2014 Legislative Session: Second 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)

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 9

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

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2014

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1335]

Tributes

GARY ROMALIS

K. Corrigan: I wanted to take a moment to honour the legacy of Dr. Gary Romalis, who passed away on January 30 of this year. Dr. Romalis was an obstetrician and gynecologist who was a staunch believer in women's reproductive choice. He worked at Vancouver General Hospital, B.C. Women's Hospital and the Elizabeth Bagshaw Clinic.

As the department of obstetrics and gynecology at UBC has pointed out in its tribute, as a result of his work and belief in the pro-choice movement, Dr. Romalis suffered significant violence and harassment, including a sniper attack in 1994 while he sat in his kitchen.

After a very long recovery, Dr. Romalis showed tremendous courage, perseverance and strength when he returned to work, which included the provision of abortion services. He was attacked again and stabbed six years later but continued to provide care. He served as an inspiration to those who also care deeply about ensuring women's access to safe abortion services.

Our condolences go to the family and friends of Dr. Romalis.

Introductions by Members

Hon. T. Lake: I rise in the House today to introduce members of the B.C. Care Providers Association who are in the capital for their first-ever B.C. Care Providers Association awards.

Daniel Fontaine, Andre Van Ryk, David Cheperdak, Isobel Mackenzie, Kristi Osguthorpe, Ted Semmons Jr., Heather Campbell, Annette Elieff, Maureen Parks, Jennifer Lyle, Elaine Price and Aly Devji are dedicated men and women and part of a group which, for over 35 years, has continuously worked to improve seniors care throughout the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

R. Chouhan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my dear friend Gordon Larkin, whom I've known since he was the staff of the Canadian Labour Congress. Currently he's doing a very important job in Burnaby as the president of Burnaby Citizens Association. Please join me to welcome Gordon Larkin.

Hon. P. Fassbender: I rise to introduce a couple of people that are in the gallery today: Teresa Rezansoff, who is the president of the B.C. School Trustees Association, and Dr. Stephen Hansen, the BCSTA executive director. I believe, if my eyes serve me well, other members of the board of directors have joined them. I do want to say that they represent a very passionate commitment to the future of education throughout the province, and I ask all the members to join me in welcoming them.

A. Weaver: I'd like to introduce two constituents who are visiting the Legislature today. The first is Mayor Nils Jensen, the mayor of Oak Bay, and the second is Barbara Adams — whom I will be speaking about shortly in a member's statement — a recent recipient of the Arts Laureate award in Oak Bay. I wish the House to please give them a warm welcome.

Madame Speaker, if I may, I also wanted to point out that this seat in the House is one of the hottest tickets in town, in light of the historic vote and cooperation between the official opposition and the government earlier this week, resulting in a 73-to-1 vote on a motion.

Hon. B. Bennett: I have four people here from the Mining Association of British Columbia who I'd like to introduce. First of all, Karina Brino is the president and CEO of the Mining Association — has been president and CEO since August of 2011.

[1340]

John McManus is the chief operating officer of Taseko Mines. He is a past president of the Mining Association of B.C. John actually won an award, the E.A. Scholz Award, just last year for his more than 30 years of working in the mining industry, in recognition of excellence in mine development in relation to the Gibraltar mine project.

Thirdly, Tim Bekhuys is the director of environment and sustainability for the mining company New Gold. New Gold has the new mine in New Afton in Kamloops and also has the very exciting project out in the Chilcotin called the Blackwater gold project.

Lastly but not least, Ken Roberts is the Canadian sales director for FLSmidth Minerals. Ken is currently the chair of the Mining Suppliers Association here in B.C. They have small businesses represented in most of our communities around the province.

Please help me make them welcome.

S. Simpson: We all know that coming to this place takes us away from our families and that.

All I want to say to my wife, Cate Jones, is that a gift and dinner are coming on the weekend. But for today, happy birthday, and I love you.
[ Page 1388 ]

Hon. S. Bond: I have two introductions to make today. It's a great pleasure to invite one of the very hard-working administrative staff from my office, Nicki Tuttle, and her mom Karen here to the gallery today. It's their first time, and we're very excited to have them here.

Secondly, I want to introduce someone who has become a friend. She is Trish Bella. She is here from Prince George, and she is a second-term school trustee with the Prince George board of education. She's also a director of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

Trish came to be a school trustee like many of us in this place. She had a passion. When her daughter went to kindergarten, she decided she wanted to get involved. She's now a director with the BCSTA.

She was very inspirational in leading a campaign in Prince George to make sure that playgrounds were in place for kids. I certainly had a lot of visits from her during that period of time. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the work that she and other school trustee do. I'd very much like you to join me in welcoming Trish Bella to the gallery today.

S. Fraser: I'd like to join the minister in welcoming members from the Mining Association of British Columbia. Besides Karina and the lengthy list that the minister had, Gavin Dirom is also here from the Association for Mineral Exploration of B.C. There are quite a few other members joining us today in the House, and around the House in various meetings, who were not named. I want to acknowledge them also.

Hon. A. Virk: I'd like the House to note that there'll be 56 young, bright minds from the Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead joining us today. They are the fifth-grade classes of Mr. Grant Wirtz and Mrs. Sue U-Ming. May the House make them feel welcome, please.

Hon. T. Stone: It gives me a great pleasure today to introduce someone who actually is a constituent of mine from Kamloops–South Thompson. Mitchell Zulinick is the chief operating officer of Arrow Transportation Systems. In addition to being a hard-working leader in the goods movement in British Columbia, he's also a great dad, and he's an outstanding chef.

I'd ask the House to please make Mitchell feel welcome.

J. Tegart: It's with great pleasure that I stand today and ask the House to join me in welcoming a constituent, Gordon Swan, who serves as vice-president of the B.C. School Trustees Association. Gordon is a school trustee with Nicola-Similkameen board of education. He's served in many roles on the B.C. Public School Employers Association and the BCSTA.

Gordon says: "No matter how we slice the education pie, if the students, who are our future, are not at the forefront of our discussion, then the rest is meaningless. At the end of the day, it comes down to the students, and it always will. Our deliberations should always be about students and what's in their best interests for a brighter future."

Would the House help me welcome Mr. Gordon Swan.

J. Horgan: Again, in the absence of George Abbott, we need to recognize in the gallery Prof. Paddy Smith from SFU, the shepherd of the interns. He's here reviewing applications for coming years. He's going to have a three-year service plan, I think, for the interns soon enough. Would the House please make Dr. Smith very, very welcome.

[1345]

J. Darcy: I'd like to join with the Minister of Health in also welcoming the B.C. Care Providers Association today on behalf of my colleagues and myself who met with them. What was especially wonderful about the delegation — and this is sometimes unusual — is that it was a combination of CEOs and executive directors as well as family members and front-line care staff.

I want to pay tribute to all of them, because it takes very, very special people to care for what is some of the most important work in our society, and that's caring for our seniors and caring for them so well.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — PENSION BENEFITS
STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 2014

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Pension standards legislation sets the minimum standards for benefits funding, investments, disclosure and regulatory oversight for workplace pension plans.

In 2008 a panel of experts from B.C. and Alberta conducted a comprehensive review of pension standards legislation in each province. Submissions from two rounds of public consultations indicated broad support for recommendations in the panel's final report. In May 2012 recommendations from that final report were enacted in British Columbia as a new Pension Benefits Standards Act. Parallel legislation was enacted in Alberta in November 2012. The new Pension Benefits Standards Act is a comprehensive rewrite of the existing legislation
[ Page 1389 ]
and is designed to improve workplace pension coverage for British Columbians.

The private sector, under this regime, will have a wider choice of pension plan options, such as jointly sponsored plans and target benefit plans as well as new tools such as solvency reserve accounts. Other changes will reduce administrative costs and enhance members' rights, including benefit security and disclosure of plan information.

This bill is needed to correct some technical errors and omissions in the new Pension Benefits Standards Act, including clarification of one substantive area of the law. With these amendments, and after regulations have been completed and approved, we hope to have and bring the new Pension Benefits Standards Act into force later this year.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 10, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2014, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 9 — POOLED REGISTERED PENSION
PLANS ACT

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: This bill is substantively identical to Bill 16 of 2013, which I introduced last spring before the dissolution of this House prior to the May election. This bill will make the pooled registered pension plans pension option available to B.C. workers, in conjunction with the federal government and other participating provinces.

Last year the federal government implemented its legislative framework for PRPPs. This bill will operate within that framework by adopting the federal legislation by reference, with some modifications for B.C.'s legislative context. PRPPs will be defined contribution pension plans administered by regulated financial institutions to relieve employers of the burden of pension plan operation.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting after today.

Bill 9, Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1350]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

2014 B.C. WINTER GAMES IN MISSION

M. Dalton: As Canadians across our land are experiencing Olympics sports fever, British Columbians will have another opportunity to cheer on our athletes over the next number of days. I'm speaking of the B.C. Winter Games being hosted for the first time in Mission, February 20 through to the 23rd. Over 1,800 athletes, coaches and officials will be participating in 18 different sports including hockey, figure skating, skiing, curling, judo and Special Olympics basketball, to name a few.

Without the volunteers, the B.C. Winter Games just wouldn't happen, and Missionites have come out in spades. Some 2,000, including 125 chairs and particularly 14 directors and President Kelly Mann, have been working hard at it for years in preparation. Hats off to all of them.

Corporate and funding partners are critical to the success of the Mission games. Many thanks to the district of Mission, school district 75, Jazz air, Global B.C., CN, the Mission City Record and, of course, the B.C. Games Society.

The B.C. Games are a stepping stone to national and international competition, and ten B.C. Games athletes are on the 2014 Canadian Olympic team in Sochi, making us proud.

Athletes ranging from nine to 40 will compete at venues primarily in Mission but also in Abbotsford, Langley, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Hemlock and Whistler. Over 1,300 medals will be awarded. Whether you're a participant or a spectator, sports are good, old-fashioned fun, and Mission is the place to be this weekend. The B.C. Winter Games will be fast-paced and action-packed for everyone.

Thank you to everyone who has supported the games, and thanks again to all the volunteers. Let's watch and cheer on our athletes.

OAK BAY ARTS LAUREATE
BARBARA ADAMS

A. Weaver: Today I rise to pay tribute to a constituent, Barbara Adams, and to the municipality of Oak Bay together with its mayor, Nils Jensen, for nominating Barbara Adams as their inaugural Oak Bay arts laureate.

Barbara Adams is a passionate and tireless advocate for the arts in our community. For a decade she taught at Monterey School, where she built the arts program and established the artist-in-the-school program. Her innovative approaches to art education and community
[ Page 1390 ]
engagement were so successful that her annual Monterey Art Gala netted the school department between $10,000 and $25,000 each year.

In her 37-year career as an educator, Barbara Adams has inspired a generation of children to appreciate and celebrate the arts, each in their own personal way. Being appointed the Oak Bay arts laureate is just the latest of numerous honours that have been bestowed upon Barbara Adams over the years, including a Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal and a Community Arts Council Community Arts Award, to name just two.

I know that being named the Oak Bay arts laureate is very special to her. The Oak Bay arts laureate is an honorary position whose creation was championed by the mayor, Nils Jensen. It is the first such position in the capital regional district and, as far as I can tell, British Columbia or even Canada. The arts laureate acts as a goodwill ambassador to enhance arts and culture within the community of Oak Bay. The arts laureate organizes and coordinates events and creates projects that enhance arts and culture in Oak Bay.

The arts laureate also liaises with arts and cultural organizations across the capital regional district, and yes, the arts laureate has indeed a budget to work with. I, for one, am excited about what's in store for Oak Bay as Barbara Adams enriches the profile of art across our community.

Thank you to Nils Jensen and the district of Oak Bay for creating the arts laureate position, and thank you, Barbara Adams, for all that you do in our community.

HEART HEALTH

L. Larson: Just a reminder to everyone: February we recognize as Heart Month. We should all take a few moments to learn a little bit more about our own heart health and the basic steps we can take to minimize our risk. All of us have family or friends who have had a brush with this often fatal disease. Despite the fact that many cases are preventable, this is the second leading cause of death in B.C., claiming nearly 6,000 people every year.

There are three simple lifestyle changes that can dramatically reduce your risk and keep your heart healthy. Quit smoking. Smoking is linked to virtually all major causes of death and disease in Canada. Take advantage of B.C.'s smoking cessation program and QuitNow services, which provide 24-hour, seven-days-a-week advice and support. There is also legislation that is specific to protecting us from secondhand smoke.

[1355]

Healthy eating. More fruit and vegetables and less salt and fat will help to keep your heart healthy longer. We as government continue to promote our agricultural industry and encourage our children through specific farm-to-schools programs to eat healthy. I hope that will influence their parents also.

Finally, physical activity. Even 15 to 30 minutes a day can make a difference. With every step you take, you are doing your heart a favour and ensuring you will have more time to spend with your family and friends.

DAN HAMHUIS

D. Donaldson: The last time I spoke about a hammer in this chamber, it wasn't about the need for more trades training in the north or the final rock in a curling match, although it did have something to do with ice. It was just about three years ago, and the hammer I was referring to was the only B.C.-born player starting for the Vancouver Canucks in the Stanley Cup final against the Boston Bruins.

The Hammer is Smithers' own NHL defenceman Dan Hamhuis, Olympian Dan Hamhuis, who was on the starting roster today in Canada's quarter final 2-1 win against Latvia.

Late in his Smithers Storm minor hockey days, Hamhuis broke his leg while playing at the Barn in Hazelton, an ice arena that locals are working hard to get replaced. His dad says it was a turning point, because he missed the major junior hockey draft event as he recovered. Undrafted, he was listed by the Prince George Cougars of the Western Hockey League, made the team and began playing for them at 15. So he is a true product of the B.C. hockey system.

Dan is quiet and unassuming and contributes to community life off the ice without a lot of fanfare. This will be the fourth year he is supporting a contest for youth run from our MLA offices in Stikine. The themes have been "Don't let gangs score," "Don't let cyber bullies score" and "Don't let apathy score."

This year's contest is "Don't let intolerance score." Young people are asked to submit a short message on how they have demonstrated tolerance to those who are different from themselves — things like a different culture, a different religion, a different sexual orientation, or whatever they choose. It's a great way to highlight positive behaviour by youth. And what an important message, considering the intolerance displayed by the Russian government, with oppressive laws and actions leading up to and now during the Olympics.

Dan is donating two tickets to a Canucks game, Hawkair is sponsoring the airfare, and the Gitxsan Chiefs Office and Gitksan Government Commission are covering accommodation.

All the best in the next few days to Team Canada and Dan, and thanks for your support, Dan. The Olympics is a stage to say: "Don't let intolerance score."

CENTENNIAL OF PITT MEADOWS

D. Bing: I have the pleasure of inviting the members of this House to a birthday party. I'm pleased to inform
[ Page 1391 ]
the House that the community I represent, the city of Pitt Meadows, celebrates its centennial this year.

On April 25, 2014, Pitt Meadows turns 100 years old. There will be a community birthday party followed the next day by a fun gala where people are invited to dress up and wear period clothes. To celebrate this milestone, the city — under the direction of its centennial coordinator, Erin Mark, and its community partners — has been busy planning a year of celebratory events.

Pitt Meadows has grown from a small, isolated farming community with less than 500 residents to a vibrant community of almost 19,000 people today. While the community has experienced tremendous growth and change, it still maintains the great attributes and friendliness of a small town.

To make the celebrations accessible to current and former Pitt Meadows residents, special centennial festivities will be added to the existing popular events, including Pitt Meadows Day, Canada Day and Pitt Meadows Christmas.

Plans for community art projects and commemorative projects are also underway. A committee will manage the festivities held throughout the year to bring increased awareness of the city's history and also to commemorate this special milestone.

Anticipation is building. It is exciting to see a huge number of volunteers coming forward. Pitt Meadows is a very welcoming community, and we would love to have you come to visit.

ADVOCACY FOR SENIORS CENTRE
IN SOUTHEAST VANCOUVER

M. Elmore: It was once said that we all have dreams. But in order to make dreams come into reality, it takes an awful lot of determination, dedication, self-discipline and effort.

[1400]

Madame Speaker, I rise today to introduce you to folks I've met who have an awful lot of this determination and dedication. Lorna Gibbs, president of the Southeast Vancouver Seniors Arts and Cultural Centre Society, Keith Jacobson, past president of the Killarney Community Centre Society, and many, many others — too many to mention — from my constituency in southeast Vancouver have been fighting since the mid-1990s for a dedicated seniors centre in their area.

Recently various levels of government have committed the amounts needed to fund the estimated costs of the project. For this I congratulate and recognize the perseverance of these dedicated community members, because while this part of the city is home to about one-third of the seniors in Vancouver, there are no seniors centres to serve them.

A dedicated centre is important for seniors' wellness, recreation and socialization. It will let them have access to reasonably priced nutritious meals, help them get peer support and allow them to stay connected and be appreciated by those around them. Without the opportunity for all of these things and more, which a seniors centre could provide, the barrier for seniors to contribute to and be part of the community is made even higher. Some have expressed that this loss of the ability to contribute is a loss of their dignity.

To conclude, I congratulate again the great vision and perseverance of Lorna, Keith and many others to advocate for their centre. I hope that, moving forward, all levels of government will continue to work with them to ensure that the day when they can finally open the doors and welcome seniors into their centre will indeed come. I believe that their amazing efforts and achievements so far are indeed Olympian and worthy of a gold medal.

Oral Questions

BUDGET AND JOB CREATION

M. Farnworth: Yesterday British Columbians saw a budget revealed that will make life less affordable for them, and they saw a clear demonstration of the mismanagement of this government when it comes to Hydro, to skills training and to job creation.

We've had 29 months of hype from the Premier since she put a plan in front of British Columbians that has not done what she claimed it would do. The Premier said B.C. will be "top two in new job growth in Canada by 2015." By October of the next year the Premier was wrongly proclaiming that B.C. was "No. 1 in job creation."

Can the Premier point to where the budget backs up their claims about B.C.'s job creation record?

Hon. M. de Jong: I predict that over the course of the next 30 minutes and probably the next number of days, in the course of the criticism that the opposition is going to levy at this budget…. Did I mention it's the second successive balanced budget?

We are going to hear — as we have begun to hear yesterday from the critic and, I expect, his colleagues — about all of the additional spending, all of the additional expenditures that they believe the government should have added into this budget. After all, they made a choice. They have, some time ago, liberated themselves from any sense of fiscal responsibility. They are unconcerned with that fundamental principle that says you can't spend more and you shouldn't spend more than you receive from the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The foundation for a strong economy that will attract private sector investment and create jobs in the province of British Columbia is a government that can demonstrate that it has its hand on the tiller and is responsibly managing the people's finances. That's what this government has demonstrated yet again in balanced budget
[ Page 1392 ]
2014.

Madame Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Well, I can see why the Minister of Finance didn't want to address the Premier's claims over the last 29 months, because when it comes to job creation, they've been a total failure.

In fact, the minister's own documents on page 68 of the budget, the fiscal plan, says it: "Employment activity in B.C. stalled in 2013." It also says: "B.C.'s labour market performed poorly last year compared to other provinces." That's this government's record on job creation.

[1405]

How can this government say on one hand that we're going to be No. 1 in job creation by 2015, when after 24 months the record has put us worst in the country?

Hon. M. de Jong: I expect, Madame Speaker, and predict that we are going to experience a lot of very selective references to the budget documents. But I'm here to help. I am here to help and intend to do so.

I hope the member didn't wait and rely exclusively on the budget documents…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. de Jong: …to make the observation that I have shared — the minister has shared — with this House. We intend to do better. We intend to achieve….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's an interesting observation from a group that used to celebrate unemployment in British Columbia dipping below double digits, and it rarely did. It rarely did.

In British Columbia today, we have unemployment in the 6.6 percent range. In some places in British Columbia that were beset by chronically high unemployment rates over decades, we have what is now approaching full employment. That is a testament to the partnership that has been created between government and the private sector, and a vision for building a strong economy, and a balanced budget is a key part of that vision.

Madame Speaker: Member for Port Coquitlam on a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I notice in his answers and his budget speech yesterday that the Minister of Finance has used a number of nautical references. Well, I'd like to use one for him right now.

More than 12,500 people have left this province than have come here from other provinces, to seek opportunities elsewhere. Other provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba are being the lifeboats for people leaving this province seeking opportunity elsewhere.

The Minister of Finance also says: "Well, don't believe everything you read in the budget documents." Well, here's a real important issue. In the budget documents it says, again in black and white, on page 68 that B.C.'s unemployment rate is set to rise next year and the year after that and stay high over the medium term.

So my question, again, to the minister is this. Who are we supposed to believe — the budget documents that say high unemployment for the following two years and after that or a Premier's rhetoric which, after 29 months, has shown this province to have the worst record of private sector job creation in the country?

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I must confess I am flattered by the degree of reliance that the hon. opposition Finance critic places in the budget document. I don't recall that same degree of confidence one year ago when every single member of that opposition said the budget wasn't balanced when we now know, in fact, it is.

[1410]

But since we are referring to the budget document, let me help the hon. member by taking him one or two lines further down the page where it says: "The ministry forecasts employment in B.C. to increase by 1 percent in 2014, or approximately 23,000 jobs. The pace of employment growth is expected to improve in 2015, with a projected gain of 1.3 percent, or about 29,000 jobs."

BUDGET AND
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON POVERTY

M. Mungall: In all of the Premier and the Finance Minister's talk of B.C.'s membership in exclusive clubs, they conveniently forget to mention the other ones they've signed B.C. up for: highest child poverty in Canada for ten years; highest overall poverty in Canada for 12 years, the entire time they've been in government; largest gap between rich and poor families.

British Columbians are not proud of these clubs; they are embarrassed. To the Minister of Finance: why does this budget absolutely fail to cancel B.C.'s memberships in these exclusive clubs?

Hon. M. de Jong: On the contrary, actually. I disagree profoundly with the hon. member. The budget…. Now we are in a position, through a balance, through a modest surplus, to take admittedly modest additional resources and devote them to those areas and those people and families who need it most. That's the power of properly managing your fiscal situation. When the members re-
[ Page 1393 ]
view the document, they will see additional funding for children who are vulnerable and in need. They will see additional funding embedded in the budget for community living.

Again, this is the part that seems to elude members of the opposition. Your ability to do what I actually believe most members, all members, of this assembly wish to do — and that is to assist those who are in greatest need — is ultimately enhanced by balancing the budget, and you are able to do it without imposing debt on the future generations that you're trying to help.

M. Mungall: The reality is that the minister can talk all he wants about a balanced budget as being the best possible situation for the future, but today B.C. for ten years has had the highest child poverty rate in the entire country, and they haven't done a single thing to address this.

People are fleeing B.C. right now. They can't afford to live in a province that's the last place for private sector job creation, has the highest student debt levels, has the second-lowest wage growth and is the least affordable in the entire country.

Minister, British Columbians aren't proud of this. They just are not proud of this, so why do you fail to address these real issues…

Madame Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

M. Mungall: …that they face every day in this budget?

Hon. M. de Jong: Madame Speaker, I say this sincerely. I in no way question the strength of the hon. member's commitment to address a situation where poverty exists. It's why I am absolutely certain that when it comes her time to stand in this chamber, she will do so and she will applaud the child tax credit that will provide families with an additional $650 a year to assist….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am certain that she will do so.

[1415]

I am certain as well that she will stand and take advantage of the opportunity to support and applaud an initiative that beginning next fiscal year will see $1,200 invested in a family's RESP for their child to ensure that they will have an educational opportunity.

No one — certainly on this side of the House, in the government — is challenging the struggles that families face in terms of raising their children. But part of the strength and advantage of balancing the budget is to be able to make modest improvements and offer modest assistance without imposing an additional obligation on future generations.

BUDGET PROVISIONS FOR
EDUCATION AND SKILLS TRAINING

A. Dix: That's pretty cold comfort for B.C. families facing higher MSP premiums, higher hydro rates, higher ferry rates.

According to the government's new job plan, jobs plan 5.0, unemployment is going to go up. That's not the only negative thing here. There are many jobs in B.C. that people from B.C. can't take because they don't have the training required. Despite all of the slogans and all of the TV ads over the last couple of years, the government is again cutting skills training in this budget. Just eight days ago — and this is not a record for the Premier — the Premier was making big promises around skills training, and she's already cutting the programs that are critical to young people getting skills now.

Why has the Liberal government accepted, why do they believe, that B.C. should become a place where there are jobs without people from B.C. to take those jobs — people without jobs?

Hon. M. de Jong: The Leader of the Opposition, I take it from his comments, is offended by the fact that the government would seek to find and capitalize on efficiencies and savings in the administrative side of the Advanced Education budget, to identify savings that can be reallocated and devoted to front-line education services.

He purposely — I think purposely — dismisses as insignificant in excess of $1 billion in investment in creating the skills-training facilities that we will need as a province going forward. He dismisses as insignificant the investments that are being made as we speak in Camosun around skills services. He dismisses as insignificant the investments that are being made at Okanagan College to dramatically increase the capacity to provide trades training.

I understand that for a leader and a party who had their approach, to the extent that people could discern what it was, utterly rejected by the people of British Columbia, it is difficult to accept the fact that there is a way to responsibly manage the people's money and also responsibly provide the services that we will need as a province. That is the approach we are taking, and that is the approach we will continue to take.

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

A. Dix: I'm offended and the people of B.C. are offended that 12 years after they dismantled our apprenticeship system in B.C., we have a 33 percent completion rate in our province. I'm offended that people are leaving B.C. to get jobs because they do not have the qualifications or the trades training for jobs in B.C. I'm offended that a Premier would spend tens of millions of dollars
[ Page 1394 ]
on advertising and then cut skills training in British Columbia.

Fewer completions, lower apprenticeship completion rates — that's the record of this government. They did it. It wasn't someone else. They dismantled the system. Why is the government flatlining skills training when there is a significant skills shortage in British Columbia?

[1420]

Hon. M. de Jong: You would have to be the leader of the New Democratic Party to dismiss as flatlining an investment that exceeds $1 billion in facilitating skills training in British Columbia. It is astounding that….

Interjections.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Leader of the Opposition, of course, is referring to something that appeared not just one budget ago but two budgets ago in terms of finding efficiencies on the administrative front that we can utilize to create additional training opportunities to work in partnership with the private sector.

Look, I get it. For the Leader of the Opposition, this is a theme we are going to hear over and over and over again. Unrestrained by any notion of fiscal responsibility, he will stand, over and over and over again, and urge unbridled spending. The balanced-budget ship has sailed, and the Leader of the Opposition has been left on the shore to stomp his feet and hold his breath. But British Columbians want a government that will responsibly manage their tax dollars.

D. Routley: British Columbians may have wanted that, but what they got is a government that's adding debt at a record rate of any government in British Columbia's history. That's what they got.

At the same time, that same government…. Just as companies are openly admitting a reluctance to invest in B.C. because we don't have enough skilled workers, the Premier and her higher education minister are cutting skills training. This is a bitter dose of reality for British Columbians.

Under this Premier's watch, B.C.'s apprenticeship completion rate has fallen to a dismal 33 percent. That compares to over 65 percent in neighbouring Alberta. Instead of making the investments needed to improve apprenticeship numbers, this government is flatlining trades training budgets. Jobs without people, people without jobs — that's mismanagement at its worst. The only expansion in this province is the gap between the Liberal promises and the reality British Columbians face.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, why are he and his Premier shutting out British Columbians from high-paying jobs and putting economic development in jeopardy by not expanding skills training in B.C. for British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite couldn't be more incorrect. Let's actually look at the numbers. Maybe the member opposite should spend a few minutes actually looking at the numbers.

One of the things we're most proud of is that aboriginal participation in apprenticeship has doubled since 2006. The number of women who are involved in apprenticeships in British Columbia is now over 3,000. That's 10 percent of all registered apprentices and up from 8.5 percent in 2009.

We have invested…. To suggest…. What's really ironic is that the members opposite presented no discernible plan, no discernible plan to the voters in May — not one thing. The only thing they did was rush to say no to every single project that would create jobs in British Columbia. That is shameful.

Madame Speaker: The member for Nanaimo–North Cowichan on a supplemental.

[1425]

D. Routley: Yeah, we'll look at some numbers. We're ninth in job creation, tenth in private sector job creation. Those are numbers that are another bitter dose of reality for this government. An uncomfortable fact for this Premier: 29 months after the start of the Premier's jobs plan the number of people receiving trades accreditation has hit a five-year low. This is an uncomfortable fact for the Premier, yes. But it's an economic and social crisis for the workers and companies of British Columbia.

Again to the Minister of Advanced Education, why is this government still refusing to make the necessary investment in skills training to even remotely live up to the rhetoric of the Premier and this government?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the most uncomfortable fact for the members opposite is that, in fact, we laid out a plan for British Columbians and they chose our plan in May. It's really unfortunate. It is very unfortunate that the members opposite trivialize the fact that we invest almost half a billion dollars in skills-training programs every single year — half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money.

An Hon. Member: Where's the outcome?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the outcomes are this. We have more women in apprenticeships. We have more First Nations individuals in apprenticeships. In fact, to correct the member opposite regarding trade certificates, we issued 8,042 certificates of qualification — almost triple the number that happened in 2004.

D. Eby: We've heard a lot of rhetoric today. Here's a little bit more. The Premier said: "We want to make…."

Interjections.
[ Page 1395 ]

Madame Speaker: Members, the Chair needs to hear the question and the answer.

Please continue.

D. Eby: From our Premier: "We want to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for the jobs of today and tomorrow." We've heard from the Minister of Finance that apparently the cuts to post-secondary education, $104 million in cuts, are purely administrative in nature and won't affect students. But in fact we have a letter from 25 university presidents, all of them, who agree: "We must be clear that it is unrealistic to assume that the reductions contemplated by Budget 2012 can be achieved without implications for service levels."

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why are he and the Premier undercutting British Columbians' chances to get the jobs of today and tomorrow?

Hon. A. Virk: I find it quite remarkable that on that side of the House we're promoting inefficiencies, but on this side of the House we're promoting efficiencies. We're asking all post-secondary institutions, and they're all working with the ministry. All post-secondary institutions are working with the ministry to ensure efficiencies, to make sure that the hard-earned dollar of the taxpayer is used in the best way possible.

Shared procurement is common purchasing of laptops, desktops, standardized network. The opposition certainly doesn't promote efficiencies. This side of the House promotes efficiencies.

D. Eby: It's clear to me that the Minister of Advanced Education has not visited a single university or talked to a single parent or student, because he would not be disagreeing with the university presidents. This is not administrative.

[1430]

I urge him to explain how he can cut the budget for the education British Columbians will need to succeed in the economy of the future. How can he explain that?

Hon. A. Virk: With respect, the member of the opposition is wrong. I have been at every post-secondary institution in British Columbia. I have spoken to every board in British Columbia. I have spoken to presidents in every university in British Columbia and have met with students and faculty of every university in British Columbia. It's somewhat disrespectful to suggest that. We have a world-class university education system that the opposition just doesn't want to acknowledge.

ELECTRICITY RATES AND
B.C. HYDRO MANAGEMENT

J. Horgan: June 2013, three-year fiscal plan with respect to B.C. Hydro: "The annual dividend payment is forecast to average $243 million." Eight months later, February 2014, three-year fiscal plan, the same document: "The annual dividend payment is forecast to average $410 million."

What happened between those two events? The Minister of Energy got before a podium and said that he was going to put a crushing 28 percent rate increase on the backs of businesses and ratepayers right across British Columbia. He announced about another billion and a half dollars in deferred debt. He shot the overall debt of the corporation up by $2 billion, and somehow, hon. Speaker, that's good fiscal management.

Madame Speaker: Your question.

J. Horgan: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Will he stand in this place and thank the good ratepayers of British Columbia for digging even deeper into their pockets to pay for your mismanagement?

Hon. B. Bennett: In November we announced a ten-year plan that was both balanced and responsible. It included keeping rates down as low as possible. It also included enabling B.C. Hydro to continue to invest in critical infrastructure — both the older assets, many of which…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Bennett: …were built 50, 60, sometimes 70 years ago…. We need to invest in those assets.

When these folks on the other side of the House were in government, do you know how much they invested in infrastructure? The Leader of the Opposition was there, the Energy critic was there, and the next leader of the NDP — he was there too. They were all there, and they invested zero.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Ministerial Statements

MINING DAY

Hon. B. Bennett: As Minister of Energy and Mines, it gives me great pleasure to recognize today, Wednesday, February 19, as Mining Day at the Legislature. I want to thank the Mining Association of British Columbia for their constructive collaborations with my ministry in
[ Page 1396 ]
the mining sector.

[1435]

Today, after diminished opportunities a decade ago, British Columbia has earned its way back and re-established itself as one of the most reliable places to invest in mining worldwide. That's what the mining industry tells us. We have gone from a meagre exploration investment in 2001 of $29 million to record investments of $680 million in 2012 and $476 million in 2013.

For more than 100 years, B.C.'s vast mineral resources have contributed to our growth and development as a province. The Hudson's Bay Company first started producing coal on Vancouver Island in the 1840s, and the discovery of gold along the Fraser River in the 1850s sparked a major gold rush which was ultimately responsible for the settlement of many parts of that region and beyond. Today British Columbia has 19 operating metal and coal mines, and more than 800 mineral exploration and mining companies that call Vancouver home. We're a world centre of excellence in mining.

I can say, with firsthand knowledge from my riding of Kootenay East, that mining sustains families and strengthens our communities, with more than 30,000 jobs in 50 communities all over the province with average salaries exceeding well over $100,000.

Very importantly, mining employs more First Nations than any other industry in B.C.; mining is the safest heavy industry in B.C.; and mining, a $9 billion industry, uses less of our land base than the shopping mall parking lots in our province.

Mining is a key part of the B.C. jobs plan announced in 2011. We committed to opening eight new mines and expanding nine existing mines by 2015. We're more than halfway there.

Today mining is all about partnerships — industry, government, communities and First Nations. We are the first province in the country where we are sharing our provincial royalties from mining with First Nations: 37½ percent of every provincial royalty dollar from a mine goes to the surrounding First Nations.

It is fostering these partnerships and continuing to improve permitting processes that will continue to make B.C. a mining success story now and into the future. I encourage all members of this House to make time to meet with the delegates who are here today. I understand both sides of the House have been doing that already, and I congratulate everyone who has met with the mining folks today. We will look forward to working more with them as we go along.

Again, I want to thank the Mining Association of B.C. for putting on Mining Day at the Legislature. I also want to thank the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. — I know they're here today and participated — for also being constructive partners. I hope that all members will join me in celebrating mining and what it means to our communities, not just today but every day.

S. Fraser: As the critic for mining for the official opposition, on behalf of the official opposition, I, too, would like to make a non-ministerial statement about the importance of this day. I think it was seven years ago, I heard, that the last such event happened, and I applaud the members for setting this up. They've met with all sides of the House, as the minister has said. This relationship needs to continue.

Mining has been, of course, fundamental to building the economy of this province. This association, the Mining Association of British Columbia, is a venerable association. It was formed in 1901 or 1902, so it makes it, I think, the oldest such association of its kind anywhere in the province.

There are over 50 members, and we've had many, many of their members here today to meet with us and, I know, government members and the minister. We are hoping that will build strong relationships, and we need that policy and that relationship to continue.

We as the opposition play a strong role, as it was pointed out by association members today. They recognize that the jousting that happens in here is actually an important part of the parliamentary system. So if we see a need….

If government decision are…. We need to make sure that they're informed and that they're consistent. If they're not, we need to push back from the opposition. If the members of the association blow the warning bells about a looming, and now an existing, skills shortage, we on this side need to push so that their concerns are met, so that they are not hampered by permitting back loads because of failure to resource ministries properly.

We push back when the ship of state founders, to some extent. We try to put the wind back in the sails of government, to help the members of the Mining Association of British Columbia, and we will continue to do that.

[1440]

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery is Pierre Lebel, the chair of the board of Imperial Metals. This is an important thing to note here on Mining Day, with the minister and the critic. Imperial Metals opened the Mount Polley mine and the Huckleberry mine in the 1990s. Then there was a long gap between that, and they're now looking forward to opening Red Chris — the longest gap between new mines in the history of B.C. Would the House please make him very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call continued debate on the
[ Page 1397 ]
budget.

[1445]

[D. Horne in the chair.]

Budget Debate

(continued)

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to continue debate on B.C. Budget 2014 and the response from the official opposition around the budget that was tabled yesterday. I have some comments to make that I know the Minister of Finance will be looking forward to hearing, but I just want to say at the outset that nowhere in my remarks will I be throwing dirt at the minister or the government. I may throw some well-timed rocks and lobs, but I will not be throwing any dirt, and I want the minister to understand that.

I think perhaps the most telling issue out of yesterday's budget, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, was that British Columbians are going to pay more and get less. I think it's important that we focus on the issue of paying more so that British Columbians really understand and members of the government side really have an understanding of what this budget will do to their constituents back in their communities when they return home.

[Slide presentation begins.]

I think it's important that the opposition enlighten them, because when you look at what this budget does…. For example, hydro rates for the average customer over the next three years are going to rise by around $477; MSP premiums will be up by some $400 — again, for an average family in British Columbia; ferry fares up around $32 per round trip; and ICBC rates to increase by upwards of $100. Nowhere is that making life more affordable for British Columbia families, and it puts paid to the Premier's oft-used slogan of "Families first."

Let's look a little more closely. It's not just what's happened in this particular budget, but it's been in previous budgets as well. I started off with hydro rates. Hydro rates will increase by 20 percent at the end of three years, as I've said, costing the average consumer $477, or $215 a year by the end of the third year.

[1450]

Those rate increases will bring in an extra $2 billion to Hydro — $2 billion. But does the public see a benefit from that? No. What they will see is a 28 percent rate increase on top of hydro rate increases that have gone up year after year since this government has been in power, and that has done nothing to make life more affordable for families in British Columbia.

MSP rates, Medical Services premiums — or, as many people are now calling it, the MST, the medical services tax, because that is increasingly what it is being seen as by British Columbians right across this province. The government now takes almost $2 billion in revenue from MSP premiums. It's a significant amount of money.

MSP premiums have doubled since 2001, yet family wages and incomes have not doubled since that time. They have remained, by and large, stagnant. B.C. lags this country in terms of wage growth. Yet again and again, year after year after year, this government raises MSP premiums that come right out of the pockets of hard-working families in this province. That is not families first. That is not families first by any means.

What's particularly interesting, and particularly cynical, is that when the government made its last announcement on how they were going to increase MSP rates and that they were going to go up by 4 percent and that they were going to go up by the rate of increase that the health care budget went up…. So with a 4 percent rate increase, you would have expected, if the government was to abide by its promise, that health care spending would go up by 4 percent. In fact, it does not; it goes up 2.6 percent. That will not meet population growth, health care inflation and the demands of an aging population on the health care system.

But just as importantly, it's a broken promise. They said that your MSP premiums would go up by the same amount as the health care budget, and in fact, it's going up more. Again, that's not families first. That's not family-friendly. The only family that's benefiting from this is the B.C. Liberals, and their friends are the only ones this government really pays attention to when it comes to talking about families first.

Ferry fares — $32 a round trip. At the same time, we're seeing reductions in service, reductions to the lifeline that many communities depend on, and there is no end in sight. This is on top of increases that have been going on year after year after year under this government.

When you look at the decisions they're taking in terms of how they do that and you ask questions as to why they're doing that, you're not getting a rational explanation. In fact, my colleague the member from Saanich North asked the other day and used a quote that said, "Well, go ask B.C. Ferries," because the Minister of Transportation didn't know the answer.

You're making decisions on cutting ferry routes, cutting service to ferries, and you're not doing any economic analysis on why that's taking place. Not only are you hurting families, not only are you making life more expensive for individuals, but you're also making decisions that impact on the economy, on small communities.

As we're finding out now in question period and as we dig deeper into this budget, the impact that is having on places like Bella Bella and a riding represented on the government side…. Tourism operators from outside this country are saying to the government: "Have you really thought through what it is you're doing? Do you really know what it is you're doing?"
[ Page 1398 ]

You will see that time and time again in this budget — a government that has made decisions in the pursuit of a number without regard for the impact on families, without regard for the impact on communities and on the long-term economic future of the province.

[1455]

ICBC's basic insurance rates increased 4.9 percent last November, costing the average customer an additional $34 for their basic coverage. We know that more is to come. Drivers in this province — families that have their cars to take their kids to school, to hockey practice, to soccer practice, to figure skating, you name it…. To insure their vehicle, they're going to see increases again.

According to the formula that the government has in place to deal with those increases, they will be anywhere from 3.4 to 6.4 percent in the coming years — again, an additional expense on families of British Columbia and an example of how people will be paying more, and they will be getting less. I will come to the "getting less" part in a moment.

Bridge tolls. Again, another example of how this government makes its financial decisions and really doesn't think through the long-term consequences — $1,500 for a regular commuter on the Port Mann Bridge, and traffic is 20 percent lower. If you live on the south side of the Fraser, not only are you having to deal with all these increases in terms of fees, in terms of MSP premiums, in terms of hydro rate increases and ICBC rate increases; you also have to deal with $1,500 in tolls. That's an annual basis.

By the government's own projections, traffic is down 20 percent. The Port Mann corporation will show a deficit to at least 2017, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley puts it, yet again. That is not sound fiscal financial management.

And who pays the price? Hard-working taxpayers and families right across this province. The ones south of the Fraser in Surrey and Langley and in the Tri-Cities in my neck of the woods, because a third of the traffic goes over the Port Mann Bridge out of the Tri-Cities, are doubly punished by the actions of this government. But the government seems quite happy and satisfied that they've achieved their number, that people will pay more. At the end of the day, their attitude is: "Well, they'll just learn to live with it." Well, people are not willing to accept those kinds of increases.

Let's look at how individuals are going to be getting less, because this is also just as enlightening. Whether it's health care, the justice system, employment programs or forest health, this budget will not meet the needs and the expectations of the people of this province.

Let's look at justice.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Cowichan Valley says: "Finally."

I guess it is up to the opposition to try and raise this issue in the budget debate, because we know that the government raised an element of it in the throne speech debate. I think the slogan that they have in place is "violence-free B.C." Yet when you look at the budget, there is no money there. There is no line item to fund violence-free B.C. It is just, once more, hollow rhetoric from a government that, at the end of the day, believes that's the priority and is not actually really doing something. It isn't about following through on their commitments.

[1500]

Court delays for family law cases. In 2014 the Justice Ministry service plan shows it takes longer to get an order in Provincial Court on family law issues such as maintenance, child custody and access. In 2012-2013 it took a median of 105 days, and this year that median will be 128 days.

In this budget, targets aren't met. Targets continue to slip. That's just unacceptable when we already know how important it is for families, particularly under family law, to have access to justice. Yet this government just carries on as though it doesn't matter. They're satisfied with declining standards and happy to pick British Columbians' pockets more by making them pay more.

British Columbians have said time and time again that they want jobs. They want jobs for themselves, and they want jobs for their future, for their kids. Yet the record of this government, as we have seen, has been the worst in the country in terms of job creation. The budget talks about how unemployment is going to increase in each of the following two years of this fiscal plan and then remain high over the medium term.

You would think that a government that's concerned about job creation and the employment prospects of the adult population and of young people wanting to enter the workforce would fund employment programs. Yet they've cut employment programs by 46 percent, with a decrease of $25½ million, despite the fact that unemployment is going to increase over the next couple of years and remain high over the medium term.

How on earth is cutting employment programs going to help people get back into the workforce? How is it going to give confidence to young people that there will be a job there for them? How is it going to help a displaced worker? How on earth do you put forward an economic plan and cut employment programs? That is just unbelievable.

It is another example of a misplaced priority. It's another example of the Premier's rhetoric before the election — of jobs for all; a debt-free B.C.; a chicken in every pot, to paraphrase one of my colleagues; a pony in every yard; and a rainbow after every shower. It reminds me of a Premier we once had in this province who lived in a castle, and it was called Fantasyland.

Resources play a big part in the economy of this prov-
[ Page 1399 ]
ince. The natural resource wealth of this province is part of every British Columbian's birthright. You would think that this government would want to be a strong steward of that birthright, to ensure that it serves us not just today but for generations into the future.

Nowhere is that more evident than in our forests. Those forests, when we go outside our houses or we drive around this province, stand as a testament to the natural bounty of this land. Yet given all the challenges that we have in this province from the pine beetle, given the challenges we overcame in the '90s around battles around land use and how we brought people together to create a land use plan that would protect our forests, create jobs and ensure long-term viability and sustainability, you would think that a government would make that a priority in its budget.

[1505]

Following repeated cuts since 2001, the 2013 budget for forest health was cut by $35 million. That's the budget that covers land-based investments in forest industry and silviculture. In 2014 it has $12 million for land-based investment strategy for increased silviculture. But you know what? It's really not going to come into effect until 2016-2017.

That's another thing that this budget and this government are very fond of. They're saying: "Aren't we great? Aren't we doing all these wonderful things? We make all these great announcements." Then the reality is, when you go and look behind those announcements: oh, it's 2017. It's after the next election. It's at the end of after this fiscal year. That's when you might start to see something.

It's like their jobs plan — if you can call it that — where it's like: "Oh well, you shouldn't judge it on a one-month basis, because they go up and down." I get that. But at some point, after month after month, a trend starts to develop. Instead of, "Well, just wait till next time. Just wait till next month. Wait till next year," you see a pattern. As I said earlier, after 29 months we've seen a pattern of job creation in this province, and that is a failed plan — a plan that's bust.

At the same time, when we could be creating jobs, when we could be working on the longtime economic future of this province and addressing some of the issues around one of the most important resources in this province — our forests — this budget is failing to do that. Just to understand how important that is, in 2012 the Forest Practices Board estimated that the total land area in need of replanting is as much as one million hectares. For those who prefer their measurements in the old system — the one that I grew up with — that's more than 2½ million acres.

Imagine that — 2½ million acres of productive forest land needing to be reforested to grow trees for the future of this province so that 100 years from now people can still cut them down, replant them and grow them again. And this government is neglecting that once again, as they have done every year since 2001. That is shameful. That is not looking after the long-term economic interests of this province, and that's what people expect of us here.

As I said a moment ago around the breaking of promises…. One could almost just go: the breaking of trust. But the breaking of promises — let's look further at some of those broken promises.

In the throne speech, the government said "violence-free B.C." They said: "…to move towards a violence-free B.C. and ensure women, including aboriginal and vulnerable women, have the supports they need to help prevent violence, to escape from violent situations and to recover if they have been victims of crime."

One, there is not a mention of violence-free B.C. in this budget. Eight days after the throne speech we are in this House debating this budget, and there has not been a mention of violence-free B.C. in that budget. If you look at the budget, it actually cuts funding for victim services and crime. No increase. There's a cut. It's not a large cut, but it is still a cut.

There is no dedicated funding for the implementation of the recommendation from the Missing Women Commission's inquiry. In addition, the budget line in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which includes the provincial office of domestic violence, has been cut by $2½ million, from $120 million in 2013-14 to $117 million in 2014-15.

[1510]

How can a government stand and deliver a throne speech, write a throne speech where they say that one of their priorities is to tackle the unacceptable incidence of violence against women in this province and then go and make cuts in those very areas where those programs are needed and can do some good?

Again, the reality of the budget fails to meet the rhetoric of the Premier or the commitments made in the throne speech. Other budgets in the area of justice have been flatlined. It is a good thing they are not relying on the health care system, because that's not going to bring them back. This government is quite happy to see them continue to flatline.

In terms of the Ministry of Justice, the following program areas will see their budgets flatline for the coming year: prosecution services, emergency management, crime prevention, the judiciary and legal services. We already know that we have significant shortfalls when it comes to judiciary. We are seeing increased court wait times.

As we go into the budget estimates, it will be really interesting to see how the government responds in terms of cases that potentially get tossed because of delays in court time. It's going to be really interesting to see how that goes.

There are no new resources for the ten-year skills-training plan. There are cuts to post-secondary education institutions. Again, one is almost speechless at the
[ Page 1400 ]
arrogance of this government when you look at the rhetoric of the last 29 months, since the Premier became the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party, and what was laid out in the throne speech.

"It is jobs," she said, and that there is nothing more important to our future than our young people getting educational opportunity, to get a job that will serve them well, that they can raise a family on. That's what her message was all about. People believed that.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: They expected it, as my colleague from Stikine says.

They expected a government would live up to its promises and its commitments, because as the Premier would say, there is nothing more important than family. You want to make sure you have a job so that you can provide for your family, and you want to make sure that your kids have that same opportunity. You would think that a government with that as their priority, with that as their sole objective, would want to invest in post-secondary education, where 80 percent of new jobs are going to require some sort of post-secondary education. You would think that they would invest in skills training.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: But as my colleague from North Cowichan says, you would be wrong.

You would be more than wrong. You would be unbelievably wrong, because in this year's budget the budget for post-secondary institutions over the next three years is cut by $109 million. That is absolutely shameful.

At a time when BCIT is already dealing with a deficit, when they have two-year wait-lists for many of the key apprenticeship programs that are needed to do the jobs that are required in this province, this government is shortchanging our post-secondary education institutions. You are going to see less opportunity, not more. This government can brag all it wants about how much they are putting into capital on projects that were started, in many cases, a number of years ago.

[1515]

The reality is that if you don't have the operational funds, if you don't have the teachers in place, if you don't have the instructors in place, you are not going to be able to achieve your goals of training more young people to meet the needs of the future of British Columbia.

One of the things that I most noticed during…. Two years ago my colleagues from Kingsway and from Juan de Fuca and from Powell River–Sunshine Coast engaged in an exercise of democracy. All of us at that time raised an issue which had not been raised in this province or spoken about publicly. We talked about shipbuilding and the opportunities it presented for this province.

The federal government…. I'm very often critical of Stephen Harper, but he'd done something right. He said: "We are going to be needing ships in this country — Coast Guard vessels and vessels for our navy." We wanted to make sure we'd get the greatest opportunity we could out of this procurement of some $26 billion of taxpayers' money.

We got one of those contracts on this west coast because it was raised by the opposition. The government had not done much work on that file, and the Premier, all of a sudden, got religion on it. Photo op, some might say, but she got religion on shipbuilding. It was off to Ottawa, and: "We're going to get those ship contracts here, and we're going to build those ships here." Never mind B.C. Ferries; that's another story. But we're going to build those ships.

Why is it so important? What those contracts would do would create a long-term, sustainable shipbuilding industry in this province that creates family-supporting jobs — the kinds of jobs that you can buy a house, raise your kids and take them on a holiday at least once a year. Is that too much to ask?

Yet the institute, BCIT, which offers many of those programs for young people who want to take advantage of that opportunity and stay here in the province…. Instead of having to go to Fort McMoney or to Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Ontario or Quebec or wherever, they could stay here. But the reality is this budget hamstrings BCIT in its ability to provide those courses so that young British Columbians can take advantage of it, and that is just another example of the shortsightedness of this government towards the long-term needs of this province and its people.

D. Routley: Families first.

M. Farnworth: As my colleague said, families first.

It's hard to understand. Why is the government like this? Why is it they are fixated on one thing one day, and then they move off that. They're like a bee on a flower. The Premier is on this flower this day and this flower the next day. I don't know whether it's just an inability to really focus and pay attention to what's going on at one particular point in time. It's like: okay, let's go on to the next shiny thing.

That leads me to, I think, the next item I want to talk about when it comes to this budget and how it relates to what I've been talking about so far. That is the issue of LNG.

The Premier ran an election campaign on LNG. She said: "There will be five" — count 'em, five — "LNG plants in British Columbia." Since the election it was almost, for the longest time: now there's another one. There are six. There're seven. There're eight. No, there're 11. There are 12 of these, all looking at British Columbia. It was done in a way of hype and boosterism, as though we're the only
[ Page 1401 ]
place on the planet where they're looking. The Premier promised that we would have debt-free B.C. and to imagine no sales tax.

[1520]

Again, it comes back to rainbows and ponies and unicorns. The reality is somewhat different.

This is where I'm particularly concerned, because the whole focus in this budget and the whole focus in the government's economic agenda has been on one thing. It has been on LNG. One thing does not make a provincial economy. LNG by itself does not make the provincial economy. What makes a provincial economy is government paying attention to the diversity that's needed to create a provincial economy, to pay attention to the strengths and challenges in all sectors of B.C.'s economy.

That is not happening with this budget or under this government. It's not working to take advantage of all the opportunities in the different regions and the strengths and challenges that they face.

I want to talk specifically about LNG because LNG does represent an opportunity for this province. But what's needed instead of the hype and boosterism is a frank and honest discussion around LNG, about the opportunities — the opportunities in terms of jobs, the opportunities in terms of communities, particularly northern British Columbia — realistic projections around what the revenue will be, an honest discussion with British Columbians on what that revenue could be used for and a realistic and honest discussion on the time frames that British Columbians can expect.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: A serious discussion, says my colleague from Stikine.

That also includes a discussion on the impacts on our climate change regulations and targets. But there is none of that. What's particularly concerning…. For a government that has hung its hat on the LNG file, you would think when they say, "We have a target," that they would meet that target.

Last summer the Minister of Finance asked a question that I put to him, which was: "When can we expect the framework?" We were told one, it's not a negotiation, and two, it would be in place by the end of the calendar year.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: My friend the member for Vancouver-Kingsway just anticipated my next comment. I will take some responsibility for that, because I think I failed to ask the question: which calendar year? At the end of the calendar year, hon. Speaker, it was not there.

What kind of message does that send to British Columbians? In fact, what kind of message does it send outside the world? Was the government…? Did they not fully understand the complexity around LNG and the tax framework? Did they not understand the competition we faced from other jurisdictions around LNG? So they didn't realize that — you know what? — they weren't going to be able to meet that timeline, in which case they should have set a realistic timeline. Or were they continuing what they did during the election campaign — to spin and boost and hype the issue of LNG?

The Premier's comments, for example, on the strength of the B.C. resource. Yes, we have a lot of natural gas in this province, and the Premier went out and said: "We have enough for 150 years." Some people dispute that, but that's the figure and the number that she used. She hyped it in such a way as though to make: "Oh my god, British Columbia has a monopoly on this resource, and the rest of the world wants it. They can't wait to get here, and we're going to be able to name our own price."

[1525]

Well, while she said that this past summer, other jurisdictions were coming out with their assessments of their natural gas resources as well. In the United Kingdom, for example, their geological survey and the gas companies came out and said: "Our reserves of natural gas are expanded, and they will last at least another 100 years." Never mind what is also happening in China and Russia and Malaysia and other places around the world — or the United States.

Yes, LNG is an opportunity for us. But guess what. We're not the only ones in the game, and unfortunately, the government has neglected too often to tell British Columbians that. That's a big mistake, because they are raising expectations in a way….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I hear the member from Energy mumbling something under his breath.

That's one aspect of the Premier's hype. The other is also concerning, and that is on the price that we will get. We already are aware, we have already been warned by the natural gas producers, those who make LNG, that the price is narrowing, that the spread is narrowing. That means less potential revenue.

That impacts. That impacts the Premier's ability to say we're paying off the debt in 11 years. She said 15 years, but there'll be no revenue for the first four. That leaves 11 years. That means $6.3 billion a year that they want to get from this tax regime that we started to see the first inklings of in the budget but, again, won't be finalized until later this fall.

Again, given how they missed their previous targets, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to meet the next set of targets. That's just how much money they want. And they have said it is…. We already know that the price is decreasing. The gap is closing.

It brings up two more points in the LNG file that I
[ Page 1402 ]
think the Premier needs to take into serious consideration and talk to British Columbians about. One is the amount of money that's being invested. I know the Minister of Energy likes to talk about this.

The Minister of Energy and others on the government side are quite happy to stand up in this House and issue press releases and say that Suncor is investing hundreds of millions of dollars, that BP is investing hundreds of millions of dollars, that we've got activity up in Kitimat, that we've got activity on the north coast. There is, and that's good. It's great to see that investment.

It makes you wonder why this investment is taking place and unemployment is still projected to go up next year and the year after that and remain high in this province. But then I guess when you see the cuts in post-secondary education and the flatlining in skills training, perhaps that's understandable. But the point is the government is bragging about the amount of money that's being spent, and they say this is a sign of how strong things are and how great the economy is.

The reality, what they don't want to talk about, is that these companies, Shell and BP and Suncor — well, Suncor has pulled out now — are making similar investments in other parts of the world. They are quite happy to spend $800 million, $900 million on a particular site and then evaluate each of the areas where they've spent that money, and they will walk away — like that — from the ones that they say no to.

They will walk away. That is the cost of doing business. That is how much money is being invested that they can afford to do that. We're not alone. That's why I hope…. LNG, as I said: great opportunity. But we need to have a forthright and honest discussion about what it means and on their potential revenues and not the hype and the boosterism that we've heard from the Premier.

[1530]

There are other areas of concern within this budget. I note by the clock that…. I am mindful of that time. But as I said, ignoring other sectors of the economy at the expense of LNG…. I've talked about forestry and the need for investments in the land base. I've talked about the dangers of focusing just on LNG.

In mining, what we've seen is an increase, over the years of this government, in the amount of time it takes to get a permit. The government tried to address that. Part of that issue is ensuring that we have the staff in the resource ministries to be able to do that work. The reality is that we're falling back into the same cycle that we have seen before, which is that they scramble to fix something, and then they take resources away. That's shortsightedness. That is not going to help create long-term certainty or deal with some of those issues that occur in those key sectors of the B.C. economy, such as mining.

Mining is one of those resource industries in B.C. that has built this province and can continue to build this province well into the future. The average salary in mining is $120,000 a year. If you're in a community like Kamloops, for example, or Cranbrook or Invermere or Ashcroft — any one of a number of rural communities in this province — that's a significant amount of money. You'd think that a government would want to encourage people to get into that field.

I'm reminded that a couple of years ago I attended a mining conference. The view of mining is that it's very much a traditionally male occupation. The thing that struck me during my visit there was just how many women were in that field as geologists, as engineers. It was really remarkable. It is no longer the male-dominated profession that it used to be.

Yet you would think that a government would want to encourage that. How would you encourage that? You'd encourage it by investing in skills and training and funding in post-secondary education opportunities. As I stated earlier, this budget does not do that. That is an area of B.C.'s economy that needs attention, yet the decisions of this government in this budget are going to ensure that we are not going to optimize that potential. That is a shame.

Tourism. I was in the Kootenays recently — in Kimberley, in Castlegar, in Trail. I was even in Cranbrook, which is a wonderful community. There I met with people from all sectors of the economy: small business owners, hotel owners, workers, community organizations. It was really interesting to hear what they have to say.

I was in Nelson. I remember a conversation that I had in Nelson that was particularly striking on two fronts: (1) because it dealt with tourism, and (2) because it dealt with technology. We had Expo 86, and after Expo 86 tourism really started to boom in this province. We had the Olympics in 2010. The government's key objective on that was for us to capitalize on tourism coming out of the 2010 Olympics. What I heard in Nelson was that we have failed. This province, this government has failed to do that.

When you look at how this government has been making decisions, you can start to understand why. I'll give the two examples that I think are most telling. One is the elimination of the ferry route, the coastal circuit route, the one that goes from Vancouver Island up to Bella Coola, parts of the Inside Passage — a part of this province that people from Europe and, increasingly, Asia pay thousands of dollars to come and see because they don't have it. They don't have it here.

[1535]

There are communities and tourism operators who have invested dollars, invested their hard work on the belief that they have something to make a business opportunity out of, something to capitalize on the beauty of this province. You would think that the government would be supportive or, if they were not supportive, at least would have done an analysis to say: "Guess what? We don't believe that your business is viable, and that's
[ Page 1403 ]
why we're cancelling this ferry route. We don't believe your business is important to the province of British Columbia or to your region of the province."

That's exactly what's happened. They did not do the analysis. They did not do the analysis on what it would mean to the local economies. They talk a good game about wanting to help small business people, but guess what? Small businesses in communities like Bella Bella or Bella Coola — when decisions like this are made, they don't see that. They don't see that at all.

I think the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin will know that probably better than anybody. I know that member is hearing loud and clear from angry business owners and angry tourism operators from not only within her riding but outside her riding and outside this province. It's shortsightedness at its worst.

The other example in that regard is the businessman I spoke to in Nelson who talked to me about the hotel that they were operating, how proud they were, how much they liked Nelson. It's their community that they grew up in. They wanted to do some expansions. They wanted to improve their reservation system. They wanted to improve their marketing system. They wanted to invest and improve their business to capitalize on the beauty of their region and the opportunities that are there, and they can't. Why? They don't have the broadband capacity to do it.

The government talks about things down the road. Well, paying attention to some things that they could be doing right now…. What we heard, and what I heard, was: "You know what? Improve the broadband capacity in Nelson and the surrounding area, and I will be investing money in my business. I will be growing money in my business. I will be creating jobs and employment and opportunity in my business."

One would think that that's what the government wants to encourage. At the same time, in doing that it would help facilitate a growth in another area of this province's economy, technology, which produces almost 7 percent of the GDP of this province and is concentrated right now primarily in the Lower Mainland, southern Vancouver Island, greater Victoria and some in the Okanagan.

The reality is that technology should allow us to expand opportunities right across the province and should allow the different regions of the province to take better and greater advantage of their economic strengths. That was the message that I found particularly interesting, talking to a business person in Nelson.

I guess the final area, while we're on other sectors of the economy, that is concerning is just the government's whole attitude to either criticism or reports in that area. We used to have something in this province, the B.C. Jobs and Investment Board. They would do a report on opportunities and challenges facing B.C.'s economy. Lots of times there were good things in those reports. Other times there were things not quite so good. But what they did was they had their pulse on what was happening in different key sectors of the economy, which is something this government is failing to do in its single-minded pursuit of LNG at the expense of other areas of B.C.'s economy.

[1540]

The B.C. Jobs and Investment Board report was released on the 18th of January. No press release was issued from the government. There was no acknowledgment of the work that had been done. I can understand why, after you start to read it.

It exposed a record of weaknesses. Growing skills shortage in remote sites; in agrifoods, mining, forestry, natural gas, LNG and marine transportation industries. Increasing hydroelectricity costs a threat to mining. Lengthy permitting approvals a threat to mining. A rail monopoly that is hurting forest manufacturers. Conflict with the forestry sector over the land base is holding back adventure tourism. Lack of capital investment in fishing fleets because quotas are expensive.

What was the government's response to that? Disband it. As my colleague from Saanich North says, the truth hurts. Well, that brings us to some uncomfortable truths about this budget.

I just want to check how much time I have left.

Deputy Speaker: An hour.

M. Farnworth: We've got lots of time, and there's plenty still to go through.

Let's look at the forecasted increase to unemployment. Everything about this government in its budgets has been around jobs, jobs, jobs, and we know that it's not worked. After 29 months it has not worked, and in this budget it continues.

Unemployment is forecast to increase in 2014 and 2015 and remain high in the medium term. That is just unacceptable. We already have the highest unemployment rate in western Canada. It's worse than Alberta, it's worse than Saskatchewan, and it's worse than Manitoba.

The Premier said: "We're going to be No. 1." Well, first she started saying: "We're No. 2." Then she said: "We're No. 1." The reality is we're nowhere near that. To use a quote that I had from yesterday: if Alberta is gold, Saskatchewan is silver, Manitoba is bronze, we don't even make the qualifying round when it comes to unemployment. That is so unacceptable to the people of this province, and it's something that this government should not be proud of and in fact should be embarrassed by.

Let's look at some slides around job creation. I think that's what's next on the slide profile. Actually, let's go back a slide to the rising provincial debt, and then we'll get on to the employment. We've seen how this government has cost people more, is going to give them less, is not investing in the broader economy in terms of creat-
[ Page 1404 ]
ing jobs and opportunity. They have focused all on one sector of the economy in this budget, and the Premier still likes to talk about "Debt-free B.C."

Let's look at that claim from this government about debt-free B.C. We've already seen how unrealistic it is in terms of LNG revenue projections that they ran on — paying off almost $70 billion worth of debt in 15 years. But let's look at the current record within this budget and this fiscal plan. Does the debt go down? No. Is this debt increase still the fastest or the highest debt increase in the history of this province? Yes.

[1545]

In other words, for the elucidation of the members opposite, debt-spree B.C. continues. The provincial debt will rise in each year of this fiscal plan — in 2014, in 2015, in 2016 and in 2017.

That is clearly a record that they do not like to put before the public. Perhaps it explains why they like to dangle out: "Oh, just wait. We've got all this revenue from LNG coming in." And as each month goes by and each year goes by, it becomes more and more apparent to people, to the public, to the hard-working taxpayers of this province, that it is simply unrealistic, and it is simply more of the Premier's hype and boosterism. Fiction, as my colleagues say.

Again, that's unfortunate, because the people of this province expect better. They expect better. This government promised better, and it has failed on just about every count. So that's the debt. They've failed on that.

Well, let's take a look at their jobs plan. This is particularly interesting.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Oh, I am really glad my colleague from Saanich South said these slides show a lot. Absolutely. They just confirm that old adage that a picture tells a thousand words. In this case, it tells of thousands and thousands and thousands of lost jobs compared to every other province in the country. Look at it: "Last in private sector job growth."

If you really want to know how damning this is, how damning an indictment it is on this government's strategy over the last 29 months, just look at the figures. In particular, let's look at the figures of Saskatchewan, Atlantic Canada and Manitoba.

In B.C., 6,900 jobs. We have 4½ million people. We are 4½ times larger than Saskatchewan or Manitoba. They're have-not provinces. That's the equivalent…. If you just look at it proportionately, in Saskatchewan that would be like them creating not just 17,400 jobs. That would be like them creating almost 90,000 jobs.

That was from a time when we had a well-funded education system in this province. That was when we had class size and composition that allowed teachers to spend time with people who….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: Teaching math.

Let's look at Manitoba — same thing. Atlantic Canada, which I hate to say…. At certain times in the last 12 years previous ministers in this government have often used Atlantic Canada as a whipping boy, as a bit of a laughingstock. "We're in British Columbia. We're great here — not like Atlantic Canada, where they've got real problems." That was something that you often heard from some former ministers in this House.

Yet when you look at the graphs up there, Atlantic Canada's record…. Never mind the fact that they are a quarter — well, not quite a quarter but significantly smaller collectively. They're about half the size of British Columbia, population-wise. They generated four times as many jobs as we did here in British Columbia — four times as many private sector jobs created in Atlantic Canada than here in British Columbia. That's in the period from September 2011 to January 2014.

[1550]

Even Ontario. Members of this House on the government side have often said: "Oh hey, they have real problems in Ontario." No one is disputing that they've had challenges, particularly in their manufacturing sector. Now, during this time, they created almost 150,000 jobs. Compare to us here: 6,900 jobs in the private sector. That is an abysmal record.

Yet the Premier went through an election campaign, and the Premier stood and said: "We're No. 2. We're No. 1. They're all coming to British Columbia. It's a million new jobs by 2020, and it's 100,000 this year." The numbers are thrown around like nobody's business. But when you look at the actual statistics, they tell a completely different story.

I said, and we're almost at the end of my remarks….

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: My colleague from Surrey-Whalley says: "More."

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: Oh well, okay. In that case….

You know what? I am encouraged. I have just heard a voice from the government side saying they want more. They want more pointing-out of the errors of their ways. There may yet be hope that they see how bad this budget is, how over the last 29 months, they have failed British Columbians in one of the key things the Premier talked about, which was job growth and opportunities for the people of British Columbia.

When you look at this and you see these numbers, you can understand why many British Columbians feel that the Premier's jobs plan has been more about tem-
[ Page 1405 ]
porary foreign workers than it has been for homegrown British Columbians. You can see why, when they see a skills-training budget flatline, when the post-secondary budget has been cut, when you have 18-month to two-year waiting lists for apprenticeship programs in places like BCIT….

This government is more concerned about temporary foreign workers and is forgetting about the people who built this province, which are homegrown British Columbians right here, who are the ones who should be able to get jobs, the ones who should be able to get skills training. And that is not happening.

A 33 percent completion of apprenticeships in this province is simply not acceptable. It is wrong, and it is no way to build a long-term economy in the province of British Columbia.

Finally, I think it's time to look at the effect of this government's policies and the effect that it will continue to have with the measures that are in this budget and the lack of the focus on the key priorities that British Columbians are concerned about, and that is that people are leaving this province.

Interprovincial migration since the Premier became the leader of the B.C. Liberals is negative. Almost 13,000 people have left this province. I'm being kind when I say left, because the Premier's own language, the Premier's own words are that people are fleeing this province or have fled this province to seek opportunity elsewhere. I don't need to add additional words. I don't need to colour the commentary, because the Premier herself used this exact phrase, which is: "That is families being torn apart."

[1555]

When you put families first, if that's your motto, what could be worse than families being forced apart or people being forced to flee to other provinces because of a lack of opportunity, either employment-wise or skills training and development–wise?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That is another damning statistic about the failure of this government's agenda, its economic plan and its budget.

I know yesterday the Minister of Finance started his remarks with a nautical theme about the ship of state. I was tempted to work in some phrases of my own — the Flying Dutchman, which used to be a famous ghost ship or, some would say, a portent of doom. I don't need to. I will not do that.

Instead, I will just look at that slide and ask the capable technician who's managing the slides to go back one slide to show the job creation numbers in other provinces. As I said in question period, those other provinces are the lifeboats for too many people seeing opportunity outside this province, because they don't get it in this province, and that is unacceptable.

[Slide presentation concludes.]

In closing, I want to say a few final remarks about Budget 2014-15. And that is, as I said at the beginning, that British Columbians will pay more, at least $900 a year more, over the life of this fiscal plan. They will receive less in the way of services, both in immediate services that they depend on and, just as importantly, in the long-term services, the long-term investments and the long-term strategies that this government should be looking at in key sectors of the economy.

While LNG is an opportunity for this province, this government needs to have an honest and realistic discussion about it, which it has not done to this day. This budget continues the hype around that. People expect other sectors of the economy to get attention and to get the public-policy work that is required.

Hydro continues to be used as a cash cow — the creation of deferral account after deferral account, which the Auditor General has talked about and will no doubt have more to say about. Mismanagement and unaffordability continue to be hallmarks of this government.

This government does not meet the needs of the province as a whole. It does not meet the needs of its regions. It does not meet the needs of its communities, and it most certainly does not meet the needs of the everyday families who work hard and pay their taxes and expected something better — not to see their costs increase. That is why I will stand proudly and vote against this budget, as will my colleagues on our side of the House.

Tabling Documents

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to table the slides that were used in my presentation.

Leave granted.

Debate Continued

D. Ashton: Good afternoon, hon. Speaker. It's my pleasure to rise in response and support our government's balanced budget.

[1600]

This budget is precisely what British Columbians elected us to deliver — a promise made and a promise kept. During the election we committed to fiscal discipline, to respect hard-earned taxpayer dollars and not to spend more than we could afford. Yesterday we delivered on that. A balanced budget is the first step to create a debt-free British Columbia, a strong economy and unprecedented opportunities for future generations.

I would at this time like to thank the opposition Finance critic, the member for Port Coquitlam, for his comments and, particularly, for his passion and service to his constituents and to this province. But it seems
[ Page 1406 ]
that the opposition has already forgotten what British Columbians told our bipartisan committee during the budget consultation tour.

In the lead-up to this budget we toured the province, with members from both sides of the House — I'll repeat that, both sides of the House — working together, which I found incredibly uplifting, visiting 17 communities for hearings and conducting video conference sessions in an additional five communities. We received more than 600 submissions from individuals and stakeholders over a five-week consultation process.

We heard the same message in every corner of this province. British Columbians want a government that is fiscally responsible, and British Columbians want a balanced budget. Yes, we did hear that they would like government to help out more, but only when we could afford it.

Of the 73 recommendations made by our committee — I'll ask the opposition to remember that our recommendations were unanimously endorsed by committee members from both parties — our top recommendation was one of fiscal restraint. Our top recommendation was not to spend more than our province can afford. Our top recommendation was a balanced budget.

That promise we made. The commitment that British Columbians sent us here to keep is what we are now delivering.

I would encourage the members opposite to reflect on our bipartisan committee's recommendations and join me and the majority of British Columbians we represent in supporting this budget.

I'm a fiscal conservative. I'm very financially responsible, something that was instilled in me by my parents, by being involved in a small business and by many years of participating at the local level in municipal and regional levels of government. These are the values that are shared by British Columbians.

As the newly elected mayor of Penticton in late 2008, right after the collapse of the financial markets of the world, our council faced a very difficult challenge to balance the city books at a time when the last thing the citizens needed were new and onerous obligations. We worked together — council, management, staff — and we made some incredibly difficult choices, but we were able to deliver to the citizens we represented three years of budgets that did not add any additional stress to their own financial challenges.

As a matter of fact, in the eyes of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Penticton went from being one of the worst- to one of the best-performing municipalities. We accomplished that by being fiscally disciplined and financially responsible. But more importantly, we accomplished it by working together, something that our provincial Finance Committee showed we could do and something I personally think the citizens of British Columbia want us collectively to do.

My colleague the Minister of Finance reminded the House that this is one of only two balanced budgets in Canada. That is something British Columbians, our government and all members of this House can be proud of. A balanced budget is the first step to paying down debt and is an important step to maintaining our province's triple-A credit rating. Our credit rating is more than just an independent validation of our strong fiscal footing. It determines our borrowing costs and the money that we have available to invest in our province's future.

Around the world there are many examples of what can happen when governments overreach and spend more than they can afford and what happens to those governments when their credit ratings are downgraded. Even within Canada there are provinces that pay more than twice on the debt-servicing costs that B.C. has. That means substantially less dollars available to address the needs of their citizens.

[1605]

Balancing the budget isn't easy, but the tough decisions we are making are decisions that British Columbians understand, because every day families in British Columbia have to make the same tough decisions with their household budgets. They need to decide how each dollar is spent, and they know that when they look after the pennies, the dollars will follow. They know that you can't pay down debt if you're spending more than you take in. They elected us to balance our budget the way they balance theirs — by making tough but right decisions.

This budget is the first step to a debt-free B.C., and we're already in good shape, especially compared to many other jurisdictions in Canada. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the country, lower than the national numbers and less than half of what we see in some other provinces. By the 2016-2017 fiscal year we will already be reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio, helping us to maintain a triple-A credit rating and to spend on direct services rather than on debt-servicing costs.

This budget provides targeted measures to make life more affordable for British Columbians, and we have the means to do this because of fiscal discipline. We are increasing the threshold for the first-time-homeowner buyers in the program to $475,000 from $450,000, an exemption that will save up to $7,500 on their property transfer tax.

We have extended the transitional tax relief for credit unions — credit unions that many of us use — levelling the playing field with the big banks and rewarding investment in our province. We all know how credit unions invest in their communities and their regional areas and in this province.

We have extended the scientific research and experimental development tax credit by three years, encouraging R and D and high-quality jobs in British Columbia.

Controlling spending isn't about cutting programs; it's
[ Page 1407 ]
about finding more efficient ways to deliver the services that British Columbians expect and need. My colleague Minister Bennett and I have been tasked with controlling government spending, ensuring that we make the best use of government resources through a core review.

Deputy Speaker: Member, no names, please.

D. Ashton: I apologize.

We've done a lot more to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of government. That being said, we know we can always do more.

To date, the core review process has identified $7.1 million in annual savings. The government will dissolve the Provincial Capital Commission but will maintain its community outreach program, which includes education and cultural services, within government. This will reduce the administrative costs, with savings to the taxpayers of approximately $1.5 million annually.

The core review process also determined that the Pacific Carbon Trust could be transitioned into a new model and brought within government, saving the taxpayers $5.6 million annually. The new model will require five staff compared to the previous model, which required 18. Impacted staff — this is important — will have the opportunity to join other parts of the public service and to use their talents and their experience to continue to help the citizens of British Columbia.

Fiscal restraint also means focusing on our priorities. We will continue to stand up for the services and programs that British Columbians rely on, especially for the most vulnerable in our province. The core review process will not make recommendations on services provided to the most vulnerable citizens, except to the extent where they are not achieving their intended results. Core review will find savings of $50 million in 2014 and 2015 and $50 million additional in the 2015-16 fiscal year.

This diverse and resource-rich land provides our province with unprecedented opportunities to work together with First Nations, but we have to recognize and understand each other's beliefs and traditions, and we have to learn to work together to succeed together. There are many examples provincewide where this is happening and where success brings additional opportunities for all.

Look at the successes in the Okanagan, where I'm from — at the Osoyoos Indian Band with Chief Clarence Louie, at the Westbank First Nation and their commercial leasing success and residential developments with thousands and thousands of non–First Nation families living and working on bands' traditional lands.

[1610]

Look at the advances the Penticton Indian Band has made with Chief Jonathan Kruger and his very progressive council and the infrastructure partnerships that have recently been created between the city of Penticton, which will benefit the economy and, as importantly, the environment, which we all share.

Our fiscal discipline has also given us the means to invest in the things that matter most to British Columbians, like health care. In the riding I represent, a new patient tower at Penticton hospital is a priority for our communities, and that makes it a priority for this government. By working together with the Okanagan-Similkameen hospital district, the government and Interior Health we were able to expedite the concept plan and the business case.

The business case is quickly moving ahead and will determine the schedule, scope and costs of a new patient tower. This is good news for patients and their families, as well as the hundreds and hundreds of health care professionals who deliver such incredibly good care throughout the South Okanagan and Similkameen.

Following approval of the plan, we will move to procure a contractor to construct a new patient care tower, delivering on our promises to the citizens of Penticton, to the citizens of the South Okanagan and to the citizens of the Similkameen.

The new patient care tower will bring the hospital up to modern standards, facilitating the requests of doctors, nurses and health care professionals — all incredibly important in our own towns and our own society — while ensuring that patient demand is met for the future. It is an investment in our communities and an investment for our children.

Fiscal discipline means that we have been able to balance the budget, but it also means that we are able to invest in our communities and the health of our citizens. Since 2001 the regional hospital districts have invested $1.5 million on new and renovated health care facilities in the Interior. This means new and renovated facilities in our communities — facilities that help serve the entire Interior Health population.

It also means that people receive care closer to home, and that is incredibly important to families — where they don't have to travel to health institutions in the Lower Mainland, where they can be close to their loved ones and have that opportunity, and the loved ones have the opportunity, of having family close by, which makes a huge difference in the healing process.

We've recently completed a significant expansion at the Kelowna General Hospital, for example. In December 2012 Kelowna hospital performed the first-ever open-heart surgery that was done outside the Lower Mainland or Victoria, and it was on a patient from Penticton, who otherwise would have had to travel to Vancouver or Victoria.

Our province leads in outcomes while keeping spending per capita to the second-lowest in the country. We're always looking for opportunities to create healthier communities while saving taxpayer dollars.

This budget introduces a tax on smoking that will directly go to research on cancer and smoking cessation. In
[ Page 1408 ]
addition, it contains funding for our successful smoking cessation program, where our government helps to cover the costs and overcome the challenges of quitting. It's a terrible addiction — a terrible addiction — but it's something that we are trying to address.

Every member and every British Columbian who quits smoking, in addition to reducing an overwhelming number of health risks, saves our province dollars and reduces strain on our system. We know this, and that is why we want to do everything in our power to encourage and support British Columbians who want to quit smoking.

Another way we're improving outcomes and reducing costs is through access to primary health care. Access to primary health care saves lives, prevents more serious conditions and frees space in our ever-challenged emergency rooms for those who need it.

At Kelowna General Hospital we have invested $254 million in a new out-patient hospital, acute care bed capacity and new emergency room and medical training school. This renovated hospital also includes the new UBC Faculty of Medicine and Interior Health Clinical Academic Campus that is helping train new physicians who will soon help support communities right across the Interior, including in my riding of Penticton, and the Similkameen, where the citizens have been very innovative at trying to attract physicians. It's something that is faced by many communities above Hope in the interior of this province: trying to get physicians into those areas that can help the citizens that need those physicians.

We are investing in the future of health care in the Okanagan and training more doctors in our community. Fiscal discipline is about controlling spending, but it's also about smart investments in doctors, in preventative health measures and in education and skills training.

[1615]

We are investing in B.C.'s future, but we are also giving new parents the means and opportunity to save for their children's future. Starting in April of this year, parents with children under the age of six will receive a tax benefit of up to $55 a month per child. That's $650 to making life a little bit easier.

We're also giving new parents support with the B.C. training and education savings grant. The opposition ran on taking this grant away from parents, but we trust parents to make the right decision for their children and for their families. Every child born after July 1, 2007, is provided with the opportunity of $1,200 towards a registered education savings plan after the child turns six.

If parents contribute to this fund, even at $10 or $15 per month, it will mean a significant fund in place by the time that child turns 17 and wants to further his or her education. This is support for families, and it will help facilitate these children's educational future.

We've heard a lot from the opposition about B.C.'s education recently, and I want to use this opportunity to highlight some facts for my friends on the other side. Operating funding for public K-to-12 is at record-high levels — $4.725 billion this year. The average per-pupil funding is $8,654 — our highest level ever.

We have increased operating grants by approximately 26 percent over our 2000 and 2001 funding despite a decrease of 70,000 students in the province. Over the next four years we have committed $470 million on 27 capital projects. Since 2001 the government has spent or committed $2.2 billion on seismic upgrades or replaced 213 high-risk schools.

We have created 326 StrongStart centres across B.C., and B.C. is the only province in Canada to commit to and fully deliver a full-day kindergarten program. Our government knows that education is an investment in the future and is a foundation of our future, and that is why we'll continue to build on these accomplishments.

We're also investing in post-secondary education and skills training to prepare our kids for the jobs and the opportunities of tomorrow. In the Okanagan we are investing in skills training through post-secondary institutions like Okanagan College.

The Ministry of Advanced Education has provided more than $69 million in capital projects at Okanagan College since 2001 — more than $28 million to replace a trades building at Kelowna campus, more than $24 million towards the expansion of the Centre for Learning at the Kelowna campus.

In my area of Penticton, a substantial investment was made at Okanagan College's Jim Pattison Centre of Excellence. Funding for skills-training equipment, heavy-duty mechanics, electrical, welding and the plumbing program's equipment is taking place at many of the campus sites.

This budget delivers on all those priorities, funding it for Okanagan College, which will double the size of the current trades training in their complexes by 2016. We're proud to be investing in the opportunities that will lead to a strong economy and a bright future for our province.

I am fortunate enough to live in and represent one of the more beautiful regions of the province, and that's not to say that…. On both sides of the House we represent many areas that are very favourable to each and every one of us. It is no surprise that in my riding, Penticton has continued to boom in the tourist industry. Visitors from all across the country and all around the world visit every year.

Our government continues to invest in the tourism industry, both directly, by creating the environment for small businesses to succeed, create jobs and contribute to the strong economy…. A significant portion of the tourism industry is represented by small business. I was one of those individuals. The small businesses are at the heart and soul of every one of our communities and are a driver for economic growth. In addition, we created Destination B.C. to promote British Columbia as a tourism destination in the highly competitive global market.
[ Page 1409 ]

[1620]

In 2013 we invested more than $48 million in Destination B.C. It is this funding that will allow our partners in industry and this new Crown corporation to attract tourists to all of the regions of the province, including Penticton; Peachland, in the South Okanagan; and the Similkameen.

Wine tourism in the Okanagan creates jobs and generates hundreds of millions of dollars of economic input. As I politely say, we've been very fortunate to liquefy sunshine and put it into a bottle that all can enjoy.

Our Premier has also worked hard to reduce the barriers for the B.C. wine industry, both in Canada and internationally. After consultations throughout B.C. with individual stakeholders and organizations, we announced commonsense changes to the B.C. liquor laws that will support the Okanagan wine industry and promote wine tourism.

We're cutting the red tape, and we'll be allowing the sale of wine, craft brewery and craft distillery products at locations like farmers markets and secondary tasting rooms. Just as a note of interest, do you know that in Penticton there are over 5,000 to 7,000 people on Saturday mornings that walk down Main Street because of our incredibly popular farmers market?

These changes encourage visitors and tourists to taste-test and purchase local products, contributing to our local and provincial economy. They also encourage people like John Skinner from Painted Rock and Dr. Tony Holler from Poplar Grove, whose wines are garnering international acclaim, to continue to seek new markets for their wonderful Okanagan wines.

Our liquor review made further recommendations to support B.C.'s wine industry. It recommended that the Liquor Distribution Branch should work with industry and tourism associations to develop promotional materials such as maps, apps and brochures on B.C. wineries. We're looking at allowing patrons to buy and take home bottles of wine, showcased at festivals and competitions throughout the region.

It was also recommended that our government work with other Canadian wine-producing jurisdictions to jointly develop thematic wine promotions in each jurisdiction's liquor stores to promote Canadian wine. That's all about expanding markets — expanding markets for Canadian products, creating jobs and growing our economy — so we can afford to invest in B.C.'s future while still practising fiscal discipline.

Our Premier has done tremendous work in expanding markets for British Columbia and initiating and creating jobs and opportunities for British Columbians. And tongue in cheek, I just want to expand on the member for Port Coquitlam's comments. To those comments, I say that nothing works harder than a bee, and for something that science says can't fly, she is soaring in popularity because of her hard work for each British Columbian.

Since 2001 we have diversified our export markets and reduced our province's dependence on our neighbours to the south. More than 40 percent of our exports now go to Asia.

Another way we're investing, including in my riding in Penticton, is through grants to organizations that do incredibly important work in our communities. These include seniors societies, recovering and addictions organizations, child care centres, school groups and many, many others. So far in 2014 we have already awarded more than $50,000 in gaming grants to four organizations represented in my riding. These grants change lives and allow funding that allows them to reach out and help more people.

This budget is what British Columbians elected us to deliver. It is a budget that members on both sides of this House recommended after consulting with British Columbians. It is a budget with a promise made and a promise kept. I feel a tremendous sense of pride to stand with this government in support of this budget that so clearly delivers on the commitments we made during the election.

It is a budget that shows fiscal discipline. It is a budget that invests in our province's future without mortgaging tomorrow. It is a budget that is a first step to a debt-free B.C., a strong economy and a very, very secure future for each and every British Columbian that we all represent in this House.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Surrey-Whalley. [Applause.]

B. Ralston: Such enthusiasm so late in the afternoon. It's gratifying. And it was even joined in with a few groans from the other side, so I think we're about even.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the budget, the document that's before us, and address some of the claims that have been made in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance and by some of the MLAs who've spoken in support of the budget.

[1625]

We've heard from the member who just spoke that this budget allegedly is a first step, the claim is, towards a debt-free B.C. But that's belied by the graph that our critic, the member for Port Coquitlam, showed about the dramatic growth in debt over the last several years. Certainly, it's led to more than a doubling of debt since 2001 and a $16 billion increase in the debt over the life of the fiscal plan.

So that's a first step. It is. It's a first step away from ending the debt or reducing it, as it dramatically escalates during the course of the term of this government. This Premier…. Despite her rhetoric, the simple facts of the statements, the documents that have been tabled, say something very different. However, I think — and I
[ Page 1410 ]
think the government does recognize — that the debt is a problem.

In the budget documents they have what they call a topic box on strategic debt management. Now, that suggests that they view the management of the debt as a strategic challenge to the government. In fact, they go out of their way to explain in some considerable detail just how they propose to tackle the problem of the growing debt of the province. But one of the areas….

I don't like to make any speech without at least making one compliment to members of the government or at least the officials who spotted the very excellent recommendations of the Auditor General when it came to debt management. What the Auditor General — the past Auditor General, the much maligned by some members opposite Auditor General — did do was to issue a very helpful report on how better management of public debt might be achieved in British Columbia.

One of the things that he spoke about was to use cash balances that are on the books of what is called, in the unpoetic term, the SUCH sector. That is, schools, universities, colleges and hospitals often have cash on their balance sheets in the account of a local credit union or bank. It's not immediately required, but it is there available when the occasion to spend it is necessary.

What he recommended was that those balances be accumulated, an account be opened by the provincial government, all that money be kept by the provincial government and, of course, still available to those institutions. But it would reduce the borrowing requirement of the government because that money would be in the balances of the provincial government and therefore not require further borrowing.

That's a good suggestion. At one point the government had cash balances of $7 billion on the public accounts. Some of that is what was called warehouse borrowing — that is, bulk borrowing in advance of needing money. He again criticized them, so they adopted that measure.

That's a measure, I think, of the degree to which the government — at least its officials — have seized upon an understanding of just how much the debt has grown and how important it is to manage it, given its dramatic growth and its projected further dramatic growth over the next three years of the fiscal plan. So that's a compliment — maybe a little arcane. But I think it's a measure that was worth taking.

What our Finance critic has said and I think is very evident from this budget is that British Columbians, ordinary British Columbians, are going to pay more and get less in the way of service. There are a number of hidden tax increases. They're not really called tax increases, but they're de facto tax increases buried in the budget — in particular, MSP premiums.

The government derives a great deal of revenue from MSP premiums, well over $2 billion. They've gone up 4 percent again, and they continue to rise. The difficulty with MSP premiums as a social measure is that while those below $30,000 net taxable get relief from paying MSP premiums, anyone whose income is above pays the full amount. It's not graduated at all.

[1630]

Whether you're paid $40,000 or whether you're Daniel Sedin and making $7 million a year, you pay the same medicare premium. It's not graduated. It doesn't go up when you make more money. For particularly those in the middle-income range, it places a greater burden on them than it would people at the top end of the income scale.

It continues to grow. It's what the economists call a regressive tax, and it is a bad public policy. This is not something that comes necessarily from members of my party or even the broad spectrum of political opinion with which I would associate myself. Jordan Bateman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has similarly pointed out that there's the requirement of an entire mechanism, the cost of collecting the premium and administering it, that would be better rolled in with the tax system as a whole. That's not a view of….

I don't always agree with Mr. Bateman. Certainly, that and Senate reform are probably the only two areas that I agree with him. But it's worthy of note that that's the criticism that is made.

That tax is going up and, certainly, B.C. Hydro rates. We've heard from the member for Juan de Fuca the concern as to why hydro rates are going up dramatically. Those don't only impact families. Those also impact small business and, indeed, large business.

The dramatic increase in the industrial rate will impact companies like Catalyst, a pulp company who went through a corporate reorganization. Workers were called on, through their collective agreement, to give up certain pay and benefits. Even retirees excepted from the company pension plan — reduced pensions. The increase in the hydro rates will dramatically impact this particular company and may wipe away all the gains that they made through the sacrifices of everyone involved, whether management, labour or retirees.

These increases are not trivial. They have real impacts on businesses, on families, and they are designed to, unfortunately, pay for gross Liberal mismanagement of B.C. Hydro over the last 12 years. Certainly, that's required.

Once again, in this budget, the government, the Minister of Finance is raiding the cookie jar, taking money from B.C. Hydro, revenue that it doesn't really have. But the books are run in a way through deferral accounts to give the impression of profitability where none exists. That's what is taking place there in B.C. Hydro.

ICBC rates will be increasing as well. Given the underspending on public transit, a requirement, almost, for many people…. Despite a will or a wish to use public transit — particularly families in the suburbs, where I live in Surrey — transit is not as developed as it should
[ Page 1411 ]
be. It's not reliable. It certainly doesn't have the hours that are required. You sometimes have to have a car. So that will impact families as well.

When you look at the budget, there's no recognition of the impact of this on families. In fact, there's no mention anywhere in the budget or the Speech from the Throne of the will to tackle the problems of lower-income British Columbians.

Across the country, whether it was in Newfoundland with a Tory Premier or in Ontario with a Liberal Premier, these governments — and there are a host of other governments right across the country — have set legislated targets for poverty reduction. In Newfoundland, when Mr. Williams was the Premier, that was his first priority. When you entered his website, that was the thing that came up first — his commitment to poverty reduction for the citizens that he represented in Newfoundland.

There is no such commitment in this budget. There is no such imagination. There doesn't even seem to be the will to discuss the subject. I know the government's…. This is an issue. Certainly, it's an issue in my riding.

[1635]

Tomorrow evening I'll be attending a community-schools partnership meeting, where the speaker will be a Dr. Donna Beegle. That's put on to help build additional support and resources for families and children in north Surrey, and that arises out of the recognition by the public school system of the impact of poverty upon families and children in the riding that I represent. There are a number of schools that are described by the school board as inner-city schools. They have the lunch program.

These are real problems. These are not notional problems. They're not something that people dream up or speak idly of here. This is the real, lived experience of people in many parts of this province that is being ignored and not dealt with.

I noticed that in the Speech from the Throne, the Premier's speechwriters were rummaging through former American presidents for quotations to provide some rhetorical lift to an otherwise turgid speech. They might do well to look at another American President, President Lyndon Johnson, who grew up in the hardscrabble country of east Texas and understood what it was like to live in poverty. As an American President, he initiated what he called the Great Society, a governmentwide program to tackle poverty and racial injustice. It resembled the scope of Roosevelt's New Deal.

Certainly, his reputation, and understandably, has been clouded by his subsequent involvement in foreign conflict, the war in Vietnam, but his domestic objectives were expansive, and they were great ones. I would commend those to the Premier's speechwriters for, perhaps, consideration and maybe inspiration at the cabinet table at some point in the future.

The difficulty with this budget…. Not only does it not address the plight and the concerns and the lived experience of lower-income British Columbians…. When you calculate the number of people who get relief from MSP premiums, over one million people, the government trumpets this as some great accomplishment.

But that's a measure of the breadth of people in the province whose income is very, very low. It's a measure of low income in the province that over one million people qualify for MSP premium relief. That kicks in at a very low level of income. I think that's a measure of just how much or how far this budget deviates from addressing the real concerns of British Columbians.

Not only the issues of income for those who are working, but the unemployment level. Despite the rhetoric and all the ads that have cascaded out, in at least a $20 million program, since September 2011, in the budget documents the unemployment rate is projected to rise in 2014 and again in 2015 and to stay high in the medium term. By the medium term, that's meant three to five years. The government's own financial officials are projecting an increase in the unemployment rate and for it to remain high.

Clearly, the policy instruments that government has chosen, despite the rhetoric, are not affecting the real unemployment rate here in the province, and that's very disturbing. Is it any wonder that the other slide that was shown in the Finance critic's speech — the number of people who have left the province…? Is there any surprise that that continues to rise?

In fact, in the Finance Minister's Economic Advisory Council meeting which took place in December, a number of the economists who were there…. It's in the summary of the meeting, so this is something that can be checked — and those 299 people in the public affairs bureau are doubtlessly looking it up right now. It says that was a concern expressed by a number of economists there, that was a weakness of the B.C. economy — that people were leaving to head to Alberta, to Saskatchewan, to Manitoba.

[1640]

This was hallmarked. It was a signature rhetorical piece by the Premier, back when she was in opposition many years ago, as a damning statistic, as an utterly damning statistic that was used frequently and with great vehemence as a measure of just how weak the economy is.

It is reality. It's the Statistics Canada numbers. People are leaving this province. The interprovincial migration rate, as it's called, sees people leaving the province and has done so not just one quarter but for nine quarters. That's nine groups of three months consecutively. The trend is not a good one whatsoever.

Again, the measures that are taken to try and address this in the long term, whether it's addressing the issue of skills training…. There's rhetorical support for that, but when you look at the budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education….

People have recognized that Tory Alberta has a better
[ Page 1412 ]
and more effective apprenticeship system than British Columbia. It's not a question of ideology. It's a question of political commitment to the process. Alberta has a disproportionate number of apprentices to its population. The program there is successful. They have the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology in Edmonton and SAIT, the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, in Calgary — excellent training facilities and detailed, recognized trades, compulsory trades.

The Alberta apprenticeship system — this is not really, I wouldn't think, an issue of political ideology between the political orientation of that government and this one — is just way, way more effective. Why is that? Because this government doesn't have the commitment to invest and to remedy the damage done by the advice that they took in the first term, 2001 to 2005, from Mr. Hochstein. It was in his interest and the interest of his members that the apprenticeship system be trashed, that the price of labour fall and that people be trained for small modules of training but not for full trades in order to benefit him and his members.

That advice, unfortunately, was taken. I think he's now marginalized and not relied upon other than for political support — certainly not for policy advice. But that was the damage that was done. That's the damage. That's the legacy of the first term of the Liberal government, yet no steps seem to be taken to deal with that.

What you really see, and what people on the other side say…. There are little glimpses of this. The Minister of Energy has said this: "We won't be able to build some of these projects without temporary foreign workers."

One wonders whether that is the unspoken strategy of this government in terms of labour supply — that because they know that they have destroyed and severely hindered the apprenticeship system, there's not enough time to have it recovered; that they're not prepared to invest in the advanced education system to the degree that's necessary; that they are going to rely on raiding other jurisdictions for workers, be it Alberta or temporary foreign workers, say, from the United States, to begin with.

That seems to be the strategy. It's acknowledged not fully by the Minister of Energy, but he has said that it'll be impossible to build some of these LNG projects without resort to temporary foreign workers. So I suppose that's the opening. That's as much of an acknowledgement as you're likely to get from the Minister of Energy on that point, but to my mind, that spells a concerted and deliberate strategy to use that avenue to supply labour to these projects.

Now, the LNG file is something that's discussed. Again the shimmering future of LNG was present in the throne speech and discussed somewhat in the budget. Now, I did attend the natural resources forum in Prince George on January 22 and 23, and there was a very different picture of LNG painted there. On the second day there were some actual proponents of LNG projects with industry knowledge about LNG projects.

[1645]

Far from the distorted boosterism and rhetoric, there was some clear, I think, and helpful advice from those in a position to be aware of how the decisions are made by these global companies that will make a decision, or not, to invest in LNG.

For example, Rod Maier was there, who's the manager, external relations and communications, Kitimat LNG, for Chevron Canada Ltd. He was speaking on behalf of the Chevron-Apache proposal, as it's called. What he said was, understandably….

Chevron is a global company. They completed an LNG plant in 2013 in Angola. They have two projects on the go, major projects: in Australia, the aptly named — these are LNG plants — Gorgon, which is estimated to cost $52 billion Australian, due to be completed in 2015; and the Wheatstone project, due to be completed in 2016.

What he emphasized was that unlike some of the information that we hear from the Liberals opposite — well, they're investing, they're clearing land at Kitimat or they're buying supplies, they're negotiating with First Nations…. All of those are necessary steps to get to what he described as a final investment decision, and his company has not come to a final investment decision.

Given the global scale of the company, there's internal competition for capital within the company. If another project goes through a series of preliminary expenditures and is deemed to be potentially more profitable, a better deployment of capital for a global firm, that firm will get the investment, not necessarily the one in British Columbia. While it is a necessary precondition, it's not a sufficient precondition to presume that the investment will be made.

What Mr. Maier did say is that in order to come to a final investment decision, a number of factors will need to be known by his company, and this applies to other companies.

There was a representative there, Greg Kist, president of Pacific NorthWest LNG. That's the company that is representing Petronas and Progress Energy. That's the consortium there. In addition, there was Susannah Pierce, who is the general manager of social performance and external affairs, LNG Canada, for Shell Canada. These are representatives of some of the major global companies who are looking at establishing LNG plants and building pipelines in British Columbia.

What Mr. Maier said is that before his company could make a decision to make the kind of investment that's required, they would need to be assured of the regulatory framework — that is, the taxation and royalty regime that they would be entering into if they decided to make the investment. They needed to know the cost and how the project would be implemented, including a labour supply.

Labour supply was particularly a problem in the Gorgon project in Australia — in fact, notorious. They
[ Page 1413 ]
were simply…. There's this trades shortage, and the cost dramatically, dramatically escalated.

Also, they would need to have signed, long-term contracts from customers. By long-term, they're usually speaking 20, 25 or 30 years. They'd need those contracts signed and a commitment made.

Those are formidable hurdles to overcome. I'm not saying that they couldn't be overcome, and I don't think he was either. But to suggest at this stage that somehow something is going to happen necessarily is not accurate. It's simply not accurate. Those conditions, those business decisions, will be made, and a final investment decision, but only when those items are solved or are understood to the satisfaction of the company.

Now, the company…. One of the things that I mentioned was the regulatory and taxation environment. One of the few things in the control of the B.C. government is its ability to devise a taxation regime. They've known about this. This has been appearing in throne speeches — I think a little glimmer back in 2009-10. This has been coming for years.

[1650]

Certainly, the commitment that was made by the minister was: "We're going to have that legislation ready to go, and it's going to be circulated in advance of the session in October." Oops. Well, then they said it will be ready by late November, early December. Oops.

Then they said it will be ready in the new year. Now we discover that the position apparently is that the legislation will be drafted and ready for public review in the fall of this year — fully one year from a very public commitment to have this done. And that's one of the major things that's in the control of the government.

Granted, drafting this kind of legislation is obviously complicated. Maybe it's too complicated for the present complement of public servants. I don't know. Obviously, there are alternatives, such as getting other people from outside or going to Australia or Texas or Alaska or Oregon — some of the jurisdictions that they mentioned in the topic box on LNG and that they are looking at for modelling their legislation.

So go to one of those jurisdictions; hire some people from there; do a comparative study. But for some reason they don't seem to be able to produce legislation. We were told that this is a foot race. There are countries around the world that want to get into the LNG business. There's a rush for markets. There's a limited time. Yet this item, under their control, is something where the deadline appears to just be receding infinitely into the future.

Now, I have confidence that there must be someone in government who understands this. Maybe not every minister, but certainly, I would expect that the minister would understand this. I would expect that they would be engaging the people and putting together the team that could accomplish this.

Frankly, I'm disturbed that the gap between the rhetoric of completing this piece of legislation and the reality seems to be widening and widening and widening, and it's receding further and further into the future. That's not a good sign for LNG, and it really does contrast with some of the more extravagant claims that have been made about the future of LNG in the province.

Anyway, I hope that expression on my part…. Maybe someone will listen over there. I doubt it. They don't seem to listen to the best advice that's available, so I'm sure they won't listen to me.

This was what was said at this conference by representatives of the industry itself. Susannah Pierce of Shell Oil made very similar points about the competition internally within a global company for capital. And in fact, Shell has a new CEO, and they are reviewing their capital commitments. Whether that means Shell and their group will go forward or not is not clear.

Certainly, my impression was that Petronas, given that it's a state-owned company, that it has its own fleet of LNG tankers, that it runs the biggest LNG plant in the world, was probably the most advanced. They've also bought Progress Energy and have 27 wells working in the northeast. They seem to be the most advanced, with an upstream supplier and contact and relationships with global markets in the Far East, given Petronas's business network that already exists. They seem to me to be the most advanced.

Similarly, my expectation is that if they don't know the royalty framework, they're not going to expose $15 billion worth of capital to an investment in British Columbia without that assurance about what the royalty regime will be.

I think it's useful to perhaps contrast those observations that were all made in public at the conference on the second day. I think many of the Liberal MLAs were there on the first day but didn't seem to stick around for the second day.

[1655]

R. Sultan: I'd like to compliment the member for Surrey-Whalley on his report, a very interesting and fact-filled synopsis of what he heard at the resource conference organized by one of our colleagues up in Prince George. I found that very useful. Thank you for doing so much homework on our behalf.

I am asked to comment on the budget. On contemplating the British Columbia budget, I have to look back on my what I reluctantly concede is 80 years, and all of my children and grandchildren and hoped-for great-grandchildren, and conclude that we've done a good job — for them, for their children and for future generations of this province. This budget is for their future, and I would like to emphasize some of the implicit reasons why it is a good and responsible budget.

The budget speech may not explicitly define some of the core issues which it addresses, but they require men-
[ Page 1414 ]
tioning, as the opposition either tends to be silent when asked for their alternative policy suggestions or negative when we propose concrete actions or scattershot when outlining what their own budget might look like, as was evident in the 15 percent increase they promised in bits and pieces, when one added up all the program spending they promised in all directions prior to the recent election — until, that is, they concluded the election was a wrap and their better strategy was to say nothing at all.

Our budget may be summarized as careful and controlled or, to quote the Finance Minister himself, boring and balanced, as befits any government picking its way through a world scalded by the 2008 global financial collapse, a world where confidence has been in the recovery ward and a world where many governments foolishly thought they could speed their return to the good times by running massive deficits and by hugely expanding available liquidity.

Fortunately, our government in British Columbia was not lured into that trap, but other financial wreckage around the country and around the world is easy to find. For example, the net debt of Ontario and Quebec is now equal to two-thirds of the entire federal government debt of Canada. If you feel like singing that old Broadway tune "Hey Big Spender" — spend a little money on me — you'd feel right at home in Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces, each of whom run annual deficits greater than 1 percent of provincial GDP.

Looked at another way, via the provincial government here, each British Columbian owes a troubling $8,000, but each citizen of Ontario owes $20,000, and each citizen of Quebec owes $22,000. Only 12 months ago the Fraser Institute warned that Ontario's financial situation was significantly worse than California's, and California was no strong standard of comparison. Ontario's bonded debt is now an alarming 4½ times greater per capita than California's.

If you are not inclined to worry too much about getting all fussed up over debt and the balance on your credit card, then consider that Ontario today spends almost 9 percent of its entire government revenue on interest. That represents $9½ billion that it wishes it could, but it can't, spend on schools and hospitals. British Columbians, be glad you don't live in Ontario. We enjoy a triple-A credit rating, and our budget will help keep it that way.

Of course, our finances depend on the health of our economy. Here things may be looking up. At least our expert panel hopes so. But until we actually see it, I rather admire our Finance Minister, who goes out and gets his old shoes repaired, rather than buying new ones.

Let's start with the world economy. I need not belabour the statistics and the facts of what the rest of the world is experiencing. America looks good, but the eurozone, wobbly. Against this backdrop British Columbia has done well, and I think it will continue to do well.

[1700]

We learn about the difficulties of others every moment, thanks to the Internet. This includes parts of Canada that have not been managed as well as B.C. Unlike them, B.C. has grown and will continue to grow, and if there have been deficits in our past decade or so, they have been relatively marginal. The unemployment rate, much discussed today in the response by the critic, has been driven down. And the construction activity you see in all corners of the province is actually admired by many visitors.

There are other virtues to point to. Consider the avoided cost of our debt. Yes, it would be wonderful to fund all the projects that present themselves to us, in our constituency offices frequently, from $10-a-day daycare to more teachers in the classroom. We hear the messages. Listening to people is really what we do for a living. If we don't listen, we're eventually tossed out of office. More spending is often the common denominator, but: "Don't you dare raise taxes."

Borrowing is a tempting alternative. However, we need to keep in mind that $1 billion in borrowing today, costing about $30 million annually in service, will over 30 years eventually accumulate to another $1 billion. Borrow $1 billion today, repay $2 billion tomorrow. Sounds like a payday loan to me.

Now, $2 billion buys a lot of teachers, MRI machines, college classrooms and critical maintenance on aging infrastructure. Deferred maintenance can mean ferries run aground, transformers blow up, care facilities burn down, highway overpasses disintegrate, as they tend to do in Quebec, or dikes don't keep out the floodwater. By not borrowing that $1 billion today, we can in the long run spend a lot more on such critically important items tomorrow.

Another consideration is what is now called the "new normal," a concept now coming into play in worldwide economics, as demographics, rising costs, lower productivity and more demanding environmental stewardship all suggest the gung-ho growth of yesteryear may no longer be realistic or, in fact, desirable.

Sorry, folks, the new normal is not the old normal. Cities demand new infrastructure. Large, remote regions of this vast province have come to appreciate intensive services of all types. And yes, we have to respect global warming, as much of our economy depends on the natural environment.

Much of this is very new, and we cannot always throw the old solutions at it, since they may no longer work. The new normal is not always obvious. It requires cautious and prudent planning until a better and clearer view can be had, just like our budget.

In the meantime, B.C. continues to do well on most metrics. B.C. Hydro is 95 to 100 percent clean energy. Our commitment to the environment remains high, and B.C. continues to be a very desirable place for people around the world to come and live. Just consider what's happening to our real estate prices as evidence of that.
[ Page 1415 ]
The old normal, that we're lucky to live in B.C., is fortunately one thing that hasn't changed.

As a province, we also have to deal with the problem, as some might say it with sarcasm, of ample resources. Yes, there are core reviews going on of our existing operations, but where are the problems? Frankly, we have to search for them. We have to look hard for problems.

Now, they're thrown at us by the opposition. The opposition finds them and, certainly, mentions them. But they're not always so obvious, certainly by comparison to other parts of the world.

B.C. has surplus energy, while others have brownouts. B.C. Ferries has too much capacity. It may have to reduce services as load patterns are reviewed. Is it better to have a problem of excess or a problem of deficiency and shortage which we struggle to fulfil? I suggest we'd rather have the luxury of the former than the latter.

Let me talk a moment about LNG and what George Bush once called "the vision thing."

[1705]

Some are becoming impatient that the vision of those LNG initiatives is not coming to fruition this week or even, I'm sure, this year. But let's keep in mind such issues as, one, our government is daring to apply, our Premier is daring to expound, a long-term vision for British Columbia. If the opposition has a better vision, well, let's hear it.

Two, the LNG market, as the member for Surrey-Whalley has reminded us just now, is very complex and, in fact, is currently changing. Even more complex and costly are the technology and the economics involved. Yes, we have the location and the natural resources. But as he indicated, price tags in the $30 billion to $45 billion range — or did I even hear him say $55 billion? — are not unusual.

These projects take time, and numerous stakeholders must be consulted. Over and above all of that, there are competing projects really quite nearby in Oregon and Alaska, and the Asian markets are well aware that it's in their interest to assess all of the options before locking into any 25- to 50-year commitment. It's not that they don't like B.C. But because their economic futures depend on these contracts, they're not going to rush into them.

Thirdly, we're not alone in our slowdown. The fact is that no one in the world right now seems to be moving ahead on any initiative. In Australia the third LNG train under construction, I am told, has been slowed down. Change is all around us.

Finally, fourth point, should we really be attacked for suggesting, tentatively, partial LNG tax holidays until tax costs are recovered on some of these proposals? Well, I think not.

Given all of the above, it would be foolish to commit in detail without knowing both what the projects need from the province and what these projects can support. We would be foolish to lay out, inadvertently, deterrent regimes, given the global economic situation.

Bottom line, I think our approach to LNG and the approach being taken by the minister engaged in discussion in the corner there, undoubtedly on LNG, is paced about right.

Let me talk a moment about transportation infrastructure. B.C. is twice the size of France with fewer than five million people, half of whom live in the Lower Mainland and the capital region, with few of them at all in the upper half of the province. I was really surprised, when I first went out there, at the distance and the sheer emptiness of the majority of British Columbia.

Not surprisingly, transportation is the challenge, as well as energy costs to fuel it and the environmental issues associated. We should not forget that while the northern half has less than 300,000 people living in it, it generates a disproportionate share of our economic product.

The fact is that families need transportation infrastructure to get to work, go to school, receive medical care, go shopping, as well as get our resources to market. With all this in mind, we need to remind ourselves and our opposition that long-term capital will continue to be committed on large transportation systems in all corners of the province.

TransLink, locally, in my part of British Columbia, is going through important organizational transitions and adaptations to necessary growth and has responded wonderfully, I believe, given the daily challenges it faces. The Evergreen line is underway. New bridges and river crossings are now in use or being built or being committed to an engineer. That, again, illustrates change is the constant.

Yes, the capital costs are massive, underpinned by borrowing. They require careful discussion and consideration before commitment. Both infrastructure needs and TransLink capital needs are complex, requiring a lot of consultation with stakeholders and neighbours and those who are going to pay for it.

Does all of this call for haste? Of course not. An old proverb says: "Commit in haste; repent in leisure." It does, however, require a referendum to see where the public sentiment lies on the transportation alternatives that we face in my part of the world, in the Vancouver area.

[1710]

Let me talk about the regions. Most importantly, the budget has emphasized a balanced budget to leave borrowing capacity open for future long-term economic development of the regions. For example, much is already underway. To the northeast we have the developments involving natural gas, which offer generation after generation of gas sales, whether offshore via LNG or by land to the United States.

Just north of Prince George we have the Mount Milligan project, developed by train, constructed by Thompson Creek Metals. It's finished and approaching
[ Page 1416 ]
full operation, the first greenfield mine project in about 16 years. It will have a life of over 30 years and bring very skilled high-paying jobs to Fort St. James, Mackenzie and, most importantly, to the McLeod Lake First Nations Band, which I went up and visited.

I talked to Derek Orr, the very progressive chief of the McLeod Lake Band, who was well aware, step by step, of what was going on and the benefits it would bring to his community. This project sailed through provincial and federal permitting, and hopefully this sets a precedent for others in the future.

Another project — the northwest transmission project by Hydro and Imperial Metals, shared development, will further open up the northwest corner. Were there cost overruns? Yes. This is standard for projects dealing with new terrains and remote locations, particularly when we rush into them. But as we have seen in such projects across western Canada, future generations will benefit.

Finally, in the Cariboo most of us believe that Prosperity mine has to be a done deal. Otherwise, the destiny of places like Williams Lake and 100 Mile House, not to mention the First Nations bands of the Tsilhqot'in, are very much, in my opinion, at risk. I think we are going to go ahead with Prosperity. I certainly hope so.

I would like to close by responding to several points made by the distinguished member and my friend the member for Nanaimo almost a week ago. The member discussed the fiscal strategy of this government as he had observed it over the years. That strategy, he concluded, was based on the famous Laffer curve, drawn by an economist for President Reagan on the back of an old napkin in some restaurant in Washington, D.C., legend says.

Cut taxes, and revenues will actually increase, is the basic point Mr. Laffer made. "We were convinced as well," the member for Nanaimo said. "The previous Premier cut taxes aggressively," and I would agree. He certainly did. "The only problem," the member for Nanaimo continued, "is that revenues did not go up, so to compensate, we had to cut government spending instead." That's why childhood poverty is so high, why there's unrest in the classroom and why his clients in Nanaimo can't pay him with legal aid. He was quite candid about that, I thought.

If valid, that member's interpretation of our tax and spending strategy would be cause for reflection, but it is not, in fact, in my judgment, what actually happened.

Let's look at what actually happened to program spending under this government over the past several years. According to the Royal Bank of Canada in a provincial finances comparison report — that, by coincidence, I happened to initiate myself 40 years ago — program spending in B.C. is currently in the $9,000 per-capita range, higher than Ontario, higher than Quebec and higher than per-capita program spending by the federal government itself. That surprised me. We're spending more on programs here than Ontario, Quebec or the feds, in all of the areas they're looking at.

Looked at another way, relative to the size of our economy, the percentage of GDP spent on programs is higher in B.C. than it is in Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan or Alberta.

To find big government in proportion to GDP, you have to look at Manitoba or the welfare provinces down east in the Atlantic. So surprise. We cut taxes, all the while maintaining the relatively larger size of government which we inherited in 2001, contrary to what the member for Nanaimo believed.

[1715]

Now, I'm not saying that Mr. Laffer was right, but through smart management, this British Columbia government accomplished three things: (1) it pushed to the forefront in achieving a triple-A financial rectitude rating; while (2) cutting taxes aggressively, way down the rates, a low taxes jurisdiction; while (3) maintaining its superior ranking in the magnitude of government services delivered, in comparison to other provinces across Canada. Wow, an astonishing hat trick — how did we do that?

Well, I think it's appropriate that we have a Finance Minister who also plays hockey, and I guess hat tricks come naturally to him. I didn't realize this. I was, frankly, both pleased but surprised. It deserves more applause, I think, than he and we have received so far.

In conclusion, as an MLA, father, grandfather and aspiring great-grandfather, I'm more than proud to note that all of this smart management rebounds to the benefit of the citizens, present and future, of this province. While the phrase "Families first" may not have been prominent throughout the budget speech, it is implicit in practically every component of the budget, and it underlies this government's policies regardless of sector and regardless of region.

Future generations and the others that follow will expect much more from B.C. than we did. They will want even more advanced education, even more sophisticated health care and even more diverse transportation choices. However, chances are that they may not benefit from the exponential economic growth which we have enjoyed — certainly not the exponential growth that I have enjoyed over my rather long career.

Therefore, it's more important than ever that we hold to a balanced budget today so as to not load up the borrowing capacity of our children and our grandchildren. An unencumbered balance sheet is just about the best legacy we can leave behind. I believe that, with this budget, is what we're on the path to do.

M. Elmore: I'm very pleased to rise and give my comments on the budget, my response to the budget. I think it's fitting that I follow the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. I will continue on that theme, I think, that you've laid out and elaborate a little bit, fill some of the
[ Page 1417 ]
arguments out — particularly around the comments around "Families first" being an implicit theme in the budget.

I'm going to take it in a little bit different direction and really lay out my disappointment with the budget. Certainly, the impact on families is being borne, and it's at the expense of families that are really going to be bearing more burden and paying more costs and more fees as a result of the budget.

On the one hand, you can characterize it somewhat as a broken promise for the claim that taxes aren't going to be raised. In effect, we're seeing that the impact of this budget on families in British Columbia is that they're going to be paying more and getting less.

They're going to be paying more through a number of different areas. They're going to be incurring costs — what I would characterize as hidden tax increases — that are not explicitly stated as taxes, but the impact is that it's raising the fees and costs for families, individuals, right across the province.

These increased costs and fees that are being borne by British Columbians are also as a result of the disappointing mismanagement of the government in terms of a number of different areas — the B.C. Hydro file and other aspects of the economy. So it is British Columbians that have to pick up the slack and that have to pay more.

[1720]

Despite the government taking out revenue from B.C. Hydro, we are seeing that the government has announced that fees will increase over 20 percent over the course of the fiscal plan, which will result in families paying over a $400 increase — $477 over those three years, and an increase of $215 by the third year.

So B.C. Hydro rates have been increased, but at the same time the government is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars from B.C. revenue, and also at the same time, through the accounting of deferred debt, B.C. Hydro is accumulating debt in deferral accounts at a breakneck speed.

We're seeing that families have to bear this mismanagement of B.C. Hydro, and really a sleight of hand, in terms of the government claiming that there's a need for an increase in hydro rates, but it's going to basically feed general revenue.

As well, families are bearing increased costs through a number of other areas. We've heard a number of my colleagues refer to the MST, the medical services tax. It now generates over $2.2 billion in revenue in the province — certainly the largest of all provinces in Canada — and increasing at a speed where….

The government over the course of a number of years claimed that the increase for medical service premiums would be at a rate consistent with the increase in spending in the health care budget, which this year is pegged at 2.6 percent. But the MST, the medical services tax, is increasing at a higher rate — at 4 percent. So we're seeing additional costs for families having to pay these, and it's going to cost the average family $400 more over three years.

Families are paying more in B.C. Hydro rates, in medical service premiums. Also, ICBC rates are increasing. We saw an increase in 2012 of 11.2 percent in the cost for basic insurance premiums. In 2012, despite the government securing the amount of $251 million coming back from ICBC to the government, drivers across British Columbia had to incur increased costs.

This is really the pattern that we see the government taking — to claim that they are generating revenue and balancing the budget, but it's at the expense of taxpayers, families and all drivers in British Columbia. ICBC — an 11.2 percent increase in insurance rates in 2012; in November 2013, last year, 4.9 percent, despite ICBC returning the amount of $368 million to the government.

There's also an additional proposed 6.6 percent that ICBC said they also need to continue to raise, so we'll wait to hear what numbers are confirmed for that. But we've seen within the last two years a 16.1 percent increase in ICBC, and this is despite ICBC returning hundreds of millions of dollars to the government.

In this budget we're seeing families having to pay for increased hydro rates, increased medical service premiums, basic ICBC. Also, ferry fares are rising. Families will pay $32 more for a round trip over the next two years. This is the story, the refrain, that we seem to be seeing as a consistent pattern, where families are paying more and getting less. Paying more for ferry fares and services being cut — that's also a very shortsighted view in terms of B.C. Ferries.

In addition to these hidden tax increases, we're seeing continued increases with tuition, which is being borne by young people and people wanting to return to school to upgrade their skills.

[1725]

Certainly, we see continuing increases in terms of costs, and this budget in particular accelerates that. The amount is quite alarming. It's significant. It makes a big impact and puts a big burden on families.

It's not just families that will have to dig deeper in their pockets. I also have, in Vancouver-Kensington, many small businesses in my area, and I've talked to many of them. While the government claims to be on the side of small business, these increases are being borne and exerting great pressure on the small businesses in my area.

I was walking down the street — I do a lot of my shopping in the area — and striking up conversations with shop owners. They tell me that the increase in fees, particularly around hydro, is an additional item where they have to pay more, and it will just put more pressure on them. So these impacts are being felt far and wide. B.C. families, small businesses, individuals pay more for less.

In addition, we're seeing that B.C. citizens are facing kind of an onslaught of rising fees to compensate for the
[ Page 1418 ]
Liberal government's fiscal mismanagement, and I just wanted to say a few words about that.

We hear that the Liberals are really a great example of managing the economy — managing different aspects of the economy, managing finances. I think the facts bear that out and show a different reality. When we talk about why we are seeing these fee increases right across the board, it's to compensate and make up a shortfall for a number of very glaring and stark and concerning areas of fiscal mismanagement.

The previous speaker from across the way was talking about some of the important capital investments, which are very important, and infrastructure development, certainly. But I think what we've seen, really as a characteristic of the government, is a mismanagement of these projects and pretty much a pattern of these projects running over budget and exceeding budgets and incurring quite a bit of debt, more than anticipated.

Some of the examples of the mismanagement and waste. We heard the member mention the northwest transmission line which went in. Of course, any infrastructure development is positive and brings positive outcomes. I think the disappointing aspect of that is that it ran over budget by 82 percent, over $300 million over budget. I see the member raising his hands.

Also, the convention centre, over budget $341 million for a total cost of $836 million; B.C. Place — the cost escalated by $414 million; the Port Mann highway, $1.8 billion cost overrun; South Fraser Perimeter Road; and a number of other projects. These are quite concerning not only in terms of capital infrastructure and development but also with respect to mismanagement of information technology, the implementation of new systems.

We've seen a real dropping the ball and, really, a failure of the government to implement, for example, BCeSIS. This was implemented under Minister of Education Christy Clark, a computer information system for tracking students in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system that has cost $97 million and doesn't work. Now the government has to scrap that system and replace it.

[1730]

As well, problems with the Maximus health care IT management. That's another contract that started in 2005. We've seen a 40 percent increase in cost. As well, there was also the problem with the tracking system under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

It's a pattern. When you look at all these examples, and you add it up one by one, it's a staggering amount of mismanagement of capital projects, different initiatives, to the staggering amount of $3.5 billion. With this budget we see increased costs to families as a result of mismanagement, really. I think that that is also a key issue. As well, besides mismanagement and waste, we see in terms of this budget not only paying more, but getting less — just to continue with that theme.

We can see it in terms of disappointing cuts in the health care system. I want to just mention in particular, as shortsighted, an area that was cut last year. This is the Art Studios, which is in Vancouver-Kensington. It's a community-based mental health program that provides support for individuals who've been in institutionalized care and want to transition back into the community.

It's actually an internationally renowned centre providing world-class care. It's been recognized. Very cost-effective and very valuable and meaningful for participants, it plays a valuable role in my community. That was cut, as a very shortsighted measure, when the government was also looking for cuts.

In the budget, disappointingly, we see a lack of a vision or a plan to deal with mental health, number one, and also the neglect of the provision of mental health in communities, and also now a gap, certainly, for these folks in the Art Studios. When they have to close the doors for good, this is going to place more of a burden on the health care sector.

As well, I recently attended an excellent event at one of my local high schools. The John Oliver high school hosted a Journey into the Trades symposium, sponsored by the Vancouver school board and joined by a number of local high schools. They had students, teachers, principals there. It was a job trade fair, so a number of different companies had come in, really, to encourage students to consider embarking on a career path in a trade.

A number of the high schools have excellent programs — the ACE IT programs — and very dedicated instructors to offer students that option to get involved, to look at the possibility of a career in the trades. There's good integration and support from a number of different industries for that.

One story was conveyed to me by one of the instructors at the Tupper program, which is also an excellent program for bringing in youth who maybe don't quite conform to an academic setting where you come in and sit down and follow the study guide. They have different learning styles. He was able to take a lot of these young people into his program and focus them to be successful.

I said: "Obviously, your program is very successful. You're able to get good participation. There's a wait-list for people who want to go in. They go into good jobs, good-paying jobs, and we heard from a number of graduates." He said to me: "Mable, can you help me buy some lumber?" That was his request, because he was just very practical, looking for goods and lumber to use right in the classroom to help his students.

[1735]

That's kind of just a good example that I saw on the ground in terms of the need and support that teachers have in the programs around encouraging youth to get into the trades.

We've heard this regularly from industry, from municipalities and mayors. I'm on the Finance Committee. I travel to many communities. There's a very consistent
[ Page 1419 ]
theme that there's a need for more skilled workers.

This is another area where I think the budget has really missed the opportunity. It's quite surprising, quite shocking, that again we do not see an investment in the real shortage of spaces and support to not only have more youth being able to access programs but to bring up their completion rates. The completion rate now is 33 percent. That's two-thirds of people who go into these programs and aren't coming out with their degree. So that's one area.

Additionally, there's also the need to invest in more apprenticeship spaces, so when people come out of the programs, they are able to transition and work in different industries. There's a need for support to establish more apprenticeship spots. There's a real shortfall in that. That is, again, a disappointment and a shortsighted measure by this government in terms of addressing, really, the crisis and the need.

Accompanying — and it has been referred to by previous speakers — is you have to wonder at the lack of commitment, why the rhetoric doesn't match the funding and why we don't see the investment going into skills training and apprenticeship training. Is that because we're seeing…?

Also, we're seeing, really, an unprecedented rise in the number of temporary foreign workers in our province. It's pretty shocking. It's over 50,000 people now in B.C. The challenge is that the temporary foreign worker program is an employer-driven program. It's also open to…. Besides the lack of opportunity for people in B.C. to get skills and access those jobs, it's also a problem that people coming into the temporary foreign worker program are very vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and discrimination.

Part of the problem in British Columbia, and also the lack of commitment and action by the B.C. government, is that there are no services for these temporary foreign workers. They often come in with English as a second language. Because of the structure of the program, they're held hostage by their employer. They're scared to register complaints or come forward, because if they do, their employer holds their work permit and can send them back.

Indeed, we hear now that it's difficult for these workers to voice up, to stand up. You can imagine. They're here, they want to work to send money back to their families, and a lot of them want to immigrate to Canada. One of the limitations is that of 50,000 temporary foreign workers, under the provincial nominee program there are only about 5,000 — and that number is dropping — that are eligible to apply, that have a route to citizenship every year in British Columbia.

It's a 10-to-1 ratio, and employers — not all of them, but some of them — use that as a bargaining chip. We've seen these stories come out. Dawson Creek — this has emerged; it has come out into the media. I was up in Fernie with workers at Tim Hortons. It took a lot of courage and community support and also support of the Steelworkers union there to say enough is enough. They wouldn't tolerate being threatened by their employer, intimidated, exploited, called in the middle of the night, working long hours.

[1740]

The story is that they worked overtime hours. The hours of overtime they worked were included on their log, but when the employer cut the cheque, he drove them to the bank and said: "You have to pay me back the time and a half because that's a program here in Canada, here in B.C. That's a program to support small businesses."

It took a lot of courage for those workers to stand up. That's also a real lack, and we're allowing that to happen, that exploitation.

There's a real need, on the one hand of the skills shortage, to ensure that there's investment and that people in B.C. have the opportunity to get those skills, but also on the other hand, as well, to ensure that there are regulations, enforcement and that employers are not allowed to continue to exploit workers, even if they're from other countries. They're not even second-class citizens, because they also don't have a pathway to citizenship. So it's a real distortion.

I also encourage the members, if you travel across the province or even in your own constituencies…. Next time you get a drink or have something to eat at a fast-food franchise or get some gas or coffee or stay at a hotel, strike up a conversation and find out where the workers come from. I think you'll be surprised to hear that many of them — with more and more coming in as well — are temporary foreign workers. That's an area that needs focus and that is neglected and overlooked in the budget.

As well, we have a real lack of focus and recognition of the challenges and difficulties that children in poverty and single parents in poverty face in our province. We have the unfortunate record of having the highest levels of child poverty, the highest levels of families in poverty, the highest gap of income inequality. Yet the budget fails to recognize that. It fails to bring in measures to address that.

My worry and fear is that we're just going to see that gap continuing to widen, and we're going to see B.C. continue to be at the bottom of those lists in Canada — continuing for years to come, for the next three years.

I am concerned that I did not hear a priority put on First Nations, aboriginal people, indigenous people in our province. I think this is also an area that needs serious attention and that needs a commitment to reconciliation, recognizing sovereignty and really taking seriously the issue of treaty negotiations. There are a whole number of different ratifications, in terms of the benefits for doing that. I was disappointed not to see a commitment in the budget. This is also an area that the government needs to improve.
[ Page 1420 ]

As well, in terms of First Nations indigenous communities, an emphasis on increasing the rate of high school graduation is imperative. This is also one of the areas that is going to transition people to have more opportunities to be successful and also to break those cycles.

We need to see a commitment and resources put towards the recommendations in the Missing Womens Inquiry. This is falling short on the commission report and also support for the excellent campaign being spearheaded by the aboriginal friendship centre society for the moosehide campaign. So a number of different areas, important but neglected.

Also, on the issue of affordability, I think certainly a shortfall around child care. The issue still around affordability, a lack of spaces. Also, the provision of quality child care continues to be a concern.

We have really seen a lack of mention on dealing with climate change, recognizing it or taking steps, so we're really moving in the wrong direction around climate change. We're seeing cuts in the innovative clean energy fund, cut by 54 percent, and also the end of the LiveSmart B.C. program, as well as lack of discussion in terms of regulating greenhouse gas emissions connected to liquefied natural gas.

[1745]

I want to touch on, as well, and really highlight part of the structural weakness of the budget in terms of how, on the one hand, it's characterized as putting all our economic eggs in one LNG basket. Certainly, a lot of potential. I think our Finance critic laid it out very clearly in terms of the need for a clear and honest and open discussion with British Columbians.

The government has missed the targets in terms of implementing a regulatory tax framework. I'm very concerned that it's now looking to be at least a year behind schedule, missing the targets in terms of the first plant in 2015 — so a concern there, and really, at the expense….

We need to talk about the strength of B.C.'s diversified economy and really also put attention there. I know my colleagues have talked about the need to invest in forest health and also to invest in other areas of our economy that have been neglected.

Mining — the permitting time is increased. The need for investment in more courses. Agricultural tourism. The cancelling of the ferry routes is shortsighted. The tech sector needs…. Certainly, these are areas that have more potential to be developed and deliver not only jobs but prosperity and opportunity for British Columbians.

We have, with this budget…. It's failed to deliver jobs. It's made life more unaffordable for B.C. families. We could talk a lot about the shortcoming in jobs, the greatest loss in private sector jobs.

We've seen that this government has a record of fiscal mismanagement, and we are now going into not only the highest level of debt but the fastest-increasing levels of debt. This budget does not address those issues. It puts more burden on families. It does not provide opportunities for British Columbians. It doesn't support and take our economy in the direction it needs to go. So I'll be voting against the budget.

Hon. T. Stone: Indeed, it does give me a great deal of pleasure to stand in the House today in full support of the government's budget.

I've got to be honest, though. Listening to the members opposite, one can't help but be made to feel like we're in some Third World country. "This is bad." "This is horrible." "There's not enough of this." "There's not enough of that." "This is going sideways." "This isn't good." "This is bad."

I think British Columbians are tired of that message from the opposition. I think they're tired of "the glass is half-empty." I think they're tired of the suggestion that everything that we do in this province is wrong and that, in some sense, British Columbia is not on the right track.

We saw in the last election, I think, British Columbians rise and say: "You know what? We're going to stand with the politicians. We're going to stand with the people that are about optimism and that are about hope, that are about plans, that are about results." I think the verdict on that was very clear in the last election.

I want to take a brief moment at the outset of my comments here today to again thank the people of Kamloops–South Thompson for the honour of representing them here in the Legislature. It truly is an incredible honour, and certainly, being a minister is another level of responsibility and an honour unto itself as well. But none of that matters if you don't have the confidence of the people back home. I am so proud, so very, very proud, to be here representing the hard-working people of Kamloops.

[1750]

I also want to pay tribute to a number of women in my life that are a large part of why I'm able to do what I'm able to do. First, my constituency assistant, Maryanne Bower, and my part-time assistant, Pat Nagy, do just a phenomenal job representing me back in Kamloops. As a minister, I travel a lot. Our time in the constituency is limited at the best of times, so having the right people on the home front acting as the face and often the voice of the constituency is so critically important.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge my wife, Chantelle, and my three little girls, Hannah, Sydney and Caitlin. Having a young family, this is a tough life. It's one Chantelle and I entered very willingly, with eyes wide open, but there are very significant sacrifices that I know all members of this chamber make, and particularly those with young children. I am blessed to have in Chantelle a woman who is just a tremendous foundation for both of us, and I love her and my daughters very deeply.

I'll start off my comments in terms of the budget by saying that I think British Columbians very clearly made
[ Page 1421 ]
a choice in the last election. That choice was to support the very simple objective that we laid in front of them in the campaign, and that was to do everything in our power to build a strong economy for a secure tomorrow.

Underpinning this commitment was to do everything that we can to keep B.C.'s fiscal house in order and to continue to create jobs. It's what each and every one of us on this side of the House stood for in this last election. I'm so very proud that we were able to table our second consecutive balanced budget. It is very interesting, as the Government House Leader has mentioned a few times, that one year ago the members opposite and other critics were very clear in not believing our numbers, were very clear in suggesting there was little hope, if any, that the budget would truly be balanced at the end of the day.

It's interesting that in the commentary since introducing the budget yesterday, there are now no suggestions that the numbers aren't true. The balance is clearly there, and I'm very, very proud of that. The $175 million surplus for the current fiscal year, to be followed by $841 million of surpluses over the next three years, is truly something that all British Columbians need to be proud of.

Real GDP growth is forecasted at 2 percent for 2014. Again, this is extremely prudent, relative to the Economic Forecast Council. And while it may not matter much to the members of the opposition, I think many British Columbians actually do understand, and understand deeply, how important it is that this province has achieved a triple-A credit rating and what that means for borrowing costs, what that means for freeing up resources that are available for critical programs, particularly health care and education.

The low debt-to-GDP ratio that we have in this province, at 18.5 percent — particularly when you compare that with other jurisdictions, Ontario being over double that, Canada being almost double that, the United States being considerably higher than that, and many nations around the world being at or beyond 100 percent — is what enables this province, this government, to continue to move forward with a robust taxpayer-supported capital spending program on schools, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. In fact, we're planning on continuing to invest over $11 billion over the next three years on this critical infrastructure.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

As the members on this side of the House certainly understand, balanced budgets are only the first step in making sure that you're on the path to reducing debt and eventually eliminating the debt. I think that eliminating the debt — at least, giving your best effort to eliminate the debt — is the greatest legacy that each and every one of us in this chamber could leave for our kids and our grandkids. I think of my three little girls, Hannah, Sydney and Caitlin, and I think of just how proud I will be to look back and know that I played a small part in helping this province eliminate its debt.

[1755]

The fiscal discipline enables us to make smart, targeted investments in key program areas that really matter to British Columbians — health care, education, skills training, families and additional supports for people that need that additional support. Again, I think this is where the members of the opposition fundamentally do not understand how this works. It's from the healthy economy that the private sector is able to create jobs.

I'm very proud of the targeted investments that we're able to make in this particular budget that are going to have a direct impact on families, particularly those that need additional support. The $146 million for the B.C. early childhood tax benefit….

Interjection.

Hon. T. Stone: Again, the member from Revelstoke may not want to hear all the great news that this budget provides for British Columbia, but I know that the members on the government side certainly do.

There are 180,000 families, and I think there are even a few families in Revelstoke, that may benefit as well. Children under six — by providing up to $55 per child per month. Or how about the $243 million over three years for Community Living B.C.? How about the $15 million for the Ministry of Children and Family Development for children and youth with special needs?

How about the fact that we're increasing the threshold for first-time homebuyers from $425,000 to $475,000, which is going to enable British Columbians all over this province to get into the market and to save up to $7,500 when buying their first home.

On the personal income tax front — again, something that the opposition pays no attention to whatsoever. It's a very different mindset, a very different philosophy. We have the lowest provincial personal income taxes in Canada for individuals earning up to $120,000 per year.

We're balancing the budget for the second year in a row. We have the lowest personal income taxes in the country. We have the best health care outcomes and the most efficient health care system in this country. Again, the opposition can find nothing but dark clouds and negativity in where British Columbia is at.

Let's talk about jobs. Thousands of jobs have been created in all corners of this province. The difference between the government and the opposition in the last election was that we actually had a jobs plan. We actually put the effort into putting a plan together with specific targets across a number of different sectors.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.
[ Page 1422 ]

Hon. T. Stone: We are committed to that plan, we're executing on that plan unrelentingly, and this is creating jobs across the province.

I invite the members to go to Prince George, where the unemployment rate is in the low 4 percent. Come to Kamloops, where the unemployment rate is in the 4½ percent range. There are communities all over this province where the unemployment rate is at record lows. British Columbians, certainly those in Kamloops, those in Prince George, those in other parts of the province know that the unemployment rate was in the double digits when the NDP was in opposition last.

Creating jobs is about saying yes to the resource sector. It's about saying yes to removing barriers to investment. It's about saying yes to certainty for investment. It's about saying yes to prudent fiscal management. It's about supporting the environment within which jobs are created. This is why in British Columbia we are creating jobs all over the province.

I just want to take a few moments to talk about transportation, as the Transportation Minister. Transportation is about the efficient movement of people and goods, but it's also a key economic enabler. It's all about international trade. It's about opening up markets overseas, especially in Asia. It's about creating jobs here in British Columbia.

A key critical success factor to continuing to diversify international markets for B.C. goods today rests in continuing to invest in what is a world-class infrastructure and transportation network. In fact, in part because of the strategic investments that we've made in our infrastructure in this province, we have been very successful at diversifying our international trade.

Today almost 40 percent of our trade goes to Asia. It was not that long ago when that was a very small number in the single digits.

[1800]

Transportation connects communities all across the province. It touches British Columbians in every corner of the province. You know, $530 million per day is the number that represents the value of goods movement every single day in British Columbia.

The transportation sector in B.C. employs over 130,000 people. There are 47,800 kilometres of highway in our province, 2,800 bridges, 19 border crossings. 54 coastal and inland ferry routes, three class 1 railways, 130 airports and 17 major seaports. And transit carries 760,000 passengers per day.

Now, our government has delivered over $17 billion in highway and transit projects since 2001. Since 2005, in part as a result of these investments, there has been a 28 percent reduction in the number of serious crashes. There's been a dramatic reduction in congestion and improved travel times, as well as a reduction in emissions.

This year our ministry will deliver over 350 projects throughout British Columbia, valued at over $1 billion. In fact, we will be investing $3.3 billion over the next three years in transportation infrastructure across this province.

I want to talk about one facet of my mandate that I think represents a tremendous and continued opportunity for all British Columbians, and that is the Pacific Gateway strategy. This strategy represents an unprecedented cooperation between the public sector and the private sector.

It involves the governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta as well as the federal government. It involves a wide variety of private sector partners as well, including CN, CP, YVR, Port Metro Van, Prince Rupert Port Authority and others.

What really makes this consortium so unique is that the public sector and the private sector partners have all come together and are all sitting around the same table — which, by the way is chaired by British Columbia — and we're making coordinated and integrated investments in our transportation infrastructure. Now, this doesn't happen in most other parts of the world.

Phase 1 of this program, which was initiated seven years ago, represented a combined investment total of $22 billion of public and private sector investment to expand port, rail, road and airport infrastructure. So $22 billion, the vast majority of those dollars representing private sector dollars.

Again, the value is the integration of the investment — the fact that the public sector and the private sector are cooperating together and the fact that private sector partners are cooperating with one another. There's the fact that CN and CP, who are highly competitive, through this arrangement have entered into a variety of track-sharing arrangements, as one example, whereby they both gain efficiencies for the betterment of goods movement.

The best part of the Pacific Gateway strategy is that we're just getting started. Phase 2, which I was proud to launch only a number of months ago, already has a combined total of public-private sector investments of over $25 billion of further investment in transportation infrastructure.

Now, the types of projects we're talking about — both represented through phase 1, as well as phase 2 — are projects like the Roberts Bank rail corridor and the Deltaport terminal, road and rail improvement project, a project to which British Columbia committed $50 million and a project which will create 600 to 800 long-term jobs.

There has been tremendous investment on both the north and south shore trade areas of Burrard Inlet. I'm very proud of our commitments to northern British Columbia on the transportation front over the next…. In fact, we're going to be investing $300 million in transportation improvements in the north for trade and job creation in mining, forestry and LNG; $150 million over the next three years on rural side roads; $90 million for
[ Page 1423 ]
roads related to the mountain pine beetle program; and $60 million for the oil and gas rural roads.

In the context of infrastructure here, I was very proud to be up in Prince George a month or so ago and was able to follow through on a commitment we made to reclassify Highway 16 as a class A winter maintenance highway in British Columbia, which is going to result in a heightened degree of snow removal and sand and salt application.

This is because there has been a steady increase in industrial activity through the Highway 16 corridor. There will continue to be a steady increase of industrial activity through that corridor with all of the opportunities in mining and with the LNG opportunities in front of us and other opportunities.

[1805]

Other projects in the north. The road-rail utility corridor in Prince Rupert represents a $90 million investment, of which British Columbia contributed $15 million. The other partners are CN Rail, the federal government and the Port of Prince Rupert. It's hugely impactful to the expansion of the port operations in Prince Rupert so that more volume of product, more volume of our resources, can go in and out of that port.

Other investments have included the Sea to Sky Highway; the William R. Bennett Bridge in Kelowna; and the South Fraser Perimeter Road, which I was so excited to open officially just before Christmas. I think it was literally a few days before Christmas. Again, we hear nothing but negative, negative, negative from the people in the opposition.

I encourage you to get out and talk to folks that have sat in their vehicles for hours on end trying to get from Delta to Highway 1 or trying to get from Delta and Surrey into Vancouver. The SFPR is saving commuters a tremendous amount of time.

It might not matter to the opposition members, but this time is valuable for people to spend with their families. This is less time sitting in idling cars. This is less emissions. This is faster time to market for the trucking industry. This is getting trucks off of rural side roads, particularly in Delta. That was a smart, smart investment, and it was delivered on time and on budget.

Let's talk about the Port Mann and related infrastructure, another project which the opposition has pooh-poohed. The Port Mann and Trans-Canada project, which has created thousands of jobs — thousands of construction jobs, thousands of long-term jobs — has cut the commute time by one hour for those folks coming in from Langley and Surrey into downtown Vancouver.

For the first time in 25 years it has provided for transit over the Port Mann Bridge, and 50,000 people are using that transit every single month. But no, no, the opposition: "No, this is a project that we shouldn't have proceeded with in this province. This is a project that we shouldn't have done in British Columbia." Unbelievable.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. T. Stone: How about the Cariboo connector, which members opposite have opposed as well? Through phase 1 and phase 2 we are going to see $420 million invested in widening that highway and adding four-lane sections. That's all about the safe movement of people and goods up the important corridor from Cache Creek to Prince George.

The member from Revelstoke was mentioning the Trans-Canada Highway. By the time we're done our latest commitment of $650 million for the Trans-Canada improvements, we'll be well over $1 billion on the Trans-Canada in the last ten years.

Of course, the Canada Line — opposed, on the other side of the floor. The Canada Line was opposed. The Evergreen project — opposed by those on the other side of the floor. I know that on the government side there is a tremendous amount of suspense. What will the opposition do with the George Massey project? I would venture to guess it will probably be: "We shouldn't do it. We can't do it. We won't do it." But you know what? We actually get things done on this side of the floor on behalf of British Columbians.

The result from these projects — in addition to getting goods to market on time, in addition to reducing commute times for people, in addition to reducing emissions, in addition to creating jobs — is that we are seeing steady increases in our natural resource exports, record value of lumber shipments to China. We've seen dramatic growth at the Port of Vancouver. We've seen dramatic growth at the Port of Prince Rupert.

I encourage members of the opposition to take some time out of their schedule and go and visit these places and see the buzz of activity that's happening because of the investments this side of the House has made over the last 12 years.

I'm on a roll here. There's so much good stuff happening in transportation.

How about the Ports Property Tax Act? Actually, in this budget we've removed the sunset clause. This initiative caps municipal taxes on port terminal lands, creating stability. It has attracted nearly $1 billion in private sector investment in our ports since we took this action.

[1810]

How about the aviation fuel tax, which we eliminated in 2012? Since we did that, YVR has entered into agreements with 20 airlines for new service. YVR estimates that the addition of one international daily flight adds over 180 jobs to the Lower Mainland economy.

Since we eliminated the aviation fuel tax, capacity for carriers from China has increased 35 percent. One good example, a recent example: China Eastern Airlines doubled its Shanghai to YVR route, and that, in and of
[ Page 1424 ]
itself, has created 417 direct jobs.

Looking ahead, I'm very excited. In our throne speech and in the budget we've talked about the creation of a new ten-year multimodal transportation plan. In fact, the last transportation plan was called Opening up B.C., and it was developed and published in 2003. Ten years later we have delivered on most of the plan's objectives, so it's time for a new plan.

This new plan is going to ensure that we are better aligned with today's transportation priorities and opportunities. It's going to integrate all of our investment priorities, support the development of rural B.C., support LNG development and growing industrial development across British Columbia. And it's going to help us continue to grow the Pacific Gateway, connecting our trading partners in Asia with British Columbia and the rest of Canada. The plan will indeed be a road map to our future, guiding our transportation investment plan for the next decade.

In wrapping up here, I think what we've accomplished with this budget is testament to the hard work of British Columbians. I think it's testament to the outstanding service provided by B.C.'s public sector workforce. I think it's testament to the ingenuity and spirit of B.C.'s private sector and, indeed, to the unwavering optimism and the dedication of our Premier and this government to delivering on our commitments to create jobs, to get to yes to economic development and to make strategic investments to grow a strong economy for a secure tomorrow.

We have an abundance of resources in this province, whether it's lumber, coal, natural gas or a whole wide variety of other resources. We are darn good at extracting these resources and getting them to market. Nobody does it better than British Columbia. We are world-class. We have developed world-class best practices at extracting resources and doing so in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.

But for to us truly seize the opportunity, for us to truly create the jobs that are there for us to create, it means being supportive of economic development. It means embracing opportunity. It means being optimistic. And yes, it means getting to yes.

I am so very proud to support this balanced budget — a second consecutive balanced budget, the second of many to come — as the Minister of Transportation, as the MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson but, most importantly, as the dad to my three little girls, whose futures have been made a little bit brighter due to the continued prudence, discipline and the razor-sharp jobs focus that is embodied within this budget.

N. Macdonald: Again, thank you for the opportunity. In the throne speech reply last week I talked about education, mainly. The budget response, I think, leads us into the estimates process, where my responsibility is going to be to scrutinize the forestry budget.

If one looks at what the Finance critic laid out, I think we have seen that there is clearly a failure of the government in terms of jobs. That's something that is within these documents themselves. The jobs plan that was highly touted simply has not worked in any way compared to the rhetoric that was associated with it. So you have a failure of the jobs plan, despite promises on providing a tax and royalty regime for LNG. The B.C. Liberals are not ready with that.

You also had, and continue to have, these over-the-top claims by the Premier on revenue and debt, and these are claims that simply aren't grounded in any type of fact. Debt, when this budget cycle is over after the three years, is going to be at $68 billion. Besides that, you have a further $100 billion of financial obligations. These are things from P3s, and so on.

[1815]

To understand how ludicrous it is to talk about "debt-free," when the B.C. Liberals came into power, the debt was at about $33 billion. Now, if you combine financial obligations and debt, you are up to $168 billion. That's the direction we are going. I think a more intelligent debate would be around whether the debt we take on makes sense or not. I would argue that in some cases, it makes a lot of sense.

When I go through Kelowna and I cross the bridge, I think the money that was borrowed to do that work, or the financial obligation that was taken on, makes a lot of sense. It's the same with some of the investments that have been made in Kicking Horse — some significant improvements. That would be a more intelligent debate rather than a sticker on a bus that says something that is so removed from reality that it becomes ludicrous.

The claim of balance, again…. Well, the minister said there have been two balanced budgets. There are two assertions that they're going to be balanced. They have not been balanced yet. So we wait until the books actually close, and then we see.

Once the minister has been here for a while, you will get used to the idea of how often a claim has been made by the B.C. Liberal government and how often it's wildly off once the books are actually closed. So we'll see in the summer.

I want to talk about an area that really hasn't been focused on very much, which is cuts to programs and the implications in the short term and the long term. What the B.C. Liberals did not lay out in any way accurately during the last election was where the cuts were going to come. In fact, there were all sorts of promises that were made that have not been funded. Again, it speaks to the honesty of the mandate that was received when you promise something, and then when the opportunity comes to actually pay for it, you don't.

The minister talked about the Trans-Canada Highway. Let's talk about that. The Trans-Canada has signs from Kamloops all the way to the Alberta border that say:
[ Page 1425 ]
"Trans-Canada Highway improvements: four-lane divided highway, Kamloops to the Alberta border." One would read that and think that, perhaps, it might happen.

In fact, there was also a speech by the Premier at the UBCM where she talked about doing that work.

Interjection.

N. Macdonald: Well, at the pace we are going, it's going to take 60 years, right? I think that by then you're going to have to put up another set of signs a couple more times. You have already put up two sets of signs saying it was going to happen — right? — prior to each election.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair hasn't put up any signs, but through the Chair, please.

N. Macdonald: So plenty of signs, but no sign of work. It's a significant investment that needs to be made. We cannot wait 60 years for the work to be done. That's the reality. It's not there in the budget. For three years out, the money is not there.

One can promise, just as one says that it's going to be debt-free, but at some point there has to be something that you can point to that is real, and it's not there.

Interior Health. There is more money going into health care. It's true. But we know that over the next three years in my health authority, as well as all of the health authorities, that there are significant cuts in services — significant cuts. We know the cost pressures that are there.

We have cuts to school literacy, preschool literacy, that make no sense at all — a tiny investment. It used to be something that was talked about by this government as a goal, and it has been abandoned.

We have things that one would presume a government would invest in, such as river management. In Kimberley we have a flume that needs funding so that Mark Creek can be managed. In Golden we have the Kicking Horse that needs to be managed. We have Windermere, Fairmont. For all of these it would make sense to invest rather than have to deal with the inevitable problems that will come if they are not dealt with.

We have land use planning that should be taking place in the Columbia Valley, a system that should be supported with just a small amount of money in Golden. It would make complete sense. Those are investments that make sense.

This is a situation that I think will surprise people, and I hope the Minister of Justice listens to this carefully. We also have road rescue. People presume, I think, when they go along the Trans-Canada…. It is a particularly dangerous road. There are lots of accidents, and people volunteer to go and rescue those people that are trapped in cars. We have units in Field, units in Golden, units in Revelstoke — volunteers who train to do this work and who will go and do it. They will even raise money for a rescue truck.

[1820]

Sometimes there are situations where there simply is not the time to raise the money, so something happens. In Golden there was a problem, and we struggled to get money. We finally had to use lottery money.

Right now in Revelstoke we have a truck that was hit doing a rescue. We have a group that has a temporary truck. They need a new truck. They need that truck immediately. They don't have the time to fundraise for $400,000 or $500,000 for the truck. This is a unit that does 80 to 100 rescues on the highway a year — 80 to 100 rescues. The last rescue, when I spoke to them, was taking a family out of a car that was trapped against a cliff. That's what they're doing. They are going, and they are pulling people out of cars.

The presumption is that the province looks after people. These aren't Revelstoke people; 90 percent of the people that are being dealt with are from out of town. They're not Revelstoke people, and 50 percent involve transport trucks. When you're talking about tough choices, and you say, "Well, we can't pay for that," most people would say: "That's kind of ridiculous. Find a way to pay for that."

What I would say to the Justice Minister is: find a way to pay for that. We will volunteer and do the work, but put a truck so that families or people that are injured on that road can get rescued. These are the sorts of things that are the bare minimum.

I mean, there are all sorts of other things that are being lost, but in terms of thinking big, what about finishing some of the infrastructure that has been neglected in the province? We still have areas that don't have natural gas. A lot of talk about sending it to China. The Columbia Valley, Golden — the cost of living there and running a business is incredibly high because we don't have natural gas. That infrastructure that the Social Credit and NDP and other governments put in place in many parts of the province was never completed there. That would be an interesting part of any jobs plan.

Where I want to spend most of my time is talking really specifically about the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. This budget again raids the dirt ministries and leaves the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations with some really profound challenges that are unfunded. The areas of concern that I think need to be addressed, which are not, include the following.

When I say this, I say it knowing that there is a cost to all of these things, and when I get into the estimates process, we'll be pointing out areas that need more resources. I understand that there are investments, but we're talking about $44 billion in a budget, and very often the types of investments we're talking about are relatively small. I know that all these small figures can add up to a fairly significant figure.

It's not only me who thinks this is a good idea. It was a group of seven MLAs who travelled and spent $300,000
[ Page 1426 ]
of taxpayers' money to learn about the issue. We travelled all over the province, and we agreed, collectively — in an example of a process that, to a certain degree, worked — that we needed to make investments in a few strategic areas in forestry. If we don't, we lose out. We lose out profoundly.

There are many different types of deficits. One of the deficits can be a deficit that you impose on a land base when you don't look after it. What I want to talk about are some things that the government, if it's responsible, needs to think about.

First, the ministry's internal staffing crisis and loss of corporate memory. Both of these are exacerbated by a failure to implement the ministry's own staffing succession plans. The ministry has some serious succession issues that if they don't get their head around, we will lose. Nobody, likely, in this Legislature is even going to notice.

You have things like the tree genetics personnel with expertise. They're going to retire. When they retire, what do you have to retain 30 years of investment in expertise? You have that across the ministry. I suspect that in many of the ministries, that's the same case. What are the succession plans?

[1825]

Where's the planning to deal with that? It is pretty dull stuff, but incredibly important stuff — incredibly important stuff, and it's not there. You have declining levels of resources for the ministry's statutory obligations for forest management. It's difficult for them to do the job they are legally supposed to be doing. That's a conscious decision in some of these budgetary decisions that are being made.

You have greatly reduced emphasis on and inadequate laws for stewardship.

You have pending mill closures facing some interior forest-dependent communities resulting from unsustainable rates of logging, and you're not in there supporting them.

You have community safety as it relates, I mentioned, to streams and to diking and things like that, but also to fire protection around towns and cities, to clean and safe drinking water, and to safe employment, by the way, in local sawmills. All of that should be something that the government pays attention to.

You have increasing economic dependency on foreign log markets and on log exports instead of creating an open and honest B.C. log market and on rejuvenating primary, secondary and value-added manufacturing industries on the coast in particular.

You have an outrageous amount of wood waste throughout the province in light of what the government acknowledges is a fibre shortage in some areas of the interior of British Columbia.

You have unacceptably large amounts of productive forest land, also known as NSR, left devoid of forest cover because the government fails to connect the dots between planting trees for future timber supply and the positive effect that tree planting has on mitigating the present timber shortfalls for communities worst affected by the mountain pine beetle.

You are turning a blind eye to corporate concentration so that you have monopoly control of timber supply.

As well, you have, of course, the many mill closures throughout the province with the resulting negative impact all three of these things have on timber pricing, on the ability of contractors to negotiate rates of remuneration and on community health, both economic and social.

You have a failure to address the First Nations interests in securing replaceable forest licences and access to timber.

You have the findings and recommendations of two recent audits by the Auditor General on forest management and biodiversity.

You have the potentially catastrophic economic damage posed by invasive zebra and quagga mussels, if they were to become established in the province.

You have the systemic problem of centrally controlled forest governance and a failed tenure system in many ways.

You have British Columbia's emerging reputation as an international laggard in sustainable forest management.

Now, all of those could be seen as doom and gloom and "you're only focusing on the problems," but isn't that what we're supposed to be doing — focusing on fixing problems? With all of those things, you can either try to fix them or you can have this Pollyanna-ish speech which says that everything is fantastic and nothing has to be done. But it doesn't change the reality. There are serious issues that a government, in an intelligent and focused way, has to solve, and they're not being done. Even one of those things….

I know that the Finance Committee probably was spoken to by the people talking about invasive species continually. But with even one of these things, like the zebra mussel…. It's into Manitoba. Like, Manitoba has to, basically…. It's got one road from Ontario, but you're seeing zebra mussels in Manitoba. Once it's there, can you imagine the cost, the complications of trying to deal with it?

With B.C., what do we have? I think we have one temporary portable unit that goes around and sprays in some areas and checks in some areas. I think we have one. It's a portable unit. So then you need to go, and you need to think about: is that adequate preparation for the zebra mussels coming in?

Think of the complications if you get it wrong, if you don't do the preventative work that needs to be done. I think you'll see that what we need from government is more than slogans and photo ops. It just doesn't actually get you where you need to be.

[1830]

What I feel should be in the budget — and, in fact, what the committee we were part of felt we should be
[ Page 1427 ]
seeing in a budget — is support for healthy public land. We should actually have reforestation at the pace the government actually promised five years ago.

So when the next speaker stands up and says, "Oh, look at all the money they want to spend," I want to remind you that if we're talking about reforestation, it is only what Gordon Campbell promised he would do — many throne speeches before, many budgets before — but never actually did. That's what we're actually talking about. It's just trying to keep some of the promises the B.C. Liberals make and then forget about when they're on to the next thing.

Let's talk about the most obvious of the forest health issues, which is basic silviculture, just replanting. The B.C. Liberals started a program called Forests for Tomorrow. It targets forest lands that are disturbed by natural agents such as insects, wildlife, disease and wind. And while the B.C. Liberals changed the law, back in 2002, that removed the legal responsibility for replanting in these areas, surely there's a moral obligation to take care of the land in a proper way. To be clear, the forest industry is not responsible for reforestation on these lands.

The stated goal was 50 million seedlings a year on NSR lands. That would take an investment of about $87 million a year in total, and it would take about four years to actually achieve that, right? It would mean that you would have to hire a number of contractors, obviously, and about 12 FTEs to support that work. Those workers would be mainly in rural communities. It means that you would have to increase the existing budget by about $53 million over those five years.

Now, it would take time to ramp up. Tree seedlings have to be ordered two years in advance. I think 20 million seedlings have been ordered for the upcoming season.

Obviously, there needs to be increased survey work to identify priority areas for replanting, but again, with this budget we do not see replanting as a priority. In fact, we simply don't see them even coming close to the need that is there. And it doesn't help to try to just say that the problem doesn't exist. There are probably two million hectares; the critic said one million. It's actually probably two million hectares of area that should have been planted and that's NSR. That sits out there.

Now, we used to have this argument with Pat Bell. Pat Bell used to give a figure of 300,000 and said that we were completely wrong. Of course, his definition of NSR was the land that had been surveyed. There was no money for surveying, so they weren't surveying it, right? So he used that as a way of trying to say that everything was okay. But it never was, and it isn't now.

When you vote for this budget as a government member, you are voting to continue the deficit in replanting that we have in this province. I think even those who don't pay close attention to forestry or don't know much about it probably think that over time that's going to really backfire on us. And it will.

I think the other thing that really spoke to the committee and that the committee was clear needed to be done and that the NDP had in the platform was the need to do proper inventory work. We need up-to-date resource inventories. We should be aiming for management unit re-inventory survey dates current within ten years, and they should be to the VRI standard, which is the vegetation resources inventory standard.

All units, over time, should be upgraded for any gross depletion — that's logging, wildlife, large-scale pest infestations, major roads. And that should be done every three to five years.

To do that work, we are so far behind that it would take between, I could say, three to five years. It could take as long as ten years to really get the inventory up to where it needs to be. That would mean that we would have to move the budget from about $7 million or $8 million, where it sits now, to approximately $15 million. That would be a wise investment. Not only do we need good inventory information on timber; we also need it on wildlife. We need it on soils. We need it for water. We need it for recreation. We need it for visuals.

[1835]

All of that requires some money. In this case, over five years, to get that information would take about $5 million. But I would say that that makes complete sense.

We are having a debate on wildlife. I know that a lot of people in Victoria and Vancouver talk about hunting the grizzly, and so on. But there was a press release that the Ministry of Forests put out talking about how good the information was. It completely distorts a study that they cite.

We don't have good information on moose. We don't have good information on the grizzly bear. We don't have good information on any of these things to make the sorts of decisions we're supposed to be making. Yet there's money to be wasted elsewhere.

Credible forest management is necessarily evidence-based, it's science-based, and it's grounded in the long-term sustainability. The B.C. Liberals also disbanded the forestry research branch. There is research that's done by universities, by consultants and the federal government, but there are compelling reasons for in-house capacity.

Starting with an investment of $6 million in the first year and moving up to $14 million within five years, we could regroup the natural resource research branch or create an independent science and technology division with emphasis on conservation framework, on climate change adaption, on soil conservation, on hydrology.

Remember that all of these costs that we are dealing with come out of a budget of $44 billion. They were promised by the B.C. Liberals in the past. They were supported by four government members as an idea.

You have to remember that the public lands are 94 percent of the land mass and are probably worth $1 trillion.
[ Page 1428 ]
At times it's almost like not putting oil in your car and saying that you saved money, or not putting a roof on a house and saying that you saved money. There are investments that protect an asset that we not only should be protecting but that we have an obligation to protect. It's completely sensible to do so.

We also are removing rural people from the decision-making process on the lands that surround our communities in rural British Columbia. Land use plans that are current and associated lower-level plans, such as sustainable resource management plans, are critical to getting the social licence for resource industries and for third-party certifications.

One of the things that industry really depends upon is that social licence. This is not the '80s. It is a lesson that this province learned in the '90s. You do not sell wood products without social licence. You simply don't. They depend heavily on a certification policy now that is seen as valid. But what certifiers will tell you is that part of the certification is that there are up-to-date land use plans. Our land use plans are not up to date. Our land use plans, for the most part, do not include First Nations participation, because many chose not to participate in the work that was done in the '90s.

That's a problem. It's an economic problem, something that a government that was on its game would actually deal with. A slogan is not going to fix it. You actually have to do good, hard work and make investments and deal with the problem that is inevitably going to crop up if you don't. Within five years — I estimate at a cost of about $6 million and with an addition of about 12 FTEs — you could do that work.

We also need to monitor and treat insects and disease where the integrity of forest values or ecosystem health is threatened. This is incredibly important work that could be properly done with an additional $4 million for monitoring and treatment lifted by $1 million. It's not being done. We know that with climate change, the number and intensity of infestations will only increase in B.C. forests. We need to understand those and get ahead of them. That just makes complete sense.

I also would suggest additional resources for an activity known as forest and range evaluation programs. This basically assesses the effectiveness of forest and range legislation in achieving stewardship activities, determines whether forest and range practices are achieving government objectives, and so on. A lift there of about $2 million over five years could achieve a great deal.

[1840]

Now, the Ministry of Environment has the mandate to develop policies that affect fish and wildlife habitat, but the ministry that I'm responsible for as critic has responsibility for implementing actions and activities that affect that habitat. The Forest Practices Board has repeatedly criticized the Forests Ministry for total absence of planning and management to the landscape level. Again, this can be a five-year plan with some really modest investments to get some really significant results.

So in total, we could do all of that work over a five-year period for $100 million. It would mean that we're actually looking after the land properly. It's something that seems to mean nothing to those that make the budget, but it's significant, and if this place worked slightly differently, I think most members here would actually agree that this is the direction we should go.

I know that when we sat together as a group and became informed on the area that I'm talking about, we agreed that investments needed to be made. I know in the past we've had ministers talking about the dirt ministries constantly being raided and losing the resources they need to do the job on the land properly. I would say as we go forward, as budgets are put together in the future, I hope at some point we're going to have an understanding that this is the way that we need to go.

As I say, the budget has, again, shortchanged the land — that's for sure — and in many ways shortchanged the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, I think, in ways that a sensible person would say are the wrong ways to go. I have come, over the eight years, to understand politics to the degree that so often it's just a photo op or wearing a hardhat. Substance gets lost, but that doesn't mean that the work of governance, the work that goes on here, needs to be totally absent of fact or absent of informed debate.

With that, I'm going to step aside. I see that the minister has been waiting to get his turn to run at it, and — who knows? — maybe we'll get some facts from him as well, or maybe we'll hear a repetition of what we hear so often from the Premier, which is decidedly removed from anything that's factual.

With that, thank you for the opportunity to talk on an issue I feel strongly about, and thanks again for the opportunity to represent the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Hon. D. McRae: I am pleased today to rise in this chamber and, as the members opposite will probably not be surprised, to stand here and support the budget that was introduced just yesterday.

But first, before I begin my words, I'd also like to acknowledge some of the very important people in my life. The members opposite have heard me speak of my daughter, Gracie, who is ten this year, and Chloe, who is four. Some of you may remember that in 2009 on a cold November night I had to leave this chamber to attend her birth, so she has seen my whole life in politics.

I know the member for Vancouver–Point Grey will have an experience with a new member coming to his family soon, and I wish you and your partner a most enjoyable experience in the child's birth. If you can get out of the Legislature for half an hour or 40 minutes to sneak over to attend, it's never a bad thing. It's a story you'll get
[ Page 1429 ]
for the rest of your life.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

I'd also like to acknowledge my amazing wife, Deanne. We've been married 19 years this year. She married a high school teacher and did not marry a politician, so she has seen our evolution of my career go forward, and she has been nothing but a rock by my side.

One of the things I think, as I talk about my family, is you'll see a theme that will emerge in my speech. It's a theme that talks about…. The decisions we make today will have impacts on our children and the generations after them, and it's important that the government of British Columbia, this government of British Columbia, makes choices that have strength and opportunities for our children going forward.

[1845]

Now, as well, I would also like to take time to thank some other important people. In my constituency office I have Dianne Lineker, who has been working with me since I was elected; my receptionist, Rosie Gerritsen; and also, I have a gentleman by the name of Don Taylor who works in my office one day a week and assists as well.

Lastly, my summer student, who has now retired. She has gone off to the University of Manitoba. Ella Rockar has been a great young asset to our office, and I wish her all the best in her studies. I know she'll be missed.

As members opposite know, I do get to represent probably the very best riding in British Columbia, the Comox Valley. I state that with distinct pleasure as I stand beside a member from Kamloops, who sometimes makes the false claim, but nonetheless a very nice community as well.

There are three great municipalities in the Comox Valley. We have the village of Cumberland, we have the town of Comox, and we have the city of Courtenay — and of course the regional district of the Comox Valley.

All of it is also represented by the K'ómoks First Nations, who I think are one of the most progressive First Nations communities in British Columbia. I look forward in the coming years to seeing them go forward in their treaty process. It would be a great honour if I can be in elected office when they are successful in negotiating a treaty, which is not just good for their community but good for our community and all communities in British Columbia.

As well, when I listen to the members opposite, they raise many concerns. I think sometimes it is fair. You are in opposition, and it is expected to raise concerns. It is not all doom and gloom. There are opportunities in communities large and small across this province. One of the things that I know is very interesting to the members opposite is post-secondary education.

Well, in our community we have North Island College. It represents an area roughly the size of a small European country. North Island College serves about 11,000 students. It has campuses in Port Alberni, Comox Valley, Campbell River and north Island. Jan Lindsay, the president, recently retired.

I know I've had the opportunity with the Minister of Advanced Education to tour their Trades Training Centre, one that we started in the last term of government and we finished. Now it is allowing students from the Comox Valley and beyond to get trades training in our community and, hopefully, give them the opportunity, if they so desire, to stay in our community.

One of the things that I've noticed is the opportunities are coming back. We are emerging from the recession, and whether it is in the forest sector or whether it is in residential construction, we want to make sure the community members have the opportunity to stay and raise their families in the great Comox Valley.

Furthermore, we also have a new resident of the new Comox Valley. You might have heard of this gentleman. His name is James Cameron. He was behind the movies Titanic and Avatar. He has recently bought from great farmers in the Comox Valley the Beaufort Vineyard and Estate Winery. It was previously owned by Jeff and Susan Vandermolen, who started the winery from a hayfield. They did a phenomenal job growing agriculture in the Comox Valley — many of our farmers.

Mr. Cameron obviously has a keen interest and passion for agriculture. This is not his first investment, but he recognized the opportunities, not just in the Comox Valley. British Columbia has a very robust agricultural sector, one that is growing and moving forward. I applaud Jeff and Susan for their hard labours on their farm — starting, again, a hayfield into a value-added agricultural product. I look forward to the next endeavour which they will, I'm sure, pursue. They are amazing individuals and an inspiration to many other people who come to our community.

As well, it has been a bit of a challenging time, not economically per se, but because of the climate in the Comox Valley. Mount Washington has been a beacon for the Comox Valley and for people around Vancouver Island and beyond to come and ski. It not only provides 800 jobs during the ski season, but it also provides an opportunity for people to stay in hotels in the Comox Valley, buy gasoline, perhaps buy a second home if they are of means — and recreation, of course, as well.

They have struggled with one of the driest winters in my life in the last 40 years. It was a horrible challenge, obviously, but I'm pleased to say — and I know some of the members opposite have approached me about this — we've had some significant snowfall in the recent past.

They have about 190 centimetres on the mountain. They are open for business, and they would, of course, like all residents of Vancouver Island to know this and make sure they come up and enjoy the beautiful Comox Valley. I wish them luck for the rest of their season.
[ Page 1430 ]

Now, the other thing is I'm always a little puzzled sometimes, as well, when we talk to the members opposite about: do they like debt or do they not want debt? They talk about debt sometimes being a bad thing over there, and then they stand and they talk about all these great ways to spend moneys, which always struggles with me somewhat. However, one of the things we've done as a government, because we have a strong fiscal plan….

The word that the past Finance Minister, Kevin Falcon, liked to use was "prudent," one that allowed to us make sure we lived within our means but also make sure we make great investments.

[1850]

Well, one of the great investments that will be a legacy for our project — and the members in this chamber on both sides have heard me speak about it many times because I am so proud of it — is the $600 million North Island hospital project that will build new hospitals in Comox Valley and Campbell River.

This is a project which is, I think, a great investment. Of course, the Comox Valley residents and the Campbell River residents will be participating, with their 40 percent participation. So about $240 million will go into it. But the nice thing that'll happen is that not only will we get world-class health facilities, which I think are absolutely essential…. Don't get me wrong. St. Joe's, the existing hospital which has served our community for 100 years, has done a phenomenal job, but it's time to have a new hospital in our community.

Not only are we going to get this new hospital facility, but we're also going to have the added benefit of more jobs coming to the Comox Valley. So 800 direct jobs will be there for the construction phase of this hospital. From 2014 to 2017, 800 jobs and 700 indirect jobs — that's 1,500 jobs — will be impacted in the Comox Valley and Campbell River area. I think this is a great example of us investing in the future of our communities, making sure we have jobs and making sure the north Island is a great place to live — and a quality of life.

But you know what? It's not just hospitals that we're building. You might have heard of the John Hart dam project. We're not getting a new dam, but we're actually building a new generation station and new intakes — it's a $1.2 billion project — because the dam is 50 years old and needs replacing. This is one of the things that you must do in government. Obviously, you must continue to reinvest in your infrastructure.

With this new project, we will have the opportunity between 2014, this year, and 2019…. There will be 400 new construction jobs coming to the region, which again, added to the 1,500 I just mentioned earlier, is 2,000 jobs that will basically give people who graduate from places like North Island College an opportunity to stay in the community they love, make sure they can raise their families in the community they love.

Even more, perhaps, it will give them the opportunity and the choice, if they so desire, to maybe, if they're working in Fort McMurray…. I'm sure many of us in communities have some people who are transient right now. They fly to Fort McMurray for a two-week or a six-week shift. But you know what? It comes at a bit of a price on family, and perhaps this will give them the choice to say: "You know what? I'm moving back to the Comox Valley full-time so that I can spend time with my family and live in a place that is absolutely beautiful."

I am really pleased to see that we are making these investments, going forward, in a way that will positively impact many individuals.

The other thing was that we talked about our children. The Minister of Transportation, to my right, talked about his three children, who are young, like my children. We want to make sure our children have the best choices. I'm really excited about the B.C. training and education savings plan, which we've been talking about for some time. It will actually be coming out and be distributed in the coming years.

So $1,200. When you actually have the opportunity to put that into an RESP, it's a great thing. Now, the Minister of Finance is correct in this. We want to make sure people are aware of the RESP program, but we also want to make sure that there is increased uptake, and 10 percent more individuals have recently signed up for the RESP. Maybe they will only put in the $1,200, or maybe they'll put in more, but the reality is that we're making sure our families in British Columbia are saving for their children's future.

It is a great opportunity, in my opinion, one that will inspire people perhaps to not put money in their savings account but actually put it into their RESP as a child, if they have a paper route or something like that. Why? Because the federal government has a 20 percent matching for the first $2,000, and it'll give you an opportunity, again, to save for your education.

I think it's money in a person's hands and people's pockets. It's an opportunity to make sure you invest. You make sure that you have an opportunity when you graduate or finish school to go off and make sure you have that post-secondary education, which we all know is so important for our futures.

As well, I mentioned earlier the importance of agriculture in the Comox Valley. I'm sure many of you, off the tip of your tongue, realize that in the Comox Valley we have, between Fanny Bay and the Oyster River, 500 farms which produce 185 of British Columbia's 220 commodities. How do I know this? Well, I actually had the opportunity and the distinct pleasure to be the Minister of Agriculture earlier in my career.

I know just how important agriculture is for communities large and small across this province. Not only did it provide employment and quality of life, but it also provides incredibly good quality and nutritious food for individuals in our communities.
[ Page 1431 ]

I was really pleased again to see our government investing in the farmers market nutrition coupon program. This program helps lower-income seniors and families in Comox Valley, in 34 communities — and, hopefully, more as we go forward — across British Columbia access locally grown produce and food products and support improved healthy eating behaviours.

The program offers $15 in coupons each week to individuals and families enrolled in nutrition and skills-building programs offered by community agencies. Coupons are treated like cash and can be used to purchase a variety of B.C. food products, including fruit, vegetables, meat, fish, nuts, eggs, dairy and herbs.

It's an opportunity, as well, to make sure that families have another alternative in their food choices every week. They also get to support your local farmers in your communities to ensure that they have a viable business and an opportunity to share their crop.

Madame Speaker, if you are okay with this, I will note the hour, I will adjourn debate, and I'll reserve my place in this debate and perhaps come back tomorrow.

Hon. D. McRae moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. T. Stone moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:55 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 © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada