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)
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 6, Number 2
ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)
CONTENTS | |
Page | |
Orders of the Day | |
Budget Debate (continued) | 1451 |
J. Martin | |
C. James | |
Hon. S. Bond | |
D. Eby | |
Hon. R. Coleman | |
M. Mungall | |
Hon. A. Virk | |
H. Bains | |
D. Barnett | |
G. Holman | |
M. Hunt | |
M. Karagianis | |
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2014
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. T. Stone: I'd like to call continued debate on the budget.
Budget Debate
(continued)
J. Martin: I am so thrilled to be here today. I've got this wonderful opportunity that's probably quite rare in the House. I've only been here nine months, and this is the second time I get to speak in support of a balanced budget.
Last spring 84 of my colleagues and I went from community to community, neighbourhood to neighbourhood, doorstep to doorstep with a very simple, straightforward, basic, down-to-earth message: "If you elect us as your government, we will control spending. We will grow the economy."
The next day, on May 15, I was given my marching orders by the people of Chilliwack and everyone else in British Columbia: balance that budget. I'm so happy that's what we've done. British Columbians had a choice, and they chose fiscal responsibility over deficit spending to restore the economy and protect the future.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
British Columbians know that racking up debt simply to pass the burden on to a future generation is not an option. It is not family-friendly, it is not fiscally responsible, and this government will not do it.
You can't spend your way out of an economic downturn and hope that someday your financial problems all go away. It just doesn't work that way. Fiscal responsibility requires discipline. It means making tough decisions and having the courage to follow through on them. I am so thrilled to be part of a government and to be able to work with this Finance Minister and this Premier, who do have the courage to follow through and make those difficult choices that have made us the envy of the country.
Balancing the budget is at the heart of fiscal responsibility. Everything else is secondary. Reduced spending across government has freed up more than $1 billion over the government's fiscal plan. About half the savings is helping to balance the budget; the remaining half is being invested to improve family affordability, to support jobs and to work towards economic growth.
We all know — well, most of us know — that a balanced budget creates economic certainty. British Columbia is leading the country by being only one of two provinces to have a balanced budget. B.C. is the only province in the country with a positive outlook for three more balanced budgets, a solid fiscal plan that provides the economic certainty that is going to help British Columbia lead the way. It is the reason why the Conference Board of Canada has singled out British Columbia as the province to lead the country in economic growth in 2015.
This is not this party or this government thumping their own chests. This is the Conference Board of Canada, and that is a huge compliment. The Conference Board recognizes that B.C. is getting the fundamentals right and recognizes that by creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish, we will have a stronger economy. We will have a more secure tomorrow.
Balanced budgets provide investors with certainty, and that's a precious — very precious — commodity in such a fragile global economy. Global investment gravitates to stable and predictable business environments. With this balanced budget, the second in a row, British Columbia continues to be an attractive destination for investment.
Labour stability lends itself to economic certainty. Last December the government announced it had reached tentative deals with three public sector unions representing 51,000 hard-working and very, very dedicated and valued members of the public service.
These innovative agreements include growth-sharing increases, so when the economic growth exceeds projected forecasts, public servants will share in the benefits that flow from a growing economy. By reaching these long-term labour agreements, the government is promoting greater economic certainty and a more predictable business environment.
Again, most of us are aware that lower taxes lead to more investment. A low-tax regime is fundamental to a competitive economy and attracting that precious investment. That's why the government has taken significant steps to reduce personal and corporate income taxes. B.C. currently has the lowest personal income taxes in the country for those earning under $121,000 per year. In fact, personal income taxes for most taxpayers have been reduced by 37 percent or more since 2001, and many low-income British Columbians don't pay any provincial income tax at all.
To increase B.C.'s competitive economic advantage, the government is committed to following through on a number of strategies, reducing small business tax by 40 percent by 2018. This government has done a massive job.
We have been so successful in reducing red tape. Some people like regulations because it means more regulators and a bigger government. That's not the direction this government chose to take.
We're also lowering the corporate income tax rate
[ Page 1452 ]
by 10 percent by 2018, and British Columbia is fast on its way to being the best place to do business anywhere. When all taxes are considered, British Columbians enjoy one of the lowest overall tax burdens in Canada, and that's quite a good deal to be able to live in the best part of the country.
Triple-A credit rating. Prudent and responsible management of public finances means British Columbia keeps its triple-A credit rating, the highest standard available. The triple-A credit rating is so important. It is so vital for at least two reasons. It reduces the cost of servicing our debt. Compared to other provinces such as Ontario, we would be spending an additional $2 billion a year to service our debt, money that could be spent on schools, hospitals, social services and infrastructure. Had we tossed away that triple-A credit rating, $2 billion would be going to service the debt.
Secondly, by lowering the government's borrowing costs, we have the fiscal freedom to make significant capital investment in provincial infrastructure projects — roads, bridges, improvements to health care facilities, K through 12, post-secondary institutions. This is something that no other jurisdiction in the country has the luxury of engaging in at this point in time.
In total, taxpayer-supported capital spending on schools, hospitals and other infrastructure across B.C. over the next three years is expected to total $11 billion. This includes $1.5 billion to maintain, replace, renovate or expand K-through-12 facilities. It includes $2.3 billion for capital spending on post-secondary institutions, $2.6 billion on health care structure and $3.4 billion on transportation infrastructure. This is a government that is looking out for the long term and the future, the well-being and the prosperity of this province.
It is critical in this day and age that we diversify our economy. The nature of the economic forces in B.C. has been changing rapidly over the last few decades. In 2001 almost 70 percent of B.C. exports were to the United States. Well, in 2012 that number has dropped to less than 45 percent, while trade with Asia has expanded exponentially. By comparison, 86 percent of Alberta's exports and 78 percent of Ontario's exports are solely dependent on U.S. markets.
Diversification helps shelter B.C. from downturns in the U.S. It enables us to take advantage of rapidly growing markets such as China and India. In 2001 less than 3 percent of B.C. exports went to China, and Japan was our largest customer in Asia. Well, in 2012 the situation is completely turned around, and now China is our largest market in Asia — 18.4 percent of total exports. In fact, British Columbia's exports to China have risen by over 600 percent in the last ten years. India, another fast-growing market — exports to that country total $467 million in 2013. That represents more than a 45 percent increase since this time last year.
Overall, international exports of B.C.-made goods and resources increased nearly 7 percent in 2013 over 2011. In total, we exported $33.6 billion worth of goods in 2013. That's up from $31.5 billion in 2012.
Let there be no doubt about it whatsoever. The commentators from coast to coast are correct. British Columbia has it right.
There is no driving force in our economy more vital, more significant, more important than small business. Small business plays such an important role in British Columbia's exports, accounting for 42 percent of merchandise shipped abroad in 2011. For that reason, the government of British Columbia is making a concerted effort to assist small business by continuing to slash the red tape that has made it so difficult for entrepreneurs and small businesses to be successful in the past. Excessive paperwork, making businesses jump through too many hoops, creates a drag on the economy and ultimately costs jobs.
Our goal, and we're well on the way to it, is to become the most business-friendly jurisdiction in Canada and North America. The business community knows we are working in their best interests. And for the third year in a row the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has awarded British Columbia an A rating for continuing to slash red tape. We are the only jurisdiction in the country to receive that distinction, that designation. It is one of the vehicles that is making B.C. the best place to do business. And you know what? We're going to do more of it. We're going to slash more red tape and more regulations. This is a business-friendly environment.
Let's talk a little bit about my favourite acronym these days — the one in addition to BBQ. Let's talk about LNG — a long-term opportunity. I congratulate the Premier for taking leadership on this LNG file and making a concerted effort to diversify B.C.'s economy — not just the northern economy, not just the rural economy but British Columbia's economy.
Emerging economies in China, India and other parts of Asia are significantly increasing their demand for natural gas. Recognizing the competitive landscape to fill market demand in Asia, the government of B.C. is taking action to harness our abundant reserves of natural gas and become a world-class LNG exporter. We're going to do this, and we're going to do it right. British Columbians will enjoy significant benefits, including hundreds of millions of new investment dollars, thousands of construction jobs and growth in local and regional economies.
The economy is much more than the Lower Mainland and the capital region. It is the entire province of British Columbia, and this government understands all too well how important the far-flung regions of British Columbia are. All contribute to a growing economy. That is why we are going to continue to make these types of investments, and we are going to be planning long term for the well-being of future generations.
[ Page 1453 ]
Higher government revenues. Untold spinoff benefits. After ten years of production, estimates are that one single LNG plant alone could generate up to $1.4 billion in income tax.
We're also investing in social infrastructure. One of the greatest advantages of a balanced budget, and it's something that has the rest of Canada literally drooling, is that we have the fiscal freedom to make strategic investments that help B.C. families — for instance, the B.C. training and education savings grant, a one-time $1,200 grant contribution toward a child's RESP following their sixth birthday. In just the past year alone the number of B.C. families with RESPs has increased by 10 percent. And we look forward to begin making payments to as many as 40,000 eligible families in British Columbia each and every year.
Starting in April 2015, the B.C. early childhood tax benefit will provide $146 million to approximately 180,000 families with children under six years old. Families will receive up to $55 a month for each child under the age of six. And while $55 may not sound a whole lot, for young families starting out, every penny counts. This is a major investment in the future.
B.C.'s early-years strategy will invest $76 million over three years to support the creation of new child care spaces and improve the quality of child care and early-years services. The government will also be providing incremental funding of $243 million over three years to Community Living B.C. to maintain services for adults with developmental disabilities and their families.
In conclusion, Budget 2014 represents a commitment to control government spending, to achieve a balanced budget and set the province on a course toward economic expansion and, eventually, a debt-free province. Budget 2014 makes British Columbia a leader in restoring the fiscal health of the government so that we have the fiscal freedom to make our own choices and shape our own future.
If I just may conclude, last week I took a little walk at lunch, and I was met by a reporter from the press gallery — one that's not particularly friendly to this government. He asked me what my priorities were. I said my priorities are to balance the budget, control spending and grow the economy. He rolled his eyes and said: "That just sounds like all the stuff you were saying during your election campaign." Absolutely.
C. James: It's my pleasure to stand and rise to speak to the Budget 2014. I just wish it was a better budget to speak to. I wish it was as much of a pleasure to be able to talk about the items that were in the budget as it is to rise in this House.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about the fact that throne speeches and budgets are really a way of a government laying out their priorities. They are the opportunity for a government to be able to put out their choices that they're making. We've all heard the members on the other side talk about choices — that the budget is about choices. That's really what a budget and a throne speech, which we heard a week ago, do.
This is also the first opportunity for this government to put out a full budget and a full throne speech since they were elected. I think many of us, and certainly the public that I talk to, really believe that this would've been the opportunity for this government to put out their new ideas, to be able to lay out their new approaches and, certainly, to be able to build on the strengths of our province and put forward their ideas to deal with the challenges that we face.
I want to take a minute just to look at those strengths and challenges before I get into how I saw the budget addressing or not addressing those issues and, also, to talk a little bit about the concerns that I hear from my community. Although we all come from unique places in British Columbia, there are some areas that are common to the people of this province and that I think we'll hear in other speeches as we go through this budget.
To be able to put a plan together to address the challenges and to address the strengths of the province, first you have to look at what those are. I have to say there is a rare place where I would agree with the government in this budget, and that's the issue that people are our greatest strength in British Columbia.
There is no question that the public, the people of British Columbia are our greatest strength — built on the ground of First Nations and aboriginal people in our province, the most resilient, strong people that we could imagine. That's a foundation that I'm very proud of and that we should all be proud of in British Columbia.
If you take a look at the population of our province, we also need to recognize the extraordinary diversity that we have in British Columbia, which gives us a huge strength — a huge strength when it comes to our economy and when it comes to connections from across the globe and opportunities for us to be able to have family contacts, cultural contacts, business contacts. That gives us a huge strength.
To me, that is one of the things that I'm so proud to be a British Columbian for — that multicultural nature of our province, that foundation built by First Nations and aboriginal people.
I think the second thing that probably most of us in this House would agree on is that one of our other greatest strengths is our environment and the world around us in British Columbia. We have every ecosystem you can imagine — whether we're talking about oceans or lakes or streams, whether we're talking about ecosystems.
I have the pleasure every summer…. One of my ways of relaxing in a job like this is to take off and go camping in the summer. I'm very fortunate that my husband has spent a lot of time in the outdoors, so we disappear off the
[ Page 1454 ]
beaten track in the forest rec sites and have the opportunity to be able to experience it firsthand. There is nothing more extraordinary than spending time….
Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction, please?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Virk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for granting me leave. I felt it was important, and I apologize for the interruption.
We have a whole bunch of very bright grade 5 students from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead, from the Pacific Academy, from the class of Rick Bath and Nancy Bakken. We have a whole bunch. Fifty-four grade 5 students are coming in from Pacific Academy. These are our future university students. Thank you for the opportunity to make the introduction.
Debate Continued
C. James: Thank you to the minister for doing introductions of young people as we're talking about the strengths of our province. I think we would all agree that our future is in great hands when we all, as MLAs, spend time in our schools and meeting with young people around this province. I certainly feel confident. It's nice to see some young people here today visiting.
I was mentioning the strengths of British Columbia. As I said, I think our natural environment, the world around us, is certainly one of the greatest strengths that I recognize as a British Columbian.
The other piece that's important to acknowledge as one of our strengths is the natural resources of British Columbia. They have really built our province. They have provided the wealth that we see around us each day, whether we're talking about forestry, whether we're talking about mining, agriculture, the fishing industry — although a challenge has certainly been one of those areas that has helped build this province and is a part of our history and, I hope, part of our future. I'll talk a little bit about that when I talk about this budget and how this budget related to those particular areas.
We also see not only strengths in British Columbia but some real challenges. The first one that I want to speak about is the issue of inequality. We are, as a province, more economically divided than we have been in generations. I just want to read a couple of statistics. I think it's important for us to acknowledge this as a major challenge, because it impacts not simply the families and people who are struggling with that inequality. It impacts all of us. It impacts the economy for all British Columbians.
We have the largest income gap in the country right here in British Columbia. Just to give you an example, the last statistic came out in 2009. The top 20 percent in British Columbia held 44.8 percent of the after-tax income. The bottom 20 percent lived on 4 percent of the after-tax income. We know that the middle class are increasingly under stress.
We know as well — and I'll speak a little bit more about this later — that again this year we have the highest child poverty rate in this country. We have the highest rate for children living in single-mother families in poverty — 49.8 percent. Almost 50 percent of single-mother families have their children and their families, therefore — because children don't live alone; those are families living in poverty — struggling in our province.
The rate for children living in two-parent families. People often think it's simply single-parent families that struggle. The rate of poverty for children living in two-parent families is the worst in Canada here in British Columbia — 14 percent.
The rate for children under six years old — again, the worst, here in British Columbia — 20 percent, 8 percent higher than Canada's average.
Another indicator that's often looked at is the use of food banks in our province, and 94,000 people use food banks every single month in British Columbia. What are the numbers for children? One-third of those users are children.
That's a statistic that…. I would imagine that, if you were preparing a budget and looking at how you address the challenges that you face in British Columbia, inequality and poverty would be top of the list to address — not simply, as I said, because it's the right thing to do and because those families are struggling but because it's the right economic thing to do. Inequality is tough for economies, for everyone — not simply for the people living in poverty.
Let's look at our economy. Again, as I talk about the challenges we face in British Columbia, our rate of employment and our economy are struggling. These aren't New Democrat statistics. These are statistics that are out there from Statistics Canada, from the government's own Progress Board, from their own budget documents, and I'll get to that as well.
When we look at private sector job growth — which, as everyone knows in this House, is one of the drivers when you look at employment, when you look at economic growth — from September 2011 to January 2014 — and that actually fits the time period of the Premier's jobs plan, interestingly enough; again, I'll get to that a little bit more — we're the worst in Canada. The worst in Canada.
We have the lowest employment rate west of the Maritimes. We have the highest unemployment rate of all the western provinces. We have the lowest GDP growth among western provinces. And we've also had a net loss
[ Page 1455 ]
of people to other provinces for nine consecutive quarters. That's 27 months. You would certainly think that the issue of employment and economic growth, if you were a government and you were looking at bringing forward a budget that set out the direction for the province, would be a main feature of the budget. We'll get to that in a minute.
Another huge challenge for individuals and for families in British Columbia — I certainly see it in my community office, and I'm sure other MLAs do as well — is the issue of affordability. I have never had so many individuals coming into my community office as I have had this fall, with concerns about being able to manage paycheque to paycheque — individuals who are struggling to try to make tough decisions that they shouldn't have to make; senior citizens who are trying to decide: "Do I just stretch out the prescription that I got and the medication that I've got, because I can't afford it when we're paying other bills?"
We've seen, since 2001, increases in ferry fares and tuition fees and MSP premiums and hydro rates and child care costs, impacts that aren't simply words but that have an impact on families.
One of the most important roles of government, I believe, is to care for the most vulnerable. I'm a big believer in the statement that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. I have to say that I've been pretty ashamed with what I've seen in my province of British Columbia over the last number of years.
When I take a look at the reports that have come forward from the Representative for Children and Youth; when I take a look at children in care who, by no fault of their own, are in the care of government…. What could be more important than the role that government takes on in being the caregiver, the guardian, the parents, the family for children when they need support?
It's a serious role, and it's a role that government plays for many, many children at different times in their lives in British Columbia. Yet if we take a look at the record over the last 12 years, it's dismal. The government has not been doing the job that they are required to do as guardian and family for those children. They've not been providing the kinds of supports that they need as they transition to adulthood. They've not been providing that kind of support for adults with diverse abilities, who, again, need that support and require that support.
People who are living on disability and income assistance…. I often think that the other side thinks it's a handout that people are looking for. People aren't looking for a handout; they're looking for a hand up. They're looking for someone to give them a little bit of assistance when they're doing everything right. Were there things in this budget to assist there? No.
I have a large population of seniors in my community, in Victoria–Beacon Hill. Seniors, as we know — and I won't make any comment about all of us around this chamber — are a growing population base. Seniors are individuals who helped build British Columbia, who shared their resources.
The member across says there are a couple of young folks in the chamber. Yes, that's true. Behind me, as well, I want the member to know.
Seniors have, with their tax base and with their hard work, helped build our province. Again, seniors are not looking for a handout. They're looking for supports in their years as they need them, which means a range of supports.
Given those concerns, given those areas that are of concern in British Columbia, and given our strengths, let's take a look at Budget 2014 and see how it measured up. How did it address those things that I believe a government should address? How did they deal with their choices that they had to make?
Well, the first piece, of course, is the strength of people. Where were the plans to build on that strength, starting with First Nations? I heard words in the budget speech. I heard words in the throne speech, but I didn't see action.
I didn't see action to address the economic growth that First Nations are looking for — government accepting its role in consultation, not simply industry's role. Government also has a legal role to be involved in consultation with First Nations when it comes to resource development, and I didn't see that there.
I didn't see support for what I think could've been a great opportunity with an education program for skills training specifically for First Nations communities. A lot of the growth, a lot of the economic activity, as we know, that will take place in British Columbia will take place in communities that have a large aboriginal population. There is an opportunity for government to be able to ensure that First Nations have full participation. I was hoping to see a specific training program to address that issue, to be able to provide opportunities for First Nations. I didn't see any of that in the budget.
Where was the opportunity and the plan to ensure that all of the public, all of our citizens, benefit and have an opportunity to contribute in British Columbia? We could've begun with a provincewide poverty reduction plan, a very specific direction where we could've come together, government and opposition and community organizations, to say: "What could be more important than addressing the shameful poverty rate in British Columbia? Let's put a plan together to address it."
This is not something that will be fixed overnight. There is not a quick fix nor one fix to the issue of poverty reduction. But somehow government seems to believe that because it's complex, because it covers other sectors and because it needs to be a community and government partnership, we're not going to do anything. Well, that's simply not good enough.
The children and the families who are struggling and
[ Page 1456 ]
who want to participate in the economy and the life of British Columbia deserve better than they're getting in this budget. We need to ensure that families have an opportunity for that success. We have seen governments of different political stripes across this country put poverty reduction plans in place. This is not something that is unique. This is something, in fact, that is unique to our province — not having done it.
I once again will ask the members opposite to think about how we could look at putting together that poverty plan. It could include all kinds of strategies, like a child care system for British Columbia. I don't know how the government expects families to contribute to the economy of our province and to get back into the workforce when they're looking at $1,200 a month, for example, as child care costs.
I heard the minister say when he stood up and talked about the budget that next year there'll be a child tax credit, support coming to families. Some of them will get $55 a month for children under six. Well, $55 a month, when you're paying $1,200 a month for child care, is not going to support a family returning to the workplace. It's not going to encourage people to be able to get out of the cycle of poverty, which is what they're looking for.
We could have seen an investment in affordable housing — a range of market and co-op housing. Again, we didn't see that in this budget.
I heard the Minister of Social Development speaking earlier. We could have seen some changes and some supports in the rules — the archaic rules, in many cases — that are in place in the area of income assistance.
If you're a single mom and you're going back to school, you get cut off income assistance and get cut off support for your children for medical. How on earth are you going to get yourself out of the cycle of poverty and go back and get the kind of training that you need, that we keep hearing government talk about, if you're told you're cut off all of your supports? It makes it impossible for families to do what they want to do, which is get that training, get that post-secondary support and get back into the workplace. I didn't see anything in this budget that talked about that.
I talked about the environment being one of our greatest strengths, and our natural resources. Where was that great strength supported in the budget? I didn't see it.
I didn't see support for transit, one of the best things we could take on to address the issue of climate change. People often think of transit simply as a Lower Mainland issue, but transit is a major issue in communities all across British Columbia, including right here in greater Victoria, where people are looking for an opportunity for their own transit authority, for their own ability to be able to set direction, to increase transit, to provide an opportunity for people to do their part when it comes to climate change.
There could have been an opportunity for the government to not only address the environment but also to address natural resources and to address jobs by having a major investment in silviculture and reforestation. Wouldn't that have been something to cheer about in the budget document if it had been there — something to actually manage all three of those needed areas in British Columbia.
We could have seen a major investment in home retrofits in both public and private buildings — a chance for people, again, to be able to address climate change, to put a real plan in place and to create jobs, green jobs, right here in British Columbia. But we didn't see any of that either.
I mentioned earlier the issue of inequality and how important it is to address inequality. We don't need another study. We don't need more research to show us that societies with less poverty are safer, are healthier, are more productive and are more economically strong. We will pay as a society. We will pay as taxpayers. We will pay one way or the other. I certainly believe a smarter investment is to put the investment in now to get people out of the cycle of poverty, to be able to give them an opportunity to contribute. That's what they're looking for.
Now, if we take a look at jobs, as I mentioned earlier, you would think, given the Premier's focus on her jobs plan, that you certainly would have seen that as a big area in the budget. This is the Premier's major, major plank that she ran in the election on, that she ran before the election on. You certainly would have expected that there would be action, that there would be success in the budget and that the government would be talking about that.
Well, when the public takes a look at this budget document, they will see that the budget document itself — not my words, not the opposition's words but the government's own words — shows that unemployment is going to rise in this next year. Not only that, it's going to rise the year after as well. What kind of hope is that providing to British Columbians and their families?
What's the best tool we can use to be able to address the issue of unemployment, to be able to address people who need skills to be able to get back into the workforce? Well, the very best tool is education and skills training.
Again, I expected we'd see a major investment in skills training and trades, a major investment in post-secondary education. I certainly expected that that would be in the budget, given the Premier's jobs plan, given the focus that the government has been talking about. But no.
Not only did they not invest in jobs training — other than perhaps the advertising budget that the Premier used building into the election, which probably is the only money they've added to the budget — this budget actually cut funding for post-secondary education. It actually cut funding for skills training. We see less people
[ Page 1457 ]
completing trades training in British Columbia. What kind of jobs plan is that?
Families are looking for opportunities not only for themselves but for their children. I was a school trustee for 12 years, and one of the things that we spent a lot of time talking with parents about was the fact that a university degree or trades training were just as valuable as each other, that it was important for people to recognize where their interests were and their children — what kind of direction they wanted to look at — and that one shouldn't be seen as less than the other, that everybody should have an opportunity for that degree, for that trades training and for that opportunity to meet their needs and meet their job needs.
Now things have changed from my time as a school trustee in the '90s, and I hear many more parents saying that they recognize that the trades are important. They understand that there are opportunities out there. They want the chance for their children to be able to get trades training and skills training. They've been talking to their kids about that in a way they didn't back in the 1990s, because they didn't see it as important as a university degree.
Well, now that we have families that are looking at both as important, they find out there isn't a space available; there's a wait-list to get in; or the costs are prohibitive for them, as a family, to be able to send their child to school for that kind of training that they need.
There was a quote in the budget that really stood out for me: "A student will be virtually guaranteed access to the training opportunity of his or her choice after high school." Well, my question to the Finance Minister and to all of government is: how? How on earth is a child going to be guaranteed access when the government is cutting the budget for post-secondary, when they're cutting resources for skills training?
Yes, I hear the government talk about the capital investment. Well, what is the point of a building without the support to be able to put the students and the teachers in it? It makes no sense, no sense whatsoever.
So when the government talks about the budget being about choices…. Well, it's about the wrong choices in this budget. It's about missed opportunity.
Let's take a look at affordability, because that's really where this budget hits home for constituents, hits home for members in my community and communities all across this province. How did the government help families who are struggling right now? I talked earlier about the pressures I'm hearing in my community office. Well, this is how the government so-called helped families: by increasing the amount of money that they're taking out of their pockets. That's what this budget does. It increases their MSP premiums — a medical services tax, as many people are now calling it, because that's really what it is.
Increased ferry fares, which really impacts us. Hydro, ICBC rates, tuition — all of those have now gone up for families at a time when they're already struggling, at a time when the government itself admits that unemployment is going up, at a time when we have one of the highest costs of living here in British Columbia. The government's choices didn't include those families. They didn't include those families who are struggling, who want to get out of the cycle of poverty.
Did the budget include anything that was going to support those vulnerable families I talked about earlier, those children who are guardians of government?
The budget for children and families put additional money in because of increased pressures in the area of autism but did not increase money to improve services. No money to increase and put in place a plan for youth mental health, as the minister said was going to happen. No increase in residential care, which the minister said was going to happen. No increase in support for those challenged children who need specialized services. That's not going to happen, even though the minister stood up and said so.
Report after report after report has come forward from the Representative for Children and Youth. I have heard the Premier and I've heard ministers stand up and say that they're going to support those recommendations, but this budget does not show that.
To close, I'm sad that I have to stand here and raise those issues that aren't included, because I am very proud of this province. I'm an optimist, and I believe that if government had made different choices, we could have seen some of those strengths built on. But instead, we have a budget that leaves families paying more, getting less — no support for the vulnerable and increased costs.
So I will be voting against this budget.
Hon. S. Bond: It's indeed a delight to stand in the House today, and clearly, I will be voting in support of Budget 2014.
Before we get to that point, though, as other members do in this House…. It is an unbelievable honour to serve in public service in the way that we have been given the privilege of doing as MLAs.
We are grateful to families. Certainly in my case, my family has been unbelievably supportive. It is my fourth term in provincial office, and I served as a school trustee prior to that, so it's been almost two decades in public service.
I have a very long-suffering and wonderful husband and children, grandchildren, who are amazingly supportive of me, especially when we spend so much time away from our homes.
I also want to thank the incredible staff that I have. I have amazing staff in Prince George. I have Dorothy, Katrina and Teagan; and, here in Victoria, a great team at the ministry: Nicki, Kim, Lindsay, Katy, Damon, Rishi, Jason, Monika and Erin — people who work hard every day and who give of their time and efforts to support
[ Page 1458 ]
British Columbians as well.
I am most grateful to have been chosen for the fourth time to represent Prince George–Valemount. I represent a very interesting riding, as many people do. I have a rural-urban riding. I represent the city of Prince George, along with my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie. But I also represent beautiful little communities like Dunster, Crescent Spur, McBride, Valemount and Dome Creek. All of them are amazingly resilient, incredible British Columbians that I'm very, very proud to represent.
Great things are happening in the north, and they're happening in my community. We have just recently had the B.C. Natural Resource Forum, where literally hundreds of people came. I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for his hard work in making sure that people had a chance to come from across the country and across our province to talk about the importance of the resource sector to our province.
I don't know about you, but it was pretty hard to concentrate on doing anything other than watching the Canadian women's hockey team just a few minutes ago. Talk about a comeback victory. It was absolutely magnificent, in addition to the success of our Canadian women's curling team. It's great to be a woman in British Columbia today. We're laying down the challenge to the men's teams tomorrow to do us proud as well.
I'm very excited about that, though, because I am very lucky to have two Olympians from my particular riding. I'm very proud of Megan Heinicke — her maiden name was Tandy, she is a biathlete, and she did an exceptional job at the Olympics — and Matthew Morison, who is a snowboarder and a helicopter pilot. He lives and works in Valemount, British Columbia. He works for Yellowhead Helicopters there. I can assure you that we'll be cheering him on, on February 21 in the parallel slalom.
It's exciting for Prince George, and it's a great connection for us, as well, because we are the very proud hosts of the 2015 Canada Winter Games. It is the first time that the Canada Winter Games have ever come to British Columbia, and I couldn't be more proud of the team of people that are organizing the games.
Today in the women's gold-medal hockey victory, Marie-Philip Poulin did an exceptional job of getting us back into the game. She was actually part of the Canada Winter Games program. We're very proud of her, and that's the kind of athlete that we're going to see when the Canada Winter Games come in less than a year from now.
I do want to take just a couple of minutes to react to some of the comments of my colleague in the House the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. I think it's important to respond in a respectful way to some of the comments that were made.
I want to begin by saying to the member that there is not one member of this Legislature, not one — it doesn't matter which side of the House you sit on — that wants to see people in British Columbia using food banks or struggling to meet their bills at the end of the day or worrying about where their next meal is coming from.
There is not one MLA in this House — whether government, opposition or independent — who wants that in the magnificent province of British Columbia. We do have shared values in this place. We want to care for the most vulnerable. We want to make sure that British Columbia is a leader in our country.
You see, the challenge we have is the route we take to get there. The member very passionately and personally outlined dozens of things that the budget should have done and didn't. What was missing from the conversation was: where's the revenue generation to actually pay for the programs that all of us want for British Columbians?
There are two sides to this equation. It is about job creation. One of the best things we can do for families in British Columbia is grow an economy that actually allows families to get jobs.
What the member opposite failed to note was that unemployment rates in British Columbia today are at near-historic lows. In fact, we continue to see single-digit unemployment numbers all across the province of British Columbia. And yes, the part that wasn't noted in the member opposite's comment was that employment, noted in the budget, is actually going to increase. We are going to see, according to the budget documents, a slight dip in unemployment.
Let's go back to last year's budget. Last year's budget predicted unemployment rates of 7 percent. Today we outperformed that budget and that budget notation, and the unemployment rate in British Columbia today is 6.4 percent. We are in single-digit unemployment numbers right across the province of British Columbia.
The reason that balancing a budget is important — and concentrating on the fiscal fundamentals — is so that we can do exactly what the member opposite was asking for. You can't do that by downloading those costs on the backs of future generations, by simply saying, "Let's spend our way out of this problem. Let's just add more dollars to the budget" — no.
What we've said clearly in this budget is that as a result of strong fiscal discipline, this is the second balanced budget that this government has delivered. And the budget lays out balanced budgets for the next two years.
I do agree with the member opposite on this point. It takes tough choices. It's about making decisions.
Let's look at the decisions we made. We made a decision in this budget to invest $2.5 billion — not million, $2.5 billion — in additional funding to health care in British Columbia. That's a priority of this government. It's a priority of British Columbians. So $2.5 billion.
In addition to that, we are looking at billions of dollars
[ Page 1459 ]
of infrastructure projects in British Columbia. To suggest that we are not strengthening the economy…. We are adding billions of dollars of projects. In fact, we see as many as $80 billion worth of projects that have the potential of moving forward in British Columbia. All of those come as a result of a strong economy, an environment where investors are willing to come to British Columbia.
[D. Horne in the chair.]
There are reasons that investors choose to do that. They look at your tax regime. They look at your red tape. They look at your regulatory regime. Let's take a look at what this government has concentrated on. We've heard other members say we've reduced red tape in British Columbia by over 43 percent. We lead the country. We are consistently recognized.
Why is that important? Because regulation strangles small businesses. This government said: "We want small business to thrive." And as a matter of fact, today we have the highest level of confidence of small business owners in the country.
Hon. A. Virk: May I seek leave to make an introduction of a class that has just come in as the Minister of Jobs was speaking?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Virk: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, they have just walked into the House here — a class from the Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. They are a bunch of bright, young faces — future university students. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. S. Bond: Good afternoon, hon. Speaker.
Creating a budget is about making choices. It is about deciding what your priorities are, and it is about deciding that we are not going to spend more than we take in.
What our goal is, is to make sure that the amount of revenue coming to British Columbia actually increases. That means you have to say yes to economic development in British Columbia. You have to create an environment where investors have confidence in your province so that they will actually come and choose to develop.
Economic growth creates jobs. It creates the kinds of supports for families that we need. We have been clear. Our priorities are clear. There are investments in this budget that support health care, that support vulnerable families, that support families through an education benefit which would allow their children, in the future, to have a great start making those choices that are important to them.
While the members opposite may choose to trivialize the amounts of money that are involved there, it is essential that we look at both sides of the equation. Every single member of the opposition gets up and speaks about: "We need to spend more, spend more, spend more."
What we say is that we need a strong fiscal foundation. We need to grow our economy. We need to have balanced budgets. We need to reduce red tape. We need to keep income taxes low. I am very proud to tell you that we have managed to do every single one of those things.
Why does it matter? It matters because that is what grows an economy. We care about programs for vulnerable families. We care about having an excellent education system.
Let's look at our education and health care systems. The outcomes we have in health care in British Columbia are the best in the country, and yet the cry from the opposition is: "Let's just pour more money in." We are adding $2.5 billion over three years to health care, to a system that already has some of the best outcomes in the country.
In education, both in post-secondary and in the K-to-12 system — exceptional outcomes, great work by teachers every single day in classrooms. We continue to invest billions of dollars, both in post-secondary and in the K-to-12 system.
We do have priorities. We are making tough decisions. That is why you can actually balance a budget.
Let's look across the geography of our country, and let's count the number of provinces and territories that we have, and let's ask ourselves how many of those jurisdictions were able to put in place the kind of fiscal discipline — the focus on balancing a budget. How many of those provinces and territories are in the position of actually delivering? Two. And the member opposite speaks of her pride in British Columbia. I'm proud that British Columbia is one of two jurisdictions in this country that has the fiscal discipline, the program in place to balance their budget for the future of this province.
We also are in a very privileged position in our country regarding our triple-A credit rating. All of those fiscal elements make a difference. The members opposite may not think much of a triple-A credit rating, but I can assure you that if we didn't have one, that would be the story of the day.
You see, when you have a triple-A credit rating, it actually increases our borrowing power and reduces the percentage that we actually have to pay on debt. It makes an enormous difference. And you don't just get one because you want one. You get a triple-A credit rating by being disciplined and by convincing bond-rating agencies — when they look at your debt-to-GDP ratio, when they look at your tax regime, when they look at your regulatory regime — that you have earned a triple-A
[ Page 1460 ]
credit rating.
We, on this side of the House, are proud of a triple-A credit rating. We're proud of a balanced budget. We're proud to say we know that reducing regulation continues to be a priority. And it must, because small businesses are the heart of British Columbia.
I know that where I live, small businesses drive our economy, and whether it's two or three or five employees, every single one of those jobs matter. So as we move forward, the message that we are sending to our country and to the rest of the world…. And yes, the world is looking at British Columbia, because today in our province we have some of the largest companies and investors in the world looking at us as a potential home for a new liquid natural gas industry. Those fiscal fundamentals matter when you are attracting those kinds of investors to our province.
Yes, we have said clearly, in this House and outside, that job growth is slower than we would have hoped. But what matters is that we are patient and that we are committed to a plan. We actually have a plan. Let's look at it.
Mining. You know, the members opposite are selective in their choices of the reaction to the jobs plan. Mines. Let's talk about mining and well supporting, family-supporting jobs. Last year alone we had two new mines open in British Columbia. One of them is very near to where I live. In fact, that mine alone created 350 permanent, well supporting, family-supporting jobs. That's one of those mines.
You know what? We're not done yet. There is the potential of two more mines opening in British Columbia this year alone. That's because we created a regulatory environment that encouraged mining to come back to British Columbia after they fled the province. And when we've seen the incredible investment….
In fact, I think the numbers are something…. At the beginning, in 2001, exploration dollars were around the $29 million mark. Today I think they're somewhere around the half-billion-dollar mark. That is about job creation.
It's not just in mining. It's in forestry. It's in technology, high-tech. We have an amazing high-tech sector in British Columbia, and companies are choosing to come to British Columbia because we've created the fiscal environment. We've stuck to the fundamentals.
You know, about five years ago the world changed. We faced economic circumstances that most jurisdictions are still grappling to get out from underneath. It was difficult for us, too, in British Columbia. Many companies suffered. Families suffered.
But we stayed focused as a government on ensuring that we had the fiscal fundamentals right, that we concentrated on making sure we were trying to manage spending. We were going to control spending. We were going to look at job creation.
All of those fiscal fundamentals made a difference. That's why, today, we're able to stand in this Legislature and present to the people of British Columbia a balanced budget for the second time. The members opposite should not be surprised by our budget. We laid it out for British Columbians in May of last year. We laid out our plan, we laid out our jobs plan, and we laid out our goals. We talked about liquid natural gas, we talked about mining, and we talked about job creation. British Columbians took a pretty good look at what we had to offer.
Today we deliver on a promise we made to British Columbians. We told them we were going to balance our budget. We worked hard. We made tough decisions. We've set the fiscal foundation that's necessary to ensure that when our children, my grandchildren and others who now have grandchildren — brand-new grandchildren and some not-so-new grandchildren…. We can look at ourselves in the mirror,and we can say: "We did our best. We worked hard. We made the tough decisions that were necessary so that British Columbia can prosper in the days and the years ahead."
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to respond in the House. I will be an enthusiastic supporter of balanced budget 2014.
D. Eby: I rise to resume my remarks from this morning.
During my remarks this morning I was talking about our post-secondary system. You know, I had some doubts when I heard comments from the other side of the Legislature. I was like: "Maybe I was mistaken when I heard from the Minister of Advanced Education that he'd visited every school in British Columbia and talked to the people at those schools." Maybe I'd made a mistake.
During lunch I went up to Camosun College, and there was a meeting taking place there of students who were learning English as a second language. It was a full room. There were 110 students in that room who came to British Columbia from countries around the world. We heard students from Morocco, from the Philippines, from Brazil, from Saudi Arabia, from China — chartered accountants, mechanical engineers, people who came here to be care aides.
They talked about how they came to Canada and British Columbia understanding that this was a place that valued education, that this was a place that valued immigration, that this was a place which understood that how this country was built was through the hard work of people who came from other places and that if they came here, they would be able to have that chance — a fair chance to make it in British Columbia.
They talked about their children and their hope for their own children to be able to succeed, to go to college and university here. One of those students — his remarks really hit me. He said: "If you don't provide basic English-as-a-second-language training to new British Columbians, it's like you are tying our hands behind
[ Page 1461 ]
our backs and telling us to swim after you push us into the water."
That man is a mechanical engineer who came here from the Gulf, who came here to work in British Columbia. His program, and all these students' programs at Camosun, is being shuttered. It's being closed.
I can tell you that at colleges across British Columbia these programs are being closed to domestic students. There is no solution in this budget to that issue.
Those students had an invitation to the Minister of Advanced Education. I cannot imagine that this is a partisan issue. The invitation was quite simple. "Come to our school. Come see the program. Come learn about the investment in newcomers to British Columbia that goes on here and how we are given the tools, the cultural tools of how to make a phone call, how to do a job interview, how to make a new friend, how to speak English, how to succeed in British Columbia. Come learn about our program and then make the decision not to fund the continuation of this program."
That program is ending. There was more than one student in tears as they described their experience coming to British Columbia to learn English.
It's very disappointing to me to hear the members opposite describe what the opposition has done in our speeches, which is to outline practical things, practical investments that can be made that will pay huge dividends down the road.
One of those dividends, for example, is to take these chartered accountants, take these mechanical engineers and give them academic English so that instead of working as housekeepers, they can work as professionals in British Columbia and pay taxes at a level of a professional instead of at a level of a housekeeper.
It's very disappointing to me that this government is not willing to engage in those discussions, but there is an opportunity, and that is that the Minister of Advanced Education can travel to Camosun. They would be glad to have the Minister of Advanced Education come there. I wanted to extend that invitation to him.
It isn't just the people from Camosun that I've heard from about the budget. Members of my constituency have also raised concerns. Some $16.3 million was cut from the Vancouver school board budget in this last round. More cuts to come. We heard Bramwell Tovey, who's the conductor of the Vancouver Symphony, come to the school board and say: "Please, please, don't cut the music programs."
Please don't cut English-as-a-second-language programs in our high schools and our grade schools. Please don't cut the Chinese multicultural workers, who come in and help new British Columbians understand how they fit into our school system and how their children can succeed. Please don't cut support workers for First Nations students. Yet the school board had to make cuts to these programs.
Please don't cut the Prince of Wales Mini School, where gifted students, gifted in sports — we're celebrating the gold medals here — gifted in leadership and who someday may be sitting in this very chamber, will succeed. Yet that's going to be cut as well.
My constituents also raised important issues around mental health, another investment that would pay huge dividends. People who aren't working, who are on social assistance — getting them back to work is incredibly important.
I'm sorry to hear the members on the other side of the House laughing, laughing at the idea of support for First Nations students, for Chinese students, for ESL students. This is not a joke. This is people's lives. There were people crying in the meeting that I was at this afternoon, Minister. I'm embarrassed for you, that you would laugh at that, that this is a joke to you. This is not a joke. This is serious. These are members of your constituency.
Deputy Speaker: I would remind the member to address his comments to the Chair, please.
D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Now, the members of my constituency who are facing these cuts to our schools, who are facing these cuts to critical supports to help people on the edges succeed…. This is why we see an increase of 50 percent in welfare use among 19- to 24-year-olds in this province. This is why we see one in five 25- to 29-year-olds not working and not in school. It's cuts to programs like these, and it's shortsighted decisions like this budget that lead to that.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank some of the people who provide the essential support for me to be here today to provide these real stories from real people. As much as the other side of the House may not want to hear those stories, these are real stories. These are real people who are suffering in this province, who can't get the opportunities that they deserve.
The people who make it possible for me to come here. I'd like to thank my constituency assistants — Gala, Chantille and Junie — who work so hard every day in Vancouver–Point Grey. I'd like to thank Jean Lawson, who also provides administrative support for me here in the Legislature, and Derrick Harder and Jennifer Jones, who provide support in research and writing.
Of course, I'd like to thank my partner, Cailey Lynch. As the members here know and as the members on the other side of the House know, we have some very exciting news — and it makes me that much more passionate about the future of the province — which is that we are expecting, and we're engaged to be married this summer. It's very exciting for us.
It also reinforces to me the critical importance of our work here in this Legislature, the critical importance of considering the future of the province and not just
[ Page 1462 ]
the immediate headline. That future of the province involves everybody. It involves people who don't speak English and would like to. It involves the students who are in school right now. It certainly involves our family, and that's why I'm so proud to be here representing Vancouver–Point Grey. I thank everybody who made it possible for me to be here.
I thank the members on the other side of the House for taking these remarks seriously, because I believe that together we can build a better British Columbia.
Hon. R. Coleman: I'd like to start my remarks out because of something that happened a couple of days ago, coming into the budget through the throne speech. It's something that, obviously, would have gone unnoticed by most people in this House but didn't go unnoticed by me, because it actually affected me and it affected my colleague the MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin and also the Leader of the Opposition.
It was actually a silent honour that was given to my family in the House when, in the throne speech, it said that members of this House had suffered some personal losses: Jack Barnett, husband of MLA Donna Barnett, who I did know; Ken Dix, the father of the Leader of the Opposition, who I did not know; and Rosa Coleman, my mother, who died about a month short of the age of 94 last summer.
I thought that was something pretty special. I thought it special because it was totally unexpected and not something I requested. I'm sure it honoured the lives of the two people that were affected and the other two MLAs in this House.
My mom was pretty special. She taught school for over 30 years as an English teacher and a department head. She raised six children with my dad. There were five boys and one girl. At her funeral in August there were 21 grandchildren. There were four great-grandchildren and multitudes of, obviously, couples and former couples. Everybody came to see it, to be there for my mom and celebrate her life. And I think it was really an honour that was given to us, my family, in this House the other day.
As I stand here today…. Obviously, like some members, you get the opportunity rarely when you're debating in the House to thank people. So I'm going to take a moment to give a couple of thanks to a group of people that have in many ways been with me for almost two decades. It'll be 18 years in this Legislature in May for me. They've obviously gone through five election campaigns and been there as volunteers and workers for me and done the job.
There's an individual that is, I believe, watching this afternoon, if the TV is on in the office. She has actually worked for me for 25 years this month. My constituency assistant Sheryl Strongitharm has been with me for 25 years. She started out with me in the private sector and has worked for me as my constituency assistant since 1996. Now, many people believe there's a place in heaven for her for that, having to tolerate me all these years, and probably there is.
The other person. You know, when I look back and I think of great people…. I know that he's in Ontario, and he'll probably never know I said this. I have a sister that has Alzheimer's. She contracted Alzheimer's; the diagnosis came in about 2010. If you can imagine, that's four years ago, and my sister is about five or six years younger than I am. So she was very young when she started to suffer from Alzheimer's.
The remarkable love and support that I've seen from my brother-in-law, Barry McKay, to my sister is something that I will always treasure, because she's in Ontario and I don't get to see her. Somebody has to be there to plan for her every day, and his dedication to her and their family has been remarkable.
When we look at things that happen in this House and we actually throw barbs across the table — which we do and will continue to do, and sometimes they might be a little personal — we always need to remember that everybody's got something going on in their life that may be something that could be trying for them. We know that, and sometimes our moods can shift accordingly. However, having said that, we still have to debate and do the job that is in this House, in the Legislature.
Today I stand to speak about the provincial budget. I can take a number of approaches to it, and if I took all the approaches I'd like to take to it, I would be here for about two hours and still have a lot of things to say. So I'm going to try and boil it down to sort of capsulize what I think goes into such a document, such an opportunity for the people in the province and such stability for the opportunities that it brings for us.
I know what it takes. I sat on Treasury Board for the majority of the years I've been in cabinet in this House, over the last 12, almost 13 years in cabinet. I know what goes into those really tough decisions, whether it be a capital project or whether it be a decision around an investment in some program or other things.
There's a plethora of things that come in from every ministry and every constituency in the province, always thinking: "Give us more money." The challenge with this — and I learned it early on — was that you'll never satisfy it all. What you need to do is focus your money that you're going to invest in the province of British Columbia on behalf of its citizens who are taxpayers — there is only one group of people that pay us that money — in the best way possible for the outcomes you can get, but do it responsibly. Today, when I talk about a balanced budget, I'm going to put it in this context.
Today companies have come from all over the world — from Asia, England, Holland; major head offices across the world — to look at investing in liquefied natural gas. There are 12 companies here today, actually — another one just arrived a couple of days ago to make it 13 — that
[ Page 1463 ]
have significant interest in trying to do an LNG project in B.C. or at least invest in one.
Out of these, some of them are smaller. They might be $1 billion or $2 billion. That sort of rolls off the tongue a little too easily when you're dealing with this file as a minister, considering that the largest construction project in B.C. today that's going forward is the $3.3 billion construction of a new smelter by Alcan in Kitimat, and the total cost of one major LNG plant for capital investment, including the plant and a pipeline and some of the upstream, could run as high as $40 billion.
If you talk about the possibility of investment and your GDP and the spinoffs that come from an investment of only $40 billion, most jurisdictions would be doing backflips of excitement to see if they can attract one of those. We have 12. Out of those, I would call seven of them major opportunities — seven major players that, if they went ahead, would actually each spend somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion in investment in British Columbia.
Now, that's a pretty staggering amount of money. As they do that, they'll create about 100,000 jobs over 30 years, but more importantly, they will create about 39,000 jobs in construction and 75,000 full-time affiliated jobs to the industry.
I always get a kick out of the fact that some people, when they talk about our budget and our throne speech, say: "Oh, they've got a vision, and they're behind. They're not going to get there. Oh my goodness. What, are they kidding themselves?"
I can tell myself this: I know that if we didn't pursue it, if we didn't seize the opportunity, if we didn't go out and try and attract those billions of dollars of investment and the money that could flow from our gas fields in British Columbia to pay our debt and fund social programs, like every member of this House opposite has asked for today, we wouldn't get it.
You can sit there, put your head in the sand and say: "You know what? It's not a winnable situation, so why bother? Why put the effort into it?"
Now, I'm an optimist, as people know. I decide, when I'm an optimist, that I can get things done, or things can be accomplished. Just after an event last year called an election, a number of media outlets put cameras in my face, when I became the minister, and they said: "You know, what are you talking about this LNG stuff for? Why did you create a ministry for it? Why do you have to do this? Obviously, it's a long shot." I looked at them, and I said: "Aren't you the same people that told me in September and in November and in January and in May that we didn't have a hope of winning an election?"
I am an optimist. Do not underestimate the power of the positive thinking that you can bring to a file to make something successful. That's what we're doing on LNG.
We have a Premier who put a vision in place. She said: "Put the team in place. Go to work. Get the job done. Attract the investment. See if we can win at this." That's the job that we have here. This budget, and every budget forward, will look better because of our work that we're doing on LNG today.
Let me try and put it in perspective for some of you, especially those that really haven't been following the file. Five of the companies that are in British Columbia today have spent between $500 million and $1.5 billion already to work towards their final investment decision. They've done work on site, on building roads, doing geotechnical studies, planning pipeline routes, investing in the upstream for more drilling. They've spent money to go out and acquire land, to put down deposits, to do all the things that will be necessary to be able to make their decision.
What most people don't understand about these projects of this size is you don't snap your fingers and say: "We're going to build an LNG plant."
You look at the market. You look at projections over 30 and 40 years. You look at all the regimes that affect your costs, and you try and find the most competitive jurisdiction, the resource you need in order to invest that long-term money to be able to deliver that product worldwide.
Why are they in British Columbia? Why are they here? I asked this of some senior people, including the presidents of some corporations. There were conversations. I won't mention their names, but I sat in rooms across from them.
At one company that's actually here in B.C., that's already probably spent $1 billion, the CEO looked at me and said: "Two things to start with. First, you people want to get it done. You welcome our investment. You welcome working with us, and you listen to us about the fundamentals of our business, and we think that's important.
"Two, if we make that investment, we need to know a couple of things. The first thing we need to know is that there is stability — stability that when we make this investment, we're not going to get any untold surprises.
"We look at British Columbia this way. You have a triple-A credit rating. You're' a safe harbour for investment because of that. When we look at other countries, we always worry about the credit rating, because you know what? If they're in financial trouble and we make an investment, a few years later they might just come along and increase the cost to us because they've got to pay bills because they're irresponsible about how they're handling their fiscal plans.
"Secondly, you people are balancing your budget. Do you know how many countries and provinces and jurisdictions we deal with that cannot get that through their head — that it's important to be able to say we've got our fiscal house in order, so that when we make an investment, we know that we don't have a jurisdiction that is going to overspend the future and come back and hurt our investment down the road? That's part of what we do
[ Page 1464 ]
when we make a decision on something like this."
I get a kick out of some of the other folks out there saying: "You're behind schedule." No, we're not. We're actually right on the time frame that I established for this file. "You're not going to get it done." Oh, don't tell me that, because I'm an optimist.
They also say: "You know, they can't all go ahead." I say: "Okay. Let's have three." That's $100 billion. That's 100,000 jobs. That's over 30 years. On that alone I can create the prosperity fund, pay down the debt and have money left over for the future of British Columbia. So why don't I pursue them all and see what I can get?
That's how I think we should look at this. We should look at it as a global opportunity that we have had. It's incredible that we have this opportunity in front of us at a level that we have today. It's about the fiscal responsibility. It's about the triple-A credit rating. It's about the resource.
British Columbia is gifted with a resource. Over 100 years of natural gas could go to Asia off of four or five plants, and we'd still have gas left over for another 50 years. We have to move this resource off the continent because we have a captured market in North America, and we're not going to send any more south in order to be able to build our revenues. So move it. Get it off the continent. Get it working so those royalties and those revenues can come to government to take care of the future of British Columbia. That's the goal.
It's laughable when people say, "I don't know why you're pursuing it," because I don't know why you wouldn't. Obviously, here's an opportunity that faces you, and you should do something about it.
I'll give you a quick synopsis of what we're looking at. The market for LNG is growing at 2½ times the market today, and the need is growing rapidly for the need worldwide. There are today 12 LNG proposals in B.C. at this time, at various stages of development, and another one that's just arrived on our doorstep. A total of seven of these LNG proposals have already received export approval from Canada's National Energy Board.
To support the interest, we have hosted several international conferences, and last year we had a large conference that was oversold. This year we're going to do the conference again. It will probably be about a half-size bigger, and it'll have a trade show. People are actually coming from all over the world to British Columbia to see our resource, our opportunity and pursue the jobs and opportunities for themselves.
At that same conference we will have our Buy B.C. program there for suppliers, for people to know what jobs and what opportunities and what resources British Columbia companies have to offer to LNG.
As we go through that, we will actually build on that basis to make sure the opportunities for jobs are there for British Columbians, trades are there for British Columbians and the opportunities for suppliers to participate in this opportunity are there as well.
As growth occurs on all of this, we will get to a final investment decision. Now, this stuff takes time. We're hoping and expecting, possibly, our first final investment decision may take place by the end of this year. If that happens, everybody should rejoice for the future of their children and their grandchildren, because that means one of the biggest steps towards long-term prosperity for British Columbia has taken place.
The companies are working towards those dates. As they work towards those dates, they've been working with us to make sure that the fundamentals are there and that the people of British Columbia benefit from the resource as they should and, at the same time, to attract the investment of folks that want to spend billions of dollars here in order to create an opportunity and move a product elsewhere in the world.
I've been to the countries that are going to use this resource. I've seen what it could change in their pollution, relative to coal-powered plants versus natural gas plants. I've sat down with people in government and senior people from companies who have all decided British Columbia looks pretty favourable to them, and it's because we started something a long time ago.
You see, everything doesn't happen overnight. Over ten years ago, the previous Premier, previous Finance Minister, previous Forests Minister said: "Let's try and build our markets into Asia for forest products." We knew it would take time. We knew that we needed, though, to transfer some of the resource opportunities to elsewhere in the world to be successful with our resource.
We were successful at that. Today we send more lumber to China and Asia than we do to the United States. At one time we sent 85 percent of our product. We have a proven track record in diversifying the market of a resource that we have to Asia or other countries. Because we've done it once, we know how to do it, and we'll do it again.
As we do that, we are going to be successful on so many levels that people will be astounded and sit back and say: "Wow, those guys were visionary. They were really thinking ahead. I wonder how that happened."
It happens because of leadership. Somebody has to have a vision — that's our Premier — about leadership, setting a goal and moving forward. It's about having the opportunity to work with colleagues where all ministries work together for a common goal, like it does in this government today — like no government I've ever seen in the time I've been here.
It's about a very talented group of people who are B.C.'s public servants, including my deputy minister who leads the file and all the other deputies who are cooperating and helping to make this thing happen. Their focus is there because the vision has been established, the goal has been established, and they're working unified to that goal with us.
[ Page 1465 ]
Those folks who every day work for us should be thanked. They are remarkable people. The senior people in our public service are hard-working — and I mean really hard-working — people who have the best interests of British Columbians at heart.
Nobody said it was easy. Nobody said hard work would not get us there, but it will. The fact of the matter is that with the vision and the budget and the fundamentals that we have today, we will get to a final investment decision and get to that long-term stability.
In addition to that, I've sat in this House the last few days and heard people dis the heart of this government. The comments I've heard are staggering to me. I want to remind members opposite and members of this House what else this government has done. We're going to get LNG done, but even without it, we've made a sea change of opportunities in British Columbia for people less fortunate that we should talk about, because I think it's important to remember.
Do you know that today there are over 7,000 fewer homeless people in British Columbia than there were five years ago? I listen to the members opposite talk about people who have lower incomes, and they never, ever — except to actually oppose this program — talk about what goes on for people in housing.
Today in British Columbia right now there are over 10,370 families, in just the last five years, who quietly every month get a cheque to offset their rent if they make under $35,000 a year — 10,370 families. They are in every community. They could be your neighbour. They're not ghettoized. They're not stigmatized. They are helped. They quietly can change and turn around their family's life, and their remarkable stories are there.
I always remember the first letter I got when we put the rent assistance program into place. It was a letter from a lady talking about her and her 12-year-old son. Given the way things were at the time, this individual probably would have waited four or five years for a home in social housing. She got rent assistance. She wrote me. She said: "Thank you. You changed our life. I can now afford my housing, I can have my son enrolled in sports, his outcomes in school are better, and our diet is better. You've actually changed our life."
Now, we could have waited and tried to build 10,370 units of housing for those folks. Or we could move a program out immediately that actually helps them immediately when they make an application. It's remarkable.
In addition to those 10,370 families, there are also 16,700 seniors in British Columbia that get rent assistance to help them with their accommodation and their rent in British Columbia, and that in itself is an increase of over 4,500 in just the last five years.
We're the government that took transition housing, expanded it and then put the money on the table, so every transition house in British Columbia has funding to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
In the housing-for-homeless file, where we went after the housing to build housing for people with special needs, with mental health and addictions, there were 1,300 of those units in British Columbia in 2001.
Today there are 6,700 of those units across British Columbia, and they're not just in Vancouver. They're in Quesnel, they're in the South Okanagan, they're on the Island — in Victoria, Nanaimo — and in Chilliwack — all of these communities — to help deal with a very significant concern for people. When you meet these people and see how their lives are changed, you know it was worthwhile.
You know why we were able to do that? First of all, it's because we are fiscally responsible. We had a corporation that was fiscally responsible and still is, and we had the ability and the faith given to us by government to go and deliver on some new options — different, breaking the mould — to be more successful in helping people with mental health and addictions on housing.
Shelter beds in British Columbia. There were 800 of them in 2001 — 800, right? Today there are 1,850 permanent shelter beds in the Lower Mainland and through other communities across B.C. There's a strategy in place on top of the year-round shelter beds. On top of that, we also have a strategy in place for when the cold weather and the wet weather come. We have automatic ways to be funded into weather spaces in communities all across British Columbia.
As we've done that, we've actually made connections with thousands of people in our shelters and been able to connect them into housing with supports and to turn their lives around. We get analysis for their mental health and their addictions. We get them to a doctor. We determine what their weaknesses are — it could be something like literacy, where they can't even read a paper to apply for a job — and we help them. We give them the assistance to get to the programs they want so that they can be successful.
One of the things, when I became the Minister Responsible for Housing, that disturbed me was the number of First Nations folks that were disproportionately represented in social housing in British Columbia, and I knew that to change that, we had to change what we were doing. So early on we took some units, and we sat down with the Aboriginal Housing Management Association and said: "Would you like to take a small amount of units and build some capacity?" Recently we transferred more.
In 2001 there were 409 units of housing run by aboriginal organizations in British Columbia. Today there are more than 4,200 that are managed by those folks, culturally appropriately, for the folks that they need to serve in housing. That is remarkable.
When I sit in the House and listen to the sometimes frustrating comments that are made by people who….
[ Page 1466 ]
Really, go read the facts. Go look in the eyes of the people, and go stand up behind your councils and your local communities when they've got to do a tough public hearing because somebody doesn't want a project in their backyard because they're NIMBYs. They don't want it in their backyard, and they say: "You've got to fix the housing problem, you've got to fix homelessness, but do not build something near me."
We've been building and operating and buying at an incredible rate in British Columbia to solve this problem over the last six years. The one thing I learned is that when they're built and they're finished and they're established, everybody goes: "What was all the talk about? What was it all about? It hasn't destroyed my neighbourhood. It hasn't made any visible change to anything that has gone around me. Crime hasn't gone up. Noise hasn't gone up."
In actual fact, in one neighbourhood where they had a four-day public hearing…. I know my colleague from Vancouver, the Attorney General, remembers. It was on Fraser Street, and it went on and on. Finally, the group that was on council had the guts to stand up and say yes. The building was finished. It was built. When I went and toured it and toured the neighbourhood, everybody wondered why they were so upset about it.
As a matter of fact, the folks that were getting the treatment had stabilized their lives and were out cutting the seniors' lawns in the neighbourhood for free. They were picking up all the garbage on the streets around their housing because they had pride in where they lived, and their lives had changed.
Let's be clear. When you spend over $3 billion in investments — $3.6 billion since 2001 for affordable housing for low-income individuals, seniors and families — and you adapt your programs to get better outcomes, this is what happens. You do change lives forever. It's something I am extremely proud of that this government does and will continue to do.
If you look at the budget, we have new innovations in housing we're moving forward with so that we can do even more for people who are vulnerable in B.C. when it comes to putting shelter over their heads.
I've had the pleasure of being here for a long time, so that's why I say I could probably go on forever. But I do want to touch on a couple of things, just a couple of quick ones — not in my ministry, just things of observation.
A lot of people talk about crime, and they talk about activities around crime, and they talk about policing in British Columbia. So I want to make a couple of things apparent to people that were done over the last 12 years.
Do you know that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the entire continent of North America where every police car is on real-time information management in the car? A crime can take place in Prince George, and a police officer in Burnaby will instantaneously have the data and the information about that crime. Do you know why we did that? It's because intelligence-based policing starts at that point.
You actually do your policing based on your crime stats, your locations, your hot spots, but you need the data to do it. You also need to have it because this is what changes the ability to perform. We have integrated units in British Columbia. The most successful investigative homicide unit in the country and in the continent is in British Columbia — the integrated homicide unit. We have units….
Make no mistake. I see the light is on, and that alone is another 20-minute diatribe for me because I know the difference it's made — the crime that's been solved and the changes that have been made even for people who are missing, like missing women.
Today if someone went missing and were put into PRIME and were actually checked somewhere else, you would be able to connect the dots for an investigation today in real time on crime. You can't do that anywhere else in North America. That is why we did it. We thought that information management was critical to crime-fighting and crime management and protection of our public in British Columbia.
I'm really honoured to sit here. I sat and told the Finance Minister myself — this morning and yesterday afternoon — that I thought that was the best-presented budget speech I'd seen in the 18 years, almost, that I've sat in this House. It was a remarkable presentation. I know the work that went into it. I know the tough decisions that went into it.
I do know one thing: if you balance your budget and you don't overspend your money, you can start paying down your debt. It's no different in a household than it is in government. This Finance Minister has worked incredibly hard for the success of British Columbia. He's to be thanked, and we did that as a caucus and as a chamber the other day. But you know what? I watched how tough this was, because I was part of the process.
I'm proud to be part of the budget. I'm proud to stand in this House, support a balanced budget and look for a future in British Columbia with great economic opportunity and jobs because we are doing the right things with the vision the Premier has laid down.
We will be successful. Do not underestimate the optimism of the people on this side of the House.
M. Mungall: It gives me great pleasure to rise in this House to represent the wonderful people in the Nelson-Creston area and to speak on their behalf today about how this budget impacts them and how it impacts their lives.
Before I continue on with that, I think it's important to remind ourselves that a budget is supposed to be the actions. It's supposed to be the very defined activities that government is going to take, that they're going to put the
[ Page 1467 ]
taxpayers' money behind to back up what they've said in the throne speech. That is their agenda, and we just see a lot of discrepancies between the two of those documents, the two of those speeches, when we look at the budget compared to the throne speech.
There are many things — many slogans, specifically — that were delivered in that throne speech, and we don't see a single mention of them, much less a single action behind those slogans in the budget. I know that when people back home in Nelson-Creston were looking at that and comparing the two, they were very disappointed.
When they heard words like "violence-free B.C.," they thought that that would mean better services at our local Nelson and District Women’s Centre. They thought that would mean, perhaps, secondary-stage housing from the transition homes in Nelson and Creston, perhaps a transition home an hour north of Nelson, in Kaslo. But there isn't a dime for any of these things.
The violence-free B.C., unfortunately, remains a slogan. What that shows us…. That is just an example of how the government's agenda in the throne speech was all talk. It is not backed up by the dollars and cents that show that government plans to take action.
I know for people in my area…. I mentioned Kaslo just a moment ago. I was recently reading a document that highlighted that 41 percent — 41 percent; I was blown away at that number — of Kaslo residents are living below the poverty line. I couldn't believe it. People every day, in one of the most beautiful places in the world, are struggling to make ends meet, quietly struggling to make ends meet. I hear about it from my friends every day, my friends in my age group, the young families who are living in a small, little house on their parents' property because they can't afford to buy their own home.
I'm going to talk more about one of the reasons why that is later on, but when 41 percent of the population of Kaslo is living below the poverty line…. Make no mistake. Many of those residents are children. That's one of B.C.'s most shameful legacies in this last decade — child poverty, having the worst rate of child poverty in this entire country.
You would think that after ten years of having the worst rate of child poverty, any government, no matter what their political stripe, would be called into action, would feel the motivation, would feel inspired to take action — real, concrete steps. Lay out a plan and implement that plan to stop child poverty. But unfortunately, in this budget, not a word. Not a word on child poverty, not a word on the fact that British Columbia has had the highest overall poverty rate in this country for the entire time the Liberals have been in government. That's their legacy in this province.
We have the worst poverty. Fifty percent of children living with single moms are living in poverty. That's 153,000 children living in poverty in B.C. Breaking that down, that's one in five kids. If we look at a classroom that isn't overcrowded and perhaps has only 20 kids, think about that. Five kids in every classroom don't have the supplies that they need every day to do their school work. Five kids in every classroom have parents who can't afford class field trips.
Five kids in every single classroom dream of playing sports, but they can't afford the equipment. If it weren't for amazing organizations like KidSport, which is doing a tremendous job in my riding of helping those kids, they would never grow up to be the Olympians that they dream to be.
Worst of all, the basics. We all have this in common in the House. We all need to eat, and five kids in every classroom — five kids — are going to school hungry. If you don't believe me, all you need to do is open up the Vancouver Sun over the holiday season and read an article every day about their adopt-a-school program. The Vancouver Sun is doing fundraising to help schools with breakfast and lunch programs to feed kids who are coming to school hungry.
It's not reaching every single kid. They recognize this at the Vancouver Sun. They recognize that they can't get to every kid and that government needs to play a better role. You'd think that they would feel that as well over on that side of the House. Unfortunately, we don't see any of that in this budget.
When we talk about five kids in every classroom struggling to get enough food to eat to get them through the day so that they can learn better, so that they can achieve better, so that they can go on to be adults who can meet their dreams…. They can't get the food every day. It's no wonder that 30 percent of food bank clients are children. Just five years ago it was 25 percent, and we thought that was too high. One-third of all food bank users are kids. I don't think anybody in this room thinks that that's okay. If you don't think it's okay, then you would do something about it. But not this budget.
What does it looks like when a child goes to a food bank? Let me just put that into perspective for members of the House. I had the experience of managing the Nelson Food Cupboard for two years about ten years ago. Unfortunately, in that experience….
Food banks are always the first people who want to put themselves out of business. Ten years ago I would watch parents come in, embarrassed that they couldn't put food on the table for their child. They had no other option. That's what it looked like. Many of them couldn't afford child care, and their kids came with them. They had no other option.
Could you imagine what that's like for a child to look up to mom or dad at the food bank, knowing that mom or dad can't afford the basic necessities of life? It's crushing. You would see it. I would see it — parents asking if we had a few granola bars stashed away so that they could put some snacks into their kids' lunches for school, if we
[ Page 1468 ]
had some cereal stashed away so that they could provide a breakfast for their child or children, many of them having more than one child, so they could have breakfast on the table for their kids in the morning.
Sometimes we had those items, and sometimes I had to say: "I'm sorry. We don't." Sometimes I had to watch those parents walk out the door, feeling so desperate that they contemplated having to perhaps break the law and steal food for their kids.
That's going on in British Columbia in every single community right now. That's not acceptable, and we all know that's not acceptable. We all know that action is needed, but in this budget speech there's not a dollar towards a poverty reduction plan. There's no effort to look at the complexities of poverty and its negative impacts on our economy.
There's been plenty of research to this, where poverty is costing this province $6 billion to $9 billion every year in lost productivity, in health care costs, in education costs, in criminal justice costs and income assistance costs. Think about how much we could save British Columbia. An ounce of prevention is always worth a pound of cure, and that ounce of prevention could save the British Columbian economy tremendously.
They don't ask themselves, in setting up this budget, how we can make sure that B.C.'s economy includes everybody, that parents have what they need to best support their children. In fact, what I saw in this budget wasn't the Liberals saying: "How can we reduce child poverty? How can we make life more affordable for families?" Rather, it was how they can get their hands deeper into the pockets of some of the people who can least afford it. Let's look at the ways they found to do just that.
Medical Services Plan premiums. In taxation terms, it's a regressive tax. It's a flat tax. Everybody is paying the same. Those who make the most money pay the same as those who can least afford it. So it burdens those who can least afford it more. That's going up 4 percent on January 1, 2015. It has doubled since 2001. Families are now paying $1,738 per year for the Medical Services Plan premium, a regressive tax.
What's interesting is that, as I said, it's going up 4 percent. In 2012 the Premier promised that increases in medical services taxes would only keep pace with increases in health spending. So if things are going up 4 percent on the premium tax side, you would expect that spending in health care would be also going up 4 percent. You're going to pay a little bit more to get a little bit more is the expectation of families all across B.C., and particularly in Nelson-Creston.
But that's not what's happening. MSP is going up 4 percent, but in the budget health spending is rising by 2.6 percent — so a broken promise right there from the Premier. What she said…. All her talk outside of this House is not being backed up by action inside of this House.
Are people getting value for their dollar? Well, the Auditor General, Russ Jones, issued a report today showing that the Liberal government can't demonstrate that physician services are high-quality….
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Members.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Minister.
M. Mungall: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It gives me great satisfaction to know that I'm causing greater debate in this House even while I am talking.
The Auditor General pointed out in his report delivered today…. We adopted it in this House. That report shows that the Liberal government can't demonstrate that physician services are high quality, nor can they demonstrate that the money provided for physician services is cost-effective.
So the public doesn't have a reassurance that that increase in their MSP is even going to be felt in the most effective way in their day-to-day lives. That's truly unfortunate. When families are paying more, here we have an example of where they are getting less.
Another place where families are paying more is insurance rates. Those are up by 4 percent as well as of last November. Ferry fares — up $32 round trip. Now, in Nelson-Creston, on Kootenay Lake, we do like to boast about the longest free ferry ride in the world.
We had to fight for that free ferry back in 2001-2002, when it was under threat by the Liberal government, looking to privatize and put fares on that ferry — the ferry that connects communities on the east and west shores of Kootenay Lake. It is our lifeline. It is our highway. They were looking to charge us for it, and we fought tooth and nail.
I have to say that the good people of Nelson-Creston won that fight, and I'm not surprised that they did, because when they put their minds to something in Nelson-Creston, they're going to make sure it happens. But many of them travel to visit their family and friends on Vancouver Island and all along the coast of British Columbia, and they're going to be paying an extra $32 round trip.
We've heard much in this House about the cuts to ferries despite the increase in costs to families — again, an example of families paying more and getting less.
Hydro rates. Now there's a great example of paying more, paying more and paying more. So 28 percent is the projected increase for B.C. Hydro rates — 28 percent. That's a huge dig into the pockets of B.C.'s families from
[ Page 1469 ]
this Liberal government.
Even though we're fortunate enough in Nelson to have Nelson Hydro — a publicly owned utility…. We also have Fortis in the area, producing our own hydro. In fact, just so everybody knows, one of the reasons that Nelson-Creston likes to get its way is because we produce 50 percent of B.C.'s hydroelectricity. So when you get us angry, we turn off your lights.
Even though we're producing our own hydro in the region…. People might think that that hydro rate increase isn't impacting us, and it is up in the north end of Kootenay Lake, who are on hydro. But the majority of us say: "Oh, we don't have to worry about it. We're on Fortis. We're on Nelson Hydro." We buy power from B.C. Hydro.
I talked with Fortis, and I talked with Nelson Hydro, and they said that yes, they're going to have to funnel those increased costs right down to the ratepayer in Nelson-Creston. So yes, our pockets are being dug for hydro rate increases.
We've heard members opposite from the Liberal government talk about their child tax credit of $650 per year. I know that's going to be welcomed by a lot of families, as it should be. The unfortunate reality to this, though, is that while they're putting $650 in one pocket, they're taking $900 a year out of another pocket, leaving families — do the math — $250 short.
They can brag and brag about one thing and conveniently ignore another, and that thing that they're ignoring is that they're taking more money out of British Columbians' pockets than they are putting into them. "But don't worry," they say. "Everything will be just fine. If the big corporations make unprecedented profits, the revenue will trickle down to the rest of us."
It's an old framework of reference. It's been done for as long as I've been alive — the trickle-down economics. Unfortunately, trickle-down economics has only proven to exacerbate costs on to families and make the rich more rich.
Families' personal debt ends up going up while government backs away from responsibilities, and the biggest corporations run away with all the profits.
It's not really "Debt-free B.C.," despite the slogans on the side of the bus, because it's not debt-free for B.C. families. B.C. families are going to have to dig deeper, put those grocery bills on their credit cards, make the minimum payments each month, go further into debt just to pay for the basics, just to pay for milk and bread.
Actually, to be fully frank, to be fully honest — let's be real here — it's not even debt-free B.C. for B.C. Despite all the "debt-free" rhetoric — again, all that talk — total government debt from this budget will rise by $7.1 billion over three years and reach $68.9 billion by the end of the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Then they talk how LNG will fix all that and everything. That's just fine, but it's completely unrealistic. I mean, if you just do the basic math, as I'm sure that many people have been doing, it's unrealistic that LNG could eliminate all of this debt by 2028. The reality is that the biggest contributor to B.C.'s debt has been this Liberal government over its entire 12-year tenure. The largest deficits in B.C. history are their legacy. It's the result of their budgets, and here we are again putting more debt onto B.C.
What do we have? All talk and no action that proves that it's the truth. "Don't worry," they say again, though. "Just ignore that. Don't read our budget books. Ignore that. Just get a job." Well, if it were only that simple. If it were only that simple that everybody could just go out and get a job tomorrow, and that would eliminate child poverty and the highest overall poverty rate in this country. If it were only that simple. But it's not that simple, as we know.
There are many complexities that make it difficult for people to get jobs. The most obvious one is: are there any jobs? Well, not from this government. Right now B.C. is in last place for private sector job creation — 8,500 private sector jobs lost last month. The month before that, in December — 8,200 jobs gone. In the 200 days the Liberals kept us out of this House, B.C. lost 21,400 jobs.
Even the government's own documents say: "B.C.'s labour market performed poorly last year compared to other provinces, as only Nova Scotia registers a greater annual rate of decline in employment." The jobs are disappearing from B.C., and the people are leaving B.C. as well. That does not spell out "good for our economy" when you say to people: "Just go get a job."
I have this beautiful, nine-page document called the B.C. jobs plan. Doesn't it look good? This cover is really nice. There are great slogans inside of it, but British Columbians expect more than a slogan. They expect to actually see some job creation in this province. They're not seeing it with this Liberal government. When it comes to jobs, the only thing that this government has for British Columbians, as I said, is slogans.
Of course, let's remind the House that for failed Liberal candidates and Liberal insiders, they have plenty of plum, high-paying jobs. If the wages weren't high enough, don't worry. They'll increase the wages to make them high enough for their friends. It is this kind of crass approach to governing, where you make sure that your friends have jobs, high-paying jobs — and if they're not paying high enough, "Don't worry, we'll increase the wages" — that breeds cynicism in our democracy, and it's shameful.
For the majority of British Columbians who are not failed Liberal candidates, what does this government have for them? Higher tuition fees and another broken promise about improving access to skills training. We know that 80 percent of jobs will soon require some level of post-secondary education, but the skills gap in this province is hindering British Columbians from getting those jobs. They need to get the training, but they're struggling to get that training, and it has negative impacts
[ Page 1470 ]
on our economy.
We've got people without jobs, jobs without people, and it costs companies hundreds of millions of dollars in project delays and cost overruns. They go out to temporary foreign workers, and unfortunately, some of the companies seeking out temporary foreign workers have treated them poorly, have provided unfair working conditions. These are jobs that could have been filled by British Columbians if they had been able to get the training, but this is what has happened instead.
The government again talks a lot about skills training and everything that they're going to do for skills training, but this is what we saw in the budget. We saw cutbacks. We saw flatline budgets. We saw no actual fiscal plan that was targeting skills training, and this is what's happened.
Tuition has doubled since the Premier went to university. B.C. boasts the highest average student debt load, and it's the only province to offer no financial needs–based grants. Students have to go into massive debt. They cannot get any financial needs–based grants to attend post-secondary education and get the skills training that they need. When you talk to students, they'll say that the high cost of living in this province is, of course, the added burden.
Liberals are making it harder to get the training needed to get the jobs. Liberals are also making it harder to get the jobs — period. After making massive changes to the employment services programs in this province — Work B.C. — they are now cutting the budget nearly in half, removing $25.5 million out of the very services that help people get jobs. Now, this doesn't jibe with any realistic jobs plan, further showing that what this Liberal Premier offers is all talk. She talks about a jobs plan, but when it comes to helping you get that job, those services are being cut.
I have to say that when I went to visit some of the employment centres in this province…. They are doing amazing work, and I have to give full credit to them for the work that they're doing on the front line with British Columbians — helping them get some basic training; many, some literacy training; some computer literacy training or just helping them draft a resumé; practising interview skills.
All of these things are helping British Columbians every day get the jobs that they need. Anybody going into one of these Work B.C. centres and seeing the good staff there do the work that they do would be impressed. But they are worried. They are worried that they're not going to be able to deliver services to clients based on the new fee-for-service structure. PEERS, here in Victoria, has had to shut down its employment services because it did not work with the funding model that this government is now using.
But now it's not getting better. It's getting worse, because the government is cutting the program dollars for these important centres that are helping British Columbians get the jobs that they need to have a good life.
Another area that I was actually quite shocked not to see any mention of at all in either the throne speech or the budget is what's happening in the Ministry of Social Development. A key area for the Ministry of Social Development is the disability white paper. The Premier tasked the minister with going out, talking to British Columbians and developing a white paper to make B.C. the most progressive jurisdiction in Canada for people with disabilities. I think that's something that we could all support, but it's not mentioned at all.
The people of Nelson-Creston want to see real investments from this government. They want to see investments in health care, in education. They want to see real action on climate change, rather than a final cut to the LiveSmart program.
They want to see employment programs and post-secondary education. They want to see investment in forestry, agriculture, creative and cultural industries in our region. They want to see investment in tourism. They want to see real action, not talk.
British Columbians deserve better. People in Nelson-Creston deserve better. They deserve better than pay more, get less.
Hon. A. Virk: It's indeed my pleasure to stand in this House today and respond to Budget 2014. I thought about how I would start this. I think it's important for all of us to acknowledge those who support us the most, our spouses, significant others.
I want to shout out to my wife, Jatinder, and my three daughters, Jusleen, Anisha and Maansi. One of my daughters is with the Canada national team, training in Montreal right now. My other one is going to be competing at the B.C. Winter Games. It's very fitting that I have three daughters. We've got the women's team that just won the gold medal as well. So I cheer a little bit louder when we have a women's team win.
I'm going to mention my riding, Surrey-Tynehead — a riding made up of people that have crossed oceans as a first generation but, also, that have been there for two, three, four and six generations. From all corners of the world, they have crossed oceans to make a better life. They've chosen Canada, and they've chosen British Columbia because they know that we have a government and we have an economy that will make a better life for them.
I've sat quite patiently. I've listened to a lot of the discussion in this House, and I felt like pinching myself several times. I felt like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. That side of the House is sort of stuck on the same, if I may say, doom and gloom — the same glass half-full over and over again. I find myself pinching myself over and over again.
From that side of the House it's Armageddon. It's Titanic. It's "the sky is falling." It's "head for the hills,
[ Page 1471 ]
Henny Penny." Most recently — it has also been from that side of the House — I hear there's a future-is-declining tour happening. Or is it the declining futures tour? It's fearmongering at its best, scaring the young students of this province. The future-is-declining tour — how absolutely fitting from the opposition.
That side of the House is perhaps lost in space, running around the province saying, "Danger, danger," if I can quote another film. Surely you can't be serious, from what I'm hearing.
While the rest of the country is celebrating one of the few balanced budgets not only in Canada but perhaps in broader jurisdictions in the world in the midst of financial turmoil, I continue to hear the same old, same old: "The future is declining."
I pinch myself. Maybe I'm dreaming all this. Maybe my parents didn't cross an ocean to bring me here, and I'm in a different, developing nation. My daughters haven't grown up in one of the best provinces in Canada and the best country in the world — safe, fair, inclusive and prosperous.
But I am here, and this is my opportunity to speak about the future of British Columbia and the future of post-secondary education in British Columbia.
As much as government is dealing with today's challenges and choices, we must look forward. This side of the House is looking forward with the glass half-full with optimism and hope — not doom and gloom, as that side of the House wishes to do. We must be prepared to make the hard decisions. We must be prepared to make plans and decisions that ensure tomorrow is better than today.
The measures in Budget 2014 will help us guide and make those tough decisions. You've heard that it takes leadership to make tough decisions. This side of the House is ready to make those tough decisions for the future prosperity of this province and everybody who lives and works here.
Since becoming the Minister of Advanced Education I have made it a priority, and I have visited the main campus of all 25 public post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and many private career-training institutions as well.
I have spoken with faculty — incredible faculty, very passionate about what they do. I have spoken to students from a wide array of backgrounds, and I've spoken to staff. We have something in common. We're all committed to ensure that students have a bright future.
In the north, the wonderful north of this province, I visited the Oil and Gas Centre of Excellence at Northern Lights College. I toured the facility, and I watched the students learn how to operate machinery and equipment. This will prepare these young British Columbians for careers in our oil and gas sector. It's a sector with near limitless potential and incredible opportunity.
On the other side of the province I spent the day on the Lower Mainland at the Canada Education Park campus, and that's the University of the Fraser Valley. A new agriculture centre of excellence is taking over.
These new facilities will provide students with a state-of-the-art environment to learn and conduct research in the agriculture industry in British Columbia — research that's going to benefit generations to come, research that's going to happen right at the University of the Fraser Valley and that is going to meet the growing demand for agrifood products locally and around the world.
Let's go over to Vancouver Island. Campbell River to Victoria, programs range from adult basic education to research in mining to aquaculture and everything in between.
We have a nimble and flexible post-secondary system in this province, a system that is graduating thousands of students every single year into good-paying, exciting and rewarding careers. It's a system that also must be flexible in meeting the ever-changing needs of B.C. students in our economy through innovation, through research and through new approaches.
My mandate as Advanced Education Minister and my responsibility is to make sure the post-education system works efficiently. That means keeping administrative costs down and helping to improve service delivery at our public post-secondary institutions.
At times, that side of the House suggests it's a matter of just throwing money. It's using the taxpayers' money effectively and efficiently, to take that one dollar from the taxpayer and stretch it as far as possible, to avoid duplication, to consolidate wherever possible, to look at efficiencies in every which way possible. These schools are challenged with continually innovating, remaining responsive with programs and being flexible.
My ministry is also working with them to help set targets for graduates so we can match the skills that B.C. needs, not only today, not only a day from today, but far into the future.
We're also reviewing the financial assistance program to make sure it's flexible and innovative enough to meet students' needs as we move forward.
We're making significant progress in all of the initiatives outlined in my mandate — progress such as at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. It's going to be home to the first public school of Chinese traditional medicine in British Columbia.
We invested over a million dollars at the University of the Fraser Valley for the agriculture centre of excellence. That is a promise made and a promise kept.
In addition, our boards of governors all across British Columbia at the public post-secondary institutions are undertaking core reviews of their programming and their activities, core reviews to ensure that seats are being filled, that programs are aligned.
How novel a concept — that education and programs
[ Page 1472 ]
are aligned with labour market needs. How novel a concept — that we do a review to align education with graduating a taxpayer. How novel a concept.
More than 440,000 students are enrolled in at least one course all across British Columbia in our public post-secondary institutions. They're taking classes at one of 130 campuses, satellites or learning centres throughout the province. Since 2001 this government has added more than 32,000 additional student positions and seven new public university campuses. As I recall, that side of the House had voted against the creation of those seven new universities that are teaching students right today in British Columbia.
There are 33,000 more apprentices in the trades-training system, more than double the number in 2004 alone. We've invested heavily in the medical and health fields — more than doubled the number of medical school spaces, more than doubled the number of nursing spaces and added over 4,600 new student spaces for nursing credentials. These are incredible changes.
The number of aboriginal students in post-secondary education has grown as well. In 2011 and '12 alone more than 3,000 credentials were awarded to aboriginal students, an increase of just over 20 percent in three years.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels. I do acknowledge that we all collectively, both sides of the House…. I know that the other side of the House will certainly join government in supporting the fact that we need to put more aboriginals through education, and I'm going to see that support.
Since 2001 taxpayers have invested in operating grants that have increased more than 44 percent. More than $1.8 billion now. It's about $5 million a day. If you look at capital projects — renew, refresh, rebuild, brand-new — all across British Columbia, it's over $2.4 billion in 1,250 capital projects on campuses throughout British Columbia. Should I repeat that? So $2.4 billion invested in capital spending in British Columbia for 1,250 capital projects — capital projects that will enable all students and our staff and faculty to learn and to work in efficient and effective surroundings.
All of us collectively want British Columbians to be first in line for the jobs of the future, and we're working with employers, with educators and with communities to make that happen. Government skills and training planning is focused on investing and improving training facilities all across British Columbia.
I've certainly heard that side of the House suggest there isn't investment in skills training. Let me bust that myth. I continue to hear that in the doom-and-gloom conversation that I hear from that side of the House.
That $30 million investment in Okanagan College. That's real, and it's going to help that entire region.
Nearly $30 million into the Camosun College trades renewal project. Everybody is going to be invited, and I encourage you to join me and applaud the investment at the Camosun College trade facility that's going to train the trade students of the future.
It's not about "and-or"; it's about "all, as well, too."
It doesn't mean trades only. We have a new Emily Carr University of Art and Design location coming to the Great Northern Way. It's a $130 million investment. It's ensuring that those students that are studying on Granville Island right now have a renewed and refreshed location to study in.
We're keeping education accessible and affordable by maintaining and building new campus infrastructures and controlling tuition increases. Tuition in British Columbia makes up for about one-third, on average, of the cost of education. Tuition in British Columbia is the fourth lowest Canada, and we are committed to keeping tuition affordable in British Columbia.
We're providing financial aid packages — very robust financial aid packages — for students who qualify for assistance. But also we're asking students…. If there are less-served occupations or less-served locations in a number of different fields, there are opportunities for parts of their loans or the entire amount to be forgiven. It's a very nimble and flexible program, yet we are committed to continually review that and make sure it stays current.
We are also the first jurisdiction in Canada — perhaps in North America, perhaps even broader — to bring in open e-textbooks. This is a world-leader jurisdiction in open textbooks. We've launched the first 40 subjects already, and 18 are ready for download right now — where a student can take their iPad, their Android, whatever device they use, and download a free e-textbook without having to pay costs for doing so. That's another way that we're keeping costs affordable in British Columbia.
Approximately 200,000 students every year will benefit, each of them saving hundreds of dollars a year on textbook costs. An additional 20 textbooks are coming for skills training and technical training as well.
I have put this challenge out to my counterparts all across Canada. Perhaps they may want to join us, the Canadian leader in open textbooks. Perhaps we can be the leader, where other jurisdictions join us and we have hundreds of textbooks, down the road, that are free for students across British Columbia.
Let's talk a little bit about skills training. We want to make sure that British Columbians are first in line for the one million jobs predicted by 2020. This is predicted by organizations because they know that British Columbia has invested wisely. They've spent the taxpayer dollar wisely. We have this little triple-A rating. Perhaps the opposition has heard that and perhaps dismissed it. But the financial markets haven't dismissed that.
Some 78 percent of future jobs are going to require some level of post-secondary education; more than 40 percent are going to require skills or trades training. That's
[ Page 1473 ]
why it's important for me to examine and re-engineer public post-secondary education — to align education and training with those future job opportunities.
We're going to leverage the experience of industry and the expertise of our schools. Collaboration is so important.
This is about the broadest of industries. It's about shipbuilding. It's about aerospace. It's about LNG. It's about agriculture. It's about mining. It's about oil, and it's about gas. It's all about development. That's going to increase our partnerships with industry for all the jobs in demand.
With every investment that we're making in a facility's equipment and programs, we're sending a very, very important message to British Columbians. We're sending a message that trades is a smart choice. It offers a secure environment, a secure future. It's rewarding, it's respectful, and it pays well.
Let me touch a little bit on…. We've heard that three-letter word. Has the opposition heard that three-letter word LNG? We expect 100,000 jobs to be created in the coming years. It's going to accompany hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of investments in British Columbia and thousands of construction jobs.
To prepare for this, the post-secondary institutions, such as the Northern Lights College at the Oil and Gas Centre of Excellence, are helping students to develop important job skills that will give them well-paying jobs.
It's about short term, medium term and long term. The short-term training needs are also very important.
We've heard mention of the heavy equipment operators and the truck drivers that are going to be needed all across British Columbia. In fact, they might be the two top in-demand occupations in the next ten years. That's why it made sense for this government to provide funding for that haul truck driver training program at the College of the Rockies. That hands-on experience the students gain means they have more and better skills to bring to an employer.
In Victoria the new trades training facility at Camosun is going to support even more students.
The B.C. public secondary institutions — they're taking up the challenge. They're taking up the challenge in the north and the Interior and the Island and the Lower Mainland. They're taking up the challenge to collaborate, to work together and in partnership.
I touched briefly on aboriginal education, and I want to touch on that again. It's so important to us on this side of the House. Aboriginal young people are one of our fastest-growing demographics all across British Columbia. Their access to more post-secondary education and training is one way to meet B.C.'s labour market needs. We are working collectively. Everybody here, collectively, is working to ensure that the access to post-secondary education as well as the skills through a number of different training initiatives, community-based and otherwise, is absolutely the best it could be.
We can help the First Nations people in communities take advantage of economic opportunities, because there's no better opportunity to lift yourself up than having a well-paid job in British Columbia. Government has invested over $14 million in the last two years in partnership with the public post-secondary universities and aboriginal institutions and communities — over 50 training projects over 39 aboriginal communities.
We can't, also, think inward; we must think outward as well. We must think globally. This province is committed to attracting and retaining more international students as part of our international education strategy. Our goal is simple. Our goal is to increase by 50 percent the number of international students by 2016. To have an international student sitting next to a domestic student — incredible acumen in terms of cultural acumen, business acumen, learning about each other. These are the ties that are going to make the world just a little bit smaller.
At last count we had about 106,000 international students. That's up 13 percent in two years already. Just in terms of the economic impact on international students in British Columbia, international students' impact in British Columbia is about $2.1 billion a year — as much as many other industries. It creates some 23,500 jobs in British Columbia by the impact that international students have on this province — so working with universities and colleges and our trade offices overseas to make sure that we bring more international students to B.C.
Just as importantly, we want to increase opportunities to have British Columbian students study abroad. The experience that they bring by studying in a different country, that they bring back to British Columbia, will only enhance us.
I've had many highlights in the last eight months as the Advanced Education Minister. I attended the official launch of a tuition waiver program, for former kids in care, at Vancouver Island University. I've shared my visions for university education with the boards of governors all across British Columbia. I met and shared ideas with trades students at Northwest Community College in Terrace, participated in the opening of an aboriginal gathering place at Royal Roads University.
I've learnt a few things, and I must learn, as well, as I move on, that this is a marathon. It's not a sprint. There's a lot of work to do. But whether we're looking for administrative savings, developing new programs or aligning skills with jobs, it's something that we must do. Our public post-secondary education belongs to us. It's ours. It belongs to British Columbians. We're going to continue to provide learning opportunities. We're going to support individuals.
We're going to help British Columbians get well-paying jobs — jobs that put a good paycheque in your back pocket, jobs that put food on our tables and build our economies. That's a promise made, and that's a promise we're going to make.
[ Page 1474 ]
H. Bains: It is always a pleasure and an honour to stand here and speak on behalf of our constituents in Surrey-Newton. I've been honoured…. This is the third time they elected me again to represent them. It is quite a humbling experience, and I really appreciate the support that I'm receiving from my constituents, starting with my family.
I want to thank them. My wife, Rajvinder, has been my rock for 36 years now. It is her support and encouragement that kept me going and also keeps my feet on the ground. My children, Kulpreet, Jasmeen; my grandchildren, Rhianna and Brayden; and my lovely daughter-in-law, Parveen. This is the family that surrounds me with love and support, and this is where I get my encouragement and energize my thoughts to continue to do whatever I can to make sure that we make this world a little better place for our children and their children.
I also want to thank my constituency assistants. Emily — what a wonderful person she is. Not only is she one of the best, but she's a good friend. The loyalty that she brings to the office is something that is unmatched anywhere.
Then we have Simrit and Janice. Janice comes full-time as a volunteer. It's full-time. She comes in every day, and I just can't say thank you enough to her. Simrit, who works half-time, also is so much help and makes me feel good in the community, make good in the community. It's such a great group to work with.
I just want to say that since the last time I spoke here, I lost some good friends. I spoke about one of them, Jack Munro, in this office; Don Jantzen — I attended his memorial; and Doug Evans. These are the people that I started my trade union career with. These are the people that encouraged me, guided me and pushed me when it was needed, to get involved in the trade union movement and pick up that cause. They provided me with advice and the knowledge that is needed to fight for the working people, their working conditions and health and safety at the workplace.
Without their support, I don't think I would've been successful as a good activist. All of them are gone. Doug Evans was our president when I joined that executive, Don Jantzen was the first vice-president, and Jack Munro was president of our national IWA-Canada. I miss them. I will miss them all. They were great friends and mentors for me.
Also, closer to home, Simrit that I just spoke about lost her brother last week, a 43-year-old. We called him Sanju Terminder Apruti. Just a sudden death of a 43-year-old.
I just want to say to his family, Rimpal and two daughters, that we're with you. Find some courage to continue on with the journey that you started with your husband. We'll miss them all.
I stand here to speak on the budget and for reasons many of my colleagues have spoken before. There is no reason that I can support this budget. I looked around, I looked for it, but there isn't any.
I get it. You know, the government will come in, and through the throne speech, they put their vision together, they put their direction together and where their next year of action would be, and then they bring the budget in to follow that up with action. I listened to the throne speech. There were a number of things and the promises made. Then I looked at the budget, and then I listened to the Premier and the ministers outside of this House and inside of this House, what they've been saying.
I thought that maybe this time they'll surprise us, that they will actually do what they are saying. They've been saying that there will not be any new taxes. The Premier said: "I will not ask the taxpayers to pay any more taxes." She just said that, and then we looked at the document, pages after pages after pages. You look at it. There is a tax increase here, there's a tax increase there, there's a fee increase there, and I'm saying: what is going on here?
What is going on here is that they are consistently saying one thing before the election, one thing before the budget, and then they do quite the opposite. When the time comes for them to show some leadership, some action, their actions never match their promise — never.
Some of the new members here are probably wondering what I'm talking about. You go back to the 2001 election, 2005 election, 2009 election. What they say before the election and what they deliver after the election are quite the opposite.
Just recently — remember HST? "We will not bring in HST." What did they do? Brought in HST.
Now they're saying, before this budget: "We will not ask the taxpayers to pay more taxes." So what do they do? B.C. Hydro, the rate went up 29 percent for five years; ICBC, the rate went up 4.9 percent; MSP, right here in the budget, 4 percent up again; ferry fares, $32 round trip — up; post-secondary education, fees are going up again.
If you live south of the Fraser, where I live and the Ministers of Education and Advanced Education live.... I would say to the member for Surrey-Panorama that tolls are double. They are double now. Guess what. All of that traffic that they promised free alternatives to? They're all moving to the Pattullo, which is already jam-packed, dangerous and old.
Where are the promises? I am watching. I heard member after member on that side stand up, and they talked about how proud they are about the budget. It's a balanced budget.
What's lacking from that side is contrition. That's what's lacking. If they are so proud, why don't they stand up and say to the taxpayers: "We will increase your taxes"? Then you increase your taxes and defend them. But they say: "No, we will not increase your taxes." Then they go out there and increase your taxes when they table the document of what we call the budget here.
[ Page 1475 ]
That's what is missing — the contrition. No wonder the public do not have a very high opinion of politicians, because of actions of this nature. They continued on from 2001, 2005, 2009 elections and now again.
That's where the problem is. The Minister of Advanced Education talked just before me about how somehow this side is doom and gloom. It's not about doom and gloom; it's about contrition — being upfront with taxpayers. Say what you're going to do, and then do what you said. That's missing from this budget.
Then we talk about this as a balanced budget, but at the same time, the debt is going up and up and up. Since this Premier took office, it has gone up almost $24 billion. It will be about $29 billion after this budget is over — $69 billion.
It's like borrowing and adding on to your mortgage of the house to pay for groceries and saying: "Well, you know, we're not borrowing to pay for groceries, because that's our operating budget. We're not borrowing it from there." But your debt is going up on your house. Somebody is going to pay that someday. Your children will pay that.
Also, how did we get here? How did we get here? Even if you say that, yes, maybe there's a balanced budget…. Let's take a look. How did we get there? They raided B.C. Hydro for $580 million to put into this budget — $580 million, the money that they don't have.
At the same time, they have added $672 million and created another deferral account. So B.C. Hydro borrows money to give to this government so that they can say we have a balanced budget. Then the ratepayers are asked to pay for that debt — 29 percent over five years. Then you go to ICBC. They're rated $642 million, and they have to increase the premiums of the ratepayers there. That's how they pretend to balance the budget.
Again, no contrition. Just say it. Say: "We are going to tax you indirectly and directly so that we can claim that there's a balanced budget." They're not even saying that. How long can they fool the public? I think the time has come that we continue to speak up and say what exactly is happening in this House.
Then we talk about what's in the budget and what's missing from the budget. All future jobs…. With my debate with the minister before the election…. The Minister of Advanced Education finished speaking just before me. Some 80 percent of all future jobs will require a post-secondary education degree, diploma or some sort of post-secondary credentials — 80 percent of those jobs. Where will they get those skills? Post-secondary education institutions.
That's where the budget was cut last time — $43 million. In the next two years another $43 million is being cut. When you add the B.C. Hydro rate on them, and MSP premiums, I think that cut probably is much higher than that. How are our children going to get the opportunity to upgrade their skills and get those degrees that they need?
Again, they say one thing and do another. They say: "Well, B.C. workers will be the first in the lineup for those new jobs." But how? They don't get the opportunity to get the degree that they need because of the cutback in post-secondary education. The apprenticeship program is totally dismantled — for the last ten years. Alberta is doing a much better job on a daily basis than B.C. on the apprenticeship file.
[R. Chouhan in the chair.]
We have a shameful record on apprenticeship. Every industry, especially the resource sector industry and manufacturing industry that I have attended many meetings with, meetings with the boards of trade, chambers of commerce…. Every meeting theme is the same. We have a shortage of skills. Everyone has said that for the last ten years. What does the government do? Nothing. The private sector will take care of that.
Well, if the private sector was to take care of that, what happened in the last ten years? Where were you? Why didn't you work with the private sector in the last ten years so that right now we are in a position, in reality, where our workers would be in the front of the lineup for those jobs? They are not.
The way this government is going they're setting it up so that we have more temporary foreign workers, and our people, our children, will be standing in the back of lineup for those jobs because they don't have the skills that they need for those jobs. The fundamentals aren't there for them to secure those skills and the training that they need for those jobs. Then they will be saying, just like they said in HD Mining: "Well, we don't have the skilled labour here, so we have to bring them from China."
There was no contrition there either. It was the unions that had to go to the court to get the paperwork out so that we could find out in reality what the real picture was. Lo and behold, when the court was ordered to release those papers, there were hundreds of B.C. workers who were qualified for those jobs. They were ignored.
That's what's going to happen in the future as well, if this trend continues with this government. No wonder the so-called jobs plan is failing, because there is no plan. There is no vision. There are no fundamentals behind it. That's why 12,000 British Columbians fled British Columbia last year — 12,000 — because they can't find jobs here. They have lost hope in British Columbia.
That's why in their own document, in the budget, they are predicting that the unemployment rate will go up for the next two years. That's why Statistics Canada will tell you that we have the lowest employment rate west of the maritime provinces — worst, 59.6 percent, where other western provinces are in the mid-60s. That's the
[ Page 1476 ]
legacy, and that's the direction that this government has taken us to.
I want to come back to just talk about what's happening, how this budget will affect my constituency or Surrey, where I come from. We have some of the highest crime now in Surrey. I get phone calls every day — along with my colleagues from Surrey-Whalley, Green Timbers — that: "We call police, if there's a drug deal going on in the neighbourhood, and no one responds."
You talk to the police chief and the police, and they say: "Well, we don't have enough resources to answer all of those calls." As a result, we had 26 murders last year — highest ever in Surrey.
The Attorney General this morning — and I don't know what world they're living in — said that crime is going down. Well, she failed to report that she's talking about reported crime. She failed to understand what's going on in Surrey. People have given up phoning and reporting crime.
That's why three NDP MLAs from Surrey proposed what we call Surrey accord, where we are saying that we need more police officers, because on a per-capita basis we are one of the lowest in almost all of the municipalities in the Lower Mainland. Vancouver has 202 police officers per 100,000, and we have 137. That's 47 percent fewer police officers on a per-capita basis. No wonder they can't answer those calls.
People are talking about better modelling, police modelling — have a community policing system, more police officers on bike and foot patrol. We're talking about community court. Because of the continuous of many of those who are prolific, those who are engaged in petty crime…. Many of them have issues with mental health and addiction.
Right now they go through the criminal cycle. They're caught and go through the regular court. Sometimes it takes six months, a year even, to hear their case. They're out in the community again. They do the same thing, and the whole cycle starts again. We're saying: let's look at the underlying causes for their crime activity. Why are they engaged in that?
Vancouver has the community court. We were promised…. When Wally Oppal was Attorney General, he actually took issue with me when I said: "You don't have budget for Surrey, but you do have it for Vancouver." He said: "No, no. We're doing it for Surrey as well."
I know that he genuinely wanted to do it in Surrey, but he didn't get support from that side, his colleagues in the Liberal government of the day, and we still don't have it. That is one of the answers to deal with the issue in Surrey. We need support for mental health and for addiction.
Vancouver made some noises. Good for them. The Minister of Health went to Vancouver and announced: "Let's put together a program to deal with mental health issues." Well, Surrey is going to be as large as Vancouver in a few days, if not months. We have the same issues. We are a big city. We have big-city issues. We need the same solutions that we talked about in Vancouver and other big cities. We need help for mental health. There's nothing in this budget to talk about that.
We need help for addiction services. We need help to deal with those recovery homes that are unregulated. There are over 200 unregulated recovery homes in Surrey alone, and I'm told that only 50 are registered — only 50. The rest of them exploit those people who go there for help. They are moneymaking entities. There is nothing that goes on that you could call them recovery. There's no such thing in there. No recovery takes place in those places. We need help for that.
So we are asking all levels of government — asking the provincial government, asking the federal government: "Sit down with Surrey city and come up with solutions so that we can deal with the crime in Surrey and elsewhere." That's not asking too much, because every citizen — no matter where you live, which city you live in or which community you belong to — in a democracy deserves a safe, secure home, safety on their streets, safety when they are using public facilities. That's not asking too much.
But that also is the responsibility of the state to provide them that security and safety. We're failing our citizens right now. We're failing them. Julie Paskall, hockey mom, waiting in the parking lot for her son to come out from a hockey game, brutally murdered. That brought the community together. That brought this whole issue and put a spotlight on crime in Surrey, finally, but it took her life. No family should have to go through that.
So we need support. We're asking for help. It is the right thing to do, and I will only be happy if the government, anybody from the government side, stood up and said: "That is a good idea. We will go to Surrey, we'll work with city hall, and we will put those things together so that people in Surrey and in our communities feel safe."
Now let's look at the education side. The Minister of Education was speaking here just the other day. He talked about some of the schools that are being built. I just want to draw attention to some of the schools that he talked about building. He talked about Goldstone Park, and he talked about Katzie.
Yes, those are schools that are being built. But he failed to mention that the ad hoc committee that is put together to ask for more funding, more capital funding, for Surrey schools is saying, and the Surrey school board is predicting, that when those schools are built they will have to have more portables in there because of the growth. We have 7,000 students in portables right now. We need about $273 million as capital to build those schools today.
The minister went, I think, about a year ago and announced about $120 million to expand a few schools and build a couple of new, extra schools. But that's not even scratching the surface. We're not even going to catch up
[ Page 1477 ]
to where we are today — 7,000 in portables right now, and there will be more portables coming. We are gaining 1,000 new citizens in Surrey every month. It's not that it's a surprise that we will now have more students. They all know that there will be more students. The growth is there. The predictions are there.
The will and desire is not there, from this government here, to put the real resources behind it so that those students can have real classrooms, to get the real education in our schools that they deserve.
Others are on a modified scheduling. I mean, how bad is it going to get before they wake up one day and say: "Look. Yes, Surrey students, you deserve real classrooms. Surrey parents, we are there to help you."
When we need those services, they are quiet over there. It is deafening. But when there's a photo op…. "We will build Massey Tunnel." Out of the blue the announcement came. No referendum there. No one came up with any plan on how we are going pay for that. In the meantime, our students are sitting in the portables. That just shows the level of priorities that they have.
It's not doom and gloom. It's a reality. It's a reality where they are spending their money.
I want to thank Linda Stromberg and her ad hoc committee. It was because of their tireless work that finally we got some money, about a year ago.
Even at that, I just had a call from Munraj Bains, my nephew. He goes to school. He said: "Uncle, how is this in Canada, in Surrey today…? I went to school. We used to have our workbooks given to us. We would do our work in it and hand it back to the teacher. Now the teacher came in with one book for the entire class, because they have no money for photocopying." So if you want the workbook, you have to copy it page by page by page. Or if you want them to make a photocopy, you have to pay for it now.
That's what's happening. The members from Surrey — Langley and the member for Surrey-Cloverdale…. They know that's what is happening in Surrey right now. I hope that they will stand up in their speeches and say: "That is the wrong thing to do. That is the wrong thing, and we're going to fix it." That thing is missed in this budget as well.
Post-secondary education I just touched on, but I'll say $190 million cut in the next three years. It's at a time in Surrey when we have the fewest spaces for post-secondary education — 12, compared to 24 in the rest of B.C.
I want to talk about transportation — again, nothing. Public transportation — nothing in this budget.
I want to talk about WorkSafe B.C. We have about 150 workers killed in workplaces every year in B.C. It's about 1,000 in Canada. It is about time this government started to pay attention to what WorkSafe B.C. is doing. WorkSafe B.C. has lost its way. They are there to protect the health and safety of our workers in this province, and they are not doing that.
They simply have become an insurance agency for the employer in this province. That has to stop. There is nothing in the budget to give assurance to the working people that their health and safety is protected in workplaces. Nothing.
We have workers like in Burns Lake who are waiting for justice. People at Lakeland, waiting for justice. WorkSafe B.C. investigations said that that was a preventable incident. Well, if it was a preventable incident, then why wasn't it prevented? Whose responsibility is it to prevent, and provide health and safety for those workers? It is this government, and WorkSafe B.C. has failed them.
And the employer, the people in authority whose job it is, under the law, to protect them at workplaces — they failed them. They failed them, and no one is being held accountable. That's the worst part, and that has to change.
There's nothing in this budget. No one from the other side stood up and said: "We will make some changes to make sure that workers — their health and safety in the workplace — are safe."
D. Barnett: I am pleased to rise today and have the opportunity to respond to balanced budget 2014, which our government presented to this House this past Tuesday.
First, I would like to begin by mentioning that many members in this chamber know I am a locally focused MLA and believe in representing the interests of my constituents wherever possible in this chamber.
Therefore, before I begin my response to the budget, I wish to begin by acknowledging my staff, particularly my constituency assistants. Bonnie Gavin in Williams Lake and Beverly Harris in 100 Mile House do great work every day, listening to the concerns of my constituents and keeping me informed of what is happening at home. I would also like to thank the hard work of the staff here in the Victoria in the east annex — my legislative assistants, communication and research officers and all ministerial staff that assist me every day.
Of course, I would like to thank the constituents of Cariboo-Chilcotin. I would like to particularly thank them for all their words and letters of encouragement in our effort to support the New Prosperity project in my constituency. As I mentioned in my member's statement this past Monday, I have been working hard with many of my colleagues, meeting with as many stakeholders as possible to tell the story of this project and the benefits it will bring not just to my constituency but to the entire province and the country of Canada.
This is British Columbia's second consecutive balanced budget to be delivered by our Premier, and this is one of our most significant accomplishments we have made under her leadership. Our balanced budget fulfils the most fundamental promise we made to British Columbians: balance the budget by keeping taxes low
[ Page 1478 ]
and controlling spending. I am proud to be a member of a government that believes that fiscal responsibility is one of the most important priorities in our work.
However, tough choices had to be made to achieve this goal. While some choices were unpopular, they were the right ones to make. It was a difficult challenge to balance the budget in a time when global economic uncertainty is still present. Governments around the world continue to face challenges to get their fiscal house in order. But through tough choices and prudent planning, we achieved this goal — to achieve our commitments to keep British Columbia in the black.
This is an incredibly proud moment for this government and for the members of this side of the House. Instead of reckless spending and promises to so many people and so many special interests, our fiscal position that we enjoy today would be squandered by the party currently sitting in opposition.
How should we summarize Budget 2014? It's balanced; it's boring. That's pretty much it. But I really do fully support this budget and the objectives of our government, presented by the Minister of Finance. While the budget itself, described by the minister as boring, to be honest, that is exactly the type of budget that British Columbia needs.
We have made the investments that ensure services delivered by the province continue to meet the demands and needs of British Columbians across the province. I will also echo what the Finance Minister said a few days ago, and that is that we are putting B.C. on a fiscal path that will ensure our province remains one of the best places to invest in the world.
A fiscal regime that believes that keeping taxes low and controlling spending in a time where other governments have collapsed is why British Columbia is in a class of its own for being one of the most fiscally responsible jurisdictions in the world. By delivering a real plan, fiscally responsible leadership is certainly one of the key reasons why we were we re-elected in May 2014 and received yet another strong mandate from the people of British Columbia.
This government believes in controlling spending and reducing government waste wherever we can. Strong fiscal discipline by our government ensures that the budget remains balanced for the next three years by keeping a tight rein on spending, particularly by controlling growth in expenses and ministry budgets on a continuous basis.
Now, $184 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year is not a large surplus by any measure. However, by reviewing the financial position of this province over an ongoing basis, we will ensure that when the budget is presented next year, the fiscal position remains balanced.
The work conducted by the Minister for Core Review so far is paying off. Savings of $50 million have been found this year, and we will continue to conduct the work necessary to find savings wherever possible without reducing service for the most vulnerable British Columbians.
Over the next three years we are expecting that the core review will reduce spending, real savings that will give our government some breathing room to ensure that our budgets remain balanced and that we are not burdening our future generation with debt. Meeting these fiscal targets is an ongoing task, and we are committed to meeting this goal for the people of British Columbia.
While controlling spending is one of the most fundamental aspects of this balanced budget, it does not mean that we are not investing in necessary projects and plans throughout our province. The Cariboo-Chilcotin and surrounding region is receiving necessary infrastructure improvements that will make life better in our region. Four-laning work on Highway 97 and on the Cariboo connector is ongoing. By fall 2015, the phase 2 of the Cariboo connector strategy will be complete.
Investing in our roads to make them safer and reduce congestion for residents in my constituency is something I am pleased to see our government is addressing. We do not expect roads to be built overnight, but step by step our government is making the necessary investments throughout rural B.C. to make life better for British Columbians and make it easier to deliver our products to market.
So $125 million is being invested by our government in the Cariboo connector program, which has the added benefit of providing jobs and opportunities to my constituents in construction, engineering and planning positions. The hard-working men and women employed on this project are taxpayers and members of our communities. The benefits of this project going forward will help our local and small businesses with customers, keep people in our region and make it more efficient to move our products and services to markets in northern B.C. and the Lower Mainland.
In total, our government is spending approximately $2.4 billion in capital spending on other infrastructure projects across B.C. over the next three years. These are needed investments to keep our province moving forward.
Other investments worth mentioning that are benefiting the great people of the Cariboo-Chilcotin are community investment projects, which build stronger and better communities throughout our province. Community gaming grant investments, just this month alone in my constituency, include $17,000 for the 100 Mile House and District Women's Centre Society for a drop-in centre; $75,000 for the Big Brothers Big Sisters of Williams Lake for in-school mentoring; $50,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Williams Lake for a recreation and nutrition program; and $121,725 for the Cariboo Family Enrichment Centre in 100 Mile House.
These gaming grants help keep our communities
[ Page 1479 ]
strong, healthy and vibrant. The hard work of the volunteers to make these organizations as successful as they are is commendable. I am pleased and happy they have received this assistance to make an even bigger difference in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.
Another community program that has benefited the Cariboo-Chilcotin is the strategic community investment fund, which has provided communities across my constituency with funding to invest in municipal priorities and projects. Since 2009 the strategic community investment fund has provided almost $600 million in grants to communities across British Columbia.
Families in my region will also benefit from the B.C. training and education savings grant that will provide a one-time grant to every child born in B.C. after 2007 — $1,200 through their family RESP — and 40,000 families are going to benefit from this program. Every little bit will help pay for their university, trades or other post-secondary institution costs.
Investment in skills training continues to be one of the main priorities of this government, meeting the needs of current and future students for many years to come. By ensuring that young adults and future British Columbians have the necessary skills to participate in new resource projects that will be coming to northern British Columbia is incredibly important to people in the Cariboo-Chilcotin.
The new NorKam trades centre of excellence in Kamloops, which will be completed this fall, will provide courses in areas such as mining, exploration, industrial skills and the construction trades, which will be incredibly useful for the jobs of tomorrow in northern B.C. and the Cariboo. Trades and skills training investments ensure that British Columbians are the first in line for new and exciting opportunities in the resource sector.
Our government has also invested in First Nations youth to enter trades and skills training programs, ensuring that every single British Columbian has the opportunity to participate in economic prosperity that will come with new and existing resource projects.
Our government also introduced the B.C. early childhood tax credit, which will provide $55 per month for every child under six years old in April 2015. This will invest $146 million for 180,000 families across the province to help them balance the demands of work and parenting.
The first-time-homeowners property transfer relief program has also been increased from $425,000 to $475,000, making it a little bit easier for young people to achieve home ownership. The benefits will save first-time homebuyers up to $7,500, which can make all the difference in the world when buying a new home. Young people, first-time homebuyers and families with young children in my constituency are excited for these new programs, and I am proud that our government is going to help them.
Government investments are incredibly important to the people of British Columbia. But if taxpayers have to provide high amounts of their paycheque every week to pay for these programs and investments, our economy and quality of life will suffer. That is why this budget is good for British Columbia and good for our economy. Our personal taxes are the lowest in Canada for individuals earning up to $121,000 per year. This provides families and individuals the room to invest and save more of their hard-earned money. This also makes British Columbia one of the most desirable places in the world to live.
Without going into too much detail, my region of the Cariboo-Chilcotin has so much natural beauty and recreational opportunities. The region is rich in natural resources. Again, mentioning the New Prosperity project, the jobs in this project are high-paying and high-skilled positions. And guess what. They are high-paying jobs. More high-paying opportunities in the natural resource sector means additional government revenues for the province and local municipalities across British Columbia.
Keeping our tax rates competitive and fostering investment in our province pays dividends for many years to come. With $181million of net benefits to taxpayers this year, economic stability and growth will be achieved through the efforts that our government presented this year.
Government revenues are forecasted this year to almost $45 billion, much of which is taxation revenue. However, our government understands that revenues cannot just be increased by raising taxes on income earners and on families. We must grow the economy.
Keeping our taxation policies competitive will increase revenues. Our government is taking the necessary time to implement a competitive LNG tax framework. That will not only make our province a competitive jurisdiction to invest in LNG projects, but British Columbians will receive the maximum benefits from these projects going forward. Royalties for natural gas are already comparatively competitive. Relative to other jurisdictions investing in LNG projects, we continue to be a key market for LNG investors.
Small business taxation and regulatory reform also keep our economy competitive and continue to employ hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. By keeping our commitment to foster growth in small business in a variety of sectors in every region of the province, by making it easier for business owners to operate, and reducing the time and effort to comply with government red tape, they can concentrate on running their business and keeping the British Columbia economy strong.
This government's commitment to balance the budget matters on a fundamental point — to keep British Columbia a competitive place to invest and grow. A triple-
[ Page 1480 ]
A credit rating means that businesses around the world know that our province is a jurisdiction that is in no danger of collapsing or entering financial difficulty. In countries such as Greece and Ireland government financial crisis meant that taxes went up, unemployment skyrocketed, and serious cutbacks to government services were experienced.
Compared to the rest of Canada, B.C. has one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios. Compared to Quebec at 55.7 percent, Ontario at 37.4 percent and the federal government at 33 percent, B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is only 18.5 percent. This is fiscal leadership.
With these facts in front of us, our plan to pay off British Columbia's debt is achievable, and we'll keep our triple-A rating intact for many, many years to come. B.C. is stable, with an economy that is growing at a reasonable rate, unemployment rates stabilizing, and government spending kept under control.
This three-year fiscal plan is not grandiose or too optimistic. It is well researched and growth figures take into account the still fragile North American economy. That being said, by diversifying our export markets from the United States to Asia, Europe, and Latin America, we will not only experience the dramatic shocks of the economic situation south of border. And because British Columbia products such as timber, manufactured goods and agriculture goods are known to be of high quality around the world, our exporters can command higher prices.
Fiscal prudence is not only what the business and foreign investments market want. It is also what families and people in my riding want. I have been told many times at the doorstep that they are expected to balance their own books every year, and so should government.
In summary, I am incredibly proud to be a supporter of balanced budget 2014. This is a real fiscal plan that not only fulfils the commitment we made to keep our budget balanced but is continuing to invest in our communities, families, small business across my constituency and the province.
Growing our economy through investment in skills training, laying a foundation for competitive LNG industry, building new connections with economies in Asia, and keeping our fiscal position to the best in the world — yes, there is a lot to be proud of in this budget, and we will continue to monitor the financial position of our province to ensure that this time next year we deliver our third consecutive balanced budget.
G. Holman: I'm pleased to speak to the 2014 budget speech on behalf of the voters of Saanich North and the Islands who have given me the honour of representing them in the Legislature. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Saanich First Nations on the peninsula — the Tsawout, Tsartlip, Pauquachin and Tseycum — for allowing us to live and prosper on their lands.
The election of a Liberal government does not mean that they can ignore the priorities of the hundreds of thousands of voters and the 36 constituencies that elected opposition MLAs, especially given the disingenuous Liberal campaign promising a debt-free B.C. while debt has grown at the fastest rate in B.C. history, a jobs plan that has resulted in losses in private sector jobs and the highest number of temporary foreign workers in Canada.
I want to respond to my colleague from Penticton who, unfortunately, isn't here right now, regarding the feedback from the public to the Finance Committee, which he very ably chaired. I also served on this committee. It is true that there were submissions calling for fiscal prudence, and the committee agreed with this. But there were many more submissions from students, educational institutions, social service agencies, stewardship groups and even local governments asking the provincial government for greater financial support.
During the election, in my constituency, as I noted in my comments on the previous budget and throne speech, there was a striking degree of consensus among the candidates, including the Liberal candidate, on some of the very key issues of importance to our constituency — about the need to manage and support B.C. Ferries as if it was part of the public transportation system; about addressing the highest child poverty rate in Canada and, particularly, the conditions in First Nations communities; about the need to provide more help for special needs kids in our classrooms; about the risks of oil tanker traffic and the need to address climate change; about the importance of encouraging local food production, building affordable housing, improving public transit and better protecting old-growth forests and our precious marine environment.
The Finance Minister has described his budget as a stay-the-course document. Therefore, it may not be surprising that I continue to have many of the same concerns about this budget as the one tabled by government in 2013. In general, almost none of the priorities identified by voters and other candidates, including the Liberal candidate in my constituency, have been addressed by this throne speech or by this budget.
This budget, unfortunately, continues a massive shift in taxation from taxes based on ability to pay, to regressive user fees and charges that are taxes by any other name. While the members opposite talk of the importance of low taxes — and it is important to be competitive in a international marketplace — sharp increases in ferry fares, hydro rates, vehicle insurance, tuition fees and MSP premiums have and will impose billions of additional costs on families and businesses. This is not only unfair to and will hurt ordinary working families with modest to middle incomes; it's hurting the economy.
This isn't fearmongering. The data support this. The data show this — a loss of private sector jobs, weak consumer spending, out-migration from B.C. to other prov-
[ Page 1481 ]
inces. Part of the reason for this is that regressive fees and charges hit lower- and middle-income families much higher than for high-income earners.
For the economists in the room — I believe there's at least one — lower-income individuals have a higher propensity to consume. They spend a higher proportion of their income. When you nail those people, those families, with regressive fees, it means they don't have as much money to spend in the economy. That's why consumer spending is weak. That's why our economy is struggling.
The huge increase in user fees of various kinds also impacts the viability and competitiveness of businesses of all sizes. For example, as my colleague from Cowichan has stated, hydro increases alone amount to an additional cost to Catalyst Paper of millions of dollars per year. This is for a company that has just emerged from bankruptcy, employs hundreds of workers in well-paid jobs and contributes over one-third of the tax revenue for the North Cowichan district municipality.
What this means is that if this budget is balanced, and that's arguable, it's being funded by ordinary working families, students, ferry-dependent communities, and businesses.
There is another key strategy government has employed to balance this budget: extracting billions of dollars over the next three years from Crown corporations. In the next fiscal year alone hundreds of millions in so-called dividends have been pulled from B.C. Hydro, while B.C. Hydro was running up its short-term debt in the form of deferral accounts. The Auditor General has stated that the use of deferral accounts at B.C. Hydro has created the illusion of profitability.
Even though there are no revenues and only costs in the budget forecast associated with LNG, I feel I should speak to the issue, since members opposite continue to point to the LNG pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The LNG tax rates just announced by government make it very clear that the two-tier royalty rate applied to net income will not be reached until the capital costs of LNG plants are fully amortized, which will significantly delay provincial revenues even further than promised. The debt-free slogan that we heard during the election campaign apparently applies more to the LNG industry rather than the province of B.C.
Finally, because of delays in finalizing the LNG tax regime, new gas suppliers throughout the world who already had a head start on British Columbia will have more time to bring their projects to production. This will accelerate an inevitably shrinking market, drive prices down and drive taxable LNG income down.
I also wonder whether the announced tax regime will deal with the ability of multinational companies to manipulate net income to their B.C. operations by controlling transfer prices. I owe a debt to my colleague in caucus for pointing this out to me — our former Finance critic. If the royalty regime doesn't deal with that issue, it may be that transfer prices, not the world price, may be the key factor in determining B.C. royalty revenues. In any case, for whatever reason, if LNG net income is zero then, regardless of the royalty rate, provincial income will be zero. Early indications are that provincial income will be zero for many years.
Another unforeseen implication of LNG exports to Asia is that they could pull up domestic prices of natural gas. Economist Robyn Allan has predicted that increased oil exports from the west coast would have the same effect on fuel prices in B.C. So it would be possible to have higher domestic gas prices, with related impacts on B.C. consumers and businesses, and yet still be lower than current Asian prices, thus driving down net income to LNG producers and B.C.'s revenue share — in other words, the worst of both worlds.
We've gone down this road before. Previous Liberal budgets have relied too heavily on natural gas revenues while reducing taxes for banks, large corporations and very-high-income earners. Natural gas prices in North America have collapsed before, and market forces have the potential to create such a situation on a world scale.
This doesn't mean that the LNG opportunity should not be pursued. But it has to be done in an environmentally responsible manner, and we need to be careful about overreliance on a resource with a history of price volatility. Again, this isn't fearmongering; it's about being financially prudent.
And it's not fearmongering or doom and gloom to point out the obvious contradiction between claims of a debt-free B.C. and the fastest increase in levels of provincial debt in our history. A number of my colleagues have already pointed out that debt levels will rise by about $24 billion by 2017. And as our Auditor General pointed out, the debt reported in the provincial budget does not adequately include the tens of billions in liabilities associated with private power projects approved without any oversight by our B.C. Utilities Commission.
The focus in this budget is aimed almost entirely at the financial deficit. There are other deficits — environmental and social — that are virtually ignored in this budget.
We continue to have a provincial environmental assessment process that is so underfunded and so broken that it has twice approved the Prosperity mine proposal, which will ultimately destroy a fishery relied upon by local First Nations for a millennia. The promise of high-paying jobs cannot be used to destroy the traditional livelihoods of First Nations. This project has also been rejected twice by the federal environmental assessment process.
The ceding of authority to a federal conservative government regarding the approval of pipelines and tanker traffic is another example of an environmental legacy that we may all regret.
[ Page 1482 ]
Legislating natural gas as a clean fuel does not change the fact that LNG exports will increase GHG emissions in B.C. Neither the proposed royalty regime nor other government policies are addressing this challenge.
The social and economic legacy of this budget and government is at best a mixed one. The doubling of ferry fares on many minor routes is bleeding small coastal communities dry. The highest poverty rate in Canada will ultimately mean higher costs for all taxpayers. And mismanagement of B.C. Hydro has transformed this Crown jewel into a financial basket case, in part due to take-or-pay contracts with foreign-owned power producers and the gutting of our independent regulatory watchdog, the B.C. Utilities Commission.
A very troubling aspect of this government's legacy is emerging for our younger generation in this province. As pointed out by our Advanced Education critic, average student debt in B.C. is the highest in Canada. Total student debt has increased from less than $100 million to over $1 billion in the past decade because of the gutting of the student grant programs and the highest interest rate on student debt in Canada. Just as troubling, B.C. also has the highest proportion of young people not working and not in school in Canada.
This is why I don't support the budget — not because there is nothing good in it at all but because I know it's possible to do a much better job in balancing economic, social and environmental goals.
I do want to state for the record…. I indicated in my first speech to this House that I want to be as constructive as I possibly can with this government, and in terms of local issues, I think there are some opportunities to build affordable housing, to improve public transit and to establish a marine conservation area in the southern Gulf Islands. I pledge to this House — to my colleagues on this side and the opposite side — to work towards those goals as constructively as I can.
As legislators we have a responsibility to leave a positive legacy. This budget doesn't meet this test, in my view. It's not just because the budget is founded on a so-called dividend from B.C. Hydro that is awash in debt. It isn't just because the very large liability that could result from the court decision on K-to-12 education is being ignored in the budget. It isn't just because of cuts to essential services that are only becoming apparent after the election. Further increases in a variety of regressive user fees and claims about private sector job growth is, in fact, negative.
I'll also vote against this budget because it will exacerbate climate change. It promotes unsustainable resource development in the context of an environmental assessment process without integrity and the absence of independent regulatory oversight over B.C. Hydro. It does nothing to make our tax system fairer, and it does not address the highest child poverty rate in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a budget I can be proud of, and I cannot, in good conscience, support it.
M. Hunt: It is certainly my privilege to be able to follow the member for Saanich North and the Islands. As he mentioned, we were part of the Finance and Government Services Committee. His discussion, his debate, his input into that committee was certainly very enjoyable. I thank him for his thoughtful comments today.
As is the tradition of this House, Mr. Speaker, I would begin by wanting to thank the good residents of Surrey-Panorama for placing their confidence in me and allowing me the awesome privilege to be able to serve them here in this House.
I found I almost made it to this House after the May election of 1986, but there was this little thing called section 80 ballots that somehow tripped me up between the election and the final count, and I didn't quite make it into this House. But it's a pleasure to be here today, and it's a pleasure to be able to serve the good citizens of Surrey-Panorama.
In doing that, I certainly want to thank my lovely wife, Ruth, for enduring these years of me being involved in politics — 23 years at the municipal level, as well as school board before that.
It was interesting that as I resigned from Surrey council, it was noted that I had served Surrey council for 23 years and two months. My daughter put on Facebook: "Well, I have lived for 23 years and six months, so that tells you what I've endured as a child." Our youngest of six children has only known me as a politician, so that's most interesting. It's an interesting adventure in the midst of life, certainly not what I expected.
Also, I would like to thank Shanda Millar and Kiran Sangha, who are my constituency assistants. And I know that watching from his desk is Derek Robertson, who is my legislative assistant. I know he wants to make sure that I mention him, as well, and thank him for the work that he does for me in getting us ready for the chambers and all these things.
As I speak to this budget and the challenges of this budget, it takes me back to many occasions throughout my life where I have had the opportunity to be able to talk to couples, either just before or just after they get married, about the changes of life that will happen in the midst of this process and the challenges of living together with someone for the rest of their life.
One of the things that I've always talked to them about when they're dealing with finances is that they really need to sit down together and create the picture of what they want their marriage and family to look like. They need to do that financially. They need to get in their minds the understanding of where they want to go, what their goals and ambitions are, what the targets are that they want to reach and then work on a plan to get there.
The simple reality is that life is a whole group of decisions. As a married couple, as a society, a city, a province, we all have to work together and paint that picture
[ Page 1483 ]
of where we want to go.
Now, personally, when I talk about my political career, certainly I spent the 23 years in local council. But in doing that, in 1996 my wife and I made the decision that we would be full-time councillors. Now, many people think that's a normal, easy decision. But for us, with six children, we would be making $27,000 a year. In fact, what I was doing was I was putting my family and my six children below the poverty level.
We've certainly heard a lot of talk about people being below the poverty level, but that was a decision that we made. That was a decision that we made as a family because of where we wanted to go in life and what we wanted to accomplish. But one of the things that we chose to never talk about was we would never say: "We can't afford." Rather, we would make it: "We choose to do this or that or the other thing."
Certainly, we could have had new cars. Certainly, we could have had new houses. Certainly, there were lots of things that we could have done. But rather, we made a deliberate choice because of that vision that we had, that place that we wanted to go to. Life is full of those decisions; life is full of those challenges. But what is the picture that we envision? What is the picture that we're going to?
Thankfully, in May of 2013 this side of the House had a clear vision of that picture that we wanted to paint for the provincial economy and for this province. We clearly took a very clear picture to the electorate of this province. Thankfully, the provincial electorate agreed with us and has put us into the position where we in fact, working together, can actually paint that picture and make that picture happen.
Yes, it takes work. Yes, it takes discipline. Yes, it takes labour. But I, for one, happen to be proud of this budget.
[Madame Speaker in the chair.]
Now, I realize that there are those on the other side of the House that say: "We can't, we can't; we should, we should" or "We heard a number of months ago that this whole thing is a sham."
Well, I heard those same things as a councillor in the city of Surrey. For nine years, during a very difficult economic time in this province, I was a part of the team that delivered to the city of Surrey a zero tax increase.
You know, the reality is that the script was exactly the same as what I'm hearing here. It was just a different theatre. The NDP members at Surrey council were saying: "You can't, you can't. You need to spend money on this; you need to spend money on that. There are so many other things that we need to spend money on."
Madame Speaker, I have to also give you this piece of information, and that is that we were delivering these nine years of zero tax increase during the time that the members opposite happened to be the government. The members opposite just happened to be doing this thing called downloading where, when they couldn't take care of something, they found a way to shift it down to the local government.
Well, okay. The federals were downloading to the province. The province was downloading to the municipalities — $12 million removed from the budgets of the city of Surrey, for tremendous financial challenges. But we had made a commitment to our citizens.
We made a commitment to the electorate of what we would do, the vision that we had, the picture we wanted to paint. In fact, we did it. We delivered it. Today Surrey has the lowest tax rate in the Lower Mainland.
Last May the B.C. citizens chose fiscal responsibility over deficit spending to restore the economy.
There are those of us that have travelled the world. We have seen Greece. We have seen Italy. We have seen the tremendous challenge that happens in countries where they don't have their fiscal house in order, where they don't take fiscal responsibility seriously and have — unfortunately, it's also a terrible thing — that terrible ability to have to say no. That has to say: "These are our priorities. These are the choices that we're making."
British Columbians know that racking up debt simply passes the financial burden onto our children and our grandchildren. This is not family-friendly. This is not fiscally responsible. You simply can't spend your way out of an economic downturn.
In the midst of our finances, we have to look at where we can tighten the belt, and we have to take on the financial problems every way that we possibly can.
Fiscal responsibility requires discipline. That's exactly what this budget is doing. That's exactly what the government is doing for the citizens of British Columbia and with the citizens of British Columbia. We are balancing the budget, because that is the very heart of fiscal responsibility.
Yes, it requires reducing spending. Yes, it requires some tightening of the belt here and there. But British Columbia is, in fact, leading this country with this balanced budget. It's a positive outlook again. We heard from the Minister of Finance that for the next three years we're going to have three more balanced budgets as we work together to build a solid economy here in British Columbia.
The Conference Board of Canada has singled out British Columbia as the province that is going to lead the country in economic growth in 2015, because B.C. is getting the fundamentals right. We're creating favourable conditions for the private sector to flourish, and that's exactly where the jobs are going to come from as we work together and build the basic fundamentals for this province.
A balanced budget is what provides certainty for investors. Investors need that kind of certainty, especially
[ Page 1484 ]
when you look at the liquidity that investors have — their ability to move money all over the world. They will come to places where they can get that certainty. And certainly, British Columbia is producing that in spades with this budget.
We need labour stability — another critical issue for funds that can roll anywhere in the world. We need labour stability, and I am so very proud that this government has reached tentative deals with three of our public sector unions, representing 51,000 hard-working members of the public service. They have a part to share. They have the ability to share in the prosperity of this province as we move forward.
I think that is very creative. Again, that is laying the fundamental foundations for our public servants to work together so that we can all build this great province that we know and love. [Applause.] Thank you, my friends.
Reaching long-term labour agreements is absolutely critical to promoting economic stability, to getting a predictable business environment so that we can move this province to what we all wanted to see.
What about taxes? I am, again, so pleased with this province in the area of tax regime because, again, it is a fundamental piece of a competitive economy that has the ability to track more investment. That's why this government has taken significant steps to continue to keep our personal and corporate taxes some of the lowest in this country — the lowest personal income tax rates for those who make under $121,000, and most of my friends are in that category.
You take, for example, a senior couple that's making $40,000 a year. Well, that's not a lot, but when we compare it to 2001 they are spending almost $800 less in provincial income taxes. An individual who's earning $50,000 is paying $1,300 less in provincial income taxes. A family of four making $70,000 — almost $2,000 less, keeping those dollars within the pockets of the citizens of British Columbia so they can be spending it on what their priorities are and continuing to build the economy, continuing to build small businesses in their community.
We're reducing small business taxes by 40 percent by 2018, continuing to keep our corporate income taxes low and trying to take them even lower.
Again, what am I proud of in this budget? I am proud of the fact that British Columbia continues our triple-A credit rating with all three of the rating agencies. This is absolutely critical. I had the awesome privilege of being able to serve on the Municipal Finance Authority, which also has that triple-A credit rating. We were able to deliver to all of the municipalities in this province very, very inexpensive money for them to be able to build the infrastructure necessary in communities.
If we simply take what is our debt today and compare it to the province of Ontario, which has a double-A-minus rating, we would, in fact, have to spend $2 billion more just on interest, just off to the banks and to the investors. Rather, we have that $2 billion for us to be able to spend on vital programs and services — many of the things that are wanted and needed for those who are less fortunate and those who are more challenged in the midst of this province.
Having that triple-A credit rating also lowers our government borrowing costs, which gives us that financial freedom for us to be able to borrow money for things like our health care system; like schools, which we certainly need in Surrey; and our post-secondary educational institutes.
When we look at the capital budget that is given to us here in this budget, I am so pleased to see that over the next three years $11 billion is going to be spent on infrastructure — $1.5 billion of that to maintain, replace, renovate and expand our kindergarten-to-grade-12 facilities. Well, I know that we need, in a very short period of time, $10.5 million of that to be building a new secondary school in Clayton.
I'm so pleased to see that these larger numbers are in the midst of this budget so they can be allocated out to the needs throughout the province: $2.3 billion for capital spending on post-secondary institutions, $2.6 billion on health care infrastructure, $3.4 billion on transportation infrastructure. I would love for all of that to be spent in Surrey, because we have those needs, but I know that there are lots of competing interests across this good province. Those of us who are the five members of government from Surrey will certainly be working to get our share in Surrey.
The diversity of our economy is so very critical. As has been said, in 2001, 70 percent of B.C. exports went to the United States. That has now changed to being less than 45 percent. Alberta — 86 percent of their exports go to the U.S. Ontario — 78 percent.
We certainly saw what happened in 2008 and 2009, when the United States economy went into the tank. We had that challenge carried over the entire world. But fortunately for us, here in the province of British Columbia — because we had been working on a strategy of diversifying our businesses, diversifying our economy and diversifying our trade — we were able to withstand that much better than, particularly, the eastern provinces of this great nation of ours.
As we look at what's happening in China…. Again, in 2001, 3 percent of the B.C. exports went to China. Now in 2012 we're up to 18.4 percent of that going to China and to Asia. Those are tremendous numbers.
India — again, a very great nation that is growing and expanding. Also, because of our community in Surrey having a large Indo-Canadian community, we're excited to see that market growing. The export is growing to that market as well, where it's increased by 45 percent in the last year.
[ Page 1485 ]
Business is good here in the province of British Columbia. Our exports are up to $33.6 billion from $31.5 billion last year, so things are going in the right direction. We're working together. We're working with small businesses.
We're working on the LNG project. Oh yes, our members opposite can say: "Well, there are all sorts of challenges, and there are all sorts of this and that." That's absolutely true, but we need to work on it. That's what I'm excited about.
The Minister of Energy and the minister concerning natural gas opportunities are working hard at trying to get the pieces of the puzzle right. That's where I particularly enjoy hearing the criticisms from our members opposite who have thought these things through and are saying: "Hey, here's a piece of the puzzle we need to look at." That's helping us to work together to be at a better solution for the province of British Columbia.
As we work together, I think we have a tremendous opportunity that is here for us, because we have significant benefits of hundreds of millions of dollars, which is going to get up into the billions of dollars, in investment. We've got thousands of construction jobs. We've got growth in the local area — the regional economies — higher revenues. But in the midst of all of that, we can't get caught up just in the euphoria of it. We've got to recognize that it's going to take hard work. It's going to take negotiations — all sorts of benefits — but it's us working together. We can make that happen.
Then, of course, one of the things that I'm particularly prejudiced about in this budget is the investment in social infrastructure, particularly the $1,200 grant for our children's registered education savings plans, when they come on their sixth birthday.
Yes, Madame Speaker, you will hear from me more in introductions coming up later in this year, because our 12th and our 13th grandchildren are on the way. [Applause.] Thank you. I know I have a ways to compete with John Les, but by the same token, I have a vigorous set of children, and they're with lovely spouses, and who knows where we'll end up. But absolutely, grandchildren are delightful and wonderful, and it's tremendous that this government is working at building those educational savings plans.
Also, as of April 2015 the B.C. early childhood tax benefits will be going out to 180,000 families here in the province of British Columbia — $55 a month for each child. That may not sound like a lot of money when we just say it, but those dollars are so critical to young families with young children — so many expenses, where every single dollar counts.
This government has committed incremental funding of $243 million over the next three years for Community Living B.C. to maintain services to adults with developmental disabilities and their families.
In conclusion, this Budget 2014 represents a commitment to control government spending. We have achieved a balanced budget, and we are setting the course to have a balanced budget this year as well.
The input that I have and the feedback I have heard back in the last few days from my constituency is that people want the government to keep our taxes low, to keep things affordable for families. They know it's a tough decision. They know there are tough choices ahead, but they're proud of us for going in that direction and making those decisions. They want a strong economy, they want a secure tomorrow, and they've recognized that a balanced budget is the foundation that we need in order to build that. That is why I am proud to support this budget.
M. Karagianis: I'm very happy to take my place in this debate on Budget 2014. Before I start my remarks, if I may, I'd just like to give a shout-out to my community of Esquimalt–Royal Roads. I am very proud to be here again in this Legislature representing the community. This spring it will be a celebration of my 18th year of representing Esquimalt in some form or other. It's always a great privilege to stand here and to bring the voice of the people of Esquimalt–Royal Roads into this House.
It's a diverse community and represents, I think, a real microcosm of what British Columbia is all about, because it is a strong working community with great diversity — partly kind of an urban community, moving out into a suburban community. I think in many ways it represents all of the things, the challenges and the issues, that British Columbians face right around this province. I think I can see those from one end of my community to the other.
Standing here and talking to the budget, Budget 2014, it seems to me that we have in this province enormous challenges. The biggest challenges of our time, I believe — this can be verified by economists — fall into a couple of categories.
One, I think that affordability for ordinary working families is by all accounts one of the largest challenges that governments face everywhere in North America and across this country, but very specifically here in British Columbia. Affordability, the erosion of the middle class and the challenges that that is presenting to this province, I think, is a major challenge, and this budget seems devoid of solutions to address that.
Now, you talk to economists and they will tell you that this is a crisis that we need to deal with. The erosion of the middle class is something that has economic impacts that range far and wide, and long into the future. If we can't begin to grapple with that, then I think we have a problem that will continue to grow and increase in the years ahead.
The second piece of our major challenges I think is around jobs and the training and education that our children will need for the economies of tomorrow. Now, I know that in this House we talk a lot about skills train-
[ Page 1486 ]
ing, about the jobs of the future, about the jobs plan that the government has tried to keep on its feet for the last couple of years. The reality is that this is a challenge for us. It is a challenge to ensure that our children and our children's children have opportunities to be prosperous, to work, to pursue their dreams, to pursue all of the economic stability that we have all had the good opportunity to have been given in our time.
It seems to me that when I look at this budget, again, I see it completely devoid of solutions that will provide stable and sustainable jobs for our children long into the future. In fact, we see most of the government's aim is pinned on one large hope, one large beacon in the distant future. Everything is about that, and very little is about looking at the entire economy and how our children and our families can participate in that.
The third significant challenge that we have, and I think this would be unequivocal on this side of the House and even for some of our independent members, is caring for and protecting the environment. Again, this budget is devoid of solutions to that significant challenge.
These are challenges of our age. These are not momentary, passing fluctuations in interest. These are not issues that are driven by interest groups, by momentary political whims. These, in fact, I think are the significant challenges of our time.
For me, when I look at Budget 2014, I see that this is not a budget about any of those challenges. It's not about real families in British Columbia. It's not about the needs of real people in our communities. It's focused on dreams of some LNG future that is of such fantastic proportion that will deliver such enormous largesse in the future that it's almost beyond grasp for most people and certainly for working families.
Ordinary people in my community that I run into every day in Esquimalt–Royal Roads are thinking right now about their families, about the security of their incomes, about the cost of shelter, about how they make a better life for their own children, about how they get by from payday to payday. Under 12 years of the B.C. Liberal government, those families are now considered to be the working poor. Many of those families are barely getting by from payday to payday, despite the fact that there are two incomes in a household and that they are trying to raise families.
It seems to me that what we have as the legacy of 12 years of this government is this new term that has been coined under the time of this government, which is "working poor," working families who are being forced to access food banks.
Now, there is a concept that those who go to food banks are the homeless, the destitute, people who are in some ways so marginalized that they have no other options. But, in fact, if you go to a food bank today anywhere in this region and in many parts of British Columbia, what you will see are working families that are reaching out to food banks in order to make it through from payday to payday.
In fact, we already see affordability as one of the biggest challenges across this province and certainly in the communities that I represent, and this budget is devoid of any reference to that whatsoever. It seems to me that this budget really demonstrates a government that is so completely out of touch with the people in working communities that it cannot be supported at all.
This is a budget which, in fact, creates less affordability for families, which is going to make life tougher. For those very families who are now finding it difficult to get from payday to payday, they are about to see it get more difficult. More hard choices will have to be made by families because of this B.C. Liberal government and this budget.
We will see more seniors have to make hard choices and have to live in difficulty because of this B.C. Liberal budget. This budget is not about the people in our communities that are having a tough time, and that is working middle-class families now. That is families with two incomes. That is not seniors on fixed incomes. That is not families with a single parent. Both of those categories are growing.
We have more seniors. We all know that the baby boom is producing more seniors. They're not all wealthy. There is a huge category of seniors, which is senior women, who have not gone through a career where they have large pensions. We have many senior women living in poverty, and this budget is about to make life a lot more uncomfortable for them, a lot more difficult for them.
For the families who are working very hard right now, we are going to see this budget make life more uncomfortable for them, but most specifically, for single-parent families. There are lots of those kinds of families in my community.
Frankly, LNG a decade from now does absolutely nothing to help them today and tomorrow and every single day of the week. This budget, in fact, is about to make life a whole lot more difficult all the way around.
I can't understand how anybody in this Legislature would be able to support this, because I'm not the only MLA who has these kinds of families in my community, has this reality in my community. Every single MLA in here does — right? We all have a majority of those families, middle-class working families who are about to find life a lot more difficult.
Now, we talk a lot about things like hydro rates. That is the first and foremost hit that these families are going to take, because there are not a lot of options around that. Some of the other increased costs that this government is about to levy onto families — there may be options.
Ferry fares are going up? Well, you don't travel. ICBC rates are going up? Well, get rid of your car. But hydro rates
[ Page 1487 ]
are about to increase again, and the government is saying to families who are already having a tough time, "Well, turn out the lights. Turn down the heat," or in the case of seniors or single family parents: "Give up something in your life in order to turn on the lights and turn up the heat."
We have the good fortune here on the south Island of having a pretty temperate climate, and it's expensive to turn up the heat here. I can't imagine what happens when you move further out of the south Island here and into parts of British Columbia where it's been cold, really cold, this winter, and people don't have a choice. Yet this is a government that's tabling a budget that is going to make it more difficult for people to do that very thing.
Why are hydro rates going up? Because the government is playing a shell game in order to make their budget balanced. They're taking dividends out of B.C. Hydro where none exist and making B.C. Hydro raise the rates for customers. Single-parent families and seniors on fixed incomes and families that are just making it from payday to payday are about to pay the price so this government can have their balanced budget on the backs of working people in this province.
It seems to me that this budget is all about trying to make life less affordable for lots and lots of people and maybe more affordable for a few big corporations and, eventually, the LNG industry.
I alluded earlier to some of the options that you could give up. ICBC rates are about to go up again because the government wants to take big dividends out of ICBC to say that we're balancing the budget. Where are those dollars going to come from? Well, ICBC rates are going to go up.
Families that depend on their car for their livelihood, to get back and forth to work, to take their kids to school. They might be holding down two or three jobs that demand that they have a car, because the bus service is not going to work for them, or they live outside a metropolitan area where there's bus service. They're about to pay more and to have to make hard choices about what kind of opportunities they have to get themselves back and forth. "Can we afford two cars anymore? Can we drive? Can we get by? How do we manage to scrape together opportunities to get our kids to school and get to work and do all the things?"
Again, I go to single parents and seniors who have so little flexibility in their incomes. This government is going to make life less affordable for them.
I see that we are, unfortunately, reaching the end of the day, so I will save the rest of my remarks. I want to talk about B.C. Ferries. I want to talk about the catastrophic failure this government has made of that and other issues in this budget that are going to make it very, very difficult for people right across this province, how terribly unfair that is and how many broken promises that represents for a government that just got themselves re-elected.
I'll reserve those remarks for another time, and I will move adjournment of debate.
M. Karagianis moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Polak moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.
The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
Copyright © 2014: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada