cold nights in January walking the streets of Vancouver-Fairview talking to residents; who kept me inspired; who believed in me and who never, either of them, let me forget for a moment the importance of the arts, not just in the cultural life of our communities but in the economic life of our province.

And let me say — though, sadly, they can't be with us today — that I'd like to thank my parents, who came here as refugees from the Holocaust; who were welcomed to a new nation, given safety and given an opportunity; who immediately plunged themselves into the life of the community for themselves, for their neighbours, for their two children; and who, of course, like all immigrants, wanted the best for their children and taught us by example.

They taught us the value of public service, taught us to be part of the community and taught us that if we had something — if we had a roof over our heads, if we had good food to eat — it wasn't because we were better than other people; it was because we were, for this time at least, more fortunate than them and we owed something to our community in respect of that fact.

Before I talk a little bit about the nature of my riding, Vancouver-Fairview, let me recognize two friends and constituents who have joined us in the gallery: Neale Adams, a former journalist, would be well known to many members of the press gallery and, perhaps, some members of this Legislature; and Ros Kellett, a high school teacher in Vancouver-Fairview as well as a former candidate, a candidate in Vancouver-Fairview — long memory leaving me today. Thank you, Ros, for everything you've done for the people in Vancouver-Fairview, and I hope you're not only here to make sure that the people in Vancouver-Fairview didn't make a mistake on May 14.

Vancouver-Fairview is a wonderful, diverse community. It has a great diversity of people. It has a great diversity of neighbourhoods.

It runs from parts of Mount Pleasant in the east, with old rental housing as well as young families moving in, all the way to the established neighbourhoods of Shaughnessy on the west side — where, I am pleased to say, I actually won a few polls; Fairview Slopes, with their cooperative housing, their great views of the North Shore; Riley Park; Little Mountain, the home of the Vancouver Canadians; and the vibrant small business communities along south Cambie, along Main Street, along Broadway, that give character to the neighbourhoods, that bind the neighbourhoods together, that are so important a part of the economic life and the community life in Vancouver-Fairview — small businesses that we need to do everything we can to support.

[1610]

My first events as an MLA were very meaningful for me. The very first place I was asked to speak as a new MLA in Vancouver-Fairview was Mosaic's Aboriginal Celebration Day.

It was an honour for me to see representatives of many First Nations and other nations from around North America coming together to talk about the great cultural fabric we weave together when we listen to each other, when we respect each other, when we support each other and when we understand each other's cultural heritage and how it both differs from and adds to our own.

Most recently I attended a block party in the eastern part of the riding on 18th Avenue near Quebec Street, where I had the pleasure, on the Saturday before Canada Day, to talk to many constituents, many of whom recognized me and many of whose names I have to struggle to remember after thousands of conversations on doorsteps.

Let me use that as an introduction to just thank all of the constituents of Vancouver-Fairview — the many constituents who opened their doors to me on cold, dark, rainy January nights because I wanted to talk to them about the coming election, what was important to them and what I had to offer, along with my party; and to ask them what the issues were that were first and foremost on their minds, what their concerns were and what their hopes were for themselves as well as for their children. Believe me, they gave me an earful.
[ Page 62 ]

I've mentioned that it's a very diverse constituency in terms of the people in it as well as the kinds of occupations of the people who live there. Some of you may know — some of you may not — that Vancouver-Fairview has the highest number of film industry workers of any constituency in British Columbia.

Those workers stressed to me how important it was that we save B.C. film and that we understand that whether we believed that leapfrogging tax credits ultimately were the answer to saving the film industry, if we didn't take action, we risked the talented people who had developed their skills in British Columbia leaving, with the films on which they were working, for other jurisdictions. We risked losing the infrastructure that had carefully been built up for B.C. film.

We know that direct film industry jobs, as well as induced jobs from the film industry, are down 3,500 over the previous year — part of 31,000 private sector jobs that have disappeared in this province under this government's so-called jobs plan. At the same time, Ontario is up 8,000 jobs.

So what does our Finance Minister suggest to the film industry? The Finance Minister, a couple of weeks ago, suggested that he would take a mission to Ontario and Quebec and talk to the ministers in those two provinces about cooperating to end the leapfrogging tax credits.

I would like to say to the minister that the best way I can express that in negotiation terms — and I am, among the many careers I've held, an experienced negotiator…. The message that the minister proposes to give to Ontario and Quebec is: "We've given up. Now can we please sit down and talk?"

I've been asked to lecture on negotiations at the Sauder School of Business at UBC, at Royal Roads University and at Simon Fraser University. I can assure you that if I had suggested that as a sound negotiation strategy — first you give in; then you ask for a favour — I think the students would have quickly left the classroom and gone looking for something on the Internet that taught them how to really get a deal in their own interests.

The message, unfortunately, to film industry workers in Vancouver-Fairview and throughout the province is not: "We've built the industry with you. You're an important part of the cultural and economic life of our province, and we want to support you." Instead, it appears to be: "So long. It's been good to know you."

[1615]

The Finance Minister says we cannot afford to give tax credits to this industry, with 3,500 jobs lost and many more at risk. But the Finance Minister has no problem providing tax credits for other industries — royalties, subsidies and lessened payments for the oil and gas industry. Why will the Finance Minister, in this budget, not tell film industry workers that they're valued, that their jobs are important and that he's going to take steps to protect them and to protect these jobs in British Columbia?

Also present in Vancouver-Fairview is a great technology sector — medical technologies, life sciences technologies, clean energy technologies. There are entrepreneurs. There are people who have built businesses from nothing to 40 employees, looking to grow. There's the opportunity for much more growth in technology in Fairview, as there is throughout the province.

But faced with an opportunity to revisit a ten-year-old eligible business tax credit scheme — raise the cap as well as raise the credit — which would have been welcomed by the technology sector in Fairview and around the province, would have been welcomed by entrepreneurs…. Once again, we're ignoring the opportunity to do something tangible and concrete for this industry, for people who would have jobs in British Columbia and for developing green, clean jobs in British Columbia.

My friends who are in venture capital in the technology industry, as well as entrepreneurs, say that this would have been well received. They also tell me that there are currently more jobs in technology in British Columbia than in mining, forestry and oil and gas put together, which is not to say that our resource industries are unimportant. Of course they are, and we need to add value to them.

But we need to put our money where our mouth is on clean jobs, clean energy, clean technology and give entrepreneurs the signal they're looking for to draw investment to B.C., to build their businesses in B.C. and to create jobs in B.C.

I'm very happy to see that there is a new Ministry of Technology and Innovation. Unfortunately, in the Finance Minister's zeal to balance the budget, he appears to have cut Open Government.

I would like to say to the minister, to the government: when can we expect to see some clear measures as the government plans to increase data sharing? When can we see some clear measures in the face of the Information and Privacy Commissioner's recent report condemning privacy breaches?

When can we see a plan for increased protection of British Columbians' privacy? When can we see the plan that will make clear ministry policies on the protection of privacy; make clear how those will be communicated to employees and contractors, where the training programs are; and make clear that there will, in fact, be oversight around the implementation and maintenance of those policies so we never have to see another report like we just saw from the Privacy Commissioner?

I would like to say to the minister that I look forward to proposals for job growth in innovation and technology. If we see those on this side of the House, I know we will be supporting them. If we don't see them, we will be proposing them. Frankly, what we've seen in this budget is a cut in the provincial innovation council from the numbers in the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
[ Page 63 ]

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

One of the issues that was consistently raised as I went around from door to door in Vancouver-Fairview was the issue of education. I heard about it from parents, who asked me: "When are we going to find some cooperation in the education system so that children can go to school, can get the resources they need to learn — whether they're bright children, whether they're special needs children, whether they're ESL children — so that the teachers have the resources they need to give the attention that each child needs?

[1620]

I heard the same concerns from teachers. What I didn't hear from teachers was what they wanted in terms of money and what they wanted in terms of changes in the classroom. The one thing I heard consistently from teachers was: "We just want to be treated with respect for the work we do for children and families."

In the face of teachers asking for respect, what do they get? In the midst of what was beginning to look like cooperative, communicative dialogue with the representative of the school trustees, this government has called off bargaining, changed the rules, taken a policy plank from page 82 of their platform and said: "This is the way it's going to be."

I sincerely hope that in spite of this, there will be productive negotiations with teachers. But I fear for the education system; I fear for teachers who have had it up to here with the lack of respect; and I fear for the families in Vancouver-Fairview, who just want their kids to be able to go to school and get a good education so that they can get ahead in their lives.

I met many students in the constituency, students who are worried about the massive debt loads they were piling up trying to get the education they need for the jobs of the future. What do we get from this budget? We get 5,600 fewer post-secondary spaces than government's own need projections in 2012. Perhaps those spaces are being cut because the education will simply be too expensive. This government doesn't expect students to be able to go to school, because an education may only be for the elite.

Young workers are looking for skills training for the jobs this government talks about creating — words in the throne speech, no dollars in the budget. Those young people are being let down by this budget.

Another critically important issue in Vancouver-Fairview is transit. In Fairview the issue is the Broadway corridor, but there are issues throughout the region. There are issues south of the Fraser. Not a single new dollar for TransLink.

In this House last week I asked a question about the referendum of the Transportation Minister. The minister's answer was: "We believe in democracy, and we believe in giving the people of the region a democratic voice in how transit will be funded."

Where was that democratic choice on any of the five projects that our Finance critic pointed to as being massively over budget? Where was the referendum on those? Where was the voice of British Columbians on those? Those overruns alone could fund either Surrey's transit or Vancouver's transit, yet this Transportation Minister sticks by an election promise of a referendum that the chair of the Mayors Council has said is clearly a deflection of the province's responsibilities.

Before the election the then Transportation Minister, now Environment Minister, said: "This won't be an option for British Columbians to say no funding; it will simply be a choice of methods of funding." That was the position of the then Transportation Minister before Premier Clark threw her under the "not yet to be built, may never be built" Surrey light rail system. Richmond Mayor Brodie on the referendum: "It will divide the whole region, and if it fails we'll be further behind than we ever were."

This government and this House have a duty, have a responsibility to get on with the job of providing transit throughout the Lower Mainland, throughout the Metro Vancouver region, throughout the province, if we're serious about getting people out of their single-occupancy vehicles, which they can never do if the transit is simply not adequate to get them to work and back in a timely manner.

[1625]

Hon. Speaker, we are here today to debate bogus budget 2. Growth is down, retail sales are down, yet the Finance Minister maintains the fiction that this is a balanced budget. What will be the impacts on British Columbians?

The Finance Minister said to the House on Thursday that $130 million in cuts in public services was akin to a very small, very minuscule cut to a household budget. Maybe. But the throne speech talked about seniors being able to age in place. Is that possible when this budget has, for this coming fiscal year and the period going forward, $233 million less than the previous Finance Minister's own projections for the year and period? Can that be true when this government has already introduced a wheelchair tax? Can this be true when MSP premiums are going up 4 percent, significantly higher than the lift for the health care budget overall and the fifth consecutive lift?

Can we truly say that a budget is balanced when it's booking $1.8 billion in revenue from B.C. Hydro? How can B.C. Hydro provide dividends to get this government out of the red and into the black, when we all know the deferral accounts are burgeoning? The Auditor General pointed to the deferral accounts. We cannot get a straight answer from the Energy Minister about what rates will be, how high they're going up and when they're going up.

If that's a balanced budget in the interests of British Columbians, I would tell you, hon. Speaker, and I would
[ Page 64 ]
tell the government through you, that the citizens of Vancouver-Fairview would disagree, and members on this side of the House will also disagree.

When I went door to door in Vancouver-Fairview, two things came up constantly. Two things were voiced as concerns by constituents. But they weren't voiced separately. They were voiced together. People said, "We're concerned about the economy, and we're concerned about the environment," because they know they're both important. They know it's not a choice of one or the other. They know a healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. That's why they do not want to see tankers off the coastline of British Columbia or in the harbour of Vancouver. They do not want to see the jobs in fisheries threatened or the jobs in tourism threatened.

They are waiting for a clear, unequivocal signal from this government that it shares their values, shares their beliefs and will protect their interests. Nothing in the budget, nothing in the throne speech about climate change, and yet young people in Fairview, and their parents, care about both. What we do see is the death of the LiveSmart B.C. program and a 62 percent cut to the innovative clean energy fund.

People in Vancouver-Fairview, people in British Columbia, are not prepared to wait till 2017 for jobs, for access to education, for skills training, for solutions to the transit nightmare or solutions to the nightmare of climate change that we're all witnessing playing out in extreme weather events that have come closer and closer to home. They deserve to see answers.

Finally, as I close, I would like to say that the greatest lesson I learned speaking to people in the election campaign was how important it is to listen, how important it is to listen to what people have to say. It's not because I don't have good ideas or because you don't have good ideas or the government doesn't have good ideas. It's because the people we represent have good ideas too.

[1630]

They deserve respect for their opinions. They deserve honesty. They want to see vision. They want to see hope from the people they send to this House.

We've all spoken regretfully about the disengagement of the electorate. We've spoken regretfully about young people increasingly failing to show up at the polls. If we want to engage voters, we need to give them hope. We need to respect them. They need honesty. They need to get that from their government. Whether or not they get it from the government, they'll get it from me, and they'll get it from this side of the House.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a pleasure once again to stand in the House. It has been very exciting, actually, to listen to new members that have been elected to this place. It is a very special place. Whether you are speaking for the first time — I am very lucky to have been in this House; this is the beginning of my fourth term — it still carries with it an incredible sense of responsibility, honour and gratitude.

I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the constituents of Prince George–Valemount. They have been unbelievably supportive over the years, and it is humbling, in fact, to return to this place for a fourth term. I also want to thank, as many other members have, the teams that have worked so hard on our behalf. It doesn't matter which side of the House you sit on. When people work to support you and work tirelessly on your behalf, it is something which is a humbling thing, and all of us in this chamber are grateful for the teams that worked so very hard.

I want, as others as well have recognized, to thank a family that has been unbelievably patient with a career spent in public service. In my case, I have a husband who recently went through significant health issues, and through all of that he was committed to ensuring that we ran a great campaign, and the outcomes speak for themselves.

My children, my amazing little grandchildren. We ask ourselves why we do this job some days, and today is a great day as we share these stories and the first speeches on behalf of many members. But when I look at Caleb and Cooper, I know exactly why I chose to do this job, because children and grandchildren in this province deserve the very best future that we can possibly create in British Columbia. That's why, I know, my colleagues and the members on the opposite side of the House actually choose to run for public office.

I'm grateful to the constituents of a fabulous riding. Whether you live in Prince George, which is an amazing city with a medical school, with tremendous post-secondary institutions, whether you live in Dunster, Crescent Spur, McBride, Valemount or Dome Creek, all of those British Columbians deserve to be heard, deserve to be served. And I couldn't be more proud of continuing to be the MLA that represents their interests here in the Legislature.

I know that as we look back…. I thought about the investments that have been made in British Columbia and the benefits for my constituents. I look back over years of significant accomplishments and investments where people in the north stood up and said: "It is time for us to have a medical school." "It is time for us to have a cancer centre." "It is time for us to have the same types of opportunities for our children, even though we choose to live in northern British Columbia." And the list of accomplishments is many.

I'm excited about the opportunity to work with a strong group of colleagues from northern British Columbia who will continue to have those voices. Though we may be physically far away, I can assure you, Madame Speaker, that the MLAs that were represented in the northern half of this province will speak with passion, and they will be aggressive about the issues that matter to them. We are here to serve all British Columbians.
[ Page 65 ]

I know that as we talk about the budget…. You know, it's interesting. British Columbians are going to sit at home tonight, and they're going to wonder about those slides they saw on Thursday and those slides they saw today, and they're going to try to figure out how it is that we can have one group of people that say the budget is balanced and another group who say that it isn't. But, you know, we laid that budget out for British Columbians.

[1635]

They had the chance over the course of the last number of months to look at that budget, to look at the plans and the priorities of the parties that were running for office and make a decision. And they did just that.

I listen to the speeches and I think about the passion that was used in the speeches, the remarks from the Minister of Technology and Innovation, from the member from Parksville-Qualicum and from the members for New Westminster and Vancouver-Fairview who just spoke. They spoke with eloquence. They spoke with passion. They spoke about values and about why people serve in this place and why British Columbians choose the people they choose to represent them.

There's one thing I believe in passionately: that issues of child poverty, that issues of having a top-notch education system in British Columbia, having the best post-secondary system that we can possibly have in this province — those aren't partisan issues. They are values that everyone who chooses to sit or work in this House has.

The difference is how we get there. On this side of the House we believe in and we campaigned on a strong economy for a secure tomorrow. We believe that we need to deal with child poverty. We also believe that the way that you help support families in British Columbia is by ensuring that if they can and they want to work, a job is the best protection plan that we can give to British Columbians.

It's not that members on this side of the House don't want to make those changes. In fact, we have a track record of investment in British Columbia that's making a difference in the lives of British Columbians. It's our view on this side of the House that we'd far rather have people with family-supporting jobs than being on income assistance in this province.

I do want to clarify the record. Vulnerable seniors who require wheelchairs will be given them. They will receive the support they need. There are supports in place to ensure that those seniors who cannot afford those services are provided with them. That is a policy that is in place. No one in this House wants to treat seniors with disrespect.

In fact, we have spent millions of dollars. There is more to be done. In fact, there's much more to be done. We laid out a plan for British Columbians. We said that we believe that the way to accomplish that was by looking at how we could build a strong economy, because the list of requests is endless, and it is impossible for us to meet all of those demands by simply relying on the taxpayer's pocketbook.

You see, on this side of the House we believe — and to the member from Vancouver-Fairview, we do believe — that the environment is important. That's why we've been leading the country and leading North America in looking at how we can deal with those issues that impact the environment. But we don't believe it's either-or.

What British Columbians said clearly on May 14 was they wanted a government that had a process in place, that didn't simply say no without actually contemplating the impacts, having a process in place and being consistent about how those decisions are made in this province. The reason that's important, the reason it matters so much, is so we can care for seniors in a respectful way. It is so that we can create the kind of education system….

We have an outstanding education system in British Columbia, and we would agree with the members opposite that we really want teachers to be able to concentrate in the classrooms on those students. That's why we believe that labour peace for a significant period of time benefits both the teachers and the children of British Columbia. We're going to work tirelessly and respectfully to try to accomplish that goal. But the automatic answer shouldn't be: "Nope, we're not interested in that."

We do have a plan. Yes, we would like the numbers to be stronger. But I can assure you that we are on the verge of unprecedented opportunity in this province — the chance by 2020 to have a million new jobs in this province. And I can assure the members opposite that we will ensure that British Columbians are first in line for those jobs. That's our commitment.

[1640]

We are going to work together as a team tirelessly to ensure that they're the first people in line for the jobs that we expect to come as the result of a strong economy.

I think about the way the world has changed since I first entered this chamber. It seems like a very long time ago, but when you look at where the world was in 2001, no one could have contemplated the rise of China and India, in particular, which has changed the world's economic landscape.

Imagine this number, Madame Speaker. China's economy, despite slowing somewhat — which is what economists would tell you — is still expected to grow at a rate of 7.5 percent annually in the coming years. Wouldn't it be amazing if British Columbia or Canada could speak to those kinds of numbers? Meanwhile, India is set for a consumption boom with the rapid growth of the middle class.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented shift of wealth from west to east. We know that British Columbia lives in a world that is more globalized than it has ever been in any other time in human history. We have to be positioned to take advantage of that. That is one thing that
[ Page 66 ]
our government has recognized and worked very hard to develop over the last number of years.

Today, as we talk about Budget 2013…. It is one of the most important things that we will do here, the work that we will do as MLAs. We need to remind British Columbians that we heard what they had to say to us on May 14. What they said is: "We support economic development that has a process, that is consistent." I can tell you there are very few parts of the province that understand that as much as the part of the province where I live.

We need to recognize that it isn't a question of either-or when it comes to the economy or the environment. It is essential that we move forward, that we look at the opportunities that we have in British Columbia.

Liquefied natural gas, a strategy that's been developed and led by Premier Christy Clark, has the potential to deal with many of the issues we've heard MLAs on the opposite side of the House talk about today. But there's a process. We've clearly laid out our principles. British Columbians heard them, and they agreed with them. Now the team that leads the government on this side of the House will work to honour the views that British Columbians supported.

In fact, one of the things they supported was controlling spending. We have our work cut out for us, but we are committed to making sure that we will look at cost control. That is a priority for this government. It means making tough choices, and they're not always enjoyable. But British Columbians expect us to follow up, to do what they asked us to do.

Our plan is founded on three key pillars. We're going to continue to expand markets for B.C. products, especially in Asia. We're going to strengthen our infrastructure to get those goods to market. And we're going to work with employers and communities to enable job creation across British Columbia.

Let's be clear. We have a plan. We laid it out. Why does it matter? It matters because, if we respect taxpayers, we can't simply assume that those costs will be dealt with by taxpayers alone. We need to responsibly develop resources in British Columbia so that we can give British Columbians the kinds of advantages that they expect and deserve.

The time is short. In conclusion, we know that there's so much opportunity in this province. We share the values. Every member in this House cares about those things that are critical, the values that all of us have been taught about public service, about protecting the most vulnerable, about ensuring our children are well-educated, making sure that we have the skills-training opportunities, making sure that British Columbians are at the front of the line when it comes to the job opportunities that will exist.

This government remains committed to some very basic principles. We believe in low taxes. We've developed a triple-A credit rating. We intend to work to maintain that, while many other jurisdictions have not been able to do that. We want to continue a low debt-to-GDP ratio.

[1645]

It is an amazing track record. We're going to continue to work hard. We are grateful for the opportunity that British Columbians gave us. We have listened, we have a plan, and we are excited about the next four years as we have a chance to deliver on the commitments that we made to the people of British Columbia.

D. Eby: It is indeed an honour for me to be here today representing the constituents of Vancouver–Point Grey, a community made up of several different communities — neighbourhoods around the University of British Columbia, West Point Grey and, of course, Kitsilano, named after the famous Squamish chief August Jack Khatsahlano. It's a great pleasure to be here representing those constituents.

I'd like to begin my response to the budget first by thanking those who made it possible for me to be here today, starting with the voters of Vancouver–Point Grey. I look forward to being their advocate in the years going forward in this House and in our community as well.

From the local to the very local, I'd like to also thank my partner, Cailey Lynch, for her unflagging support throughout the election period. As I'm sure all of the members of this House know, politics is very trying on friends and family, and certainly those are the people who know best the challenges of a political life. I wanted to thank her for her help in this election process.

I'd also like to thank my mom, Laura Eby. She's a retired teacher and a retired principal who made the journey from Kitchener, Ontario, to knock doors with me. She was my secret weapon when it came to people who weren't quite converted to the NDP point of view yet. She was a great help to me throughout the election campaign.

My father, Brian Eby, passed away a couple of years ago. He was a personal injury lawyer and ran a small firm in Kitchener, Ontario. My colleagues across the aisle may be surprised to hear that he was a strong federal Liberal.

Of course, I could not have won the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey without a number of federal Liberals like my father who voted NDP for the first time. He believed strongly in the values of compassion for those less able to care for themselves and in a strong and accountable government that protects rights and freedoms. Those constituents that voted for me did not see themselves in the B.C. Liberals, and they will not see themselves in this B.C. Liberal budget.

I also wanted to thank my brothers and sister Meaghan Eby, Patrick Eby and Matthew Eby for teaching me how to share and how to negotiate difficult moments when dealing with someone else who is clearly wrong. I'm sure that is a skill set that will come in handy in this House.

I'd like to thank my campaign manager, Kate Van
[ Page 67 ]
Meer-Mass — an incredibly talented young leader in British Columbia who had the vision, the ability and the endurance to ensure our success in Vancouver–Point Grey — as well as my hard-working campaign team: Stefan Avlijas, Gabriel Giauque, Angus Lynch, Gala Milne, Sean Antrim, David Fleming, Rebecca Temmer, Meghan Sali, John Yano, Jessica Smith, Mary Tenny, Shirley Ross and Marcel Lehoullier.

Also, the hundreds of volunteers who over 17 years when there was no NDP MLA from Vancouver–Point Grey worked on NDP campaigns throughout those years — thank you to all of them for their hard work.

Part of the volunteer team was, of course, our constituency association, and community leader Mel Lehan, who ran many years for the NDP and without whose assistance and guidance I would not have been successful.

Finally, I'd like to thank my colleagues here and also unsuccessful candidates for the NDP who supported our campaign with volunteers, with moral support. Thank you for making it possible for my constituents to send the first NDP member to this House in 17 years. I greatly appreciate your efforts.

There's little doubt in my mind that I was sent to this House with a clear mandate from my constituents. The residents of Vancouver–Point Grey are incredibly concerned about the direction of this province. In particular, my constituents demand that our government act to protect our wilderness, the natural beauty of British Columbia and, in particular, to deal with carbon pollution that causes climate change.

[1650]

Whether their concern finds grounding in ill-conceived bitumen pipelines to our coast, the environmental risks to our water presented by fracking that will now possibly not be reviewed by this province, the failure to fund public transit adequately, the failure to protect our wild salmon, the absence of a clear forestry plan, including old-growth protection, our riding wants better from our government. We cannot wait to act or hope that someone else will solve our problems.

I note that despite many pointed critiques that can legitimately be made about the Liberal government environmental record, my colleagues across the aisle, as the member for Prince George–Valemount pointed out, have done some important work in raising the profile of carbon pollution issues and climate change in our province. I thank them for that, but we cannot stop there.

We must do better, not just because it's in our interest as citizens of the world and our global responsibility but also because it's in our economic interest, in fact. You just need to look at where our largest trading partner, the United States, is headed and where much of Europe is headed on this issue as well. We cannot afford to miss this economic opportunity as a province. We cannot afford to be left behind.

I look forward to working with all of the members of this House on protecting our wilderness and responding to the environmental challenges that face us. Protecting our environment must be a non-partisan issue.

There are specific issues that you will hear me raise in this chamber and outside this chamber, issues implicated in this most recent budget because they are priorities for the community that I will be serving. These issues include the unacceptably secretive process around the disposition of the Jericho lands and the impact of any proposed development there on our community as part of the government's plan to sell so-called surplus assets.

The decision-making processes of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on the UBC lands and its need to consult our community before installing major infrastructure there. The Broadway transit corridor and the need to improve transit for our students going to UBC but also for our citizens of the riding who leave the riding to go to work every morning.

The quality, affordability and accessibility of our post-secondary education system, given that UBC is in our riding. This is one of the public assets of which our community is most proud.

The ongoing loss of our small and independent businesses in our communities that until now have been, and have defined our community as, unique and special and are a great source of pride for the residents of our community.

The composition of our classes and the condition of our schools — like Bayview Elementary, where, literally, asbestos pipes snake through the ceiling above our youngest citizens in a seismic disaster waiting to happen.

The loss of film industry jobs so important to so many people in our riding.

The closure of the therapeutics initiative housed at UBC, a centre for excellence in our riding internationally recognized for protecting us by improving the safety of pharmaceutical drugs, but not only that, reducing the costs of prescription medication in B.C.

Residents in Vancouver–Point Grey are concerned about the treatment of the very poor. Frank Paul — one of the most famous homeless people in Vancouver, the subject of a public inquiry in British Columbia — was a resident of Vancouver–Point Grey and lived in the streets of Vancouver–Point Grey.

The list of local issues will continue and will grow, because I promised my constituents to be a strong advocate for their concerns. I will be that advocate, including in the face of this budget, which is not responsive to those concerns.

I believe that we must do politics differently if we hope to restore public confidence in our public institutions. I'm afraid this election was not an example of progress towards the thoughtful debate on the issues that the public wants.

As someone who's worked in the courtrooms of British Columbia and with many strong and distinguished law-
[ Page 68 ]
yers on the other side of issues that I was concerned about in my clients' interests, I recognize the importance of strong advocacy on the issues of importance, but also being able to cooperate and, in some cases, even have friendly relationships outside of the courtroom. It was a great pleasure to work in an atmosphere like that.

I see many people across the aisle — and, of course, the independents in the House — who I respect greatly for their achievements in public and private life. Our differing political affiliations do not change that respect.

We will disagree strongly on many issues. Of this I have no doubt. I already disagree strongly with many of the initiatives of this government, and it's only a few weeks old. Despite this core disagreement on what best serves our province, I will aspire to conduct myself both in and outside this chamber in a way that is friendly and cordial, even to those with whom I most disagree.

British Columbians have not sent us here for any purpose other than to try to make life better for them. I seek to follow in a long tradition of elected officials from all parties who have aspired to that goal.

[1655]

I look forward to advocating strongly for issues of environmental, economic and social justice and holding this government to account every day, both inside and outside of this chamber. But I equally look forward to working with all members of this chamber who are willing to work together on areas of shared interest and concern because my constituents and British Columbians expect nothing less.

Thank you, again, Madame Speaker, Members of this House — especially my colleagues here in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and certainly our leader, Adrian Dix. Your energy and enthusiasm in working with me to hold this government to account is most valued.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this side of the House, all of my colleagues across the aisle and the independents on improving this province for the people of this province and for our province to become a model for the world of good governance, economic sustainability and environmental protection.

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, as a reminder, we do not refer to members by their Christian names, only by their riding name. But as is also the tradition of this House, I am very reluctant to interrupt anyone during their maiden speech.

L. Throness: Good afternoon, Madame Speaker. It's an enormous privilege for me to rise, for my first speech in this House, in speaking to the budget. I want to begin by congratulating you on your election last week. I hope you're a good MLA whisperer, because it will take all of your considerable skills and experience to tame this chamber, but I wish you well in that as you do that.

I have a heart full of gratitude today. I just look at this place, and I think: "Am I really here? Is it possible?" You know, someone will have to pinch me. But I think it really happened. I think I'm really here.

I think of yesterday, going around my riding, attending various celebrations on Canada Day and observing the spontaneous outpourings of affection for our country and the patriotism that is displayed there, and I have a heart full of gratitude for my country, for our beautiful province and for my beautiful riding that I have the honour to represent.

So I have a thankful heart today, and I want to thank my constituents first of all. It is a weighty responsibility that I have been given to represent them in this place, and I will take it very seriously.

As I travel throughout my riding, I am constantly struck with how large and how beautiful and how diverse it is. There are 34 separate place names in my voters list, and while the majority live in the Chilliwack area, I want everyone in my constituency to know, from Boston Bar in the north to Columbia Valley in the south, on the American border, that I want to represent all areas of my riding well, and I will do my best to provide a high standard of service.

We don't win elections alone. It's a group effort — very much so — and I want to thank a smaller but yet significant group of several hundred people who helped me more directly in my election. I think particularly of names like Susan Mathies and June Shields, Darlene and Harvey Adrian and Joe Bruno just to name a few.

We can't name everyone, but we can all be grateful to these kinds of people, these volunteers who selflessly help in the election of different MLAs. It is their devotion to the good of the province and to our democratic system that makes the system possible. They're the machinery; they're the gears in our democratic system that help it to function.

I must thank a yet smaller group of people but a very important group — those closest to me who have supported me throughout this process, and I'm thinking of my immediate family. I think of my father, Harald, my siblings Leon, Lyndon, Trevor, Kathy and their families. They are all a constant source of encouragement and joy to me. I love all of them, including in-laws and all 13 of my nieces and nephews that I'm privileged to have.

Finally, I want to thank two individuals who've meant a lot to me over the years as former employers. They're political mentors. They are friends. I think of Harvey Schroeder, who was once a Minister of Agriculture in the Social Credit administration in the '80s and a Speaker of this House; and also Chuck Strahl, who is a former federal Conservative minister in multiple portfolios. I've always been very proud to have been associated with them. Their support and their counsel and their friendship have made it possible for me to be here today.

Well, we've just finished a provincial election. There was a lot of hard work involved, but there were a lot of
[ Page 69 ]
rewards as well. One of the great pleasures of political life are the people that you meet and the friends that you make after talking to thousands of people throughout the riding.

I've had the privilege of attending a number of different events, such as the hundredth anniversary of Chilliwack Middle School, graduations at ACE high school in Agassiz and Timothy Christian in Rosedale, a 50th anniversary dinner of the search and rescue team in Hope.

[1700]

I'm looking forward to doing a lot more of that this summer because politics is not an abstract, political, technical exercise. It is all about people, and people who are impacted individually by government, and we can never forget that. So in every election it's important to interpret the results of each election carefully to discern accurately the messages that the voters are sending us and then to take great care to do exactly what the voters have told us to do. We received some marching orders in this election, many which mirror the subjects delivered a few days ago in the budget.

The first message that I received was on the economy. The people of B.C. defied the pollsters, they defied the pundits, and they delivered a decisive verdict on the kind of government they wanted when they were confronted with a clear choice. When they stepped back and they looked to see the big picture, they wisely chose a government that wants to grow the private sector instead of the public sector, one that recognizes that free markets form the foundation of all our prosperity and the social programs that we value so highly.

Another theme was social in nature. Voters told us that they preferred the direction of the government on health and education, the two greatest programs, on which we spend two-thirds of our entire provincial budget. They ratified our aspiration for a decade of labour peace with teachers, as well as our commitment to increase spending on health care. We are moving in the right direction on social programs.

Another theme in the election was on the environment. While voters want and need economic development and the jobs that go with it, they reminded us that development must be responsible. We must protect the land and air and water. We must be guardians of our beautiful B.C.

Finally, voters told us to take the long view, to look beyond the four-year electoral horizon, to be more visionary, to look decades into the future, and this we have done. During the campaign we were criticized for being too idealistic, for being pie in the sky. But idealism has a practical and immediate impact. Having a vision that looks far down the road enables us to take the steps we have to take right now in order to bring about that better future.

I'm speaking, of course, of our government's commitment to develop the liquefied natural gas industry in B.C.'s north, which could enable us to pay off our provincial debt in a single generation. I am sold on this vision.

Just compare B.C. to other economies. We consider nations in Europe that are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. We look at the gigantic debt and the deficit in the United States. We see floundering Canadian economies like those in Quebec and Ontario. It appears that much of the world doesn't care anymore about debt and deficits, as if adding another zero or two to a debt or a deficit will have no future consequence.

B.C., on the other hand, is a breath of fresh air. It's a disciplined fiscal oasis in a global economic wasteland. While other nations don't even aspire to eliminate their deficits, B.C. has already balanced its budget — yes, and it has balanced its budget — and is making plans to pay off its entire debt. Our Premier's vision deserves our enthusiastic support because it will have profoundly positive consequences in the future. But it means that we have to practise discipline right now to control spending. We will do so by closely examining our $44 billion budget through the core review.

Voters gave us four broad mandates in this election: on the economy, on social programs, on the environment and on future plans. These are all contained in the budget.

How do these themes relate to the riding of Chilliwack-Hope? On the economy, my voters were very clear. They are free enterprise through and through. I heard the message literally a thousand times on the doorstep. We need to control spending. We need to keep taxes low. We need to balance our budget, not only to reduce the burden on future generations but to provide an incentive to attract more business and investment and jobs to this province now. In that regard, I will do what I can to help the city of Hope and other areas to make industrial land more attractive to light, clean industry.

Our voters expressed strong support for the Chilliwack area's rural lifestyle and agricultural economy. This includes support for supply management, the integrity of the agricultural land reserve, enhanced agricultural education at the University of the Fraser Valley and a more reasonable approach for producers on regulatory change. My support for these things will be strong and consistent.

With respect to the environment, my electors did not approve or reject a heavy oil pipeline. They voted to impose five conditions on any pipeline in order to protect the land. These conditions are not arbitrary. They're not contrived. They're necessary, and they're natural. To ignore them and allow a pipeline would run contrary to the will of voters. But it would also go against the will of the people if we rejected a pipeline before giving it full and fair consideration, including reasonable opportunity for the proponents to meet our stringent environmental and other conditions.

[1705]

My people also voted for clean air. They said that they don't want a waste management incinerator in Vancouver that would add to the pollution we already receive from
[ Page 70 ]
the Metro area. I, along with other Fraser Valley MLAs, will continue to oppose anything that will worsen the airshed of the valley.

With respect to our long-term vision, my constituents will benefit from the development of LNG. Over 1,000 direct jobs in the Chilliwack area currently depend on natural gas, and there is a promise for much more growth in this area, much more growth in clean light industry that will bring more well-paying jobs. Our long-term vision will be good for the riding of Chilliwack-Hope.

Madame Speaker, you can see that all the themes of the election relate directly to my own riding. I have received a strong mandate from my own voters to pursue the platform that we put before them and are further reflected in this budget. I, of course, will support it.

I want to talk for a moment about my personal priorities. During the campaign I said repeatedly that I would like to find more long-term treatment for those addicted to drugs. We spend a lot of money and a lot of government resources fighting the supply of drugs through police action, as we should, and that needs to continue. But we don't do enough to reduce the demand for drugs by providing long-term treatment for all who need it when they're ready for it.

Since all medical evidence we have points to the fact that it's best for our health to be free of addictions, all relevant government programs ought to be oriented toward the goal of freeing people from addiction. I'm convinced that this challenge represents one of the greatest social policy opportunities in our nation because it promises to reduce poverty and homelessness, familial strife and violence, health care and justice costs, property crime, criminal networks and gang activity.

In this regard, I'm pleased that our election platform has promised 500 new treatment beds, but the need is great. I would like to use whatever influence I can to further enhance this aspect of public policy over the next four years.

I've also been assigned the task of Parliamentary Secretary for Corrections, reporting to the Minister of Justice. This is a real privilege and a fascinating challenge, and I will use my background in public policy, criminal justice history and law to inform my work. I expect to undertake a process of fact-gathering in order to make suggestions to the minister for improvement to our system of corrections that will further protect society, inmates and staff.

As I consider the many policy mandates found in the budget, when I think of the 35,000 voters I have the honour to represent, when I think of the demands of travel and the many responsibilities of this House, I find myself in many ways daunted by this challenge. I will need to solicit a lot of advice from a lot of good people, including many of my constituents. I will also rely on Divine Providence for strength and wisdom and guidance, as I always have.

L. Krog: Madame Speaker, I think the first things I should say in this chamber, having heard the odd throne speech and budget speech from time to time, is to offer my sincere congratulations to you on your election.

Having been elected the first time around here in 1991, which doesn't seem that long ago…. When one listens to the enthusiasm of the government members — as I was once, in 1991, coming in and believing that we were going to solve all the problems of the world in the first four short years — forgive me if I have a tiny sense of cynicism when I hear the member talk about the 500 new beds.

That's absolutely worthy, and I hope he's extremely successful when he gets into that caucus or perhaps gets elevated to the cabinet table and is able to persuade this government, which is slashing government spending, to make his 500 new beds a priority. That's where the rubber will hit the road, and frankly, I don't see anything in Budget 2013 that indicates to me this government has any sincere desire to bring about the New Jerusalem in terms of social programs.

If anything, this is so much like 1991 that I can almost hear the voice of Bill Vander Zalm in these chambers. I can hear the ghost of fantasyland and Fantasy Gardens. I can see the great new world that's going to be created by this government, having won election for its fourth term.

I must say with some chagrin that it's fairly obvious the voters of British Columbia did make a definite choice. There was enough of a percentage difference between what the Liberals received and what the NDP received to make the Liberals government and the NDP opposition once again.

[1710]

It's kind of hurtful to me to think that the kind of flimflam, if you will, hon. Speaker, that constituted the Liberal Party program, a debt-free B.C. — "Debt-Free B.C." was plastered on the Premier's campaign bus — was able to defeat what I, frankly, thought was a pretty solid, sensible and practical platform put forward by the opposition. And we're still the opposition. So I say I am chagrined.

I am chagrined because one only has to look at Budget 2013 to get some tiny flicker of reality. This government is going to run up the provincial debt in a matter of a few short years to $69.8 billion by 2016. That's taking it from when the Premier attained the leadership of the B.C. Liberal Party and actually won election and got to sit in this place — from $45.2 billion to $69.8 billion.

Now, I'm just a simple country boy, and you know, maybe I didn't pay too much attention to math in elementary school. I have no idea. But that's an increase in the provincial debt of about $24.6 billion, give or take a shekel here or there. How is it within five years you move from a provincial debt of $45.2 billion to $69.8 billion that you're building towards a debt-free B.C? Now, I could be wrong, and maybe I've got my math wrong. The member from Revelstoke, who was an elementary school principal, I believe, is probably trying to figure it
[ Page 71 ]
out himself. I can see his mind, his gears turning over in his brain there, trying to do the math. I just don't get it.

You know, we heard earlier today the Minister of Energy come up with that lovely old saw — and I wrote it down, I was so interested in what he had to say: governments can't create jobs; businesses can create jobs. Well, if that's the case, then what did we spend millions and millions of dollars for earlier this year on the Premier's jobs plan, telling everybody it was a great idea?

I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either you create jobs, or you don't create jobs. If you, in fact, accept what the Minister of Energy had to say, governments can't create jobs. Well, he's right, to some extent, although historically there have been occasions where governments actually do create jobs with programs because they understand economies need stimulus from time to time.

But let's just take it for what it's worth. Let's assume for the purposes of argument this afternoon with respect to this budget that governments can't create jobs. So what's the jobs plan? I mean, what is that plan? Where do these jobs come from? Who's creating them?

Hon. B. Bennett: Businesses.

L. Krog: Businesses. Well, you know, honestly, I think the bathwater has been drunk too often by the other side. The Minister of Energy says businesses create jobs. So since the inception of the B.C. jobs plan the private sector, the businesses of British Columbia, have kissed off over 31,000 jobs. So 31,000 private sector jobs have disappeared since the Premier's job plans was created. Now what does that tell…?

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now the minister wants to argue with StatsCan. Of course, I'm sure the minister votes Conservative federally, because we know they didn't like the concept of Statistics Canada because with statistics, you might actually get to the truth. The truth is the numbers actually speak for themselves.

The Premier's job plan is a bust. It's a bust — nine consecutive quarters of job losses, 31,000 private sector jobs disappeared. It might be that the government should institute a plan to go against its principles and create some jobs themselves. Let the government create some jobs, because it's pretty clear under their sound fiscal management, their jobs plan, it isn't working too well for the private sector.

You know, it takes some political acumen, some managerial skills to be the only province in Canada that's losing private sector jobs. That takes something — in a province that is resource-rich, on the Pacific Rim, with China and India beckoning for raw resources, in less than two years to lose 31,000 private sector jobs. Now, that is an achievement. Now, that's a record.

[1715]

That sets you right up there with regimes of such incredible competence that…. Again, to come back to my old friend Bill Vander Zalm, even Bill Vander Zalm in his wildest moments wouldn't have dreamed of that — 31,000 private sector jobs gone.

The member for Chilliwack-Hope once said: "We got elected because the people wanted government to be more visionary." Vision is what draws anyone to politics. Some dream of a possible future, and some much wiser person than I once said that politics is the art of the possible. But there is a difference between being visionary and being delusional. When you go from $45 billion to $69 billion in provincial debt in five short years, I would say you're on the side of delusional and not on the side of visionary.

The reality of British Columbia's economy is this: we're losing private sector jobs. The government isn't prepared to tax people who make a lot of money or really profitable large corporations because that would go against their principles, because they ran and were elected in 2001 on the promise of lower taxation leading to greater prosperity.

And you know what? For a while we had that prosperity. Back, you know, in 2005, 2006 — metal prices are up; construction is going through the roof — this wise government, being such masters, absolute masters, of fiscal management, helped hyperinflate the construction industry by engaging in massive government spending then, instead of doing it at a time when the economy needed that pump-up in construction. And what did we end up with? The budgets were still in deficit. We've had seven deficits from this government.

And in terms of construction, what's been created that is long-lasting? Some good things, a few. This government prides itself on growth. I get that. There are people around the planet who think that perhaps the concept of unlimited growth is a bit outmoded, but I get the concept of growth. I get better, I think, the concept of economic development, but that's a discussion for another day.

This government, devoted as it is to growth and claiming to be sound fiscal managers, in order to balance this year's budget, is selling off lands across the province.

We all had the pleasure this afternoon of the wonderful presentation of the member from Coquitlam — you know, the slide show in response to the slide show. And what that showed — the presentation and the contrast between them — is this. The Minister of Finance listed off the properties that were for sale. I just happened to notice — paying attention as I do, notwithstanding that I sometimes give the appearance I'm not — that a significant portion of those properties were in Surrey.

Now, Surrey, as I understand it, is on its way to becoming the largest city in the province of British Columbia. The growth rates in Surrey are incredible. I heard one of my fellow members earlier today indicate there's a need
[ Page 72 ]
for ten new schools in Surrey as we speak. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this concept. So we have the fastest-growing large centre in the province that's clearly going to have a need for schools, and we're selling land in Surrey.

Again, it's like this concept of the debt-free B.C. You increase the debt, and that leads you to being debt-free. And you promote growth and believe it's a good thing and positively support it, and then in the very community that enjoys the highest rates of growth — which presumably means, you know, people are going to have children — you sell off land which potentially might actually come in useful and handy for schools and the kinds of public facilities that are necessary to support a community. I just don't get this concept.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Now, one of the members from Surrey says: "You can't…. It's designed for a warehouse."

[1720]

I guess the point I'm getting at is: if this government was selling the land that's listed in Surrey and then buying land that was suitable for school sites, which is not what's in the budget, then that would make sense. But we're selling the land this year to balance the budget.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

After all, these fiscal masterminds have gotten British Columbia to the state where we've got to start selling off the seed for next year's crop, so to speak. Or perhaps a better analogy is selling off the land where we're going to plant next year. We're selling off British Columbia's resources in order to balance this year's budget.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Now, I know that this government…. This Premier, Christy Clark, wants to clothe herself in the raiment of W.A.C. Bennett. I get that. Dear old Brad, who didn't know what was happening with the problems at B.C. Hydro — a few hundred million over on the new proposed transmission line — sat beside her for 28 days on the campaign bus.

But I've got to tell you, the kind of vision — and it was closer to vision than delusion — that W.A.C. Bennett had and that Dave Barrett had and many Premiers in this province's history had was not the concept that you would sell off assets. It was the concept that you would acquire assets. In a province that was destined for a bright future, you'd be acquiring, not disposing of assets. But that's what we're reduced to in fiscal 2012-2013 — selling off assets.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

If you want to talk about B.C. assets, the Crown jewel, the great economic advantage that this province enjoyed for decades, B.C. Hydro, is in the worst fiscal shape it's been in, in its history — arguably, since W.A.C. Bennett nationalized B.C. Electric, when they took on incredible debt and long-term power contracts with the Americans and all of those wonderful deals that, nevertheless, guaranteed that British Columbia and British Columbia businesses, which this government claims to support, would enjoy incredibly low electricity rates that would give B.C. businesses an incredible economic advantage.

We are now in a position where it is so clear that B.C. Hydro can't deliver that anymore because this government has basically taken the B.C. Utilities Commission out of the picture. We don't want them to have a role anymore because, after all, public oversight might actually lead to public understanding. If the public truly understood what's happened with B.C. Hydro, they'd know that that tremendous economic advantage has been sold off for at least a generation. B.C. businesses will not enjoy that economic advantage. It has disappeared with this government's 12 years of fiscal mismanagement.

I can't imagine what W.A.C. Bennett would be whispering in Christy Clark's ear if he were alive today. Now, it's pretty clear that Brad Bennett wasn't whispering enough in Christy Clark's ear, because if he was, he would have mentioned to her that we're about a couple hundred million over, at least, on the transmission line that is supposed to open up the mining industry.

Who's going to pay for that? We heard the answers of the Minister of Energy this afternoon. Where is that reflected in the budget? Hydro is going to continue to produce dividends for the B.C. government. How is it doing that? According to the Auditor General, who, by the way — for the new members here — works for you…. He reports directly to the B.C. Legislature. He doesn't report to cabinet. He's an independent officer of the Legislature.

You know what he had to say about B.C. Hydro and the deferral accounts? Basically, created so that it would give the image of profit where none existed so that the government could continue to draw dividends out of Hydro, when any sensible manager, any good business person, would be saying: "Sorry, we can't pay you a dividend." But they're committed to continuing to pay those dividends so that this government can cover up its own fiscal mismanagement, its inability to face reality.

If there's one thing that's clear from both the throne speech and the budget and the budget update, it is that this government is as short on reality as it is long on rhetoric.

[1725]

What we have heard from them is the promise of some kind of wild, starry-eyed future where the B.C. debt is going to be paid off. The prosperity fund. You know, it just amuses the heck out of me that this government would talk about the prosperity fund. Let's look to their right-
[ Page 73 ]
wing cousins in Alberta: 40 years of good Conservative government, decade after decade. We've all heard of the Alberta heritage fund. I presume that's the model for the prosperity fund that the Premier is talking about.

Interjections.

L. Krog: Oh, oh, yeah, just let me finish, please. Don't jump ahead of me. Let me give my speech. You'll have your turn.

Now, $13 billion in Alberta's heritage fund and 40 years of Conservative governments…. The concept? That those oil resources, once gone, would be gone forever. Revenue would take a hit, and the people of Alberta who had enjoyed the wild ride would pay the price in future generations.

What's the one country in the world…? Not Great Britain, by the way, with its access to North Sea oil. They didn't stick it away for a rainy day. Maggie Thatcher just scooped up those bucks and paid for the groceries along the way. It's not Great Britain; it's Norway.

My grandfather came from Norway — Lillesand — a long time ago, over a hundred years ago. Norway is a small country, with the same population, roughly, as the province of Alberta and access to North Sea oil revenues. The Norwegian government, as we speak, has invested — most of it by government policy — around the world its excess oil revenue, accumulated over several decades under good Social Democratic governments — $680 billion.

It's not $13 billion like Alberta, not like those wise Conservatives, so many of whom litter the ranks of the government benches over here. That $680 billion is over $80,000 for every living, breathing Norwegian. That, I would suggest, is what good fiscal management is all about. That's what a government that cares about people and understands how economies really work is able to do.

Firstly, you invest in people. You don't cut the budget for skills and training, like this government does, when you've had for at least a decade the chambers of commerce, the business representatives, the university presidents, distinguished academics, economists all saying the same thing: we've got a skills shortage in British Columbia, a serious skills shortage. So what does this government do in planning for making B.C. debt-free? Oh, well, let's just eliminate…. What is it? Someone will help me. Is it 5,200 post-secondary spaces this year? Is it 5,200? I think I've got the number right.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Fifty-six. I hear 56. Do I get 58? I hear 56; I'll settle for 5,600 spaces.

Hon. Speaker, 5,600 post-secondary spaces are going to be eliminated as a result of this budget. We're building for the future for a debt-free B.C., when every other sensible economy understands that you have to invest in skills and training. Again, what does that tell you about this government and its need — oh, I love those words of the member for Chilliwack-Hope — to be more visionary?

Well, I would argue, I think, based on the evidence, that the vision is somewhat deficient. That's the kindest thing I can say. Because it will not confront the reality. This government has got itself in an unholy mess. What's that line? Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive — that you can have the social programs and the 500 new beds for treatment, build social housing, pay for health care and pay for public education but not have to pay taxes.

[1730]

Indeed, I've heard the new members speak earlier today. I heard them talk about that program of lowering corporate taxes and letting free enterprise go. At what point in a government's mandate — particularly when you've had 12 years of power under your belt — does it actually start to tick and does your head start to put things together?

At what point do you come to understand that maybe your policies aren't working — maybe the fact that there are still thousands of British Columbians homeless, the fact that there are thousands who would love to get into the treatment beds if they were available, and the fact that 31,000 private sector jobs have disappeared in the last two years alone? At what point do you wake up and say: "Perhaps we need a change of direction. Perhaps our policy course isn't actually correct"?

Now, I can tell by the looks on the members' faces opposite that they don't want to believe this, that they don't want to accept this. They committed themselves to the concept that you could continue to lower taxes, create more revenue as a result, and everything would be better. Now, I think it's called the Laffer curve, after one of those Chicago economists at the Chicago school of business. It's the Laffer curve.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Yeah, I know. Honestly, it gets funnier every time I say it. The Laffer curve — that if you can keep cutting taxes, eventually you'll produce more tax revenue. Now, that may even have worked for a little while when Ronnie Reagan was president. We know what an intellectual giant Mr. Reagan was — reduce it to one memo, one page, quickly.

The Laffer curve doesn't work. What sensible, honest and principled politicians have a duty to do is to say to the people: "If you want a civilized society, you have to be prepared to pay for it." I don't want to live in a society where so many have to rely on private charity; where this government, after a decade-plus in power, has raised social assistance rates so minimally for the poorest and most vulnerable amongst us. That's not the kind of
[ Page 74 ]
healthy society we need.

The government knows the statistics. The former Minister of Housing, the minister of everything, as I often call him…. You know, I thanked him publicly when he committed to building housing units in my community in Nanaimo, because Nanaimo is actually a pretty poor community. I thanked him for it. He would have argued the same thing I'm going to argue today; and that is, when you put money into housing, you actually reduce social costs.

Put aside the moral argument. Put aside Christian values. Put aside human values. Put aside morality. When you actually make that commitment, the evidence is pretty clear that you reduce costs.

So from a fiscal perspective, I would have thought this government would, after 12 years, be bragging about the thousands and thousands and thousands of housing units they've created. Instead, we're trying to sell that site in Vancouver to balance this year's budget, having eliminated a number of social housing units that were important for the people of Vancouver.

What have we got? We've got millions of dollars in government cuts since the budget in February. We've got the promise of a debt-free B.C. We've got 31,000 private sector jobs gone.

An Hon. Member: But we got elected.

L. Krog: Exactly. And if the member was listening…. He said: "We got elected." If the member was listening, I said it was much to my chagrin that they did, based on all of this. But as that member well knows, having risen high and fallen low from time to time, as we all do in life, that which goes up will come down. That which gets elected will get unelected, and that time will come.

In the meantime, in the here and now, today in British Columbia, with this budget, what do we know? We know that it is a fantasy. We know that to suggest it's balanced is ridiculous. We know that all the statistics, indeed the statistics relied on by the Minister of Finance…. And who am I to question the Minister of Finance?

[1735]

What's that line from Milton? "Thousands at his bidding speed and post o'er land and ocean without rest." You know, we've got the whole ministry there to tell him what the truth is — the whole ministry available. Well, even they acknowledged retail sales were going to drop from 3.5 to 1.8 percent this year — the increase. And that's not going to have an impact on the economy? Housing starts down from 10.1 to 13.3 in just a matter of a few short months.

I don't know how much longer we can take the good news of this government. If it gets any better, I'll have to make like many of my friends. One of my best friends from high school — I won't mention his name; I don't want to embarrass him — has left his wife and his son living in beautiful French Creek in their lovely home. He's a small contractor, a guy who was far too honest to get really rich in business, but he was a respected guy. Guess what.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Oh, my friend, let me finish. You'll have your turn.

He'd always leave something on the table for the other guy. He was never a guy for whom it was only about the money. He was and is a decent guy. But you know where he is? Guess where he is. He's in the province of Alberta as we speak. He's making $150,000 a year because he can't make anything near that in British Columbia. He can't make that.

Interjections.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Speaker could get these folks to quiet down so I could speak.

He's never….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, continue.

Members. No disruption, please. Let him continue.

L. Krog: He's an example of what British Columbia has become. We've become the suburbs for Alberta. We've become the suburbs. You live here, and you go work someplace else because — you know what? — it ain't so good here. It hasn't been good for 12 years, and it's not getting any better, and the numbers all speak to that.

My friend has to leave his family, and he has to go work in Alberta. Everyone on the coast knows about that phenomenon — piles of people working in Alberta because there are no jobs in British Columbia. And those private sector numbers prove it.

I would love to hope that the government's visionary view of things could be true. But I just suspect at the end of four years…. And we won't have to wait that long. By the end of this budgetary year, we will have seen the results of the truth come home. It's clear to me this government will not meet its revenue targets. It will certainly meet its spending targets. If it does manage to balance this budget, it will be balanced on the backs of the most vulnerable in this province. And there won't be 500 new beds as promised. There will be nothing.

Hon. M. Polak: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in this House, to return to this House and to speak in favour of the budget. Of course, in the initial part of my speech, thank-yous are in order. I want to, hopefully, remember all those whom I should thank. I'm sure I'll forget some.
[ Page 75 ]

Firstly, I want to thank the very many volunteers who worked on my campaign and who were absolute stalwarts in the ups and downs of campaigning and certainly contributed greatly to the opportunity I have to be here in this House today.

I want to thank my campaign team as well, those who worked tirelessly and withstood some really challenging times to instead pull things together and have us be able to celebrate on election night a victory in our riding of Langley.

I want to thank my family. That's my father, my daughter. My father, who is 84, had the distinct pleasure for the first time of seeing his face on the front page of the local paper pictured beside me. For someone from back in the day, being on the front page of the paper was a pretty doggone big deal. His chest was out a mile in pride at being able to be a part of that and seeing the impact.

[1740]

I want to, of course, thank the constituents of Langley. They have returned me here to this seat to represent them, and indeed it is a very humbling thing to be endorsed for a third time by your community to represent their needs, their aspirations and their desires for their community here in this House and together with all of my colleagues.

I want to send out a special thank-you to a group that wouldn't ordinarily make part of my list, and they are the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. I want to thank them for what was a very successful non-partisan effort called Your Voice, Your Vote. They set out to increase the percentage of voter turnout in Langley. While there wasn't a dramatic increase, it certainly did increase beyond what one would have expected.

That really is due to some visionary work on the part of the leadership within the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce. I want to thank them for their efforts in bringing the leaders of the parties to speak to the constituents in Langley and to support that kind of non-partisan effort to increase the participation in our democratic process. It's extremely important for organizations like that to undertake that type of work, and they were very successful.

I spoke about the way in which this is such a humbling opportunity. It becomes even more so when we look at the challenges that face us and that in many ways are represented in the presentation of the budget that was given to us earlier on. I look at my own mandate letter, and certainly, it can be daunting to imagine that you are going to attempt to accomplish these very important objectives in front of you while, at the same time, controlling spending and ensuring that we respect the very hard work that goes into producing the taxpayers' dollars that we now make decisions about.

I think about efforts, for example, to complete our marine- and land-based oil spill studies and provide the necessary information to achieve some of the objectives that we have in our five conditions for any heavy oil pipelines. I look at the chance we have to maintain an environmental assessment that is world-leading yet ensure that it is operating effectively so that there is certainty and transparency and at the same time be able to balance a budget.

What it shows is that in everything that we are faced with in government there are added levels of complexity that, if one isn't careful, can get lost in a lot of the rhetoric we'll hear not only in this place but in the media and around coffee tables and in restaurants and anytime discussion takes place around an issue about which people are very passionate.

It's easy for the rhetoric to overtake the complexity when we hear about issues such as the protection of wildlife, the protection of our streams, the protection of our air, the conservation of all the resources that are important to us. It's easy to lose the complexities when we think about the vast resources that we could be developing. It's easy to be very caught up in the ideologies when passions run high and there's fear about what potential consequences could occur if we don't treat things in just the right way.

I'm quite confident that on both sides of this House there are probably more values that we share than there are values that divide us. Much of the difference comes in how we intend to deal with those. How is it that we are going to approach those complexities? How is it that we're going to apply our values to the important decisions that face us? Far too often that's where the complexity gets lost. Far too often we are faced with rhetoric that describes either-or decisions. It's this, or it's that. It's yes, or it's no.

I've often heard the saying that the most difficult decisions aren't between good and bad. That's an easy decision to make. You choose the good. The most difficult decisions to make are the decisions between two relatively good things.

[1745]

That's what we face today as we look forward — challenging decisions about the benefits that we could have if we are able to develop our vast natural gas resources and many other resource development opportunities around the province. Huge benefits — benefits to provide schooling, benefits to provide health care, benefits to provide all sorts of the new initiatives that we all would love to see here for our residents in British Columbia.

Then we also look at what the benefits and risks are associated when we take on those developments. Shouldn't we be protecting our land, protecting our water, protecting our air and making sure that not only humans are healthy but that the environment around us is healthy? I would submit that what we have seen in the presentation of the budget — and indeed with the throne speech as well, and certainly throughout our recent election campaign — was a vision put forward that says this doesn't have to be either-or.
[ Page 76 ]

Yes, there are complex matters that we are going to have to find our way through very delicately, very carefully. But it doesn't have to be either-or. The public, in the way in which they responded, in the way in which they voted I believe said clearly that they hold that same example to be true, that indeed it's not an either-or proposition.

They've asked us to be here to steward their tax dollars, but they've also asked us to be here to steward the environment and to steward the very resources that have created wealth in British Columbia previously and the new opportunities that are presented by liquefied natural gas and by other sectors of the economy that perhaps we're not even alive to as of yet — things that will emerge in the future that we want to create the opportunities for.

As I listened to the speeches from the opposition, I suppose what struck me the most is that not an awful lot has changed. We joke about that in terms of nothing has changed where we're sitting, but there are other things that haven't changed. I still hear an opposition that wants to criticize without providing an alternative plan. We know during the election it was all about: "Review this, review that, and we'll get back to you later. We'll figure it out as we go along."

Then they also continue to insist that the decision of the electorate — and I've heard this a few times in various speeches — actually represented a population that was unable to understand what was being presented to them. I don't believe that. I believe that the public came out, they voted, and they voted because they wanted to make a choice. They wanted to make a choice for a strong economy, for a secure tomorrow.

They looked at the budget plan. They looked at the platforms. They made a clear decision to move forward. They believe that we will do our level best to accomplish that. I don't think anyone out there thinks I'm going to be the perfect Minister of Environment or the perfect MLA for Langley.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Polak: It won't happen. Thank you very much to the member who thinks I will be perfect, but I really doubt it. I've probably proven that already. But I do believe I can be the very best representative that I can be for them. I know that all of us here seek to do that in our ridings.

I think back to another time when there were similar kinds of debates about the vision for the future. The one that strikes me the most is when this government outlined a vision for the Pacific gateway and what that would look like, how we would change radically our trading behaviour. At the time, our trade with the U.S. made up 70 percent of our trade — 70 percent.

You know what we heard from the other side when we set our targets and our goals? They said you can't do that. You can't possibly do that. It won't work. It's ridiculous. You could probably add in most of the adjectives that have been used here today.

We did do it. Today our trade with Asia is roughly equivalent to our trade with the U.S. It took time. Certainly, just like the conversation around the development of liquefied natural gas, it began with a plan that stretched out much further than a single mandate. It had to. It had to, because it was significant change and there was significant work to be done to create the foundation.

[1750]

Because we stuck to that plan, we stand here today, and we have been successful. It is probably one of the single biggest reasons why British Columbia was able to withstand the downturn internationally in the way in which we did. It took that decision more than ten years ago.

Now we have another opportunity, and we're hearing the same things. We're hearing: "Ah, this is a pipedream. It's way out in the future. You're promising this. It'll never happen. You can't do it. It's ridiculous." I believe we can. What's more to the point, the public of British Columbia has recently said that they believe we can.

I know it's going to take hard work. All of us on this side of the House know it's going to take hard work. It's going to take discipline. It's going to take, oftentimes, having to say no to something good because you have to do something equally good, which is respect the taxpayers' money and try to make those steps forward to improve what's taking place in British Columbia, improve the opportunities, get to a place where we have that prosperity that will allow us to provide the benefits that British Columbians want to see for their kids and their grandkids.

We have to start now. Just like we did with the Pacific gateway, we're starting now with a new gateway. We're starting now with a new future. We start now, we lay the foundation, and if we make the right choices, we will get there.

I am very proud of the budget that's been presented. Having been at the cabinet table, I know the very difficult work from ministers all around the table. I know the very difficult work that they have put in to maintain their budgets where they are, and I know it's going to take all that effort and maybe more over the next four years.

But I know the quality of those individuals, I know the quality of the team, and I know the quality of our broader caucus. Together we have embraced what British Columbians have asked us to do. We're ready to do it, and I believe that this budget lays out a plan that is not only achievable but one that I believe will set us on a course that is no less dramatic — in fact, it's probably even more dramatic — than what we began with the Pacific gateway.

That new gateway is here. We're moving forward with it, and I am proud to support a budget that lays the first building blocks to get us there.
[ Page 77 ]

S. Chandra Herbert: Hon. Speaker, congratulations. It's good to see you up there in those robes.

First, I'd like to thank the Musqueam, the Tsleil-Waututh and the Squamish First Nations on whose traditional territories I call home and, also, to thank and acknowledge the Esquimalt and the Songhees First Nations, on whose traditional territory we sit today. It's important, I think, that we acknowledge that, because there is a history in this province sometimes of forgetting, of forgetting of where we've come from, of what has happened, who is here, why we're here.

Certainly, with yesterday being Canada Day, I think it's important that we recognize the history of the First Nations people and the histories of the settlers and the colonial history of this province as we make steps towards reconciliation and as we make steps towards greater justice within our communities.

I'd like to thank the West End, Coal Harbour, the residents of my community for their support, for re-electing me as their MLA. It's an incredible privilege to serve, to come into this House, to be there on behalf of your neighbours, your friends, your co-workers, people who you meet on the street, people on the bus, people in the restaurants, people who stopped you in elevators, the people you see in the alley as you take out the garbage.

These are the people that I work for — the people of the West End who told me they wanted me to be here as their voice, the people who told me they were strong New Democrats and wanted to support me, people who said they were B.C. Liberals but wanted the Liberals out and wanted us in, the people who have supported me not as a politician, they said, but as a community leader.

I say thank you. It's an incredible privilege, an incredible amount of trust you've put in me, and I will serve you and work hard for you every day.

I want to thank my partner, my husband, the love of my life, Romi, for his support. There's no way one of us could do this job without that level of support. For those in this House who are still looking for love, it will come. It will come. Just don't fall in love with this place too much. Fall in love with it a lot, but leave a little room for your own heart.

[1755]

I want to thank my family — my mother, my father, my mother- and father-in-law, my brother, my brother-in-law — and so many others who make this possible. The family is what it comes down to. Certainly, for me, I have a wide chosen family, as well, of friends and people who make this work possible.

Now, as I said, I'm here on behalf of the people of the West End, the people of Coal Harbour, an incredible constituency — a constituency that could be roughly summed up as 15 blocks by 15 blocks. You fit 48,000 people on top of each other in shoeboxes.

But it is so much more than that. It's a community where we share. We have to. Our backyards are Stanley Park and the seawall. We don't have backyards very often in the West End. When we do, they get taken over for community barbecues. It's that kind of community where we know how to share, where we live in a much more sustainable way. Seventy percent of us bike, bus or walk to get to work. It's the highest rate in North America — and certainly, in terms of B.C., absolutely the highest as well.

After speaking with my constituents, of course, being out on the street corners talking to them, many days for many hours, from early in the morning to late at night, it got to the point where they said: "Spencer, you need to take a break." I apologize, hon. Speaker, I may not use my first name. They said my name and then, "You need to take a break," they would say. I'd say: "No, no. Working for you, there is no time for breaks, because we've got an election to do."

But there is really no time for breaks in this business, because there is so much work to do and such an honour to stand on behalf of people. You can't stop working, because it fills you up with energy and the passion to carry on. After speaking with them and listening — mostly listening — to my constituents, I've reviewed this budget again. They told me to reject it the first time. And now that it has come back even worse, they've told me to reject it second time.

I will be voting no to this budget. I'm voting no against this budget because it's an irresponsible budget. It's not balanced, and it sells out the future. It increases the social debt, it increases the environmental debt our province has, and it increases the fiscal debt our province has.

To focus on just one, I think, would be an error, because we know that how we treat each other can increase our prosperity, but it can also increase discord. We know that treating the environment badly can lead to future costs in terms of our health and also in terms of our wallets.

We know that treating the fiscal situation as the only situation can also be troublesome, because you save a dollar here; you cost $100 over there. It's important that we look at it in the totality of a budget, and it's not a balanced budget fiscally, environmentally or socially. It sells out the future of our young people. I say this as the youngest MLA for the third parliament in a row. I think this budget does not help our young people's future.

When 50 percent of my constituents are under the age of 40, I watch these things very closely. We have unemployment rates amongst young people of 15 percent, 14 percent. We have a skills shortage, which you would think would mean that we would have young people able to move into those jobs. But this budget cuts advanced education and skills training.

This budget says to young people, "You want a future?" and says to employers: "You want skilled workers?" It says to those people: "Well, no, we're going to make it harder for you to get skilled workers. We're going to make it harder for you to get jobs, harder for you to get skills."
[ Page 78 ]

It's not just young people looking for skills training. There are many constituents who I talked to who are in their 50s, who are in their early 60s, who have been laid off from a job relatively recently. Certainly, that shouldn't be a surprise, with the worst increase in joblessness in the country coming under this government — ever since they introduced the jobs plan, with 31,000 jobs lost in the private sector.

They say they want an opportunity to give back. They want an opportunity to be employed. They want to have the confidence of having that job and giving back in their community. But this government says to them: "Too bad. The 5,600 spaces in universities and colleges are gone. Those spaces aren't for you. You can't get that education." Over 5,600 people are told no.

Well, to me, that's not responsible; that's irresponsible. That sells out their future; that sells out our future.

[1800]

Now, the Finance Minister said that the next 12 to 18 months are going to be tough. Well, my question is: tough for whom? Certainly not tough for all the new MLAs who've got new parliamentary perks — one of the largest cabinets in B.C. history, with more cabinet appointees and secretaries and ministers of state than pretty much any other cabinet that I can recall, and I've looked through the records. Really, you've got to wonder about the few MLAs who didn't get any extra money on the Liberal side. What did they do? Because the Premier pretty much rewarded just about everybody else.

Tough for whom? Is it tough for them, or is it tough for those who cannot get that education? Is it tough for those who've been living in grinding poverty for years under this government — for years and years and years — as we see the need, the very real need for a poverty reduction plan in B.C.; as the inequality gap has widened; as young people fall further behind; as they get challenged further by poverty?

We need a strategy to deal with this. The government's approach of: "Well, we just need a good job…." Well, I think people need good jobs, but they're making it harder to get good jobs because they're cutting skills training. I think we need good jobs, and that's been a great response from the government for years. But what has it done? It's kept children in poverty, it's kept families in poverty, and it's continued for years and years and years.

So this budget is tough for some. It's not tough for the Liberals. It's a budget that's tough for British Columbians who are challenged, and it's a tough budget that sells out the future. It's a tough budget for my constituents, who will see MSP fees go up, hydro fees go up. Meanwhile, they'll see over $130 million in cuts to programs that they rely on — cuts to programs in our health system, in our education system. So they're paying more, and they're getting less because of this government's mismanagement.

It's tough for the seniors that I talk to who are on SAFER. They worked a full life, didn't have a pension and are struggling to get by paying their rent. Meanwhile, rents go up every year, but their ability to pay that rent declines every year. More and more of their food budget is going to pay their rent. I talked to these people. They don't want to have to come talk to me, because they're proud. But they're challenged. They're vulnerable. They're being forced into tough situations that none of us would ever consider, that none of us have to face. So it's tough for them.

This budget is not tough for Liberals; it's not tough for us. And we need to remember who we're here working for, because too often we get stuck in this high level where we forget the people who we should be listening to and who we should be looking out for — many of those people who are most vulnerable, who don't come to us very often because they think we're too busy, because we are too busy. They think that they will not get respect because they've not been respected by this government for far too long.

Now, we've seen this government reward insiders. They've got a history of rewarding the top executives with bonuses, with the Million-Dollar Man at the ferry corporation and many others. We see who their priorities are for. We see who this government looks out for.

Sometimes we've seen in remarks of people speaking to this budget on the government side: "Well, we won the election, so basically, too bad. We don't have to listen to you." That's been a tone that I've heard from some. Now, many have said they want to work with this side, and I appreciate that. I think we should work more together than this House traditionally has. There's a possibility, through the use of committees and other structures, to do that, but there has to be a real willingness.

Yes, more British Columbians did vote for these folks across the aisle than for us. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that the people who voted for us should not be heard, that their voices don't matter, that the people who voted New Democrat in the constituencies of the Liberals should not be listened to. Those people should be listened to.

Just like I work to engage with local Liberals in my constituency in addition to the local New Democrats, Green Party members and others, I would call on this government to please work together with us, work together with people who think differently from you. We'll have a stronger government because of it.

Now, you know, this budget is not tough for the Liberals, but it's tough for people. When I think about the number of people who are living homeless; when I think of the number of people who are struggling in hospital beds when they should be in long-term care; when I think about the people who need home care, and it would save us all money, save them their dignity so that they could stay at home…. This is a budget that's tough for them.
[ Page 79 ]

[1805]

Meanwhile, we see massive, massive capital overruns, whether it's at Hydro or in other departments. So who was minding the shop? Who was getting paid the big bucks to watch these things? The ministers. But they all say they didn't know about it. That's not good enough. For my constituents, that's not acceptable. Tough for my constituents, who will pay the massive hydro rate increases, not tough for the government.

I think about the teachers. I think about the young parent that I met who needed help in the school system. His son was dealing with a speech issue, and he was told: "Well, you're going to have to wait 2½ years to get an assessment." His son was falling further and further behind in his school. He could not keep up, so the parent, after working with the principal, after working with teachers, after doing everything he could, finally came to my office to ask for help.

He said: "Is there any way? I want my son to have a good quality of life." It was a single dad. "I want my son to be able to succeed. What can I do?" The dad was at his wits' end. He was working two jobs just to try to pay the rent, and his son was struggling. He was doing everything he could do to hold the family together.

Finally, after continual back-and-forth with the school board, we got that son some help. But how many people fall through the cracks? How many little boys and little girls fall through the cracks because they cannot get the help, because their parents are so busy trying to put food on the table that they are not able to get through the door? How many have waited years and fallen further and further behind in their schools because this government has not prioritized education, has not prioritized making sure that kids that need help get the help they need? Too many.

Too many kids have fallen behind, and that's selling out our future. That's leaving a debt to the future because of greed today. That's not acceptable in my British Columbia. That's not acceptable, I'm sure, in many people's British Columbia, but that's the reality we face in the province we live in today and we've faced for years.

I was interested in the Environment Minister's speech. I appreciate the desire to bridge, and I appreciate the desire to find shared values. What I found surprising, though: there was no discussion of climate change — not in the budget, not in the Environment Minister's speech, not in the throne speech, not in the budget speech before that, the throne speech before that.

There used to be a passion around this place that we would do our part in the fight against climate change. The previous Premier thought that was something we should do, and we agreed. Maybe it was that exceedingly hot winter we had, or maybe it was the fact that the storms were coming harder and faster, but for a while the province really thought we needed to fight hard.

What do we have now? No mention. Oops. It's yesterday's thing. Meanwhile, we have the Saddledome up to the eighth level in water. Meanwhile, we have some of the hottest weather records being hit in this province. Now, not all can be attributed to climate change. I'm not trying to suggest that. But we know that the weather will worsen. We know that the costs will go up, whether or not it's forest fires or other things in this province, unless we act.

What do we get? We see transit as something we need to deal with if we want to get people out of their cars so we can cut down on emissions. What do we get? Years and years of delays, of reasons why we can't do anything, and now more reasons for delays. Sure, we can build mass freeways, but in terms of buses, in terms of public transit, no, you need a referendum for that.

Well, that doesn't work. I don't understand how you can push off the investments we need today in transit for politics. But apparently it works for the Liberal side. It fails people. It fails business. We're all calling for increases in transit. They see the congestion. It costs their personal life, and it costs their businesses. There are only so many roads you can build before you build out the Lower Mainland. We've seen that in Vancouver.

There is not much more room to grow in terms of roads, but we've been increasing the number of people coming into downtown through mass transit. That works. That works through cycling paths as well — another area that needs a better look in this government.

I think about all the green jobs that can be created. I think about LiveSmart B.C. and the program that's vanishing because of Liberal cuts, a program that really, really expanded the home renovation sector and the green building sector. Through fits and starts, the program began and then died. Then it came up again; then it died. It's going back and forth.

[1810]

We need a consistent approach to green energy, to green building, to green jobs in this province. That would be a mark of good government. Instead we have no mention, no look, no care for those tradespeople, for those people who have made it a business in their communities.

I think we also need to talk about the creative economy. We are very good at the resource-based economy in B.C. We know how to chop things down. We know how to dig stuff out of the ground. We've got more work to do, for sure, to improve those things, to improve the environmental integrity of those processes, to improve the number of jobs that can come out of them through value-added manufacturing as well.

But we also need to look at things like the arts and culture industry, the film industry, the innovation sectors, the tech sectors — sectors which are small but are big in terms of economic impact and actually create a lot of jobs, a lot more jobs than some of the focuses of this government's side, yet are forgotten, are ignored.

I know that many of my constituents are troubled. They're looking out towards the future going: "Can we
[ Page 80 ]
work in B.C. anymore, or are they trying to tell us to go to Ontario, as many already have?" We saw jobs increase in Ontario while they declined here. The government seems to be doing a pretty good job of exporting things. Unfortunately, they're jobs to Ontario.

Well, it wouldn't be a budget speech if I didn't talk a little bit more about health care and, in particular, St. Paul's Hospital. I've been fighting for years to get that hospital rebuilt — a hospital which, if there was an earthquake, would disappear. We know that. The government has sat on a report since 2002 that showed that, and every year nothing happens. We've had billboards up now for over a year promising action, but not a line item in the budget, not the money required in the budget to do it.

Now, some might say: "Oh, that's just politicians putting up signs." Well, it seems to look that way, but I hope a commitment is followed through on. I'll continue to fight for St. Paul's Hospital and to rebuild St. Paul's Hospital.

The other side with health care, and I hear it a lot in my constituency, is care about mental health. There has been a desire amongst British Columbians — and in particular, I find, in my constituency — for real action to help people with mental health challenges. There were some horrific attacks that happened in my constituency due to mental illness, in large part. But instead of increasing support and actually dealing with the challenges we face in this province, we are seeing cuts to mental health care from this Liberal government, after claiming it was a priority.

I don't see how you can cut mental health care in a time when we see dementia increasing; when we see the need for health care, as we understand the mind more, increase; as we see the need to help our young people, who are particularly challenged, get through. Sometimes, issues just require a little bit of counselling or a little bit of assistance, and then they could go on to live a good life. Instead they spiral downwards because they do not get that level of support and that level of attention.

We need better support for mental health care, and this budget irresponsibly fails people with those needs. It sells out their future. It's a budget that brings in a debt for their future, and that's not how we should be leaving this province That's not how we should be leaving our people.

As the new critic for the Environment, I got to spend the Canada Day weekend out at Carmanah park, an incredible park that was brought together because of people fighting for old-growth forests, fighting for the marbled murrelet and endangered species. It's an incredible park, but one thing it showed me, which I thought was interesting and which continues to be a challenge for British Columbia's tourism sector, is that our parks are failing.

We had some interesting documents there at Carmanah park that they're still handing out which said: "New park, Walbran park, being commissioned. We're thinking about putting trails in there, thinking about the species. New management plan coming soon." I read the park document. It said 1997. I went to the website, and I took a look. In 2013 it still says: "Undergoing review." Here we go.

[1815]

Well, the park systems are challenged. That's another section I look forward to discussing with the Minister of Environment in the estimates debate. We protect areas, but then very little happens, and safety risks exist. Tourism is challenged in this province.

Hon. Speaker, as you know, I formerly served as critic in the Tourism portfolio. Today, of course, marks the ten-year anniversary of when the Olympics were first announced for British Columbia. But what have we seen for tourism since the Olympics? We've seen declines in tourism. The federal government cuts certainly have not helped in tourism marketing. We also saw chaos in the tourism marketing system in this province.

Many of my constituents work in the hospitality and tourism sectors, and we need to see those numbers going up, not going down — particularly after we spent billions of dollars on the Olympics. That's an area that I'll be watching as well. When park quality is impacted, when visitor quality is impacted, when we're not welcoming people in the way that we used to, and when poverty and inequality have increased, so our society is not the same welcoming, giving place that it has been. Those are real issues in the hospitality sector.

Those are real issues for the kind of province we want to leave for our children, our children's children and on into the future. So as I said, I think this is a budget that is irresponsible. It pushes more debt onto the people of British Columbia, people that are already with the highest levels of personal debt in Canada. It doesn't do anything to increase affordability for people, particularly around affordable housing, which is something I hear of so often. It forgets the environment. It forgets our entertainment, our culture, our creative economy, and it forgets the future for young people in this province.

This is a budget that's irresponsible, it's a budget that sells out the future, and it's a budget that should not pass. I'll be voting no.

L. Larson: It is an honour to be here representing the people of Boundary-Similkameen, and I thank them sincerely for giving me the opportunity to speak for them here in Victoria. My decision to put my name on the ballot was based on a strong belief that the provincial government should strive for balanced budgets and a desire to participate in that process. As a mayor of Oliver for nine years and also a councillor, producing a balanced budget was not optional.

During the last few months I have come to appreciate even more this amazing place we live in, the resilience of the people who live in rural British Columbia and their belief that each one of those communities is the best place on earth to raise their families.

The Boundary-Similkameen riding has more than
[ Page 81 ]
38,000 people who live in six municipalities, all with populations under 5,000, and ten unincorporated communities inside three regional districts. This area of rural British Columbia faces the same challenges as all rural areas do: the need for sustainable, environmentally friendly jobs; access to health care; education; affordable housing; and transportation.

The majority of people who live in the region support the objectives of this government's forward-thinking policies to build a strong economy, create jobs, be fiscally responsible and look to the future of our children and our environment.

The economy of this region depends on a very large number of small businesses, the majority with less than five employees. As vice-chair of the B.C. Small Business Roundtable for six years, I was able to travel all over the province and listen to the hopes and concerns of small business owners. Those consultations resulted and continue to result in the reduction of red tape for business and the introduction of some innovative ways of helping business. The mobile business licence and BizPaL are just two of several initiatives this government introduced.

Most of the communities in rural B.C. are dependent on the survival of their small business community to remain a viable place to work and retire. The small business owners are the ones who supply products and services to that end. The government's commitment to keep business taxes among the lowest in Canada and to raise the threshold before taxes are paid continues to ensure the survival of these small businesses.

The wealth of this province starts with the primarily resource-based industries of rural British Columbia. Forestry, mining, agriculture and now tourism all have their roots in these rural communities and have the potential to support strong local economies.

This government has demonstrated the value it places on agriculture by continuing to grow the budget of agriculture and its support of initiatives like the farm to school program that operates with great success in school district 53. This introduces our children to local farmers and ensures that the best of homegrown produce and fruit is being appreciated by our youth.

[1820]

The certified organic association reports 90 farms as certified or pending organic certification. Several of them are in the Cawston-Keremeos area, which has become well known for its focus on organic produce. The demand for organically grown food continues to rise.

Many of the restaurants in the area have also demonstrated how they appreciate locally grown produce, with award-winning chefs creating menus featuring those products. Support for agriculture has also been demonstrated by this government with the removal of the carbon tax on farm fuel as well as this government's commitment to finding new markets in China and India for our products.

The wine industry is also benefiting from the government's support of small business and the review that is ongoing on outdated liquor legislation. B.C. is home to 864 vineyards and 242 licensed wineries. There are 10,000 acres of wine grapes and 200 acres of table grapes in production, employing over 3,500 people.

Boundary-Similkameen is also home to one of the province's largest senior populations. The challenges associated with providing support for those seniors so that they can live out their lives in their own small communities is one that this government has acknowledged, moving forward with several programs that will ensure the best outcomes for our aging population.

One of these innovative programs for seniors is called Better at Home. The town of Osoyoos has been running a pilot program for the past year, and it has proved to be so successful that it is being expanded to include the Oliver and Keremeos areas and will expand to 68 communities over the next three years.

It provides everyday support for seniors to help them age in place — things like housework, yardwork and grocery shopping. It also encourages seniors to continue to be involved socially in their communities, often pairing a senior with a young family or community support group.

Participating seniors are spending less time using the medical system, thanks to improved coordination of health and support services. The costs associated with health care for an aging population will be reduced by implementing and evaluating the B.C. government's seniors action plan. Many of those actions are already underway.

I have had my own mother living in a carriage house on my property for the last ten years. She is now 92. I know firsthand the concerns of our senior population and the caregivers who are involved on a daily basis.

Forestry and mining are also important in the Boundary. These sectors were the backbone of the communities in the Boundary, from Hedley to Christina Lake. In Hedley tourism is getting a boost from partnerships involving the Upper Similkameen band, the Mining Association of B.C., Barrick Gold Corp. and the Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia.

The Mascot mine attraction has been created to help visitors explore the incredible history of mining in the Similkameen Valley. Overlooking the spectacular valley, people can step back in time to experience what life was like as a hard-rock goldminer and learn more about our local First Nations culture. With the support of government, reductions to red tape mean several new, small, independent mining companies are actively mining again in this area and others.

From Grand Forks to Midway new and innovative companies are also reinventing the forestry industry in this area. A consortium of local people got together to buy the Midway mill and have since, with other partners, created 35 new jobs. Woodlots and community
[ Page 82 ]
forests play a large role in the new industries related to forest products.

Another success story is Structurlam in Okanagan Falls, which has grown and evolved since the 1960s. With startup help originally from the federal government, land was purchased and construction began on the building. It is now recognized around the world for its quality products and ability to fabricate extremely complex designs, like the giant hockey stick that was created for Expo 86 and that now sits at the Cowichan Community Centre in Duncan.

These are just some of the examples of how resilient communities like mine are finding new ways to create good, family-supporting jobs and contribute to both the local and provincial economies. I join with them in that spirit of free enterprise, adaptability and creativity to better our communities and help them thrive.

[1825]

The Boundary-Similkameen area is a wonderful place to live. It was a great place to raise my family, and I feel the same way now as I watch my four grandchildren grow. I'm proud to be part of a government that puts a priority on controlling spending and balancing the budget, a government that doesn't want a great burden of debt placed on those future generations.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

The future education of my grandchildren and other B.C. children is also being given a high priority, thanks to the $1,200 B.C. training and education savings grant. It's going to help families start planning and saving early for their children's education after high school.

There is much to look forward to in the communities I represent and in the province as a whole.

Finally, I would like to personally thank my small but tenacious campaign team of women who helped me become the representative for Boundary-Similkameen: my campaign chair Darlene Freding, Tara Hovanes, Colleen Misner, Petra Veintimilla and June Moon. Thanks to my family and friends, who gave me the space and time I needed.

Last but not least is my husband, Larry, who has remained calm throughout it all. We will celebrate our 43rd wedding anniversary this Thursday.

I very much look forward to serving the people of Boundary-Similkameen as we move forward together and watch this province prosper.

S. Simpson moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2013: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada